the way you are use 95 explorer on 95 isn't how I use it. I enable tool bar. XP doesn't have the same 95 explorer toolbar it has IE toolbar. Theres was a way to get the NT4 Shell it looks like 95 running on windows 2000. Maybe look for a way to do that.

Warlord wrote on 2020-01-20, 18:33:

the way you are use 95 explorer on 95 isn't how I use it. I enable tool bar. XP doesn't have the same 95 explorer toolbar it has IE toolbar. Theres was a way to get the NT4 Shell it looks like 95 running on windows 2000. Maybe look for a way to do that.

Hi, Is possible to load NT4 explorer.exe in XP as shell, but not work very well

About the toolbar, is what i ask in the last question. I "half" success with a autohotkey script that modiffy the style of the rebar dialog where toolbar is located, but still have the problem that is only activated after a window redraw...

I attach a capture, maybe i can get some help, but you can see, that the Windows 95 style toolbar is the same now

Warlord wrote on 2020-01-20, 18:33:

the way you are use 95 explorer on 95 isn't how I use it. I enable tool bar. XP doesn't have the same 95 explorer toolbar it has IE toolbar. Theres was a way to get the NT4 Shell it looks like 95 running on windows 2000. Maybe look for a way to do that.

Ok, finally i managed to customize explorer exactly like in 95, i made a AHK script that set some parameters to the rebar control

control,style,-0x0800000,RebarWindow321, %PID%
controlmove, RebarWindow321, 4,24,1024,24, %PID%

The main problem of Windows XP is that the "classic themes" are not perceived in them the same way as in Windows 95 and other 9x similar systems, due to lower 2D performance under absolutely equal conditions. That is why it is so pleasant to work in 9x systems. Since updating the interface elements is much faster and usually overlaps the screen refresh rate by one and a half to two, or even more than that! Of course, it’s possible to give a classic look to yourself, especially for Windows XP, and many enthusiasts can do it successfully, but so far no one has managed to restore the former performance of the graphic (2D) subsystem. And this, of course, is no less important task. Indeed, without normal 2D performance, any Windows 95 theme, no matter how outwardly close to the original, will not be perceived under Windows XP in the same way as in its native environment - Windows 9x.

Comparing XP and 9x 2D subsystem performance (all other things being equal) reveals a significant lag in XP!

Visually, this is very noticeable and very affects the perception of the interface (Fonts, icons, windows, visual effects, etc.), especially on modern display tools with a high refresh rate. After a session under 9x, for this reason, by the way, it’s not very comfortable to work in XP, although you get used to it over time, at least until the next session under Windows 9x 😀

-------------
Windows 9x protects our eyes 😉

DoZator wrote on 2020-01-21, 18:53:

The main problem of Windows XP is that the "classic themes" are not perceived in them the same way as in Windows 95 and other 9x […]
Show full quote

The main problem of Windows XP is that the "classic themes" are not perceived in them the same way as in Windows 95 and other 9x similar systems, due to lower 2D performance under absolutely equal conditions. That is why it is so pleasant to work in 9x systems. Since updating the interface elements is much faster and usually overlaps the screen refresh rate by one and a half to two, or even more than that! Of course, it’s possible to give a classic look to yourself, especially for Windows XP, and many enthusiasts can do it successfully, but so far no one has managed to restore the former performance of the graphic (2D) subsystem. And this, of course, is no less important task. Indeed, without normal 2D performance, any Windows 95 theme, no matter how outwardly close to the original, will not be perceived under Windows XP in the same way as in its native environment - Windows 9x.

Comparing XP and 9x 2D subsystem performance (all other things being equal) reveals a significant lag in XP!

Visually, this is very noticeable and very affects the perception of the interface (Fonts, icons, windows, visual effects, etc.), especially on modern display tools with a high refresh rate. After a session under 9x, for this reason, by the way, it’s not very comfortable to work in XP, although you get used to it over time, at least until the next session under Windows 9x 😀

-------------
Windows 9x protects our eyes 😉

i dont understand... NT 2D performance is much much better than any 9x, very easy to compary in desktop for example

NT 2D performance is much much better than any 9x

What tools and on what did you test it? On all former and currently existing dual-boot machines (9x \ XP), rendering the interface for 9x is much faster.

DoZator wrote on 2020-01-21, 20:29:

NT 2D performance is much much better than any 9x

What tools and on what did you test it? On all former and currently existing dual-boot machines (9x \ XP), rendering the interface for 9x is much faster.

my eyes only, in my life, never ..but never see win9x perform better tan NT in rendering interface... is the first time in my life read this too

we are talking about graphics card that are fast of course, and with good drivers. Never test a ISA or VLB in NT4+...

you guys are right for the wrong reasons. 95 speed has nothing to do with 2D performance. It's fast becasue the shell is minimal. It's also less functional. Windows ME Shell is the same shell as windows 2000 and XP is Windows ME Shell 2.0. Thats why it's slower. Its slower becasue it has more features, and internet explorer is the shell. You are literally using a web browser to browse files on your computer in 98/98se/me/2000/xp.

