Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by herbalist

  1. I applied the fix to version 2.40.4522. So far, everything seems to be working. Confirmed. That sequence does not exist in the XP versions of that file that I have.
  2. I don't know if it's the same for XP-home as it is for XP-Pro. Online activation for XP-Pro worked for me just 2 weeks ago when I activated a couple of copies on VPC. It could very well happen that the activation servers will be shut down in the near future in order to force users to new equipment. I strongly suggest making an image of the system immediately after activation.
  3. On mine, the version is 2.40.4522 As far as I know, it works fine. It contains the same hex string, but at 2A050. This version came from the 98 unofficial service pack, sesp21a-en.exe
  4. They got pretty extreme about it with 98 too, just in a different way. With 98, it seemed their biggest weapon was deliberately introduced and artificial incompatibility. With XP, it's extreme rhetoric regarding insecurity, hacker heaven, etc. Maybe that because it'll be easier to make newer software work on XP than it is to make it run on 98. IMO, XP is the last version of Windows that a user can really control. On XP, all of the logging/babysitting features can be disabled. With some effort, all of the open ports can be closed. As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to close all of the ports on Vista and newer systems. It's also impossible to prevent them from calling home without using a separate device between them and the internet. AFAIC, the current operating systems are little more than bloated spyware coated in eye candy.
  5. If I had to guess, XP will be maintained (unofficially) longer and better than 98 was. It has a lot bigger user base. Although it's different than Win 7, 8, 10, etc, it's not as different as the 9X systems. 98 supplied the proof that an OS can be maintained past Microsofts so-called "end of life" and be made better than anything they ever did for it. 98 was used to establish the methods and create the tools, tools I expect should see a lot more development on XP. 9X and its users proved that "end of support" is not end of life. I will migrate to XP if I'm forced to, but I'll need better hardware to get the same amount of work out of it. I tried using XP to run the Tor relay on this PC. It rarely lasted a full day. With the same hardware running Lite98SE with the modifications I've found here, it would last 2 weeks or better before needing a reboot. AFAIC, XP can be made reasonably secure with a lot of stripping and service disabling, but it's always felt like I had to fight the OS to get what I wanted from it, or more accurately, to get rid of everything that I don't want. With 98, it did what I wanted and only what I wanted, then stayed out of the way. I wish MS would get off of this twisted "computing experience" concept of theirs. Ones computing experience shouldn't be influenced by the OS. People don't use operating systems. They use programs that run on that operating system. Microsoft don't seem to know the difference between an interface and an obstacle.
  6. I don't install or try out much new software, but haven't run into any software that's failed to run on 98 due to a lack of multi-core support. For me, it's almost always compatibility issues that KernelEx can't fix, such as: Any version of SeaMonkey past 2.0.14 Any version of Tor past Current modifications to Proxomitron that address filtering HTTPS Any applications that rely on the current versions of OpenSSL such as ProxHTTPSProxy. For me, there's no single show stopper. There's a growing number of incompatibilities that I can't compensate for. I didn't regard using an older browser as a security/privacy risk as long as Proxomitron was filtering the content. With Proxomitron unable to filter the current HTTPS, the browser is exposed and is becoming increasingly unsafe to use. With Tor, it won't be long before version won't be allowed to serve as a relay or exit and may not be accepted as a client. When that happens, I either have to: 1, Install linux and learn to secure it well enough to serve as an exit, 2, Shut the exit node down. Slowly the decision is being made for me.
  7. They may run on 98 but do they work the same way on 98? I'd suspect that they're designed to take advantage of multi-threading/cores when it's available in a way they understand. As I understand it, it would take a complete rebuilding of 98 to accomplish that. By the time that happened, it wouldn't be 98 any more. I'd like to see the ability on 98 to assign a processor to an application, like giving Tor or VPC its own processor without having to completely rewrite or recompile the application. Then again, the current versions of both don't run on 98, even with KernelEx.
  8. Even if it were possible, it wouldn't serve much purpose. Most of the applications that could benefit from it won't run on 98 anyway.
  9. I don't know how version 3.32 of the service pack compares to version 2.1a, which is what I used. When I built my 98 unit, I installed the chipset drivers first and saved KernelEX until last. I seem to recall that KernelEX behaves somewhat differently on units with older processor types than it does on a P4. Unless you need access to an NTFS drive for the updates, I'd save that for later, after the OS itself is complete and stable.
