the xt guy

caps_buster, here is a discussion on a forum topic (2006) covering this same topic: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15900699 the string of URL's is hard coded into XP SP2's dnsapi.dll file, it is not present in XP SP1 or any version of 2K. This is the list of sites coded into the SP2 version of dnsapi,dll: www.msdn.com msdn.com www.msn.com msn.com go.microsoft.com msdn.microsoft.com office.microsoft.com microsoftupdate.microsoft.com wustats.microsoft.com support.microsoft.com www.microsoft.com microsoft.com update.microsoft.com download.microsoft.com microsoftupdate.com windowsupdate.com windowsupdate.microsoft.com You will not be able to stop your computer from connecting with these sites unless you have an external router or other hardware that is specifically set to block these domains.

caps_buster, I've sent you a PM with the info about the MS domains list. The MS entries are hard-coded into the new dnsapi.dll file, which will bypass all other settings on the computer (that's why the dns file needs modified.)

As probably many of you know, XP Sp2 and later has modified dnsapi.dll to deliberately ignore any MS domains in the hosts file. (this does not exist in XP Sp1a or lower; or in any version of Win 2000, 98, etc.) This means your computer can now contact MS stealthily and as many times as it wants, without your permission or control. This to me is totally unacceptable. I've read it is possible to modify dnsapi.dll to reverse this. Is there anyone out there who has successfully does this and would be willing to share details or a modded dnsapi.dll file? Dirty tricks like this are just one of the many reasons I have stayed away from XP (and no, I don't want to debate the merits of why MS did this, I simply want to be able to control my own computer and if MS doesn't like it they can go straight to a certain "very hot place".) In my Win2K system I have about 200 various MS domains in the hosts file. Otherwise my system, and all XP and later systems would contact MS everytime they are booted up and send "data" or "stats" and who knows what else is being sent! I know for example that MS Office routinely sends data to MS about how many documents you have opened.

There's a thread over in the Windows 2000 forum discussing running Win 2K on ICH8/9/10 series motherboards: http://www.msfn.org/board/win2000-and-ich8...0r-t131421.html Perhaps there's some ideas in that thread that might help. (I have an interest in this as I've got a motherboard (Gigabyte GA-P35-GS3) which has Intel ICH9 chipset that I am hoping one day to finish up and install Win 2K on.)

98 lite definitely makes IE a removable option in the add/remove windows components. However, I remember removing IE6 (which I think was via 98 lite, I can't remember the exact circumstances now) and getting a message that Outlook Express would also be uninstalled, as OE needed some part of IE6 to function. I wanted OE off my computer as much as IE, so I had no problem in uninstalling both. (the best part of setting up a new Windows 98 installation for me was ripping out IE.) I have read that IEradicator does not remove as many bits and pieces of IE6 as 98 lite does, so perhaps that progarm still might let you keep OE functionability.

You already have one of the best MB's for running Windows 98. I have a Gigabyte 8I865-GME-775RH (which seems very similar to yours) which I bought new in 2007 from Newegg. It has a Pentium 3.6 ghz CPU. It has Intel 865/ICH5 chipsets like yours, which fully supports 98. Newer Intel chipsets such as ICH7, 8 or 9 do not have any Win98 drivers. You would have to use a board with a VIA chipset. PCI-E video does NOT support Windows 98. There aren't any PCI-E cards that have Win98 drivers and you will be stuck with 640x480 in 16 colors (not 16 bit!) I know there is some generic PCI-E driver (Bearwindows?) but it is very limited on 98. I can't recall for certain but I think it is only VESA VGA (which goes back about 20 years, pre Windows 3.1) and likely doesn't even support DirectX (any version).

You tell 'em wsxedcrfv! Windows NT based OS' run a bunch of extra services that are useful in a corporate LAN enviroment but are worse than nothing for a single user on a freestanding home machine connecting to the Internet. They provide open doors for all sorts of worms and other nasties to invade home computers, as well as increasing boot up time and consuming more memory, not to mention all the critical fixes home users have to download to patch services that they never needed or would use in the first place. A default 98 installation has no ports open to the Internet at all, unlike XP for example that has multiple open ports to the Internet just begging to be infected. It took Microsoft years to patch up all these holes. XP Home should have been stripped down/otherwise modified to better meet the needs of home users connected directly to the Internet using high speed connections with no routers or firewalls. Barring that, the 98 model should have continued to been updated as the "Home OS".

