Alternatives to Win98

[pcalvert]

I agree about Win2K. After several years of procrastination, I dropped Win98 and moved to Win2K a year ago. For the most part, I like it. One thing that surprised me is that it seems significantly snappier than Win98-- at least on this particular computer. I'm not sure why that is.

As for malware, I don't think it's a big issue if you know what you're doing. There are a number of utilities you can use to harden the OS and, of course, there are the usual security programs like firewalls, antivirus programs, HIPS, etc.

One of the ways that I help keep Win2K clean is by limiting its exposure to the Internet. If I don't need to use a particular Windows program and I am going to be making heavy use of the Internet (which is most of the time), then I will boot into Linux. If I do need to use the Net while I am in Windows, I only do so while logged in as a user with limited privileges. And for a web browser I use Firefox with the NoScript extension and run it in a sandbox (Sandboxie).

Even though I plan to keep using Win2K, I think I will keep using Win98 for certain purposes. I might install a 98lited Win98 SE to use as a maintenance/backup OS, and I may also install and run it under QEMU so I can use Windows programs without leaving Linux.

Phil

[Atmosphere XG]

I agree about Win2K. After several years of procrastination, I dropped Win98 and moved to Win2K a year ago. For the most part, I like it. One thing that surprised me is that it seems significantly snappier than Win98-- at least on this particular computer. I'm not sure why that is.

I was A/Bing the two, and found that to be true as well. I actually enjoyed using it.

When you think about it, Windows 2000 had a very short shelf life and, many (Including Myself) never really paid it any mind to it. After a little investigating, I found out that its highly underated and only a few use it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more 98 users than 2000.

[doswind]

If you want to use Windows 2000/XP, I highly recommend nLite to remove some of the things you don't like. Using nLite, I have gotten machines that are 6 years and older running a very up to date machine with full wireless capabilities, and all kinds of new software working on them.

Is it possible to take wininet.dll, urlmon.dll, shdocvw.dll out of NT 5 ? I tried 2000lite but it doesn't do that

For years I used 98lite (full wireless)

[BenoitRen]

Why would you want to remove them? They are very much needed.

[doswind]

Actually, they are not needed at all. They are the real spy-ware in Windows

95 and 98 can be installed without them and both works fine without them. A number of programs, like Nero and Roxio, won't install without wininet.dll even though wininet.dll has nothing to do with their operation.

Without shdocvw.dll, urlmon.dll and wininet.dll I could use NT 5 for going online. I really don't like that shdocvw and wininet make directories which I do not want and do not need

[jaclaz]

Cannot say if he removes them, but do have a look at Fred de Vorck's page and to HFSLIP:

http://www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html

jaclaz

[BenoitRen]

Only IE4+'s WININET.DLL makes those directories.

[doswind]

Cannot say if he removes them, but do have a look at Fred de Vorck's page and to HFSLIP:

http://www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html

jaclaz

Thanks for the link

If nothing else, the instructions on that site will keep me busy for a while

Edited a day later

Followed~ instruction, installed modified NT 5, I am online posting this

wininet.dll I was able to delete after installation, shdocvw.dll is there, but unable to do much

Edited on March 14

Worked out the details. Eliminated wininet.dll, shdocvw.dll, urlmon.dll, browseui.dll, and deleted all references to them in the registry. Installed bbLean as default shell, use winfile.exe with StepUp as file manager.

It works. It is my replacement for win98lite.

Thanks again for the link

(As for a Linux try-it-on-for-size, my recommendation would be GoblinX-mini or Wolvix-cub)

Edited March 14, 2007 by doswind

[pcalvert]

In an earlier message in this thread I recommended Debian GNU/Linux as a good choice because of the flexibility one has in setting it up. However, it may not be the best choice for someone new to Linux. For people new to Linux, and especially those on this forum, I recommend Puppy Linux. That's because Puppy runs quite well on the older hardware that many of the people here may be using. In addition, one can use it without installing it and without repartitioning one's hard disk drive.

For more info, see:

http://www.puppylinux.org/ or http://www.puppylinux.com/

Puppy Linux is a "live CD," so it's meant to be run from a bootable CD-ROM drive. If you don't have a bootable CD-ROM drive, or you'd like to install Puppy to your hard drive and run it from there, the following web site will provide you with the instructions you'll need: Lin'N'WinNewB Project

Have fun!

Phil

[BenoitRen]

Yes, Puppy Linux is great. I ended up installing it on our Linux box instead of continuing to toy with the Debian base install, which is Debian Sarge, more than 2 years old. Maybe I might try again when Etch is finally out. In the meantime, Puppy Linux works great on the Pentium II 350 Mhz with 128 MB RAM PC. It even seems to boot faster than my Win95 machine. o_O