Windows 95b shell optional component

[Ninho]

BenoitRen : shouldn't you add "IMHO" to your strongly worded (and mostly unfounded) opinions ?

The elements you mention (web integration, web on the desktop, browsing HD as a website) are all optional (and I never used any of that). OTOH there come many useful UI elements with the IE 4.0/ Windows 98 style desktop update. Plus, should you never install it, you'll miss many security updates.

In any case, had you *read* (and understood) my own humble post, you'd realise that what I'm proposing in this thread makes no use of Explorer as a shell, hence no "desktop" with or without web integration, no icons on the screen background, no memory bloat and no nightmares. You get something like the old Windows 3.1, just much better.

As a test, I've now setup my 486 DX-2 with 32 Mbytes main mem, Win 95B, per my post above; less than 15 Megabytes of RAM and /zero/ bytes swap file are in use.

I'm not hoping to convince you yet. This is unfortunately not the first time I've noted to myself the vanity and vacuity of most of your misleading comments on this forum, recently it was apropos that animated cursor vulnerability IIRC. This is why I carefully avoided to quote you in my above post, and shall not reply or mention you any more. Sorry I've gone out of my road on this occasion.

Regards

--

Ninho

[Ninho]

BenoitRen : shouldn't you add "IMHO" to your strongly worded (and mostly unfounded) opinions ?

The elements you mention (web integration, web on the desktop, browsing HD as a website) are all optional (and I never used any of that). OTOH there come many useful UI elements with the IE 4.0/ Windows 98 style desktop update. Plus, should you never install it, you'll miss many security updates.

In any case, had you *read* (and understood) my own humble post, you'd realise that what I'm proposing in this thread makes no use of Explorer as a shell, hence no "desktop" with or without web integration, no icons on the screen background, no memory bloat and no nightmares. You get something like the old Windows 3.1, just much better.

As a test, I've now setup my 486 DX-2 with 32 Mbytes main mem, Win 95B, per my post above; less than 15 Megabytes of RAM and /zero/ bytes swap file are in use.

I'm not hoping to convince you yet. This is unfortunately not the first time I've noted to myself the vanity and vacuity of most of your misleading comments on this forum, recently it was apropos that animated cursor vulnerability IIRC. This is why I carefully avoided to quote you in my above post, and shall not reply or mention you any more. Sorry I've gone out of my road on this occasion.

Regards

--

Ninho

[BenoitRen]

BenoitRen : shouldn't you add "IMHO" to your strongly worded (and mostly unfounded) opinions ?

No. A browser has no business being integrated to my desktop. Note that you didn't add IMHO to your claim that this desktop update must be installed either.

The elements you mention (web integration, web on the desktop, browsing HD as a website) are all optional (and I never used any of that).

Through hacking, yes. At least in Win98, but I have reason to believe that IE4's desktop update is the same stuff crammed into it.

Plus, should you never install it, you'll miss many security updates.

That would never have existed if IE wasn't integrated into the shell.

In any case, had you *read* (and understood) my own humble post, you'd realise that what I'm proposing in this thread makes no use of Explorer as a shell, hence no "desktop" with or without web integration, no icons on the screen background, no memory bloat and no nightmares. You get something like the old Windows 3.1, just much better.

Yes, you did. But that doesn't mean you didn't make the claim you made in the first paragraph.

As a test, I've now setup my 486 DX-2 with 32 Mbytes main mem, Win 95B, per my post above; less than 15 Megabytes of RAM and /zero/ bytes swap file are in use.

Try using the system for a while. You probably tweaked it too, or haven't installed all the drivers. A standard Win95B installation takes at least 20 MB of RAM when you're done.

I'm not hoping to convince you yet. This is unfortunately not the first time I've noted to myself the vanity and vacuity of most of your misleading comments on this forum, recently it was apropos that animated cursor vulnerability IIRC. This is why I carefully avoided to quote you in my above post, and shall not reply or mention you any more. Sorry I've gone out of my road on this occasion.

Another elitist hater. Doesn't make for much credibility.

[Ninho]

BenoitRen said :

Another elitist hater. Doesn't make for much credibility.

(Sigh!) I have zero hate. But your saying and repeating such things as :

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

... makes you look like a Troll, and I have no time or willingness to feed the Trolls ;=)

Alright let's assume you are being earnest, and let's review your points : you dislike - and rightly so - the web integration, "active" desktop, web folder view, channels, etc. True, Microsoft has most of that obtrusive bloat enabled by default But what you don't seem to realise, each annoying feature can - and IMO should, be disabled ...

