herbalist

You've got to be kidding. I get more than enough uptime out of my 98 box. I'm lucky if I can find it still on my profile when I get home from work. Uptime doesn't mean much when several people use the PC. At the moment, there's a Dell with XP sitting on the chair, waiting for me to do battle with one of the nastiest infections I've seen in a long time. The AV has been killed by the malware, as has the task manager, registry editor, safe mode, Online AV scanners, and most every tool that would help. If it were 98, it would be easy to clean assuming that mess could have even infected it to start with. A quick drop to DOS would have given me access to everything I need. But no, this "superior OS" will require me to install another hard drive with an OS equipped with all the tools so I can attack it from outside the OS. Of course, the NT file system limits my OS options for this service drive. Every time I get a mess like this, it reminds me why I prefer 98.

Built in USB 2.0 on 98FE? What drivers did this use? Did the 1.1 card use native USB drivers or did it come with its own? I don't know what to say. When I first added the external hard drive, it performed poorly on the native USB. All I planned on using it for was system backups, so the speed wasn't a concern at the time. The USB card was added afterwards to get more USB ports, only 2 on the PC. It's been a long time, but if I remember right, the 2.0 drivers didn't automatically install from the CD and the card initially ran as 1.1. I had to install them manually with the inf file. The difference was incredible. Since then, I've repartitioned the drive a couple of times and have used it for everything. It would be useful for 98 users to determine what is required to make USB devices stable and work consistently on 98. Since they work well for some but not others, the differences should be able to be identified. The only real issue I've had with USB access of the external drive was when using DOS. That problem tracked down to the way GParted partitioned the drive. Once that was found and fixed with PTDD, the USB drive is completely readable and writable from DOS as well.

I won't recommend using the built in USB on 98FE for handling data either, at least not with hardware as old as I'm using. I did have problems when I hooked the external drive to the built in USB ports. They're slow and tend to be erratic. About all I use them for is a mouse or keyboard. The ports on the USB card are a whole different story. I've had the external drive hooked to that card for several years and have yet to lose any data. I'm not sure what you call large amounts of data as it relates to this discussion, but I've had no problems writing or accessing 7z archives of 500-1500MB with FE on the external drive. All of my Win2K backups were made with 98FE and 7Zip. I installed Shareaza on the external drive and it runs fine from there on 98FE. I only have access to a limited amount of USB hardware, but all of it has worked well when connected to the USB card. I'm going to try to borrow that card reader again and test it further on FE, along with a wireless mouse that's not getting used ATM.

An ice cream sandwich!

I'll admit that my built in USB stinks. It's slow and not always stable. The unofficial updates here fixed the stability issues but it's still very slow. After I installed a USB 2.0 card and a more recent version of the Orangeware drivers, (version 2.3 seems to work the best on 9X) every piece of USB hardware I've plugged into it works fine. A while ago, a friend needed a card reader for her XP Pro. The store sold her the wrong one. I bought her one of those universal readers with half a dozen slots, brought it home along with her card and tried it on 98FE. 98 recognized it instantly and I was able to copy out all the pictures she'd taken. On her XP, it works erratically and is a fight to access the file system more than a couple of times. "Unrecognized device" errors. For me, it's been the opposite of what you describe. If I want it done now, I use 98 for the job. So far, these hardware items installed and work properly on 98FE. Stratitec USB 2.0 Card 10/100 network card CDRW WD external hard drive US Robotics datafax modem Creative webcam Universal card reader, don't remember the brand/model Every one of these is from a different vendor. All supposedly require 98SE or winME or newer. The external hard drive was a project to install, mainly because the drivers were packed into the installer which also wanted to install some backup software I didn't want. Once I got them separated, it worked great. Except for an initial hesitation when accessed the first time, it's just as fast as the internal drives. Software installed in an encrypted partition on the external drive runs just as well as it does when installed on an internal drive. I've pretty much concluded that the native USB support in 98 isn't that good, even with the unofficial updates, not on my old hardware. That said, with a new USB card installed, 98 works fine with USB accessories. Ah... the "get with the times" cronies. Part of me is enjoying the fact that those who used to spit out that noise now have to take it, and we 9X users are still here. We're "getting with the times" and we're bringing our OS with us.

It probably is against forum rules. Besides, it serves no purpose other than starting pointless arguments. We get enough of these wars every time a 9X vs NT thread is posted. Lets just all get along.

What do you consider to be "terrible uptime"? I get 3-4 days out of this FE unit without needing to reboot. That's without using KernelEX or the GDI heap extender. Don't take the vendors word for it regarding 98 compatibility. All of the hardware (internal and external) I've added to this 98FE unit installed easily and worked properly the first time. Most all of it was supposedly incompatible.

