BenoitRen

Nonsense. It's not like your PC or OS will suddenly die when those people quit, nor will it suddenly lose all the existing functionality.

I can play these files on WMP 6.0 just fine, and the program is very fast. The only difference aside from bloat between version 6 and 9 is DRM.

Many run XP as administrator, so combined with their ignorance, it has its share of problems. But those are not exploits. What gets exploited is the wide variety of network services of XP so that it can get through and get the same priviledges as them. I have only limited knowledge of that, though, so I could be wrong.

Oh, so you just identified what other values had RSABASE. Okay.

Oh come on. We both know that they just want us to forget them and buy their shiny newer toys. Semantics. No s***, Sherlock! You were arguing/saying/pointing out/whatever that XP was pretty much secure without these things, and/or that M$ could help with this. Obviously, it doesn't matter one bit, and XP is not secure at all.

Too bad they are talking about design only in the sense of stability and speed. The user interface was still as crappy as Windows 3.x.

Could you explain in more detail? When I search for either hexadecimal value in Regedit, I don't find anything.

Thanks, Petr! I indeed didn't add RSABASE.DLL (and WINTRUST.DLL for that matter) to the list of Known DLLs. However, we're not there yet: 3.14737034 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx 0xC123C34C\RSABASE SUCCESS "RSABASE.DLL" 3.16416645 Capi:FFF598AD OpenKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control SUCCESS hKey: 0xC11E6B90 3.16421032 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Current User SUCCESS "Benoit" 3.16424489 Capi:FFF598AD CloseKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control SUCCESS 3.16495848 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx 0x0\EPbK BADKEY 3.16499853 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx 0x0\EPvK BADKEY 3.16503692 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx 0x0\SPvK BADKEY 3.16507435 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx 0x0\SPbK BADKEY 3.16511273 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx 0x0\RandSeed BADKEY 3.16571045 Capi:FFF598AD OpenKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control SUCCESS hKey: 0xC11E6B90 3.16575122 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Current User SUCCESS "Benoit" 3.16578078 Capi:FFF598AD CloseKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control SUCCESS 3.16624403 Capi:FFF598AD OpenKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control SUCCESS hKey: 0xC11E6B90 3.16628480 Capi:FFF598AD QueryValueEx HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Current User SUCCESS "Benoit" 3.16631436 Capi:FFF598AD CloseKey HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control SUCCESS 3.16730237 Capi:FFF598AD CloseKey 0x0 BADKEY It already gave that before, but I thought it was because it didn't find the RSABASE key. After these, it just goes on to look for other provider types, and fails. By the way, how did you find out where that address referred to? EDIT: Hey, it turns out that Cryptography was successfully installed after all before I posted this thread! I just didn't bother to check the full output of the capi test program. The first it gives me is: Provider type = PROV_RSA_FULL loaded advapi32.dll successfully failed to look up RtlGenRandom: 127 looked up CryptAcquireContextA successfully looked up CryptReleaseContext successfully looked up CryptGenRandom successfully CryptAcquireContextA succeeded CryptGenRandom succeeded RNG_SystemRNG returned 1024 Yay! I guess the rest are providers that aren't installed.

Games will always be an exception. The newer ones require the newest hardware and OS. PCs weren't designed with games in mind in the first place, though. If you can avoid it, don't play newer games on your PC, but on game consoles. They were designed for that.

But where doesn't it find it? There's just a binary address. Here is the context: 2.71582723 Capi:FFF35BD9 OpenKey HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider Types\Type 001 SUCCESS hKey: 0xC11E756C 2.71588635 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider Types\Type 001\Name SUCCESS 2.71594000 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider Types\Type 001\Name SUCCESS "Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0" 2.71597433 Capi:FFF35BD9 CloseKey HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider Types\Type 001 SUCCESS 2.71605992 Capi:FFF35BD9 OpenKey HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0 SUCCESS hKey: 0xC11E756C 2.71611214 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0\Type SUCCESS 0x1 2.71615124 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0\Image Path SUCCESS 2.71619916 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0\Image Path SUCCESS "rsabase.dll" 2.71624565 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0\Signature SUCCESS 2.71632004 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0\Signature SUCCESS 29 D2 93 D1 AF 2C C3 F1 ... 2.71635294 Capi:FFF35BD9 CloseKey HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0 SUCCESS 2.74032569 Capi:FFF35BD9 QueryValueEx 0xC123C34C\RSABASE NOTFOUND

I don't understand why you would need to update your hardware when you're on Windows 98SE. There's also no law saying you should move with the times. "because everybody else does it" is never a good reason to do anything.

That statement defeats your entire argument. It IS ridiculous, and we choose not to follow that. As if our older computers will stop running. We don't have to go with this. You are succeeding in doing that. As if that doesn't have on XP. Look, there are precautions you can take, and apply common sense. Get your computer behind a router, and activate its firewall. Run a secure browser. That's it.

The scenario you're describing only happens to people who don't have a clue. Most exploits nowadays are social engineering that Joe Blow runs into because he doesn't know much about computers. NT5's layer won't do anything to protect him from that. Knowledge is power.

