NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Discuss Windows 2000, NT, XP and Windows Server 2000, 2003, SBS 2003.
Post Reply
leppy232
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:59 am
Location: United States

NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by leppy232 »

I've noticed there's some contention on this, and wanted to get some opinions on the topic. Since Newshell replaces system files with ones with the version number 4.0, do you consider it just an updated version of 3.5x or an early version of 4.0?

Overdoze
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1695
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:28 am
Location: Slovenia

Re: NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by Overdoze »

NewShell is an add-on for NT 3.51, and it's file version is also 3.51, not 4.0 like you said. So I personally would put it under NT 3.51 rather than 4.0.

Would be interesting to observe what the relationship is between NewShell and early NT 4.0 shell though.
All roads lead to Neptune™

KRNL386 - my site about retro computing | My site about Windows 1.0 | My blog | 86Box Manager | LeakDB - list of PC OS warez leaks

JennyTheOSCollector
User avatar
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 3:38 am
Location: Shanghai,China

Re: NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by JennyTheOSCollector »

It's just a test on Windows NT 3.51,and MS tried to figure out should Windows NT 4.0 use Win95's shell.And they think Windows NT 4.0 looks nice with the shell,so Windows NT 4.0's there,with Win95 shell.The NewShell's just an experiment subject,so it belongs to neither of them.
I'm in the exciting new world of NT5.0,where magical arts meet modern style!
Windows NT,Debian,Haiku...the triangle of my favourite OSes,an angle for Windows,an angle for *nix distros,and an angle for other OSes.
Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Sever's Deep Dark Fantasy,Windows NT 5.0's modern fantasy duets.
eComStation eCStasy is a bad thing!!Avoid it!!!

roytam1
FTP Access
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:15 am

Re: NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by roytam1 »

Build 854 with NewShell as well (which also brings up "should 854 classified as NT 3.51?" debate)
see also: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35264

xelloss
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:26 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by xelloss »

I would be inclined to classify it as NT 3.5x if the GDI runs in user mode, and as NT 4 if it runs in kernel mode. Which one is it?

Pikavolt321
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:44 pm

Re: NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by Pikavolt321 »

NewShell does run on Windows NT 4, by the way, and does alter the appearance of the OS somewhat, and it says "Windows NT Explorer", as opposed to "Windows NT Workstation" or "Windows NT Server" in the start menu. However, I believe it uses the NT/W3.x Program Groups as opposed to the 95/NT folders, working in a similar way to Calmira for Windows 3.1.

os2fan2
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:12 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Contact:

Re: NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by os2fan2 »

I think part of the confusion is that beginning with Windows 4.x, the programs should expect to find the explorer interface. It's much the same idea behind DOS 7 in Win9x, and OS/2 Warp reporting 2.30 at the command line and 3.0 or 3.1 (for Warp connect) at the PM Shell.

Given that, and that it is just an addon to 3.51, I would be tempted to say the base OS does not change, even when some of the shell does.

You pretty much get replacing of system files when you install the 95 shell into Win98, with the LitePC program.

Pikavolt321
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:44 pm

Re: NewShell — NT 3.5x or NT 4.0?

Post by Pikavolt321 »

The kernel certainly doesn't seem to change with NewShell, but many core system DLLs such as USER32.DLL (the window manager, that also contains many common controls), COMCTL32.DLL (more common controls), SHELL32.DLL (contains lots of stuff, such as the run dialog, the file dialog, Winver), and others are replaced, with what I imagine comes from an early version of Windows NT 4.0.

Post Reply