Does this beta require RP9 or any of the alpha versions to be installed or is it completely self contained?

Paradise/the Spell by Uriah Heep.

Will the forum software accommodate any kind of spam filtering, preferably one where you could enter the words or phrases to be filtered? If the words show up in the title, the post is directed to the trash. I'd also be inclined to think that if the 9X forum was closed, another one would get spammed in its place. A lot of the "flame war" posts start with people who feel the need to post things like "Why do you use that old, obsolete stuff? Get with the times." If I went to the Vista or Windows 7 area and posted something like I doubt that it would be tolerated. But when a post like that comes to the 9X forum, it's left there. We're regularly put in the position of having to defend our choices. Maybe adding something to the 9X announcement area regarding those types of posts might lessen the problem. Hopefully this can all be worked out so that the 9X area stays open. I've been wanting to look into the KernelEX project and the GDI heap extender, if I can ever find the time. Those projects can keep 98 viable for a long time.

Nothing constructive? KernelEX and the GDI heap Extender aren't constructive? The 9X forum and the projects found in it are the primary reason I joined this place and is the area I use the most. I hope this thread and the 9X forum remain open until I get home from work so I can archive the material that I want and post a proper response to this thread.

Album: Sacred Spirit Drums by David and Steve Gordon. Song: Path with a Heart

That also happens when you blow up the speakers in your headphones while you're wearing them.

You could set up the task scheduler to run the free tools on a nightly basis. For tools that don't accept command line parameters, Splinterware makes a free scheduler that can send keystrokes and mouse clicks to the application. With a little experimenting, it can be made to navigate any GUI. SandBoxie is good provided the user launches vulnerable applications in the sandbox. I believe that the paid version has an option to force its usage. Applications run inside the sandbox are largely isolated from the OS. When the sandboxed app wants to create or modify any files, it's directed to duplicate files in the sandbox. It's not perfect, but it is able to contain the majority of malicious code.

Pink Floyd! Got more of their stuff than any other artist. Still got a copy of Echoes on vinyl. At the moment, listening to Kitaro, An Enchanted Evening. Most of their music is very mellow, but this live album is an exception. Hard to describe. It's an oriental instrumental blend of rock and classical. At times, it sounds very similar to Pink Floyd. An incredible album!

That's appreciated, but we 9X users are used to hearing all that rhetoric. MS, security companies, "experts", and all the NT fanboys/puppets have been trying for years to convince us that 9X is so vulnerable, so unstable, so incompatible, and whatever else they can think of. Remember the WMF exploit? While the WMF exploit was hammering NT systems, this 98FE unit was used to capture and submit a new variant that was unrecognized by every scanner on VT. Of course, the first thing said about 9X and this exploit was all scare tactics, and totally wrong. Quoted from http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?date=2006-01-01 This is not an isolated incident. We've been hearing "doesn't work with 98" in regards to hardware and software. All of the external hardware I'm using supposedly doesn't work with this FE box, the external hard drive, the USB datafax modem, the webcam, the card reader, even the USB card card itself. If it was all from one vendor, I'd easily believe it was an error of omission, but each item is from a different vendor. I find it hard to believe that they all made the same mistake, especially when several items supposedly work with 98SE. The same thing happens with software. I'm using several apps that aren't supposed to work with 98FE. I'm not using KernelEX on this unit. Then there's software that would work just fine, and does when the artificial incompatibility in the installer is removed. If it were just a few isolated incidents, I'd accept it as oversights, errors of omission, etc. The sheer amount of mis-information and false incompatibility regarding 98, especially 98FE makes me believe that someone considers its very existence to be a problem. For me, that's one more reason in addition to all the others to stay with 98. Reasons I keep using 98FE: 1, Even with a 366MHZ processor, it's quick. Boots up in 45 seconds. 2, Has remained clean for almost 5 years without an AV in spite of being used by several people. 3, Stable. Even with 160MB RAM, it easily runs 3 days or longer without rebooting. Haven't seen a BSOD in months. 4, All of the software I need runs on it. 5, I use 98 to perform backups and other work on 2K, and vice versa. 6, My preferred encryption program runs on 98, but not on NT systems. 7, A simple batch file called from autoexec.bat enables me to boot up with a clean and optimized registry every time. 8, Every piece of external hardware I've plugged into it has worked properly the first time. A card reader I bought for a friend works better on my FE box than it does on their XP. 9, Since it's unsupported, I don't have to deal with WGA or any other anti-piracy schemes. I don't have to let it connect to MS at all, unlike their newer stuff. 10, I can access, delete, or replace any system file with no interference from Windows without having to use a live CD or a separate OS. My 98FE box does everything I ask of it, and only what I ask of it, nothing more. It's been fast, dependable, rock stable, and resistant to every exploit and malicious page I've found, all on hardware that a newer "superior" OS wouldn't be able to run on. I can't think of one good reason to change.

