iWindoze Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 Hello, All....I've just recently picked up a HP Omnibook 6100 Laptop and am tryingto decide which OS to install on it. I have Win98SE and I have Win2000as well as WinXP (SP1a and SP2) what I'm trying to decide is which ofthese OSes is more secure by default. While I'm knowledgeable enoughabout them all to do basic locking down of the OS (antivirus, hosts, Spybot,ect ect) I'd like to get an opinion on which is more secure by default, anyopinions?NOTE: Assume that Win98SE has been brought up to date w/ all patchesinstalled-that's the default I mean, obviously trying to put an unpatcheddirect from the install 98SE on the net would be insanity. Also I'm stillmaking up my mind as far as whether or not I'd install the system sansIE via 98Lite so that has some bearing to the discussion. Mostly I'm askingabout services and such.--iWindozePS: I've been able to get around some of my istall issues by using anolder drive image of Win98SE to install from, but does anyone know howto work around the issues Setup.exe seems to have with the Omnibook?It loads itself, checks the hard drive and freezes up dead when attemptedfrom within DOS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewan Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Hello, All....I've just recently picked up a HP Omnibook 6100 Laptop and am tryingto decide which OS to install on it. I have Win98SE and I have Win2000as well as WinXP (SP1a and SP2) what I'm trying to decide is which ofthese OSes is more secure by default. While I'm knowledgeable enoughabout them all to do basic locking down of the OS (antivirus, hosts, Spybot,ect ect) I'd like to get an opinion on which is more secure by default, anyopinions?NOTE: Assume that Win98SE has been brought up to date w/ all patchesinstalled-that's the default I mean, obviously trying to put an unpatcheddirect from the install 98SE on the net would be insanity.Actually, Win98SE has been exceptionally secure against network attacks in my experience, even unpatched. I ran two Win98SE workstations 24/7 for months, with public IP-addresses, without firewalls, and almost unpatched - in 2003 or -04, and there was only one incident. Due to a bug in MS/Windows networking, the password protection for shared network drives could be circumvented *if* at the same time there was an unpassworded shared printer. So a virus found its way in from the net, but I heard the sound of unexpected disk activity, halted the infection in its midst, and successfully reversed it.Then I patched both machines. They are still on-line as I write this, and there has been zero network intrusions since the one described above.Besides, time is on Win98's (and other old OSes) side. Almost no-one is focussing on finding security holes in them any more. Meanwhile, XP and to some extent, Linux and Win2K are hot (in the eyes of intruders).Also I'm still making up my mind as far as whether or not I'd install the system sans IE via 98Lite so that has some bearing to the discussion. Mostly I'm asking about services and such.The system is faster without the IE integration, but there are some issues, with compatibility and the newer (IE-dependent) user interface does have certain improvements (eg. easier Start-Menu maintenance).PS: I've been able to get around some of my istall issues by using anolder drive image of Win98SE to install from, but does anyone know howto work around the issues Setup.exe seems to have with the Omnibook?It loads itself, checks the hard drive and freezes up dead when attemptedfrom within DOS...Check your drive for errors (Norton Disk Doctor and the SCSI-BIOS built-in tools have worked for me, but the latter is unlikely to be available on a laptop), and perhaps try skipping setup's disk check by using the /is (I think) command line option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
os2fan2 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I ran Windows 98 for quite a while, both in 98lite' sleek and chubby modes.The sleek-mode was a practical response because the computer had 16 MB core. It still ran faster with IE than with IE integrated. The other form (chubby) was when i had like 256 MB core. I did not notice any sort of things over port-scans (which is more like people knocking on the door). On the other hand, it seems to artificially slow the net down. Win2k seems to pull stuff off the net at 10% more.Having the whole file-system as a single FAT32 (the default install), did not help, and some exe file decided that file-allocation table was a handy place to park itself. Oops.I now run win2k. But i still have a win98 box running at home, for mother. It gets left on all the time etc.IE intergration slows down _any_ system, whether it has a DOS or OS2 boot block. One of the first things i do is to deactivate the Active desktop, web integration, etc. When you pay a dollar an hour for internet connexions, it's not pretty impressive to not be able to tell connexions are on or not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewan Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I now run win2k.I was expecting OS/2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
os2fan2 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 i actually run half a dozen operating systems, sometimes four or five at once. At the moment, the OS/2 boot is broken, and Win2k is currently used for most things.but i still have an OS/2 boot 4.52 on the system.W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now