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

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

I just need an inf file
i have
EXPLORER.EXE
SHELL32.DLL
COMMDLG32.DLL
FROM WIN95

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 think he might be talking about Mindows or 98lite.

Phil

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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 : 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

BenoitRen said :

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



... 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 ...



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...)



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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Shut-up BenoitRen.

What an intelligent and thought-provoking post, eidenk.

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

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?

@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

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

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

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

Wasted vertical estate.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

No, I'm not. Got a link?

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.

Of course, but thats 1 extra click.




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.


Fair enough. No one should be forced to use something they don't like.


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

part 2




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 are so self-centered LOL
I am sure it made sense to someone


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? )


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

256 colour systray patches for 9x and 2k
http://www.dr-hoiby.com/TrayIconIn256Color/

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

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

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.

Yes, I pass by there regularly.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Same here.

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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)?

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VPFKnBYOSI&eurl=

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.

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