Is it possible to use Windows XP's explorer.exe in Windows 7?

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

This topic has to be a troll topic right?!

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I also have windows 7 64bit, I tried doing the same thing with explorer.exe copied it from XP and tried it in 7, but it doesn't work. I am trying to find right solution for this problem but I can?t. If anyone gets any solution so please help me to fix this problem.

The problem exists between the keyboard and chair. Seriously.

It has been said in this thread before... Explorer is NOT just a file browser. It is an integral part of Windows. It is the SHELL! If you want to get an understanding of how deeply integrated it is (in a basic sense) just fire up Task Manager (CRTL+Shift+ESC) and kill the explorer.exe process. You'll notice you won't see anything but your running apps...

Explorer is deeply died into Windows and as such depends on deep API hooks into Windows and apps built into Windows depend on deep API hooks into Explorer. You WILL NOT get the WinXP Explorer working on 7 EVER! The APIs have been changed.

Best you can do is to buy a skinning app and install a classic skin or something (or stick to the OS you prefer). You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Negi]

It's not meant to be used in Windows 7.

Of course it wasn't. That's exactly why it was included with Win7 in the first place, right? :whistle:

People who cannot adapt to new things, or accept change, only hold the rest of the world back from advancing.

Now here's an UTTERLY STUPID (!!) argument if I've ever heard one. Technology is advancing just fine. XP users haven't stopped Microsoft from creating Windows 7 and 8.

I use Windows 7 myself, but seriously, what's with the ignorant, close-minded buffoons who seem to think that the personal choices that THEY make is the only viable and suitable one for everyone else?

[Spytalk]

There is a HUGE justification for KEEPING a clean, classic, fast, non-screen-wasting, non-fancy, non-animated, non-cpu-wasting, non-annoying INTERFACE. The moronic "lite" PC "users" on this thread need to get a clue. It's called SOFT-ware it's not "set in stone" and it would be EASY for micro$$$oft to preserve the classic, familiar, non-learning-curve INTERFACE. It's called USER CHOICE instead of FORCING. The sole reason the classic interface no longer exists is ARROGANCE. Alot of "progress" with just the right shade of baby-blue but UI design still does not pivot around FLEXIBILITY. Case & point: IE8 has actually gone BACKWARDS and the UI is LESS flexible. Many people on this thread think that micro$$oft is above criticism. Unbelievable. A power-user can tell the difference between 50ms and 100ms response times for a UI function (even on new/modern/recent hardware). "You need to embrace 'change'" --- micro$$$oft needs to embrace UI customization, preservation and flexibility.

[pezzonovante]

I think Luddites of the world should get over the fact that the pathetic fugly counter-intuitive "classic" XP look is NEVER going to come back to Windows. EVER. The same goes for the dumb menus and toolbars of Office 2003. Ribbon is a million times more productive than menus, and menus are gone forever from MS Office. Either get used to the improvements or move over to some pathetic OS which still uses the old-fashioned menus from the 90's.

[Quattrone]

If you like explorer.exe from Windows xp then switch to XP. Windows 7 WAS NOT BUILT to use XP resources, it's a complete different OS.

[Rigby]

How many people in MacOSX make it look like system7?

If I could make OS X use the old finder shell from OS 8 that would be the greatest thing ever. I also still use the classic theme on XP, and I'm using the Foxscape theme and a few other tweaks to make Firefox look exactly like Netscape Navigator. :p

As for Windows 7, I've found XYplorer to be a reasonable replacement for Windows Explorer, and there is even an updated version of the File Manager from NT 3.51 that works pretty well with it.