Windows 95b shell optional component

[no1none]

part 2

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.

Beauty is in the eye of beholder...

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

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)

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.

You are so self-centered LOL

I am sure it made sense to someone

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

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? )

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.

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

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

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

Edited May 22, 2007 by no1none

[awergh]

256 colour systray patches for 9x and 2k

http://www.dr-hoiby.com/TrayIconIn256Color/

[BenoitRen]

Of course, but thats 1 extra click.

...

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.

Oh, the horror! A couple extra clicks! It would seem that the later they got into computing, the lazier people are.

Think of it as trade-off, no different than many other trade offs we often have to do in our life

This is a trade-off that doesn't make sense, and shouldn't be necessary, so your analogy is not correct.

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...

Define "bloated". K-Meleon has many more features than Firefox out of the box, but it loads faster. I bet you call it bloated because it loads slower. Now this is a trade-off. Thanks to XUL, Firefox is cross-platform, and enables extensions to hook into the interface, but it will load slower.

I think I've seen your nick on K-Meleon's board

Yes, I pass by there regularly.

As I don't use Win9x (if I don't have to)

Oh, no, another WinNT user who wanders into this forum to preach to us.

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? )

IE4 installation starts after setup is complete and Windows 95 boots into the actual desktop for the first time. Don't leave the CD-ROM in the drive, and it won't happen. I discovered this by accident when I once let the CD-ROM in the drive. You'll still have IE3, though, but that's where the method described on ToastyTech comes in.

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

Ah, the WinNT user is showing his true colours.

Win9x has limited networking functionality. It also doesn't open ports for no reason, unlike WinNT. This makes it more secure out of the box. Use a secure web browser, and you're pretty much safe unless you're someone who blindly opens attachments.

Various system components were programmed with the Intel segmentation model in mind. Heard about the ANI cursor vulnerability? In Win9x, this flaw never led to arbitrary code execution. You'd just get an "Illegal Protection Error", explorer.exe would restart, and you'd continue as if nothing happened.

Thanks for the link, awergh.

[no1none]

Oh, no, another WinNT user who wanders into this forum to preach to us.

Ah, the WinNT user is showing his true colours.

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.

Win9x has limited networking functionality. It also doesn't open ports for no reason, unlike WinNT. This makes it more secure out of the box. Use a secure web browser, and you're pretty much safe unless you're someone who blindly opens attachments.

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

Various system components were programmed with the Intel segmentation model in mind. Heard about the ANI cursor vulnerability? In Win9x, this flaw never led to arbitrary code execution. You'd just get an "Illegal Protection Error", explorer.exe would restart, and you'd continue as if nothing happened.

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.

Edited May 23, 2007 by no1none

[marxo]

I must say that I'm pretty much convinced that 9x vs. NT battle is never going to have its end.

For some reason I would never install NT4 against 9x on an old PC.

U cannot deny that NT is more stable then 9x as to the fact that 9x systems are actualy operating environments*

But refusing to accept that users were more devoted to 9x is a fatal error which can end up destroying your brain KERNEL.dll forever (brain wash) due to the fact that if u repeat a lie 10 times it becomes truth.

Never, but never deny the power of DOS (and his OE's) that was created due to monopoly and good advertising... Never.

* The opinion if every smart man...

Edited May 23, 2007 by TM0d

[BenoitRen]

Do you feel alright?

Or maybe you have some fear-of-NT-syndrome or something?

Every time a WinNT fan comes in here it only leads to big arguments that amount to nothing, wasting our time. The way WinNT fans think it just highly incompatible with how most Win9x users think.

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

Same here.

I can't believe you prefer the least stable OS from all of Microsoft's products

It's not the least stable M$ OS at all. People who actually use Win95 surprisingly have good things to say about it. Like a friend of mine who has a Win95 laptop that is "surprisingly dependable".

Oh boy (man!)... please don't tell me you've never heard of firewalls?!

...

because _it_doesn't_open_few_ports_by_default

That makes no sense whatsoever

Preventing is better than healing. Read up on network security. One less open port is one less possible attack vector. Firewalls are meant to provide protection for ports that need to be open.

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

The point is that WinNT is defective by design. There are much less vulnerabilities in Win9x.

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.

