no1none

Haha There is no such thing as 9x vs NT battle, its all stupid fanbois of either one crappy OSes. IMHO if there was any battle, it was clearly won by NT since after WinME the 9x is no more (i'm just teasing some rabid 9x fanbois here, dont take it personally hehe). Yes youre right, 9x is more like enhanced GUI for DOS rather than the OS on its own (its DOS what is an OS in this 'operating environment', right?). And on the other hand, if you could have a look at NT's code, I'm sure we would find plenty of "Copyright IBM © 198x" from OS/2 Perhaps NT line is all just OS/2 kernel only, and Microsoft only adds nicer and more elaborate and colourful shells to this kernel since with every newer version of Winblows, with few extra tools bought from other companies (only ported by themselves)?

You mean other 3CDs are in tact, I guess? (Office 2000 comes on 4 CDs, at least US-EN does) So, if I understand correctly, you need Office2000 CD4 (PhotoDraw Disc 2), unless you have some PD 'standalone' edition... Did you call Microsoft? Little more than year ago I received replacement discs too after I lost one of the discs and realised I have never made any backup copies of CD3 and CD4 LOL The only difference from retail version is that it comes with just black print on the discs and includes big label "not for retail or oem distribution" but other than that its all the same. PS. You'll have to pay for shipping only.

Too bad it uses BOINC soft, otherwise I would join with 1 or 2 machines. I was with SETI@Home since the day one until they discontinued the old (called "classic" now LOL) and forced everyone to use BOINC. (Oh, and I have nothing against BOINC, its just its not for my home network nor could I use it on work place machines unfortunately)

Cool, I'll wait for you and do something else then (Ive found few USB1 & USB2 device drivers for NT4, I'm going to combine them to one "universal" USB driver for NT4 SP6

awergh, personally I prefer 7z too, but probably most of people never heard of it. I just had to explain to webbuddy whom I gave link to your update how to eat it bcause he thought its "some linux or Mac file" PS Perhaps you should consider i.e. rar at highest compression, or even better - make it selfextract? (~200kB more on a 7-8MB file doesn't matter anymore IMHO) for your next version.

Yes exactly like with OS X, its this implied added security due to its small amount of users, that obviously no serious fcukheadhacker would waste his time to work on it, specially that i.e. IE6 (the most popular browser ATM) is like a swiss cheese and its users are basically sitting ducks waiting in the open and begging to be rooted I'm not sure have I understood you correctly... I hope you don't hold it against K-Meleon?

google it and read reviews, and most importantly - see what actual users say about it...

Do you feel alright? Or maybe you have some fear-of-NT-syndrome or something? <shrugs> I used and use what I please, and I don't limit myself nor devout myself to some "one and only" OS... and neither should you And FYI: its you who started that "9x vs NT" rant out of the sudden here, I joined this thread because the subject is about shell update -and if you weren't so preoccupied with your "Win9x fanatism" you'd maybe knew that NT4 users also can face same dilemma about updating or not updating the shell. Oh boy (man!)... please don't tell me you've never heard of firewalls?! I can't believe you prefer the least stable OS from all of Microsoft's products because _it_doesn't_open_few_ports_by_default That makes no sense whatsoever So? There are plenty vulnerabilities in Win9x that don't occur in NT-based code, and so what? Such argumentation is so stupid, it absolutely makes no sense I said it in previous post, and I'll repeat: if you'd care so much about your system's security -you'd use linux. Don't give me crap about "Win9x's security out of the box" because youre killing me here LOL Are you sure you use computers for so long as you've said previously? You laugh when someone tells you that your way of using Win9x shell require too many clicks and you call me lazy in reply, yet few sentences later you argue that "your Windows9x" is better than "mine NT" because it require few clicks less out of the box to be secure (no need to add firewall (like it were true LOL) or close the ports manually... Anyways, I'm not here for any arguing in stupid topics like "Win9x vs WinNT" ROTFL, I'm leaving it for some teenage fanbois to continue this discussion with you... /edit/ I actually think youre full of s***, I just re-read your "arguments" with Ninho earlier, and I can see it now clearly that your argumentation is on the same level as in your reply to me, same arguments can be used for *and* against, it only depends on what suit you better at the moment. I really dont care anymore what you think about the shell update or about anything else at all. Good riddance and bye.