In 95 you don't use a web browser to browse files becasue you have a minimal separate shell that does it.

It has nothing to do with "2D" performance.

This is windows 95 explorer, The only way to make XP look like this is Shell Swap Explorer in XP with Nt4.0

Warlord wrote on 2020-01-21, 20:53:

you guys are right for the wrong reasons. 95 speed has nothing to do with 2D performance. It's fast becasue the shell is minimal. It's also less functional. Windows ME Shell is the same shell as windows 2000 and XP is Windows ME Shell 2.0. Thats why it's slower. Its slower becasue it has more features, and internet explorer is the shell. You are literally using a web browser to browse files on your computer in 98/98se/me/2000/xp.

In 95 you don't use a web browser to browse files becasue you have a minimal separate shell that does it.

It has nothing to do with "2D" performance.

I dont think he is talking about this

I don't know what else he could be talking about. 2D performance will be dependent on your graphics card and CPU. Not that 2D performance is very taxing even on a 486.

Warlord wrote on 2020-01-21, 21:05:

I don't know what else he could be talking about. 2D performance will be dependent on your graphics card and CPU. Not that 2D performance is very taxing even on a 486.

I understand he is talking about how the OS use the 2D acceleration to render desktop and other 2D tasks

I don't think that is right though. It's not slower becasue of the OS ability to accelerate 2D, It's slow becasue its bloatware. Which is the whole reason you made the thread and are doing this. Thats why I said I think he is right but it's for the wrong reasons. It is slower in XP thats right, but its not slower becasue of 2D acceleration it's slower becasue its a bloated shell. And it got more bloated in XP than it was in 2000 which arguably is the same shell and 2000 is the same Code base and its faster.

Warlord wrote on 2020-01-21, 21:34:

I don't think that is right though.

If you have a 486 or a Pentium 1 the extra IE layer in shell of course make slow explorer, but in a fast machine is impossible to see any difference, and still, this is nothing to do about 2D performance

Even in my 5x86 133mhz with PCI S3, NT4 perform better at 2D tasks than 9x

In my Pentium 3 600 laptop anyways, win95 with or without IE integration have no difference, the machine is fast enough. About XP, i never see any evidence is slower than 2k in desktop rendering

Here im using a C2D at 2.93ghz with a ATI 4550 of course is too fast to see any diference at all in desktop rendering

And I HATE IE integration

95 and 98 are indeed faster than XP at rendering 2D GUI elements.

If you install Windows 98 (not even 95) and then XP on the same computer, something slow like a 486, then try to open some window (not a file manager or IE window, even) you will find that 9x loads the elements much faster, while XP drags and drags.

keenmaster486 wrote on 2020-01-21, 22:01:

95 and 98 are indeed faster than XP at rendering 2D GUI elements.

If you install Windows 98 (not even 95) and then XP on the same computer, something slow like a 486, then try to open some window (not a file manager or IE window, even) you will find that 9x loads the elements much faster, while XP drags and drags.

... XP works great in a 486 ... if you ever success to install... In a 486 class machine even NT4 is not best option, exept is fast like the 5x86 i talking about before

And still this has nothing to do about 2D performance......

Once again I just have to disagree with the premise that the perceived speed difference of 2D is the result of XP being inferior to 9X at displaying 2D. Id argue that putting XP on such a slow system, with such low memory Taxes the systems resources just to run the operating system alone. So that alone will cause a loss of performance.

While I don't have any interest in running actual benchmarks comparing 2D performance between 98se and XP on the same computer, just to prove my point I was able to find some benchmarks that help justify my reasoning.

Source
I am already prepared for people to say but its WIn ME and WIN ME sucks, that will move the goal post and I'll have to find some other proof even though I don't think it should be necessary.
https://techreport.com/review/3096/trs-window … nce-comparison/

We seem to be arguing oranges and carreos here. Just doesn't make sence at all.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-01-22, 00:35:

We seem to be arguing oranges and carreos here. Just doesn't make sence at all.

yes, and is nothing to do with my post... in fact, i dont know why i reply about this at first

All i want is help to customize some parts still did not realize how

XP doesn't even get to boot on a 486 due to a lack of certain CPU extensions, so this concern trolling argument is just for the sake of it.

Also the "slow shell" is an IE4+ feature designed for Win95 that's integrated by default on Win98 and after. It's no ME/2000/XP thing, and has little to do with the excision of GDI acceleration on newer video drivers.