Through hacking, yes.

Nope! No hacking, not even geeky tweaking, just plain settings, courtesy Microsoft. Methinks you are the hater here : you hate the default look of "active" desktop so much you haven't even tried to taylor it to you needs, which however only takes a few minutes and is accessible to the basic user, the more so to a geek like you. Exercise : Just try it when you have an opportunity again someday ! After pouring some sweat maybe you'll be charmed, because the newer desktop does bring better UI elements, some conspicuous like the Quick Launch Bar, some subtle but nonetheless noticeable like much better drag and drop functionality to the Start Menu...

(Note : I'd be suprised anybody hated Quick Launch, but in case... you could nuke it, too, easily)

.... (snip...)

Try using the system for a while. You probably tweaked it too, or haven't installed all the drivers. A standard Win95B installation takes at least 20 MB of RAM when you're done.

With Explorer as the shell, yep, about 20 MB here; with WinFile instead (use FMLfns : www.wincorner.com ) : 14.5 MB. Try it for yourself !

Later,

--

Ninho

[BenoitRen]

Methinks you are the hater here : you hate the default look of "active" desktop so much you haven't even tried to taylor it to you needs, which however only takes a few minutes and is accessible to the basic user, the more so to a geek like you. Exercise : Just try it when you have an opportunity again someday !

Sure, but back in the day when I had *shudder* Win98 FE on my PC thanks to a lousy repair person, I didn't find it.

Quick Launch Bar

Less space for my task buttons.

Don't see what's wrong with the shortcuts being on the desktop instead, or even in the Start menu, where they can be organised.

some subtle but nonetheless noticeable like much better drag and drop functionality to the Start Menu

I don't like that. Before you know it, you have drag&dropped something in it. I like that if you misclick, you can hold the mouse button down when you realise it, and release it where you preferred to click.

[Ninho]

Now BenoitRen you're seen battling over pin points, I won't (even try to) dispute your clicking habits;

the important is you've seemingly backed off your previous arrogant and dangerous assertion, that the windows desktop update should never be applied. I'm happily done with this (very off) topic, and I only hope you won't again change your mind and jump in with that silly idée fixe the next time anyone in passing mentions the desktop update. OF course, I do not deny your absolute right to prefer the old Explorer look aznd feel and to keep it for your own use, however bizarre it may seem... Just don't tell people it's the right thing for them 'cause it isn't, definitely.

--

N.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Ninho

[BenoitRen]

Backed off? I haven't. The update still integrates IE, and solely for that, I wouldn't recommend it.

[eidenk]

Shut-up BenoitRen.

[BenoitRen]

What an intelligent and thought-provoking post, eidenk.

[eidenk]

Isn't it ? It's partly in response to your "get off my back" of the other thread.

[no1none]

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?

Edited May 21, 2007 by no1none

[marxo]

@no1one - All the advantages of shell update u've mentioned could of been done in another way.. Or at least without Internet Exploder...

Personally, i dislike shell update because it makes me feel like i'm in a half-done unfinished operating enviroment... M'kay

Edited May 21, 2007 by TM0d

[no1none]

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

Edited May 21, 2007 by no1none

[BenoitRen]

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

It's not hard to right-click on the HDD and choose Properties to get a nice pie graph.

I prefer to have quick launch than to make multiple-clicks on start button / programs /

That's fine. But I don't want multiple icons taking space where my task buttons should be.

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"...

Wasted vertical estate.

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).

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.

Do you really prefer to have NO choice, even though if the 'other choice' is not your favorite one?

Choice is good, as long as it doesn't come forced with other s*** that I don't want (IE).

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.

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.

Less is more, even on the desktop. Too many menus and buttons confuse users and clutters things.

like you probably, am I right? was your first PC some 486 or older?

An AT 286 with DOS and Tandy DeskMate that my dad bought. I soon knew it better than him.

feels like some ancient Windows 3.11 or something like that

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.

I'm sure youre not against i.e. 256-color systray icons explorer hacking...

No, I'm not. Got a link?

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.

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.

Note that the retail versions of Windows 95 didn't come with IE. Only the OEM versions did.

[no1none]

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

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.

I prefer to have quick launch than to make multiple-clicks on start button / programs /

That's fine. But I don't want multiple icons taking space where my task buttons should be.

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"...

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.

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).

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.

Do you really prefer to have NO choice, even though if the 'other choice' is not your favorite one?

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

Edited May 22, 2007 by no1none