There are PC Cards with TV/FM tuners, check out ebay. Teletext is european feature only (american versions have Closed Captioning instead, and some have both), so you better make sure before buying does the card support it, and is it for your tv system (I guess youre in Europe so you need PAL or MultiSystem card). PS To capture from analog tv tuner ("record tv") you need at least Pentium III 1+GHz AFAIR. Some cards allow capturing in AVI raw or with low-compression codecs, which works with low-spec machines too, but you'll need plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of hdd space for it.

Erpdude8 is talking OS option, you are talking "Win95 built in 3rd party" (??) or Bios feature. You can LOL if you want . You do install other software beside the OS on every computer you use, don't you? So what difference does it make if youre installing (i.e.) cd burning soft or a hibernation soft on computer which OS didn't come with either one? It doesn't make sense to me. Yes, Win95 didn't come with "built-in" hibernation software itself. But it DOES work with 3rd party software, thus it does support hibernation (unlike i.e. NT3 which does NOT support it at all, and there are no hibernating software even from 3rd party). Hence: LOL again

First of all, if a 'common hole' is found in one of the browsers (i.e. old JPEG vulnerability) it is immediately tried and tested on other browsers too. I'm sure many of the 100+ holes in IE5/6 are probably "IE's proprietary holes" (specific to IE only), but if you check details on sites like secunia.com you'll find that some of the 'holes' are quite universal. PS I don't say there are no holes in K-Meleon at all... I'm pretty sure there must be a few After all, no software is 100% bulletproof - with the exception of a computer NOT connected to anything (and without any input/output ports, and locked in safe so no one could touch it... ) All I'm saying is that NO ONE HAS FOUND ANY HOLE IN K-MELEON YET. (or at least general public don't know of such event). And you can be sure that the hundreds of known holes (found in other browsers) were all tried to be used against K-Meleon too - with no success

part 2 Does that make it right? No. It just means that a lot of geeks have based their shells on Windows/IE's poor design. Many of these geeks aren't usability experts or even designers, they're programmers. Beauty is in the eye of beholder... I always agree with less is more, thats why I use i.e. K-Meleon browser instead of that ugly bloat that Firefox has become since version 1... (I think I've seen your nick on K-Meleon's board, specially that I see in your sig youre using Sea Monkey...) but again: for "less" to be really "more" it has to be convenient too (since were talking about shell-update) You take that back. There's no comparison. The Windows 3.x shell didn't make sense. No task bar, Program Manager, and... Not much else, really. You are so self-centered LOL I am sure it made sense to someone No, I'm not. Got a link? I can help you with NT4 (without shell update - its on this board, search for TM0d's posts), Win2000 and Win98SE hacked explorers. As I don't use Win9x (if I don't have to) I can't help you... I'm assuming your question is in regard of Win95 as your signature says "Win95 OSR 2.5" (<-- BTW: isnt that the last Win95 with IE4 + shell update? ) Hah! If you don't use something, you remove it! It's only logical. Besides, updating IE3 to IE4 will tie IE into your system, rendering it more vulnerable and unstable. That's when you should update IE for increased stability and holes. But why bother? Just remove it. Yes it is logical. But since some of us (i.e. *me*) want shell update more than the presence of unused IE on our system bugs us, its a trade-off I said about earlier. Unless you can give us info on how to keep shell-update and all the related updates to NT4 or 95 that come with it, while getting rid of IE? And as to the 'holes' in the system... If you really care about security of your system, you won't use Win95/98/ME (or preferably *any* Windows at all) on a machine connected to the internet, you'd be using linux, right? LOL It didn't come with built-in IE3? I can't believe it. I just realised I have never played with retail Win95, I always installed OSR 2.1 or 98 and tried ME, but used mostly or only 2000 once it came out... so I may give 95 Retail a run one of these days just to see how it was LOL

