Litestep problem....

Do you have a 98se boot disk? You can edit the shell= line in DOS if you do.

I have no boot disc or any disc for my Windows. I'm running Windows 98 Second Edition. I don't have extensive knowledge of these things, so I have no idea how to rectify the problem. I'm desperate for help!

Not to beat you over the head, but didn't you read the manual before you installed it? RTFM is pretty much the rule for shell replacements.

go here: http://lsdocs.shellfront.org/install.php

read the section called 'Uninstalling LiteStep from Windows 95/98/ME' carefully.

what you are looking for is the "For those unfortunate people who can't open their favorite text editor in Windows, DOS edit is gonna have to do." paragraph.

I think READ is the operative word here. If you don't read Litestep will do exactly this...

Uninstalling LiteStep from Windows 95/98/ME
-------------------------------------------
So you have decided that LiteStep just is not your thing and want to get rid of it like
a bad habbit. First thing you are going to want to do is open your favorite text editor.
From your text editor open your c:\windows\system.ini and find the
shell=c:\litestep\litestep.exe
line. Comment that line out by placing a semi-colon, ";", in front of it and delete the
semi-colin in front of your
shell=explorer.exe
line. If you do not have a shell=explorer.exe line commented out just add it in there.
Reboot your computer when you are finished and you're good to go.

For those unfortunate people who can't open their favorite text editor in Windows,
DOS edit is gonna have to do. Shutdown your computer and reboot to DOS mode.
To do this hold down the F8 key when you see "Starting Windows 9x" appear on
your screen and choose Command Prompt Only from the menu. Once there type
"edit c:\windows\system.ini" and then follow the instructions above.
Note: Many users, both during the installation and un-installation process receive a
message stating "Cannot find (insert executable) You must Re-install windows."
By no means is this necessary. Just reboot your computer and check your shell= line.
You didn't spell something right or missed a character.
This by far is one of the most common complaints I hear, don't be fooled.

Litestep is a mistake to touch. Windows was not designed to handle different shells. Get linux if you want to be able to use multiple desktop environments.

jj79_1999....clearly not true.
I have been running alternate shells since they existed/were available....on Windows from 3.11 onwards.

In fact, I'm almost never in Exploder...

Some programs need Explorer to run. Litestep should change it's name to Crashstep.

LiteSTEP is fine...it's only failing is it requires intelligence on the part of the user....something not entirely 'common'...

Actually...start listing proggies that require 'Explorer.exe' to run....the only ones I've found were one or two games...

'multiple desktop environments'....at one stage I had sixteen, though 11 were individual, separate LS shells...

Under XP, if I were to install Litestep under one user account, will it only boot up on that user account? If I attempt to execute a program that requires explorer running in the background, will it cause my computer to crash or will XP be able to handle it with an error message box?

Yes,...and No, it won't crash the Kernel...

jj79_1999: what? questions? You don't know? I assumed you knew what you were talking about when you made all thise inane and patently false comments about LS. I had NO idea you talking out of your ass... *shocked*

I still say kona has 2 accounts...

I can often be seen running XP without a shell at all...just to get my friends 'nervous'....but good old 'task manager' makes do...

My bad experience with Litestep was when I was using Win ME. I have thought about giving Litestep a second try on XP, but I fear the same problems could arise. It seems to me if XP would not be able to handle compatibility issues with Litestep, then installing it on my computer would be just as bad as voluntarily infecting my computer with a virus.

"I can often be seen running XP without a shell at all...just to get my friends 'nervous'....but good old 'task manager' makes do..."

Yes XP does work okay when you terminate explorer with task manager. Command Prompt can be used to navigate the file system and launch programs, but I have found that Object Bar can't run without explorer.

LS has never seen the day it was as bad an experience as ME...

**
"It seems to me if XP would not be able to handle compatibility issues with Litestep, then installing it on my computer would be just as bad as voluntarily infecting my computer with a virus."
**

gah, the babbling. How is LS worse than a virus? What does LS destroy? What is damaged by LS? Do you even know what a virus is? Do you know what a shell is? JEEZ...

The shell doesn't work, you switch back. 5 minutes, tops. It is utterly baseless to compare LS to something like a virus. In this case you are only hurting the LS community, so I guess you are in the clear. Were it commercial software... people have been sued over statements like that.

Litestep.exe is just a proggy like any other proggy. Its one important difference is that it runs IN PLACE OF the Explorer shell, so, if you have not been clever and 'RTFM'd' you will likely eventually 'break' something.

If you DO break something it is reversible.
To reverse it you think back to that 'RTFM' you did not bother with and kick yourself privately and publicly deride LiteSTEP to all and sundry.
It's called 'human nature'.

But it is STILL not the fault of LiteSTEP at all, but merely down to the IQ of the user/abuser....

"Were it commercial software... people have been sued over statements like that.

People bad mouth Microsoft products all the time. How come I haven't heard of Microsoft taking people from Anti-Windows and Anti-Microsoft message boards to court?

No-one held my hand as I journeyed down the alternate shell road....I hit the odd 'bump' on the way, but the trip was both rewarding [being my own, and solo], and enjoyable.

These days, people demand help on a silver platter and blame everyone and everything for whatever befalls them.

Shell alternatives are not for everyone, no matter what OS you are applying it/them to....

People who can't get Litestep to work (assuming it actually has use) don't have a low IQ, they just don't know how to use Litestep. This is reminding me of all the Linux Zealots that say if you can't get Linux to work then you are an idiot.

"they just don't know how to use Litestep"

Who knows how to use anything the first time they use it? Well, of course, it is the people who RTFM.

At least on Linux, it is considered standard to use different desktop environments so software is designed to work with multiple desktop environments. In the Windows world, developers sometimes assume the user is not using an alternate shell.