Microsoft wouldn't let Bob RIP, why should I? (Certainly you know about all the bits o'Bob that found their way into later OS' from MS-the "search dog" that's in XP, the much hated "clippy" from Office 97 and 2000,etc. Here's a website that shows all the places MS has used bits-O-BOB: http://www.d2ca.org/ms-bob-lives.html Ha! Bob lives on in a way, even in Vista! (Vista users deserve a bit 'O Bob, don't you think?) I also heard, a few days ago of a local couple naming their first child "Lexi". My first thought was "Are they going to name all their children after the Microsoft Bob 'friends'? Here's my daughters Lexi, Blythe, Ruby and my son Scuzz!" Perhaps as punishment Melinda "Mrs. Microsoft Bob" Gates should be forced to name all her children after the Bob friends.

I'm not a tinfoil hat kind of guy, but I suppose the guy that wrote that could hardly hold his head up enough to type, he was wearing so much tinfoil on his head! Still, I stay on the cautious side with my computer.

Somewhere I read that Microsoft would really like all of us using nothing more than "dumb terminals" with a simple shell interface (probably Microsoft Bob-like!) that would connect to Microsoft and only to Microsoft. We would rent use of an O/S from them, which would reside on their servers. No CD's of software to buy or be pirated. All the software we would use would be rented from them and reside on their servers. Outside of a simple shell interface, our computers would be dumb terminals with not even our own data stored on them. We would pay yearly fees for the rental of the O/S, Microsoft Office, etc. Microsoft would control EVERYTHING, all our data would pass through their hands and there would be no privacy, no using older operating systems or software. If we did not pay our yearly rental fees, BOOM! everything would become unaccessible and we would have nothing more than a useless dumb terminal.

Sparky4, There should be quite a few threads in this forum about what software still works with ME. Don't get the XP/Vista/Windows 7 zombies get to you(...you must install...you must install...). I use Win 2K but also Win 98 (with 98SE2ME and IE, OE, WMP, Windows Update, etc uninstalled) and it is still a viable OS with all the unofficial updates here and on mdgx's site. With XP and later OS, your computer contacts MS daily, sometimes multiple times a day, all beyond your control! Who knows what info is being sent? ("Don't worry about us connecting to your computer...just stare into the colors and icons on your desktop...isn't aero pretty?") Did you know with XP SP2, Vista and later, you cannot add MS domains to the host file to block your computer from connecting to MS? I also see on the main page of MSFN of reports of 'stealth' updates to XP to users that have set their systems NOT to automatically install updates!

I too, am looking forward to Herbalist's site re securing Windows 98 without a virus scanner!

There's been lots of discussion of this over in the Win 98 forums. Avast 4x is one of the very last free AV's that will work on Win98 (they will not be supporting Win 98 after the end of 2009). I think ClamWIn is another freebie that works on 98, but I've read it has a very poor detection rate. Among paid AV's, NOD32 (v 2.7) seems to still be getting AV updates for Win 98 (the current 4x versions do not run on 9x). One of the regular posters (Herbalist) over in the 98 forum recommends that one not run an AV at all on Win98, and instead install the system policy editor and set up a "default-deny" policy where only the executables that are whitelisted will be run. I haven't tried it yet but will one day (according to a file search, my Win98 system has over 300 .exe files on it so the idea of adding even half of those to the whitelist is a bit daunting.)

While my favorite is Windows 98SE with 98SE2ME (and 98 lite applied to remove IE, OE, Active Desktop, Windows Update and tons of other oppressive, extraneous junk), I do use Win2K as well since I sometimes do video converting of VHS to DVD (Win 98 has a 4gb file size limitation.) I'll never switch to XPee for too many reasons to list (product activation, Windows Genuine Disadvantage, Digital non-Rights Management and the fact that I cannot add any MS domains to the hosts file when using XP2 or later). When I see how M$ has done all it can to force users away from 98SE to XP (for example, putting pressure on Intel not to write 98SE drivers for its later chipsets) it makes me want to stick with 98. I'm glad there is still Win 2K and it's still receiving critical updates until June 2010!