It's not hard to right-click on the HDD and choose Properties to get a nice pie graph. Of course, but thats 1 extra click. That's fine. But I don't want multiple icons taking space where my task buttons should be. Wasted vertical estate. Arguable.On a 640x480 desktop - certainly. But on a 1280x1024 or higher it barely makes any difference... The main reason to use quick launch IMHO is to have most-used program's shortcut right there 1-click away, and without cluttering desktop (and where they wouldn't be seen under the running program's window). Of course anything same can be done with multiple clicks from start/programs/... or by clicking minimize on active window and clicking on desktop icon, or in many other ways - but none of them is as fast and convenient as 1-click from quick launch. As I think I said before, I did try it back when I had Win98 FE. It's the same shell. I didn't like it at all. I won't try it on this PC because it comes with IE. Fair enough. No one should be forced to use something they don't like. Choice is good, as long as it doesn't come forced with other s*** that I don't want (IE). Think of it as trade-off, no different than many other trade offs we often have to do in our life I hate IE too, but same as you don't like shell-updated desktop - I don't like it without shell update. Hence I trade-off having shell update with dormant and unused IE unless someone finds a way to have perfectly working shell update with all bells'n'whistles but without IE you have posted more emoticons than allowed.. Ok, removed them all... You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text WTF again LOL splitting it to 2 posts

I wasn't born yesterday, in fact almost 64 years ago. In my time on this planet, I've traveled extensively and I've seen many things that some would call "Drug induced hallucinations" or even "schizophrenia". That's the common retort for things not understood by anyone who's ether not been around very much or just blind to what's going on around them (in the world). What one person would call phenomena, another would call everyday stuff. Weed started a very interesting topic here. Can we just keep it on topic and avoid the name calling? Andromeda43 B) I wasn't "name calling" anyone, if thats what youre implying According to OP he wants to discuss something in his thread, but only with the people who agree with him I merely try to point out, that it is impossible to have any discussion that way, because each one of us is different and perceive same things differently obviously, thus what one would call "phenomena" other may call "schizopfrenia", thats all. But I strongly object to statements like in your sentence: I've seen many things that some would call "Drug induced hallucinations" or even "schizophrenia". That's the common retort for things not understood by anyone who's ether not been around very much or just blind to what's going on around them (in the world). People living mere few hundred years ago upon seeing just a common thunderstorm thought its some "otherwordly experience" too (perhaps an astral projection of god LOL). Nowadays, we know now what causes the thunderstorms, what electricity is and how it worksd and so on. If you'd try to explain it to a medieval man you'd probably be chased away from town as a heretic or satan back then LOL Similarily things you/we cannot understand today (that our current science can't explain) certainly will be explained sooner or later in the future, and as always there will be nothing "otherwordly" about them. And that is EOT to me. I won't come back to this topic again since you guys prefer discussion with only same like-wise minding 'souls' LOL Anyways, happy "astral projecting"

TM0d - I hate IE too, never been using it and probably never will (even if IEv.100 will finally come out bug-free). Nevertheless IE is already present on NT4 and 95 by default, so IMHO one might as well update it too to a newer version even if not using it. Ninho already discussed advantages and disadvantages of updating shell with Benoit_Ren anyways, so I'm not going to repeat it all over again. I have nothing against nliting or not updating shell. Few times I installed completely IE-free Win2K on old machines with little RAM (vorck's way), and Im just thinking to change one old laptop running 'standard' W2K to NT4 without shell updating too (it has only 128MB RAM and chokes on standard W2K + NOD32). But to me personally the shell update on NT4 is 'a must' (if hardware permitted), while to i.e. Benoit_Ren it is probably useless . Its all in the eye of the beholder, thats all what Im saying

I edited previous post with Opera 9 now.

some call it astral projecting, some just smoke too much weed, and some call it schizophrenia... its probably all the same thing, only choice of words we use to describe that same thing is always there

Try K-Meleon (Mozilla-based like Firefox, without the bloat as in FF). The only really secure browser, yet customizable for users beyond FF's possibilities And yes, I really mean *secure* browser Yet light enough to run (with tabs!) on a Pentium 166MHz / 32MB RAM Win95 computer Compare: browser - currently known 'holes' - how many still unpatched IE7 - 10 exist - 7 unpatched! http://secunia.com/product/12366/ IE6 - 113 exist - 20 unpatched! http://secunia.com/product/11/ FF2.x - 6 exist - 3 unpatched! http://secunia.com/product/12434/ FF1.x - 41 exist - 4 unpatched! http://secunia.com/product/4227/ Opera 9.x - 6 exist - 0 unpatched http://secunia.com/product/10615/ Opera 8.x - 15 exist - 0 unpatched http://secunia.com/product/4932/ Opera 7.x - 39 exist - 0 unpatched http://secunia.com/product/761/ K-Meleon 1.x - 0 exist - 0 unpatched http://secunia.com/product/12157/ Get K-Meleon HERE /edit: added Opera 9 /

