Windows 95b shell optional component

[PageFault]

how can i add Windows 95b shell as an optional component during setup?

[erpdude8]

please be more specific on what you are talking about, PageFault. Are u using Win95 SR2?

[PageFault]

I just need an inf file

i have

EXPLORER.EXE

SHELL32.DLL

COMMDLG32.DLL

FROM WIN95

Edited January 31, 2007 by PageFault

[erpdude8]

how can i add Windows 95b shell as an optional component during setup?

you can't. the win95b shell is required in order for win95b to work; otherwise, win95b won't run at all. so there is no option to add it during win95b setup

[pcalvert]

I think he might be talking about Mindows or 98lite.

Phil

[os2fan2]

You could pack the win95 and win98 versions into two different installers, and use the two as a shell swap.

[jaclaz]

Maybe a little OT, but I want to share this site I recently found:

http://snoopy81.ifrance.com/en/protab.htm

that adds some interesting features to "lited" 98 with 95 files, and details an interesting approach to continue using some features of the Win98 shell32.dll using it renamed to Shell32.w98 as some 98lite installs do.

jaclaz

[BenoitRen]

It's also a good trick for Win95 users (haven't really needed it yet). Rename the IE4 SHELL32.DLL to SHELL98.DLL, and use a hex editor on the executable that needs it to look for that file instead of the regular SHELL32.DLL.

[AlexaD]

how can i add Windows 95b shell as an optional component during setup?

you can't. the win95b shell is required in order for win95b to work; otherwise, win95b won't run at all. so there is no option to add it during win95b setup

I hate reviving threads, but I have to ask: Are you sure? I used to regularly change shells to run scandisk and defrag. Theoretically, you should be able to remove those files and Windows still run though I'd expect a lot of other things to act differently or not at all.

[ShadeTreeLee]

I hate reviving threads, but I have to ask: Are you sure? I used to regularly change shells to run scandisk and defrag. Theoretically, you should be able to remove those files and Windows still run though I'd expect a lot of other things to act differently or not at all.

The use of the word 'shell' needs to defined here I believe, and then you may both be right? Erpdude8 is technically right to start with, perhaps win 3.1 could run without a shell but no other Windows can. What you call a shell does not come solely from the shell32.dll file, so swapping shell files, which I assume you mean to be swapping shells, is in fact only swapping shell files. I am considering explorer.exe to be a part of swapping shell files here just for the sake of the argument.

When you swap shell files, you also swap some shell behaviors (imagine that!), but the actual shell remains a core of the version of Windows you are running and that can't be swapped as far as I know. Unless you want to consider a reboot to a different OS the same thing as a swap, which I don't. It doesn't help when MS themselves freely drop the name shell at such a rate, no one can know what they really mean by the term exactly.

Since PageFault mentions 3 files of which 2 are connected directly to the Windows DeskTop Update (also confused with the 'shell') which is exclusive to Win95 and NT4 but at the same time included by default in all higher versions of Windows, I'm wondering if maybe PageFault is looking to have 95's Windows DeskTop Update installed right out of the box so to speak. This can be done several different ways, the easiest is to just reinstall IE which causes the Windows DeskTop Update to be installed automatically provided the IE4SHL95.CAB file is in the IE installation folder. If it's not, then the IE installation wizard will go online and look for it. If it's not found then you don't get the update installed. That file is still 'up there' on MS servers and available if only the IE installation wizard knew where to look for it these days, which is doubtful for an out of the box installtion of Win95 with an add-on ie4.01 SP2 or somesuch. Even IE 5 would need an updated IEBATCH.TXT showing the proper download locations in order for the wizard to find the file needed. To wit:

Downloadsitelist=http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/iesites/ie55sp2/ie5sites.dat

DownloadLocation=http://www.download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/ie55sp2/x86/en

Or you can invoke it directly with a switch such as this:

ie5setup.exe /Q:A /C:"ie5wzd /E:IE4Shell_Win"

Internet Explorer Batch Mode Setup Switches

But that's redundant since if you just reinstall IE, the 'shell' is installed automatically so you can assume the above to be the default switch for ie5setup.exe at all times anyway. Odd how it doesn't work for the very first time IE is installed on Win95/NT4 though...

Or if you want to take a chance, you might extract the contents of IE4SHL95.CAB and install the inf contained within it like so:

rundll32.exe advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection ie4shell.inf,DefaultInstall

and that would more in line with a hands off, MSBATCH.INF type of Windows installation if that is what PageFault was looking for to start with. I doubt we will ever know, he seems to have abandonded the message at the first request for more info.

