Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country


Everything posted by BenoitRen

  1. This isn't Slashdot. Your car analogy doesn't work. In a way, it does. If there's nothing to compromise, that system is 100% secure. The fact that NT opens services to the outside means it's not secure, as it makes it susceptible to attacks. Like many others before you who have argued this subject, you confuse local security with remote security. Not to mention that NT security is a joke to hackers, because there are several backdoors to administrator status, some of which can even be used remotely. A software firewall is not useful. Anti-malware is one of the top 6 dumbest ideas in computer security. Nonsense. This is not security through obscurity. You can't attack what isn't there. The OS itself doesn't get updated, but many programs that run on it still do. The web browser being the most important one.
  2. If you were in the web design business, you'd understand their rage. But they should never block anyone. You are horribly wrong. Compare CSS support and DOM support between IE6 and other web browsers. If we look at just the summary, IE6 gets 51% for CSS2.1, while Firefox 3 gets 93%, and Opera 9 gets 94%. For DOM support, IE6 gets 50%, Firefox 2 gets 79% (FX3 is unknown), and Opera 9 gets 84%.
  3. It's far better to have nothing to plug than something you have to plug that has holes. Win9x doesn't run remote services by default, hence it's more secure in a networked environment. NT offers pretty much zero more protection for the home user. It was designated as a corporate OS, after all.
  4. The Mozilla Add-ons site has plenty of themes and extensions for Firefox. For SeaMonkey, I recommend this resource, maintained by yours truly.
  5. Both Windows 95 and 98 are 32-bit OSs. For your purposes, I'd recommend Windows 98 SE.
  6. There's a very good reason for this trend. Do you know about web standards? They're standards agreed upon by a wide range of people from all around the world, specifying HTML, CSS, how a web page should be rendered, and other web technologies. When you make a web page, you conform to these standards, and the web browser, in turn, renders your page according to these standards. The idea is that every web browser would show each web page in an almost identical way, instead of having to make separate web pages for each web browser, or, $DEITY forbid, make your web page for only one web browser. Enter IE. As of IE5, IE implements several parts of the standard wrongly, most notably the box model. In IE6, they fixed the box model, and then stalled development for 5 years, which sucked, because it is lacking support for many parts of the CSS and DOM standards, and notable parts of the HTML standard. It also has a lot of rendering bugs. In the meantime, other web browsers have released new versions like hotcakes, and vastly exceeded IE6's web standards support. So much so that these days when you make a new web page that separates content from style, it looks great in every web browser... except IE. A lot of work and many hacks are required just to make it look good in IE without breaking it for the others because of all the bugs in that thing. Do you understand now why IE6 is such a pain in the behind for web developers?!
  7. That works for signature text entered as text, but the rule also specifies text on signature images.
  8. IE6 is very old and should die already. In comparison with more recent web browsers, it has bad web standards support. Not to mention the thing is unstable, insecure, and sucks your resources dry after a while. You can use Firefox, SeaMonkey 1.1.17, the latest K-Meleon 1.1.x, or the latest Opera. Plenty of choice.
  9. 4 what? I assume you mean 4pt. In that case, the actual font size depends on the user's DPI settings. A size specified in pixels would be easier to check.
  10. Yes, I use Windows 95. I use an updated web browser and a mail client that doesn't automatically load remote content. I don't open untrusted attachments. I only download programs from trusted sources, not downloading anything through unrequested pop-ups. Needless to say, I don't use P2P. I also don't have Flash installed, removing a possible attack vector (there's a Flash exploit currently in the wild, and no patched version available, but I'm immune on this PC). This approach has served me well for many years.
  11. I'm not going to do anything when Avast drops support, as I don't use an anti-virus program.
  12. They did it because they hate Win9x. There's nothing more to it. Their excuse: it makes the code cleaner! Not a good excuse, considering that most of their source code is a mess, regardless of Win9x support. They already had emulation of Unicode API, and most of the API calls that Cairo added aren't even used (like SetWorldTransform).
  13. If Duke Nukem ran through DOS, it could very well have had sound even though there is no audio driver installed. DOS applications talk to the hardware directly, so it's mostly a matter of the application supporting your sound card, and having the correct environment variables.
  14. It's what the PC came with, and I've gotten so used to it. When I increase the resolution, the icons become too small for my liking. I have no problem getting 'work' done, which usually amounts to using a text editor for me.
  15. No. The standard Windows 95 shell gets installed. It's only when IE4 gets installed that it is replaced by the IE4 shell. I thought so too, but cluberti informed me that WDM support was improved from OSR 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.5. These two features are one feature; single-click open, like on the web (where clickable text is underlined). IE3 is silently during setup, just like in OSR 2.0 and 2.1. Would this screenshot of my Windows 95 prove anything?
  16. It has a Windows 3.x shell, but the API is the same as Windows 95's.
  17. Tell that to the Mozilla developers.
  18. I have Windows 95C, and if you remove the CD-ROM before the first successful boot, IE4 never gets integrated. With some alterations in setuppp.inf, you can even prevent IE3, Microsoft Network, MS Mail and some advertising from getting installed. Furthermore, 95C's USB support is even better than OSR 2.1's.
  19. As a Windows 95 users, I say: "Hush!". There are reasons to run Windows 95 instead of 98 SE.
  20. As the specs are public, it shouldn't be hard for someone to make a program compatible with Win9x that can extract them.
  21. Back when I inspected the large patch that removed Win9x support, I noted some removed lines that made sure that Win9x got a different parameter for the printer in a certain API call. KernelEX only provides missing APIs, so this problem would remain. I'll look for the relevant part of the patch if I have some time.
  22. I used to think this as well, until I installed Win98 SE. NetBIOS isn't enabled (but it is installed) by default. Maybe this is different in the first edition?
  23. File system security doesn't matter. Once the code can interact directly with your machine, you've already lost. You're assuming they need system priviledges in the first place. They can still hog your CPU and Internet connection as much as they like once they execute from a place the user does have priviledges to. You're forgetting the drive-by exploits like Sasser that exist because NT likes to show its services to the outer world. Conficker also uses a drive-by exploit, though the situation wasn't the same because a patch was out for months before the malware appeared. Still, the services are an attack vector.
  24. It is not native, and compatibility is poor to not too bad at best. I don't know anything about Bochs, only about DOSBox, which is pretty slow compared to the real thing. Tell me why not. I can't see why it wouldn't be possible. You can either add the newer files outside the cabinets, or replace the file in the cabinet and adjust the cabinet size in setuppp.inf. Nonsense. Only professional modern software does, like 3D and video rendering suites. Try Windows XP, then Windows 95, 98 or Me on a Pentium II 233 Mhz CPU and come back. Not to mention XP needs a lot more RAM. We don't care, because we're not OS designers, and the hacks seem to work pretty well for us. And the majority of Windows users run 'recent' OSs. We don't. Besides, what's stopping someone from having a 2nd PC for heavy work and video games? Don't forget that game consoles also exist to play them. I'm talking about security in the sense of compromise, not of permissions. NTFS can hide files in alternate streams, for example. There are other backdoors for rootkits and viruses to use as well. FAT doesn't have this. What about file systems for USB flash drives? I will concede that for very large drives NTFS is often better. But for everything else FAT is king. Not to mention that FAT is much more compatible than NTFS. It has more applications, but that doesn't mean much, as long as you can use those you want to use. As for features, most aren't even used.

  • Create New...