Im bored so I just read this thread... LOL Benoit_Ren, you don't like shell update = just don't use it. I'm visual person, and so are many other people. I prefer i.e. when i click on my hard disk to see the "pie" showing me visually how much space I have left on my hdd in the left pane, rather than some digits at the bottom of the window... I prefer to have quick launch than to make multiple-clicks on start button / programs / ... (BTW: FYI you can expand vertically task bar to show i.e. 2 lines - top with quick launch (where *I* have up to 20-30 quick launch buttons sometimes) and bottom fully unocupied by anything, exactly same as as your "unupdated shell"...) and so on and on, its pointless to discuss it. Just TRY IT and CUSTOMIZE IT the way you like it, then - if you really won't like it - don't use it and tell us some REAL reasons why you don't like it, not some B.S. like the one about "quick launch taking your space on taskbar" (since it doesn't if you set it like I did, or if you just turn it off). Do you really prefer to have NO choice, even though if the 'other choice' is not your favorite one? Lastly, have a look at linux shells. All of them (except for very old "lite" ones) DO look and feel like the IE4- shell update and more The world moves on, and so does the look of desktops. I hate the XP interface - and I really really really really hate Vista's look; probably because I get used to Win2K "look and feel"; so I guess in few years, when there will be many more 'new' PC users who will start their 'computer education' and grew up on XP/Vista crap, I will be the same dinosaur like you are now, some lone crusader against the "aero look" of future desktops... People who learned and get used to work on "old school" desktops (like you probably, am I right? was your first PC some 486 or older?) are really minority... IMHO the truth is that probably most of us (who started their computing times after 1995) can't stand the "oversimplicity" and "crudeness" of the non-shell-updated Windows. To me, the non-shell-updated desktop is first of all inconvenient, and second of all - feels like some ancient Windows 3.11 or something like that (that I never used and probably - without reading man.pages first - wouldn't even know how to find and turn on stupid clock to see what time it is ) I'm sure youre not against i.e. 256-color systray icons explorer hacking... little bit of spruce up and added versatility on those outdated OSes like NT or 95 with the shell updated is basically similar thing: it is UPDATE to an aging OS /edit: not "is" but WAS an update/ . How can you be against it?

It doesn't have to be a laptop; in short - hibernation is a process of dumping current content of volatile memory (RAM) to harddisk (edit: or any other means of data storage without power) before shutting down computer, and restoring this content to RAM upon reboot. Any computer can do that, but the problem is with OS - it must be pointed to the harddisk-stored RAM content at startup, and thats where 3rd-party software comes handy for deficiencies of old Windows OSes. There was no hibernation support for desktop machines until Windows 2000, ME, XP & Vista came along. Read this thread. I've discussed about hibernation and win98se here: http://www.msfn.org/board/Hibernate_Option_98se_t40877.html Hibernation in Win98fe/se is only possible on laptop computers. dont bother making Win98fe/se to use hibernation under desktop PCs. the standby option is the best power management option for desktop PCs using Win98 I *have* Windows 95 laptop with built-in hibernation feature (3rd party); I have Desktop PC pre-dating Windows 95 probably by a year with built-in into its BIOS hibernating feature (IBM Aptiva series). I don't need to read some thread to know what I *have* right beside me LOL

Good tip! Going to try it tonight, thx

Looks great

I know its a whole lot different ballpark, but since this is Microsoft Software Forum Network, I'm surprised we don't have WinCE-based forums for Windows Mobile opeating systems? Windows Mobile 2002/2003/2003SE and Windows Mobile 5/6 would be probably great and rather active addition to the forum (considering that just only HP estimates it sold 20 million PocketPCs in USA alone)...

TM0d any hints to what offset/bytes for shell updated explorer? Or maybe youre working on it yourself?

Win2K Resource Kit tools on msoft has automatic user log off tool (winexit) in the form of a screensaver. It works great on administrative priviledge accounts, but if used on user/power user accounts it always has the error info first about keys and values not set in the registry (but it works after closing the bitchin' window anyways). It is old NT3 utility from what I can see (I have NT 3.51 Resource Kit CD and its the same as on microsoft's site), so I guess my problem applies to NT3/NT4/W2K and possibly XP as well? Anyone can point me to what key(s) and value(s) should be set in the registry for this very useful tool to work correctly? TIA