IE 5 and 6 use the same cab files for the two versions of shells, 95 and NT4. IE 4 seems to use a different pair of shell cab files for every single subversion ever produced. Since the 'shell' is a part of all Windows by default since 95 and NT4, these cab files are only for use in 95 or NT4.

IE4SHL95.CAB

IE4SHLNT.CAB

There is a KB article which states that the only way to install the Windows Desktop Update with Win95 is to revert back to IE4 and choose to install it there and then go back to IE 5 - it's pure hooey, so don't believe it.

Anybody interested in a one size fits all IE installation CD from IE 4.01 thru IE 6.00 SP1? If there is sufficient interest I can cook one up fairly quick, I was going to sell them on ebay for $3 or so, but never thought there was enough of a market to make it worthwhile.

[BenoitRen]

The windows desktop 'update' should never be applied. It will only slow down and clutter your system, plus integrate IE.

[Ninho]

The desktop update should be applied, it refreshes many files and generally makes for a better UI. Plus, conformant to MS ways, they ceased correcting or testing the older explorer against newly discovered vulnerabilities.

Whether or not you have the desktop update, however, nobody is forced to use Explorer as the Windows shell ! Windows 9x can run happily without having a single instance of Explorer/IE. The key here is to choose your shell accordingly (the "shell= ..." line in the System.ini file).

On a system with little memory, I do use and recommend the good old file manager (Winfile.exe) as the Windows shell. Well , not quite : I see you shuddering, what cr*p! Winfile doesn't "do" long filenames, does it ? Yes it does, thanks to a tiny shareware called FmLfns (browse for the little jewel!)

Having the following line inside of System.ini :

shell= fmlfns

will in fact launch Windows with Winfile as the shell, including long filename support. You could arrange 2 windows inside Winfile, tiled horizontally, one dispaying the Start Menu folder and one displaying your old Desktop & you can launch most of your programs from there !

For other needs, Control-Escape (or the *Win* key, or double-clicking the background) will open TaskMan. Taskman's *File* menu gives access to a Run app... box, as well as to the various Windows shutdown options.

For a browser, you might try OffbyOne (of course IE will work if it has to

For a clock, try the round, analog clock which came with the Power Toys.

Note : the shell=... can be anything Windows can execute, incuding a script or batch file which will launch the file manager (Fmlfns above) plus your round clock and whatever programs you want to autorun. Contrary to popular belief, Windows does *not* close itself when the designated "shell" is terminated - unless it like Explorer is designed to initiate Windows shutdown if it recognises that it was launched as the shell and it is being closed.

Hope this help

--

Ninho

Edited April 18, 2007 by Ninho

[AlexaD]

The use of the word 'shell' needs to defined here I believe, and then you may both be right? Erpdude8 is technically right to start with, perhaps win 3.1 could run without a shell but no other Windows can. What you call a shell does not come solely from the shell32.dll file, so swapping shell files, which I assume you mean to be swapping shells, is in fact only swapping shell files. I am considering explorer.exe to be a part of swapping shell files here just for the sake of the argument.

When you swap shell files, you also swap some shell behaviors (imagine that!), but the actual shell remains a core of the version of Windows you are running and that can't be swapped as far as I know. Unless you want to consider a reboot to a different OS the same thing as a swap, which I don't. It doesn't help when MS themselves freely drop the name shell at such a rate, no one can know what they really mean by the term exactly.

Umm.... To me, as examples, the shell is Program Manager from Win3.1x or the desktop process of Explorer from everything later. I even made a crude one once that had three buttons (Scandisk, Defrag, Reboot). It's the program responsible for giving one initial access to everything. It's a bit more than that, but I'm having trouble putting it into words. If I'm right, all versions of Windows will run without it, though most, if not all, won't start without it. Also, 98lite could replace 98's copy of Explorer (and related files) with 95's thereby replacing the shell. If I'm wrong, I wouldn't be surprised.

[BenoitRen]

The desktop update should be applied, it refreshes many files and generally makes for a better UI.

This is so wrong.

Refreshes many files... for what? IE integration! Which makes Win95 run much slower and consume more memory.

Better UI? What better UI?! Browsing your hard drive as a website? Having a web page as your background? Having an IE icon on each window? Having webby Go and Favorites menus? This webby interfrace is a NIGHTMARE!

[eidenk]

For me the main point of not uninstalling/removing this component is that there is no other shell that offers so much conveniences/functionality to the desktop.

I have toolbars on three sides of the screen. 12 in all in addition to the quicklaunch bar and despite it is not perfect, the functionality is unparalleled IMO.