I care as much about security as I do about ease of use and compatibility. Linux is not Windows. I'd gain security, but lose the ease of use of Windows 95, and all the programs that it can run. And don't start about Wine, it's very slow, and if I would use it a lot, I might as well be using Windows.

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...

The context is different. Defaults are important, especially security defaults. It doesn't make sense that I should have to spend an hour configuring my system just for it to come close to be secure. That's bad design. It's not about effort.

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...

Good. Because we have seen the same kind of uneducated arguments already. It's always the same s***. "Win9x is insecure!" "Win9x is unstable!"

Never, but never deny the power of DOS (and his OE's) that was created due to monopoly and good advertising... Never.

I've never seen any advertising for DOS and Windows 95. Ever. I saw it on other people's PCs, liked how it worked, and chose it as my operating system.

Edited May 23, 2007 by BenoitRen

[no1none]

I must say that I'm pretty much convinced that 9x vs. NT battle is never going to have its end.

For some reason I would never install NT4 against 9x on an old PC.

U cannot deny that NT is more stable then 9x as to the fact that 9x systems are actualy operating environments*

But refusing to accept that users were more devoted to 9x is a fatal error which can end up destroying your brain KERNEL.dll forever (brain wash) due to the fact that if u repeat a lie 10 times it becomes truth.

Never, but never deny the power of DOS (and his OE's) that was created due to monopoly and good advertising... Never.

* The opinion if every smart man...

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)?

[eidenk]

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?).

Is there any truth in that ?

[ShadeTreeLee]

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?).

Is there any truth in that ?

None what so ever. Big rumor going around is that 9x is 'DOS based' when it actually is a 32 bit OS which simply runs a DOS emulator when you see a Windows' DOS box and not a whole lot unlike NT's command.com and cmd.exe emulators. Vastly better DOS emulator on 9x but we then lack the real utility in batch files that NT's cmd.exe has - how odd a situation can it get? In NT batch, it seems all things are possible but that certainly doesn't apply to 9x batch at all.

Win9x is sure enough loaded into memory from 'true' DOS mode, but once the 32 bit system is all loaded in, DOS is abandoned totally and is never to be seen again usually. We are not standing on a DOS base so much as we were just drop kicked by DOS early in the boot process - that's a vastly different scenario. NT then just left out the DOS mode beginning and went straight for the 32 bit drop kicker at boot up.

Win3.1 was DOS based however, - the true, so-called "enhanced GUI for DOS".

[no1none]

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?).

Is there any truth in that ?

None what so ever. Big rumor going around is that 9x is 'DOS based' when it actually is a 32 bit OS which simply runs a DOS emulator when you see a Windows' DOS box and not a whole lot unlike NT's command.com and cmd.exe emulators. Vastly better DOS emulator on 9x but we then lack the real utility in batch files that NT's cmd.exe has - how odd a situation can it get? In NT batch, it seems all things are possible but that certainly doesn't apply to 9x batch at all.

Win9x is sure enough loaded into memory from 'true' DOS mode, but once the 32 bit system is all loaded in, DOS is abandoned totally and is never to be seen again usually. We are not standing on a DOS base so much as we were just drop kicked by DOS early in the boot process - that's a vastly different scenario. NT then just left out the DOS mode beginning and went straight for the 32 bit drop kicker at boot up.

Win3.1 was DOS based however, - the true, so-called "enhanced GUI for DOS".

Im no expert, I won't argue.

But I was always under impression from Microsoft's own statements, that the 95/98/ME are "DOS-based Windows" and 2000/XP/2003/Vista/2008 are "NT-based Windows". Confusing it is, as Master Yoda would say

As last as it works its all good, who cares even if it is 32-bit extension for a 16-bit kernel.

[erpdude8]

all right people. settle down, get over this 9x vs. NT mess and let's go back to the original topic about the win95b shell component.

[erpdude8]

Good riddance and bye.

are u through here, no1none? take your childish behavior elsewhere and beat it.

go take a vacation

[no1none]

Good riddance and bye.

are u through here, no1none? take your childish behavior elsewhere and beat it.

go take a vacation

Youre quoting my reply to a specific person.

Haven't learn how to read msg board posts yet, kiddo? Then yeah, you may take that quote to yourself too