Remember NT4?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Pharaoh_Atem
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:33 am

Post by Pharaoh_Atem » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:42 am

Matthias wrote:
Pharaoh_Atem wrote:not quite... If you look at certain hidden processes that are running, you will notice that explorer.exe runs as SYSTEM, then spawns a explorer process for the user, making IE have the power of a system user....
Image
Where?
It is not listed at any time except right at system startup... Because all processes spawned from parent processes have powers of parent process, even in a limited user, it still has certain rights that normal programs do not get... It has sys-service rights, which is why on some computers, explorer.exe does not restart right away, because it cannot regain its rights back...

Matthias
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:43 am

Post by Matthias » Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:55 pm

Pharaoh_Atem wrote: It is not listed at any time except right at system startup... Because all processes spawned from parent processes have powers of parent process, even in a limited user, it still has certain rights that normal programs do not get...
Can you prove what you're saying? I'm having a hard time believing this ;)

Pharaoh_Atem
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:33 am

Post by Pharaoh_Atem » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:25 am

I am trying to catch it at the right time, but it is difficult since it disappears almost instantly after logging in...

Sarocet
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:06 pm
Location: España (Spain)

Post by Sarocet » Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:52 am

Maybe sysinternal's process explorer could help you on the task?
It displays a lot of the processes data: parent, privileges, etc.

And yes, i believe you as i have seen how IE crashes affects to explorer.exe although they are supposed to be separated processes.

What seems more strange is that IE heritages special powers from explorer.exe by being called by explorer as almost all your programs are explorer childs. It'd be a stupid thing having explorer determine if it should give special powers to programs launched depending of its name/signature/whatever, but it's a Microsoft program afterall :roll:.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:23 pm

Wierd wrote:
Floyd wrote:
Wierd wrote:Yes, I remember NT4... Quite fondly in fact. Throw on SP6, and it was quite nice. I just wish it had better directX support.

I was kinda let down by windows 2000, since it seemed more like a perversion from the purity of NT4 in terms of its UI and reduced eyecandy... Like they took all the worthless features out of 9x, shoehorned them into NT, Tacked on PnP and DirectX, and then touted it as "The new NT."
2000 is awesome. it has a similar look and feel of 98 but it's NT all the way. and besides, if you want the classic shell, just turn on the classic shell policy, it's not that hard. besides, what's wrong with having a nice interface? it is a graphical interface and some effort should be made to making it pleasing to the eye.

2000's plug and play is not tacked on. it's very solid in fact.
Don't get me wrong-- I run win2k regularly. I just dont like how they added so much eye candy. I use my operating system in a utilitarian manner. I dont even use wallpaper. Since my current choices for OS are "win2k" or "winXP" for the win32 world, I choose 2K, because of its reduced eyecandy.

Personally, I use my computer to do other things than marvel at icons and UI elements. ....

As for the statement about PnP being 'tacked on', I realize that the ms developers did a very nice job ....

<rant Topic="Vista">
Will I ever switch to XP? Not unless I am seriously forced to....

Will I ever switch to Vista? NEVER. I would use MacOS before that-- and that is saying something, because I HATE MacOS.

I want my computer to do the things *I* want it to, not what I am told I need or should want it to. I dont need eyecandy, and I sure as hell dont need Trusted Computing/Digital Rights Management.
</rant>

I really dont see the need for your OS to entertain you. Its an operating system-- It helps you do things; It ISNT a video game to amuse you. People shouldnt expect such things.
as i said before, you can enable the classic shell in both 2000 and XP and get the same explorer you see in NT4. if you go to XP and 2000 you get added bonuses such as the basic but quite reliable firewall, better PnP, built in terminal services for XP. and if you don't want that why don't you use cmd.exe as your shell? you wouldn't even have to load the explorer.exe process to begin with. or just have it auto-exec cmd.exe into full screen mode.

also, it's a graphical user interface. not having a few niceties for a graphical interface is odd. i like not having to look at horribly drawn 16 color icons and i like XP's sharper text rendering. my XP box looks similar to 2000 (save for the nicer default icons). personally, i don't see how getting an updated OS and just turning off the candy through what? maybe 2-3 policies is so difficult.

as far as an OS "entertaining" you, operating systems have reached a point of maturity where users are expecting the OS to come with more default extras. especially in a time where administrating a computer isn't a full time job anymore. in a day with 4Ghz processors, 300GB hard drives, burnable DVDs and 1GB thumbdrives (which cost as much as the old 128 MB drives did), having a few "extras" really isn't that much of a burden.

also, as a network administrator i spend my time not "marveling at UI elements" but i can definitely appreciate not looking at grainy 16 color icons either. and with all the eye candy off i'm sure that extra 4MB of RAM comes in quite handy.

here's a picture of my bloated desktop: http://www.deviantart.com/view/30017542/
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Pharaoh_Atem
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:33 am

Post by Pharaoh_Atem » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:50 am

Floyd wrote:
Wierd wrote:
Floyd wrote: 2000 is awesome. it has a similar look and feel of 98 but it's NT all the way. and besides, if you want the classic shell, just turn on the classic shell policy, it's not that hard. besides, what's wrong with having a nice interface? it is a graphical interface and some effort should be made to making it pleasing to the eye.