I know that development of Firefox 2x officially stopped with 2.0.0.20 in Dec. of 2008. I also know that I can use Firefox 3x with Kernel XP (but I have two Firefox extensions that will not work with 3x and I don't want to give up those extensions.) Mozilla offers in its nightly builds of Firefox 2.0.0.21 and 2.0.0.22pre. Apparently some releases of Thunderbird and (?) Seamonkey are still using the 2x versions of Firefox, so they are still being updated for Critical/etc. bugfixes. There have been numerous critical/moderate/etc. fixes applied to the .21 and .22pre versions of FF 2 that are not in 2.0.0.20. I have downloaded and installed 2.0.0.22pre on both my Windows 98 and Win 2K computers, with no noticeable problems in the last couple of days. Has anyone else tried, or is currently using these versions of FF? (BTW, these development versions are labeled 'Bon Echo' when they are nightly builds, not FF.)

I too, hope that this project will be finished. I have had nothing but bad luck with Auto-Patcher (it leaves my Windows 98 system unbootable during one of it's many reboots, forcing me to reinstall Win 98. After several attempts of modifying what Auto-Patcher installed with no improvement and reinstalling 98 multiple times, I went back to SP3.0 Beta.)

Herbalist, You mentioned in a post a few weeks ago about securing an OS via 'whitelisting' and not 'blacklisting' using an anti-virus/anti-malware-etc. that quickly become outdated. You said that you would post some information about doing that if there was any interest. I'd be interested in learning about that.

I've checked two of my three Win 98 computers and I don't have any encrypted entry such as that in my APPLICATION DATA folder (but then, I don't have WEB FILES or IE installed either, thanks to 98 lite.)

I have three different computers all running Win 98SE and each one has a different "mystery key": D=9000000 Value name 1/2 Value Data 0000 05 80 85 85 J29000000 Value Name 2 (in superscript!) Value Data 0000 61 01 60 61 I:9000000 Value name (some weird ASCII character which I won't try to show here) Value Data 0000 02 60 62 62 All three of these computers have in common: 98SE2ME, 98 Lite, Unofficial 98SE service pack 3, IE6 removed (along with removing other M$ software: WMP, Outlook "Distress", Chat, NetMeeting, Windows Update, msjava, etc.) I have also never connected any of them to Windows Update even once, using the resources on mdgx's page to update everything. I've been using Firefox with noscript added (and most websites 'untrusted' with all the options blocked) so java, frames, Iframes, adobe flash, microsoft satanlight...oops I mean silverlight, etc. etc. etc. are all blocked from running. All of these are relatively new, clean installations (the oldest being about 3 months, the other two less than one month). None of them have ever reported any kind of virus, spyware, malware, etc. nor have they done the slightest suspicious behaviour that would make me think something had infected them. They have all been connected to the Internet through a cable modem with a seperate hardware firewall. So I don't believe it is any kind of an infection or spyware.

AFAIK, no IDE drives were ever made in 1TB size, to say nothing of 1.5TB. The largest IDE drive was a 750gb from Seagate (and Seagate is no longer manufacturing IDE drives, so the 750gb IDE is discontinued). BTW, I saw someone mention on the 'net that NTFS had a file size limit of 2.5TB. I couldn't find any other info to confirm this, so I assume it's incorrect (perhaps it's an OS size limitation? but no OS was mentioned in the post)

"Thumbnails" is not an option in the menu on Win 98, it is an option with Win ME (or by using 98SE2ME and adding the Win ME explorer shell (option 3). Somewhere on this forum there is a software someone has mentioned that can add the "Thumbnails option in 98.

