Posts: 691
Threads: 5
Joined: Apr 2002
Quote:I've written graphical shells for Windows 9x before and intentionally crashed them on purpose to see if they'd respawn
Does a shell for Win9x differ in any way from a regular application? If not, I don't see any reason why Win9x would attempt to restart it if it was killed, it would just treat it as a normal forced exit on an application.
A better approach than renaming your shell explorer.exe, would be to write a monitor service that creates a child process to run your shell in when it is stared, then just have an infinite loop that waits until the child exits, if the child does exit, the return status can be checked (and logged) and the child can be restarted. You don't even need two separate programs to do this, because the monitor can be written as a separate thread (or process) within the shell's code.
esus saves.... Passes to Moses, shoots, he scores!
Posts: 3,279
Threads: 170
Joined: Nov 2003
Yeah I thought about that idea but then was wondering if there'd be any adverse side-effects to it and kinda got worried there would be so I didn't do it. :o Maybe someday I'll try it again
And yeah, it's just an application like any other.
I know dozens of people back in the day who replaced explorer.exe with command.com as their shell. I never tried it myself, though. I was always attempting to create my own graphical shell that worked similar to explorer.exe but without some of the baggage that tends to make it so "heavy" and break down from time to time.
I'd knock on wood, but my desk is particle board.
Posts: 294
Threads: 9
Joined: Oct 2002
No no inside every computer there are many tiny elves! they switch it and remember things so fast you dont even have to worry.. err never mind ^_^
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 287
Joined: Jan 2003
Elves? No, no. Google controls your computer.
Ignorant Islandmen. :roll: :wink:
f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