2000's plug and play is not tacked on. it's very solid in fact.
Don't get me wrong-- I run win2k regularly. I just dont like how they added so much eye candy. I use my operating system in a utilitarian manner. I dont even use wallpaper. Since my current choices for OS are "win2k" or "winXP" for the win32 world, I choose 2K, because of its reduced eyecandy.

Personally, I use my computer to do other things than marvel at icons and UI elements. ....

As for the statement about PnP being 'tacked on', I realize that the ms developers did a very nice job ....

<rant Topic="Vista">
Will I ever switch to XP? Not unless I am seriously forced to....

Will I ever switch to Vista? NEVER. I would use MacOS before that-- and that is saying something, because I HATE MacOS.

I want my computer to do the things *I* want it to, not what I am told I need or should want it to. I dont need eyecandy, and I sure as hell dont need Trusted Computing/Digital Rights Management.
</rant>

I really dont see the need for your OS to entertain you. Its an operating system-- It helps you do things; It ISNT a video game to amuse you. People shouldnt expect such things.
as i said before, you can enable the classic shell in both 2000 and XP and get the same explorer you see in NT4. if you go to XP and 2000 you get added bonuses such as the basic but quite reliable firewall, better PnP, built in terminal services for XP. and if you don't want that why don't you use cmd.exe as your shell? you wouldn't even have to load the explorer.exe process to begin with. or just have it auto-exec cmd.exe into full screen mode.

also, it's a graphical user interface. not having a few niceties for a graphical interface is odd. i like not having to look at horribly drawn 16 color icons and i like XP's sharper text rendering. my XP box looks similar to 2000 (save for the nicer default icons). personally, i don't see how getting an updated OS and just turning off the candy through what? maybe 2-3 policies is so difficult.

as far as an OS "entertaining" you, operating systems have reached a point of maturity where users are expecting the OS to come with more default extras. especially in a time where administrating a computer isn't a full time job anymore. in a day with 4Ghz processors, 300GB hard drives, burnable DVDs and 1GB thumbdrives (which cost as much as the old 128 MB drives did), having a few "extras" really isn't that much of a burden.

also, as a network administrator i spend my time not "marveling at UI elements" but i can definitely appreciate not looking at grainy 16 color icons either. and with all the eye candy off i'm sure that extra 4MB of RAM comes in quite handy.

here's a picture of my bloated desktop: http://www.deviantart.com/view/30017542/
Once again, you are being tricked by Microsoft... The original explorer in Windows NT 4 is the only official explorer that is not merged with IE... Win2k and WinXP trick you by turning down UXTHEME.DLL functions to make it seem like it is in NT4 mode... However, it is not... You would be better off making a shadow image with Litestep as the default shell so that it is not integrated...

Wierd
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:12 am

Post by Wierd » Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:29 am

<Snip really long quote area>

Basically, I dont like the fact that the OS went from UNDER 1gb to OVER 2gb in 2 OS generations... Especially when nearly all of it is bogus TRIPE that I wont use anyway. Simply because it is "Turned off" doesnt mean those DLLs arent still loading those resources into memory either.

It isnt just that I dont want to look at it--- I dont want it there at all.

Got that?

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:35 pm

Once again, you are being tricked by Microsoft... The original explorer in Windows NT 4 is the only official explorer that is not merged with IE... Win2k and WinXP trick you by turning down UXTHEME.DLL functions to make it seem like it is in NT4 mode... However, it is not... You would be better off making a shadow image with Litestep as the default shell so that it is not integrated...
No, i'm not being "tricked". I know that's it's just turning it off. If you really really really want the NT4 explorer.exe just get the file and uncompress it. Use that for your shell.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:37 pm

Wierd wrote:<Snip really long quote area>

Basically, I dont like the fact that the OS went from UNDER 1gb to OVER 2gb in 2 OS generations... Especially when nearly all of it is bogus TRIPE that I wont use anyway. Simply because it is "Turned off" doesnt mean those DLLs arent still loading those resources into memory either.

It isnt just that I dont want to look at it--- I dont want it there at all.

Got that?
Yes, i got it the first go-around. What you're not "getting" is that in the day and age when workstations easily come with 1GB of memory and 300GB hard disks that it's a moot point.