  10. I'll pass on this one. The download is almost as big as my current XP install and will replace too much of what I've stripped out.
  11. Forgive me if I missed it. I see you mentioned including several versions of net framework and have also mentioned uninstallers for them. Are the net framework versions optional installs? If not, could they be made optional? For those who don't use or want it, it makes more sense than installing, then removing it.
  12. Thanks. Real life is leaving me almost no time. Hoping to get back to things this winter.
  13. Is this possibly a regional problem? I just created 2 new virtual XP-Pro systems. Both were activated online, one in the normal fashion, the other via Tor. No problems with either one.
  14. Starting in version 0.2.16, Vidalia uses a different location for its data directory. From the changelog: On my system, when Vidalia .2.17 starts, it creates C:\application data\vidalia and no longer uses /windows/application data/vidalia. It appears other data and config file locations have also changed. Some of the paths are not found on 98 units. So far, I haven't managed to get Vidalia .2.17 to work properly. Vidalia has been something of a problem on 98, even when it did work. Version 0.2.15 works fairly well. If you really want Vidalia, try that version. I stopped using Vidalia. IMO, it's more trouble than it's worth. For all purposes, Vidalia is nothing more than a GUI, log reader, and configuration file editor for Tor. On 98, the Vidalia network map is unreliable, works part time. For the message log data, Tor can just as easily send that data to file.
  15. Would you have a link to that version? Only one I can find is the newer version.
  16. The could very much depend on what gets defined as services on a 9X system. To my understanding, mprexe.exe, msgsrv32.exe, and mmtask.tsk are core system components. DDhelp and spool32 are support applications that can be and often are parented by any number of processes. The OS itself does not require them to be running. Services are those items listed under the RunServices key which are parented by mprexe.exe. Most items listed under that key are updates like the 891711 fix, the task scheduler, and applications like firewalls or other apps that need to start before explorer.exe runs. In this regard, mprexe.exe functions are similar to those performed by services.exe. The difference here is that none of the services listed in RunServices are required OS components. They can be shut down without killing the OS. On 9X, the services aren't opening ports by default and aren't interconnected in such a way that disabling one disables other you might need. IMO, the services based design of the NT systems adds far more processes than are needed and makes it more difficult for the user to maintain control. Edited typos
  17. Using SeaMonkey 2.0.14 most of the time, K-Meleon 1.7a2 on occasion. The present version of flash player, 11,1,102,62, is working properly here on both browsers. I seldom look at videos, especially YouTube, and usually have to bypass Proxomitrons web page filters before they'll play. Can't remember the last time I needed java for a website. It's not up to date. Regarding: I see this once in a while when Proxomitron is bypassed. This turns up on both 98 and XP here. I'm not sure that this is related to OS version or available resources. A friend with XP-IE8 on a PC with 4GB ram gets those errors too. For the most part, pages render well. I can't say they appear as they are intended, not with Proxomitron ripping out ads and other unwanted items. Some of the pages change big when I bypass Proxomitron. Most of the time, I don't allow a user agent to be sent and block the scripts that try to identify or fingerprint my system.
  18. It appears that my "wish list" suggestion was unclear. When I made the above suggestion, I was asking if it was possible to emulate (imitate, fake, insert correct term) individual services for user apps that require them, and to provide the means for 98 to run the specific services that are part of some user applications. SandBoxie, VirtualBox, SSM pro, and some of the newer firewalls come to mind. SandBoxie for instance would be an excellent foundation for a security package on 98. Part of the problem with implementing actual NT services in 98 is their interdependency. One service requires another to be running which requires yet another, which opens these ports, etc. Many of them end up requiring Remote Procedure Call, which IMO, is the last thing 98 needs. AFAIC, one of 98s strengths is the level of control the user retains. That level of control gets more difficult to maintain when services enter the picture. NT services are regularly targeted part of the attack surface of NT systems, an attack surface that doesn't exist on 98. Keeping them up to date and patched against the latest exploits would be extremely difficult. There are no existing tools that could secure or protect this expanded attack surafce. Even if the security issues could be addressed, they would still add more running processes and additional load on the system, which would decrease performance.