That's good news! Even a small increase means thousands more users! I'm trying to use my Win 98 box for surfing more, figuring every hit on a website says Win 98 is still alive! Ah yes, Vista! The ME of the 21st century. The huge push towards Windows 7 tells me that MS has given up trying to repair Vista's image and only wants to leave it behind as soon as practical! Long live 98! (and 2K, since I run that on my other computer)

32 bit operating systems (Win 98, ME, 2K and XP) all run fine on a 64 bit CPU. Computers sold over the last 2-3 years all have 64 bit CPU's now. I'm running 98SE on a 64 bit CPU (Pentium 4 3.6 ghz.) and it runs with no problems. In fact, I tried running 98SE with hyperthreading enabled, and then disabled in the MB BIOS. Seems to make no difference in how 98 runs. (Of course, I know that 98 can't use hyperthreading.) The potential for problems occur with a 64 bit operating system (Windows XP and Vista in their 64 bit editions). Some 32 bit software, but not all, will run on a 64 bit OS. This is probably the main reason 64 bit XP and Vista are such poor sellers. The short answer then is: 64 bit hardware OK. 64 bit software: Problems.

You should read the topics on Motherboards (and Hardware) still working with 98 if you haven't already. It's getting pretty difficult to find current MB's and peripheral cards that will still work with 98. Lots of modern chipsets don't support 98 and for those that do, their onboard video and audio don't have 98 drivers available. (I don't follow the recommendations in great detail, but I believe the P35, P45 and 915 chipsets don't support 98. I have read conflicting reports of 98 supporting SATA drives. You won't have any worries staying with IDE. If your HD is over 137gb you will have to use the patches offered on this site and even then probably have to divide the drive into partitions not exceeding 137gb. I don't think there are any drivers for PCI-e and Win 98. It's best just to stick with AGP if you're going to run 98). Last year (August 2007) I bought a new motherboard (Gigabyte 8I865GME-775-RH) which was recommended in the thread "Motherboards still working with Windows 98". Even though I wasn't planning to build a new 98 machine immediately, I knew I should grab it fast as it was one of the last Intel chipset MB's that would run 98 without a problem. Sure enough, in just a couple of months it had completely disappeared from all the online retailers.

While my comment doesn't reply specifically to your problem, I posted a question (and eventually figured out the answer) over in the Win 2K forum about a problem I had that was similar. Several months ago, I updated my Win2K box with the month's critical fixes. After I rebooted, I suddenly had something that "wanted to get out" at every reboot. Zone Alarm was popping up with the request. I have a hardware router/firewall, but keep ZA on the computer to help block any suspicious outgoing requests. I'd never had this problem before and have never had a virus/spyware/trojan on this computer. It was brand new after rebooting from the just applied Microsoft updates. I finally let the request go through and checked my router logs. Seems it was a request to contact 'stats.microsoft.com'! I've never had this show up in my router logs before, apparently it was something that microsoft added along with the latest security update! How generous of them! Everytime I now booted up, a little spyware packet of info would be sent to M$! If it wasn't for Zone Alarm I wouldn't even know about it. There's a reason that the so-called firewall included with XP2 doesn't block anything outgoing! Can you guess as to what it might be? At any rate, googling on the 'net for info about stats.microsoft.com, I found somebody's M$ 'sh1tlist' of several hundred microsoft sites that could be added to a hosts file and block one's computer from secretive and unwanted packets being sent! I added all the sites to the hosts file I was already using with Win 98 (no reason whatsoever for a Win 98 box to have to contact Microsoft anymore!)! I removed about three sites from the list so I could still access Windows Update for my Win 2K box. After I added the sites to my hosts file, the requests stopped! Interestingly, M$ modified the dns in XP2 so any Microsoft sites added to the hosts file would be ignored! Therefore, this trick won't work if one is using XP2 or higher! God forbid that somebody would attempt to stop these spyware-like communications to M$. To borrow an expression from Seinfeld, I can now tell Microsoft: No stats for you! I've never had any of my Win 98 boxes trying to pull any "funny stuff" on the Internet, ever!. All this is just more evidence why Win 98 can actually be a safer and smarter choice on the Internet than XP. (BTW, i did some searching on the Internet concerning IGMP.MCAST.NET and it seems to be nothing to worry about. It has to do with multicast requests being sent over the network. All the threads seem to say that it's not spyware or something worse.)