Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

PROtab


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 02 February 2007 - 10:54 AM

I stumbled by chance onto this program:
http://snoopy81.ifra...m/en/protab.htm
http://snoopy81.ifra...om/download.htm
http://snoopy81.ifra.../ProTab124E.zip

I haven't tested it, but it appears to be capable of "faking" the presence of IE on 98 systems.

Additionally, it has an approach, very similar to Fred De Vorck's one for NT4/Win2k shell about using a renamed Shell32.dll to Shell32.w98.

Investigate and Fix 98Lite


Many people have reported some bug with 98Lite, and have difficulties to cop with Sleek or Micro desktops, patched or unfixed files, complains about missing Shell32.w98.
I wrote this tab to help about all this...

First some theory. Using Windows 95' shell with Windows 98 involves some changes in your system. You need three files to build up this shell: Explorer.exe (the main program, declared in System.ini), Shell32.dll (containing all desktop functions and subroutines for Explorer.exe), and Comdlg32.dll (containing all functions allowing to use an opening file windows as a small desktop, with everything, such as Context menu, deleting, renaming, copying, moving, ...). Simply replacing those three files with 95 version works well most of the time. Unfortunately, some applications are calling subroutines from Shell32.dll, that were not present in 95 version, resulting in various bugs... The solution is to lure those applications into finding the missing subroutine elsewhere. This quite simple, editing the application executable, you can read the name of the involved DLL, followed by the name of the called subroutines; then you change "SHELL32.DLL" to something else ( ie: "SHELL32.W98") and keep a copy of 98 version of Shell32.dll, in your system folder, named Shell32.w98. Though any call to function missing in the 95 version is found in 98 version!

One more thing needs patching: the desktop icons are a per-machine choice in Windows 95, and a per-user in Windows 98. So any 98 proggy changing desktop icons of a 95 desktop would show no result! The trick is patching Themes.exe and Plustab.dll to modify per-machine icons instead of per-user ones ( I would tell better to use included PlusTab.dll, see higher!).

Off course there're a lot of registry stuff to remove or modify to smooth everything, but that is the base of removing IE4/5 !

In the left side you can see some information, and the right part you can correct wrong things, or patch third party files needing functions from 98 version of Shell32.dll. If your shell is 98's, you can revert a previously patched file. I included an expert mode, allowing you to modify everything, even if not needed by your system. Use it wisely or for advanced experiments. BEWARE, you can mess up things with that! If you're a Lite-ing wizard, it can help you testing things faster...

I also automated the installation of Shell32.w98, if your system lacks it (be sure your setup path is correctly set, and insert Win98 CD if needed!).

Important: ProTab will not perform properly if files are currently in use (opened) in your system. Be sure not trying to patch notepad, if it's in use!


Maybe it is (part of) the missing step to run some 98 apps on Mindows?

any taker?

jaclaz

#2 winimizer

winimizer

    Newbie

  • .script developer
  • 19 posts

Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:07 PM

I stumbled by chance onto this program:
http://snoopy81.ifra...m/en/protab.htm
http://snoopy81.ifra...om/download.htm
http://snoopy81.ifra.../ProTab124E.zip

I haven't tested it, but it appears to be capable of "faking" the presence of IE on 98 systems.

Additionally, it has an approach, very similar to Fred De Vorck's one for NT4/Win2k shell about using a renamed Shell32.dll to Shell32.w98.
Maybe it is (part of) the missing step to run some 98 apps on Mindows?

any taker?

jaclaz

Hey jaclaz ---

Just a quick note to say that I am working on a purely 98 shell32 version of Mindows. Setup will be in the same form as the current Mindows, but obviously larger. Coincidental that info on shell32.w98 should appear here just now. I started working on this at the suggestion of Roamer1. Around 40 Meg at the moment with networking, Firefox compatibility, CD writing etc.

More later ... gotta run ... Mike

#3 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 03 February 2007 - 08:19 AM

Just a quick note to say that I am working on a purely 98 shell32 version of Mindows. Setup will be in the same form as the current Mindows, but obviously larger. Coincidental that info on shell32.w98 should appear here just now. I started working on this at the suggestion of Roamer1. Around 40 Meg at the moment with networking, Firefox compatibility, CD writing etc.


GREAT news!