Unless I'm misreading this, I believe the OP is asking for something to recommend to others, probably clients. All malware detection software miss things. If this malware gets on the system through user actions, which is usually the case, the only sure solution is a restricted account or user environment that won't allow an install. SandBoxie can help if the user will properly use it. If you're dealing with users who install on a whim and repeatedly infect themselves but won't accept a restricted environment, the only thing that might make a difference is making them pay for removal time.

The escape key bypass can be removed with a simple registry change. REGEDIT4 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Network\Logon] "MustBeValidated"=hex:01,00,00,00 I could issue that same challenge for my FE box. Without the login password, the only way in would be to reset the BIOS. For that, you'll have to open the case. Safe mode boot is disabled. It doesn't look for a floppy or CD at bootup. Same old default settings issues.

Nothing to do with the file system?? Try hiding malicious code in an ADS on FAT32. No Rootkits aren't just Windows, but you don't see true rootkits for 9X systems. I've got some malware that comes close to rootkit behavior on 9X, but unlike an NT system, it's visible when it first starts, and in safe mode. I use both 9X and NT systems. For me during casual usage, either one will do. When I'm trying to capture some new malicious code or going to sites that can't be trusted, my 98 box is the one I trust to come out unharmed, not just because it targeted less, but because it has less surface to attack. The smaller 9X attack surface is easier to protect. Except for user mistakes, the amount of vulnerable attack surface ultimately determines which PCs get infected. Excluding user actions, effective attacks against 9X systems have to target applications. If IE6 is removed , a 9X systems biggest vulnerability is gone. Unlike NT systems, the 9X operating system doesn't need to be exposed to web based attacks. Except for DNS, the OS needs no internet access at all. NT systems are exposed by default. Yes, this exposure can be reduced and in some cases eliminated, but that's not something most users can do. On a 9X system, all that needs to be done is to make certain the NETBIOS ports are closed.

I've been an ASAP member for the last 4+ years. In that time, I've battled and removed more malicious code than most users will ever see, most of it from XP. Debating Windows security from a theoretical perspective is useless. No version of Windows is secure out of the box. That is what matters since most of them are used with out of the box settings. It runs in admin mode by default, as do most users. Out of the box, they're all security nightmares. Vista may have improved the security but it has other "features" that I find unacceptable. That's another discussion. The NT systems do provide better separation between users than 9X, aka local security. That has not made it any more secure against threats from the internet. If anything, the NT file system made NT systems vulnerable to a class of malware (rootkits) that is difficult to detect and can be very hard to remove. A file system that makes it easy to hide executables and processes is not a security asset. Each OS has its strengths and weaknesses in regards to security. 9X systems don't restrict administrative access. NT systems have a larger attack surface. 9X is more vulnerable to attacks originating locally. NT systems are more vulnerable to web based attacks. Choose your vulnerability. On NT systems, that separation was defeated so often and easily that the results weren't much better. The "admin mode" only design of 9X systems is not a problem when a default-deny security policy is implemented. That same policy would have put an end to all those privilege escalation exploits on NT systems. Newer NT systems do have more built in tools for improving security, firewall, LUA, etc. 9X systems require 3rd party software to implement the same functions. That said, the 3rd party tools do a better job of it. I'd trust a 3rd party firewall a lot more than the XP firewall. The 3rd party firewall gives better control over traffic to/from system process, not to mention outbound control. I'll also trust a classic HIPS like SSM more than Windows built in tools. SSM allows me to control system processes, not just installed applications. As installed, a 9X system is vulnerable, just like XP. They have different weaknesses, but both can result in a completely compromised system. With properly configured 3rd party tools, 9X can be made secure against most anything except the users themselves. With the right configuration, even user stupidity can be made a non-issue. The same applies to NT systems. This thread has been going in circles and doing nothing useful. Out of the box, they're all vulnerable. They can all be secured against anything but a user with administrative access, including 98. With 3rd party software, an effective limited mode can be created on 98. It may not be part of the original core OS but it will function just as effectively.