IE3 and up provide the Microsoft Cryptography component for Windows 95. Since I'm IE-free, I didn't have it, which made me run into bug 362404. So, I went ahead to install it manually. I inspected ohare.inf to do this. ; Win95 Only CAPI System Files (NT Has CAPI installed) DIGSIG.DLL,,,32 IMAGEHLP.DLL,,,32 RSABASE.DLL,,,32 SIGRES.EXE,,,32 WINTRUST.DLL,,,32 Those files were copied into the Windows\System directory. ; CAPI Registry Entries HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0","Image Path",2,"rsabase.dll" HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider\Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0","Type",3,01,00,00,00 HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Cryptography\Defaults\Provider Types\Type 001","Name",2,"Microsoft Base Cryptographic Provider v1.0" HKCU,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WinTrust\Trust Providers\Software Publishing","State",3,08,00,00,00 These registry entries were created. rsabase.dll and wintrust.dll had to be registered with regsvr32.exe. I did so. Yet, the test program I got still doesn't work (the one in the bug has a mistake, I got a fixed one). So, I let Regmon loose. It finds the registry entries, then stops at: 6.10455465 Capi:FFF22201 QueryValueEx 0xCB904E78\RSABASE NOTFOUND I have no idea what it's looking for there. Some value in the memory? The second time it was this: 2.61963844 Capi:FFF06F15 QueryValueEx 0xC123C34C\RSABASE NOTFOUND Anyone know what this means?

Let me make it more specific. No HOME USER needs dual-core processors. It's fine that they improve on things, but the mistake is to always mass-commercialise it. We just don't need that s***.

Windows 95 is the only OS Microsoft made a real effort on. They spent a lot of money on usability research. The result is a clean interface with no fancy bells and whistles, for maximum productivity. My Software Engineering teacher agrees that Windows 95 is a good system, and that it went downhill from there. Win95 only has the minimum of services and processes necessary. It's not bloated. Right now I'm running 9 processes. SYSTRAY.EXE KERNEL32.DLL -MSGSRV32.EXE --EXPLORER.EXE ---PROCEXP.EXE (just to be able to look at these) ---SEAMONKEY.EXE (my web browser) --mmtask.tsk (Multimedia background task support module) --MPREXE.EXE (WIN32 Network Interface Service Process) --SPOOL32.EXE (Spooler Sub System Process, for whenever I want to print) That's it. I don't need anything more. Windows 95 never really got IE integration, unlike newer Windows OSs. It was just a forced install. However, by editing the install files, you can fix that. I'm running IE-free since months, with no lost functionality, and more free memory. The lack of many network services and a secure web browser make Windows 95 pretty secure. Additionally, it's behind a router, as no matter what Windows version you run, you should close most ports for maximum security. As for applications, there's a long history of freeware you can run. I can also still run my older games flawlessly. My web browser is a fresh one from a tinderbox. In short, I'm happy with it and how it works.

You can't compare the clock speeds.The 2400+ Sempron is equivalent to a 2.4 Ghz Pentium in speed. I don't know what the equivalent would be of the 3.2 Ghz Celeron, its speed is lower in Pentium statistics. For example, my brother's Celeron is 1.7 Ghz, and the equivalent of a 1.2 Ghz Pentium. They work differently. Less cache means less time wasted looking through the cache before getting the data from the RAM or hard drive. But then again, there's less chance of finding what you're looking for in it too. There's no better CPU in that area. AMD has had the equivalent technology for years too. Because we don't need NTFS? At least with FAT32, we can't have rootkits hidden in our system. NTFS on the whole isn't really that superior. And if we want to, we can read NTFS just fine. The tools exist. Even DOS can read NTFS if it wants to. Writing is another matter. Why would we need files over 4 GB? That's just insane. Unless you do video editing (best done on a Mac anyway), or are a movie pirate, of course. Windows XP is a piece of s***. And yes, I do use it (on my laptop, no real choice). Too much eye candy (looks like a toy, too), way too many services, bloated, treats you like an id*** (which slows you down), is a security nightmare because of the tons of services, etc. Windows 98's interface is cleaner (though not as clean as Windows 95's), barely has services, only the necessary network components, doesn't treat you as that much of an id***, and flies on a Pentium II and newer (can even be used on a 486 if you want).

I wouldn't buy the poor man's Celeron. If you want a cheaper CPU, go AMD. Pentium IV CPUs are expensive, but if you prefer Intel, then I can't stop you. Obviously, I'm an AMD fan.

That's because it's got a very low percentage of the browser share, coupled with the fact that it's not open-source. By the way, one of the security vulnerabilities they fixed broke how cookies work. This is because the vulnerability had to do with how cookies worked.

NEVER! *clinges to the old but adequate Help format*

You don't need IE security updates if you rip out IE. Why keep IE to patch IE? It's stupid.

bul*****. 64 MB of RAM is good enough to run Windows 98 SE. Especially if you rip out IE, which everyone should do anyway if the person wants a secure install. If it's enough to run your programs, that depends on the program, obviously.

But it's evil! I'd prefer to install without the component.

What I want is basically XP's Notepad for Windows 95. Same as the older version, except that there is no file size limit, search and replace, plus the ability to jump to lines with numbers. Isn't there any Notepad replacement that has the following features but does NOT resort to the RichText control?

Ah, that's what I originally read. It seemed a bit complicated, though. Can Win95 be automatically booted with this (unless I do some other selection)?