  19. I don't see that as a viable goal. We're not competing with XP and Win 7 or trying to increase a market share. We're modernizing the OS we prefer to use. Earlier you asked: Why convert 98 into an OS we already have? Instead of doing all that, why not just use Win 2K? I can't speak for everyone here, but one reason many of us use 98 is that we don't want to use an NT kernel or a service based operating system. IMO, we'll do better making 98 into the OS it could have become, not converting it into something we already have. 98 has become much more capable and stable than it ever has been and is still getting better.
  20. Is this what you need? http://www.mdgx.com/newtip10.htm Look for DMA_ON.exe
  21. Do you have a registry backup from before the changes? If so, back up your present registry and load in the old registry. It could be something as simple as a bad or missing entry.
  22. My old HP with 98FE has a list similar to Giant 2011's but not quite that bad. It hasn't seen a reformat in a very long time. I have no idea where some of those apps and files even came from. It was built over a very long time period. When the HP was my only PC, I wanted it to be able to do everything, open anything, etc. Quite naive considering it has a 366mhz Celeron. Since then, my approach to equipping a PC has changed. Now I equip a PC to do what I need. It not only cuts down the overhead, it reduces the attack surface. I don't have to worry about NetFramework or WMP exploits. I don't have them. I can't remember the last time I had an app that needed them. GIMP is another example. Nice program that does just about anything you could want with image files. Except for playing with it, I never used it. My system.dat is 2117KB and the user.dat is 401KB. Regarding: The link in my signature shows an easy way that requires no additional tools. I make a backup of my system before installing anything. Instead of uninstalling, I just restore the system. An install monitor like Inctrl5 will show you every file, shortcut and registry change and install creates. Clean as you go and don't let it become a mess to start with. I separate the users data from the OS, each on its own partition. The swap file is on a dedicated partition. The browser cache and temp locations are moved to a ramdrive. This makes the system drive quite small and fairly static, save for new installs. This really cuts down on the maintenance. In theory, indefinitely. We might be able to run the very latest apps but then we don't really need to either. As long as the OS runs the software and interfaces between the hardware and the user, it's viable. The rest is bloat and not needed. M()zart, Do you have room for 1 or 2 more drives in that case? My old HP came with a 5.1GB and wouldn't recognize a 10GB drive. I added drives stripped from older units, varying from 2 to 4GB, which gave me room for a dualboot system. What helped the most was the addition of a USB 2.0 card. Originally, all I wanted was more USB ports. Everything I'd seen said 98FE wouldn't handle USB 2.0, which proved to be totally false. With the Orangeware drivers the card used plus NUSB, it was completely USB 2.0 capable and allowed me to hook up a much larger external drive. The USB was fast enough that I could run apps from the external drive. The built in USB wasn't 2.0 capable enough but the card made all the difference.
  23. As far as I can determine, the last crash was due to a conflict between System Safety Monitor and the latest version of Kernel Ex. Keeping these 2 compatible with each other has been problematic with Kernel Ex adding and modifying APIs and SSM hooking the same APIs. The Kernel Ex settings for the 2 primary SSM components, SysSafe.exe and mchook9x.dll, greatly affect how they interact and SSM's ability to function. This conflict appeared to be resolved with Kex 4.0 but looks to have reappeared with 4.5.2. For the moment I've left the Kex settings for mchook9x.dll on default and disabled Kex for SysSafe.exe with the "Don't use these settings in child processes" option checked. For the most part, the gradual depletion of resources does not appear to be related to Tor, but the steady increase in RAM usage does. Before I do any more with Tor, I need to sort through the SSM-Kex interactions and determine why it resulted in so much resource depletion. While not directly related to running Tor on 98, I also need to determine how the different Kex settings for the 2 SSM components affect its ability to defend a Kex modified system. With more governments and entertainment industry watchdogs regarding Tor as a threat to their authority and/or profits, the possibility of Tor exit nodes being targeted for attack is increasing. While Kernel Ex is doing wonders for making 98 a viable system that can run todays software, its effects on 98 in regards to its vulnerability to exploits in user applications and the ability to defend against them is unexplored territory.
  24. After finding the issue with Kerio logs and RAM usage, I started looking for other processes that were consuming resources and RAM, shutting them down and restarting them. When I shut down SSM, available GDI resources went up to 80%. They remained there after I restarted SSM, but the system had become unstable and eventually crashed. The majority of the errors pointed to user32.dll and were general protection faults.

  • Create New...