I don't know if they're still available, but there used to be themes for FireFox and the Mozilla Suite (the original name for SeaMonkey) including one that made them look very much like Internet Explorer. It made things easier for users who weren't comfortable with changing browsers. There's also some very nice extensions for both of them. They can both be customized to suit your needs. K-Meleon is an extremely configurable browser. If you like tweaking settings, it's got tweaks for everything. It has built in flash blocking, user agent spoofing, proxy switching, one click clearing of all usage records, and much more. A fair amount of what I had Proxomitron doing is built into K-Meleon. It takes a little more getting used to than SeaMonkey but it's more flexible. I originally switched to the Mozilla Suite for the improved security. The improved handling of resources was a pleasant surprise, but the thing I've come to appreciate the most is tabbed browsing. Instead of having multiple Windows open, it's multiple tabs in a single window. It's so much more convenient than working with multiple open Windows. I'm amazed at how long it took MS to copy the idea. They finally did in IE7. K-Meleon is also available as a zip file. I think SeaMonkey might be too. If you don't want to install either, you can try the zipped versions. Just unzip it and go. Someone else will have to comment on Opera and FireFox. It's been a long time since I've tried either one. The last time I used FireFox, it was called Firebird.

Even if IE6 rendered the pages perfectly, there's plenty of other problems. Of all the 9X compatible browsers, IE6 wastes the most resources. The longer it runs, the less available resources you have until it reaches the point that your system becomes unstable. Closing IE6 does not get them back. You have to reboot. With SeaMonkey and K-Meleon, you get back most of those resources when you close the browser or even a few tabs. 9X systems leave something to be desired when it comes to resource management. Until such a time that someone finds a way to fix the problem at the source (the OS itself) keeping a 9X system stable requires using software that makes efficient use of those limited resources. Most MS software does not. Then there's the security issue. IE6 is a 9X systems biggest vulnerability. It was also responsible for a large percentage of the patches on XP. IE6 is the single most exploited application for Windows. Because of its integration with the OS, attacks on IE6 usually result in the OS itself being compromised. I still have IE6 on a couple of the operating systems here, but I will not let it connect to the web without running it through Proxomitron. With SeaMonkey and K-Meleon, Proxomitron serves primarily as an annoyance remover, banner ads, Google links, etc. Used with IE6, it's a primary defense. I'd be inclined to believe that your cellphone connection is the primary culprit here. The amount of processor power that Proxomitron uses to filter out items is less than a browser would use to render the same items. I've always found that Proxomitron speeds up the apparent web speed by keeping unwanted content from loading.

I also prefer to be able to view the contents of an installer before actually installing it, but I don't make that a requirement. For all purposes, you should be making full system backups before installing something like this in the first place. There's always some risk when installing something new, whether you can view the package contents or not. A lot of good software uses installers that can't be opened by a zip program. There are other options for opening installers, like the Universal Extractor that's available in this forum. Version 1.5 runs on 98. 7Zip will open more than WinZip. If viewing the contents of an installer is important to you, use a better tool than WinZip. If a package like Auto-Patcher were being offered by some new member who only had a few posts, I could understand being suspicious. Soporific has been a member for over 4 years and has been maintaining this package here for nearly 3 years. If there was anything malicious in it, someone here would have found it long ago.

350 MB is quite attainable. My lite98FE system is 356MB. No IE or ActiveX, but it does have SeaMonkey with full Java installed, CD burning software, Foxit, and the standard complement of tools. 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? I'd have to do a fresh install to be sure, but I'm almost positive that NetBIOS is enabled on FE by default. It might also be getting enabled when I install IE6. I don't ever recall enabling it but I do remember having to close those ports on several of the images I've built.

SeaMonkey is bigger because it's a full browser suite while FF and K-Meleon are browsers only. SeaMonkey includes an e-mail/newsgroup component that replaces OE very nicely, with an integrated address book, a webpage composer that works quite well, and an IRC chat component. You can choose what components you want installed. IE6 can be removed using IEradicator. You can also use 98lite and not install it to begin with. The preview version will remove IE. The paid version can do that and much more. My 98FE unit still has IE6, as does some of my 98 test units. My regular 98SE unit does not. I also have a 98FE test unit with IE removed that runs circles around the others. IEradicator leaves a couple of files that aren't there when 98lite is used. Removing IE will break some software that uses IE components. Quite often that can be fixed by adding the specific file the app needs instead of installing the whole IE package. When an app breaks, Dependency Walker can show you what file it needs. Often that file can be put in the apps own folder. Removing IE will make the OS faster, lighter, and in many cases, more stable. On a couple of occasions, I have had to dig up a specific IE file to make an app work, but it's not that big of a deal as long as you have copies of the files. As far as removing IE goes, it depends on what you need, as long as you're aware that it can break some apps. Just make a system backup before you try it. You can always reinstall IE6. I'd save a copy of the installer first.