Kmuland Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 I was testing lately 2000 and 2003.. the explorer.exe in 2000 is really much faster and responsive than 2003(XP)... I wonder if could be possible use the explorer engine of 2000 into 2003. Some registry changes can help? or I need to replace files?I remember the 98lite project.. where they used the fast win95 shell into win98.. they did the trick replacing some files of 98 with 95 ones.I wonder if there is something similar for 2003.. cause 2000 shell is really fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen2 Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 That would be possible if you get all explorer.exe dependencies. You might also need to add part of Internet explorer.To begin, i'll use dependency walker. Then you'll need to register the needed 2000 dll/exe/ocx with regsvr32 so reg entries would be up to date.If it is not enought you'll have to export registry parts from a working 2000 and replace them in 2003.You'll be pretty busy.I personally don't see the point getting the old explorer but i can understand you need it for some reasons. As aside note, i'm pretty sure the 2003/2000 eula wouldn't allow this kind of things but for studying purposes why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmuland Posted May 19, 2010 Author Share Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) The reason for use the 2000 shell is cause is fast.. and and pleasure to use. When I did some tests.. the performance between 2003 and 2000 is similar... but the 2D GUI My idea would be have the best of both worlds.. Everyone that uses 2000 knows the pleasure of have a fast GUI.. but there is no reason to continue using 2000 since 2003 is more compatible with current programs than 2000I dont have the knowledge to create an hybrid like that.. but would be a nice project. Edited May 23, 2010 by Kmuland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen2 Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Did you tried to tweak 2003 (like disabling theme, new start menu and all performance options) before benchmarking ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmuland Posted May 19, 2010 Author Share Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) Im using a nlited 2003 version.. stripped at max.. and no themes or stupid visuals enabled. Everything off... (I only look for max performance in the programs that I really want to use.. and not waste resources in GFX/visuals/etc) Maybe there are registry settings that can improve performance... use 256 color windows and icons.. (if anyone have ones.. plz post). I can downgrade happily if that will speed up the GUIAnyway the classic GUI of 2000 performs faster than 2003 one... probably M$ killed the fast 2000 gui when they wanted to add support for themes in the XP/2003 gui Edited May 23, 2010 by Kmuland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen2 Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) If you already set visual effects to best performance and optimized for programs in perfs settings then it should be alright. There some tweaks here and there to improve globaly the system but nothing else come to my mind that might improve the gui. Edited May 19, 2010 by allen2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Check how fdv tested the NT4 shell (which is even faster) on 2K, possibly a method that is similar may work.http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=138242jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmuland Posted May 19, 2010 Author Share Posted May 19, 2010 Check how fdv tested the NT4 shell (which is even faster) on 2K, possibly a method that is similar may work.http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=138242jaclazwow thanks for the info!!! exactly the thing I was looking for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmuland Posted May 20, 2010 Author Share Posted May 20, 2010 umm but after check all these posts.. no solution is available... and the info seems gone..Anyone conserve the info or much better the edited files to replace the XP shell with the NT4 one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdv Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 This worked for mehttp://web.archive.org/web/20060211002335/www.vorck.com/nt4.htmlJaclaz, I don't know how you do it. I feel like I could ask you near any question and you'd come up with a link to something and it might be 10 years old but somehow you do it. Your memory is like a steel trap, dude.The NT thing was not ideal. I'm not going to edit the files, I'm done with all that, sorry; those days are gone. The instructions tell you everything you need to know anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Jaclaz, I don't know how you do it. I feel like I could ask you near any question and you'd come up with a link to something and it might be 10 years old but somehow you do it. Your memory is like a steel trap, dude.Yep. On another board, in another time, I was the Finder .@KmulandIf you weren't able to follow my explicit link to fdv's page on the linked to thread, you might have missed the one by Ambassador that pointed to:http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=135865where BogdanV made some more progresses.However, if I may, it's the goal that you have that is:very difficultmostly pointlessThere are a number of fully working alternate shells and fast file-managers that work allroght in XP/2003 if you want it more responsive/faster.I mean, with all the hacking and tweaking in the world, it is UNprobable you will get a reliable 2K shell under 2K3, if it's fo r fun and to experiment a bit, it's allright, but definitely not for a "production" system.jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen2 Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Perhaps, the problem might be seen from other side: removing features of 2003 explorer might increase its speed. Web folders view could be removed but you'll need a lot of work on the registry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmuland Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 umm probably this option sounds better.. try to strip 2003 explorer to the max... remove features inside this explorer.. Ill search for registry tweaks allowing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsenellenelvian Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Im using micro2003 ( probably you know about it).. stripped at max.. and no themes or stupid visuals enabled. Everything off... (I only look for max performance in the programs that I really want to use.. and not waste resources in GFX/visuals/etc) Maybe there are registry settings that can improve performance... use 256 color windows and icons.. (if anyone have ones.. plz post). I can downgrade happily if that will speed up the GUIAnyway the classic GUI of 2000 performs faster than 2003 one... probably M$ killed the fast 2000 gui when they wanted to add support for themes in the XP/2003 guiummmm guys?isn't "micro2003" warez? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmuland Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 ok I removed "micro2003" and replaced by nlited 2003 ...anyway if you want to close this post.. close it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now