:P

jaclaz

#4 TheHive

TheHive

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 4138 posts

Posted 03 February 2007 - 07:47 PM

Hey jaclaz ---

Just a quick note to say that I am working on a purely 98 shell32 version of Mindows. Setup will be in the same form as the current Mindows, but obviously larger. Coincidental that info on shell32.w98 should appear here just now. I started working on this at the suggestion of Roamer1. Around 40 Meg at the moment with networking, Firefox compatibility, CD writing etc.

More later ... gotta run ... Mike

Will this project also include CD Runability.

#5 winimizer

winimizer

    Newbie

  • .script developer
  • 19 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 09:25 PM

Will this project also include CD Runability.

Absolutely. I am now using a 98shell ver of about 30 Meg booting from a CD and running in ramdisk. Included in the functionality is CD writing ability. I am using this ver at the moment to pare down my exhaustive collection of HDDs - gotta throw some of 'em out!

The more I work with this stuff, the more I regard my nano installs as a waste of time, due to the large amount of RAM in any but the oldest machines. The best justification for the ultraminimal is prolly to "psyche out" the Windows OS. Anyway it's been fun, if obsessional.

#6 sheepdog

sheepdog
  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 11 February 2007 - 01:14 AM

Absolutely. I am now using a 98shell ver of about 30 Meg booting from a CD and running in ramdisk. Included in the functionality is CD writing ability. I am using this ver at the moment to pare down my exhaustive collection of HDDs - gotta throw some of 'em out!

The more I work with this stuff, the more I regard my nano installs as a waste of time, due to the large amount of RAM in any but the oldest machines. The best justification for the ultraminimal is prolly to "psyche out" the Windows OS. Anyway it's been fun, if obsessional.

I found your nano installs inspirational , via it i learnt an awful lot of how windows ticks, from a sub 15mb music platform os with all the bells and whistles to a proof of concept 1 floppy disk mindows (after modifying dlls etc) . To me a very valid project.
Somebody across the pond
Thanks alot

#7 winimizer

winimizer

    Newbie

  • .script developer
  • 19 posts

Posted 01 March 2007 - 05:36 AM

I found your nano installs inspirational , via it i learnt an awful lot of how windows ticks, from a sub 15mb music platform os with all the bells and whistles to a proof of concept 1 floppy disk mindows (after modifying dlls etc) . To me a very valid project.
Somebody across the pond
Thanks alot

Thanks sheepdog --- Greetings from this side of the pond.

My interest in Winimizing began while teaching a course on Windows, and of course realizing that I knew very little about it. One of the first things I did was to delete as many files as possible, and then "reintegrate" the shell browser so that in effect the OS was "integrated" with Netscape, Dos, or any executable. Thus, for instance, clicking on the shellbrowser icon (the microsoft flag in the explorer window) could launch Netscape. This I found to be of academic interest and amusingly ironic, but it did offer insight as to Microsoft's alleged "integration."

Later I pushed the minimum down as far as 4.3 Meg in an installation without a registry.

Glad you found the installer useful in figuring out some of what makes windows tick, as well as possibly giving insight as to what makes it stop ticking.

I'm still learning, and hope to learn more , especially through using a larger 98 shell installation in which the registry will not restrict the operation of any of the usual 98 applications.

#8 sheepdog

sheepdog
  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 21 May 2007 - 12:33 AM

Thanks sheepdog --- Greetings from this side of the pond.

My interest in Winimizing began while teaching a course on Windows, and of course realizing that I knew very little about it. One of the first things I did was to delete as many files as possible, and then "reintegrate" the shell browser so that in effect the OS was "integrated" with Netscape, Dos, or any executable. Thus, for instance, clicking on the shellbrowser icon (the microsoft flag in the explorer window) could launch Netscape. This I found to be of academic interest and amusingly ironic, but it did offer insight as to Microsoft's alleged "integration."

Later I pushed the minimum down as far as 4.3 Meg in an installation without a registry.

Glad you found the installer useful in figuring out some of what makes windows tick, as well as possibly giving insight as to what makes it stop ticking.

I'm still learning, and hope to learn more , especially through using a larger 98 shell installation in which the registry will not restrict the operation of any of the usual 98 applications.

Sorry for the delay in replying, i am terrible for remembering fluid login passwords. I am sure you will modify or have modified the registry etc to suit win98, and appreciate you sharing your teaching skills. With the experience of syslinux/grub4dos of certain members here (boot into ram), our dos system has not breathed its last breath yet. Although being sidetracked with microcontrollers, I hopefully in the future with you around, would like to tackle the stubbing of ntkern.vxd,and the 9x kernel.
Many thanks for all your efforts, very much appreciated




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users