However, i do agree that vista's install size of 4GB is pretty obnoxious. But on the other hand, vista doesn't install components, it installs an image of the OS with all components pre-installed. In some ways, that makes a lot of sense, but it does have the possibility of creating security holes or conflicts (such as installing IIS when you want to install apache, you'd have to uninstall IIS first).

But seriously, you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:00 am

Jaix wrote:
Floyd wrote:2000 is awesome. it has a similar look and feel of 98 but it's NT all the way. and besides, if you want the classic shell, just turn on the classic shell policy, it's not that hard. besides, what's wrong with having a nice interface? it is a graphical interface and some effort should be made to making it pleasing to the eye.

2000's plug and play is not tacked on. it's very solid in fact.
I totally agree, I think w2k is a masterpiece. It is fairly small but yet powerful and pleasant for the eyes. XP needs a lot more resources. I have an old Thinkpad 600 233MHz 512M 20G It runs nicely with w2k but really bad with wxp.
xp is more ram intensive than 2000 was. generally tho, as long as you have lots of ram, xp will run fine. i used to be hard core against xp, but now i quite like it (course i turn off the themes). kind of gives me the "man this is cool" feeling when i first ran nt4.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Stead
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:00 pm

Post by Stead » Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:43 pm

whats the issue?

i'm sure people just like to argue for the sake of arguing, i never used to like xp, but it has things like cleartype for tft's, now, using 2000 on a tft monitor i find quite hard, things improve over time, things also get bloated, look at cars, you'll find it difficult to buy a car which doesn't have voice activation as standard (if not now then soon, most cars seem to have it) i like my old vectra..now i'm not fussed on the new vectra's, but over time i'll proberbly like them, that however does not mean i drive to showrooms that sell them in my old car, shout at all the people in there, shout at all the people who like the new vectras, and then shout at all the people who try and point out the good things, i can accept that things change, and whilst i may not like it, i do not have a go at everyone who disagrees with me.

now all these issues about xp, i mean really, if it bothers you that much, don't use it.

my opinion on xp, its good. its simple to use, and if you don't find it simple then you shouldn't be using a computer. the whole point of xp from my understanding is that its designed to be simple for the user to use it, and it is, the colours and all the bloat and evil ness some people actually find useful.

i hate posting rants :?: but i hate reading pointless arguements more!

mf
Developer
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:37 pm
Location: Eindhoven, NL
Contact:

Post by mf » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:19 pm

Wierd wrote:Basically, I dont like the fact that the OS went from UNDER 1gb to OVER 2gb in 2 OS generations... Especially when nearly all of it is bogus TRIPE that I wont use anyway. Simply because it is "Turned off" doesnt mean those DLLs arent still loading those resources into memory either.
It isnt just that I dont want to look at it--- I dont want it there at all.
Got that?
When I first ran XP when it came out, the first idea that came up in me was to make a stripped down version of it, with all the extra system features and hardware support, minus all the extra eyecandy and 'userfriendliness'. Fast forward to 2006 and I still haven't done it. I did get nLite and experimented with that, but I seriously need a binary-level replace of a lot of icon/bitmap resources etc, and would probably also need to experiment with binary level replacement of certain DLLs with their win2k or whistler beta equivalents (a-la 98Lite which borrows the win95 explorer.exe), all of which would be too much work for myself alone. But just so you know you aren't the only one seriously offended with XP's forcefulness in 'innovation'.
It compiles, let's ship it!

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:48 pm

But Bill said everyone likes to use the square peg in a round hole.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

Pharaoh_Atem
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:33 am

Post by Pharaoh_Atem » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:45 pm

mf wrote:
Wierd wrote:Basically, I dont like the fact that the OS went from UNDER 1gb to OVER 2gb in 2 OS generations... Especially when nearly all of it is bogus TRIPE that I wont use anyway. Simply because it is "Turned off" doesnt mean those DLLs arent still loading those resources into memory either.
It isnt just that I dont want to look at it--- I dont want it there at all.
Got that?
When I first ran XP when it came out, the first idea that came up in me was to make a stripped down version of it, with all the extra system features and hardware support, minus all the extra eyecandy and 'userfriendliness'. Fast forward to 2006 and I still haven't done it. I did get nLite and experimented with that, but I seriously need a binary-level replace of a lot of icon/bitmap resources etc, and would probably also need to experiment with binary level replacement of certain DLLs with their win2k or whistler beta equivalents (a-la 98Lite which borrows the win95 explorer.exe), all of which would be too much work for myself alone. But just so you know you aren't the only one seriously offended with XP's forcefulness in 'innovation'.
You just need an NT4 disc if you want to strip XP down in the way 98Lite does it....

Wierd
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:12 am

Post by Wierd » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:07 pm

No, because of added functionality in the XP binaries that arent present in the NT4 ones. There *IS* more than just bloat, and the desire to kill the bloat is not sufficient to warrant backporting to the dark ages.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests