herbalist

Sea Monkey is an excellent tabbed browser for 98. I tried it back when it was called the Mozilla Suite and have stayed with it since. Sea Monkey is a browser suite which includes a mail/newsgroup component, an address book, a webpage composer, and an IRC chat component. Very customizable with many plug-ins, extensions, and themes available. For me, it uses memory much more efficiently than IE6 ever could. IMO, the managers and menus are laid out much better than those on FireFox. It works very well on both versions of 98. With a 166MHZ processor, you won't get much use out of flash, no matter what browser you use. I have used SeaMonkey on a P5-133 with 32MB. It was slow, but stable. There are versions of FlashBlock and NoScript available that work with SeaMonkey. They help block much of the useless content like ads, which will help speed it up even more. Rick

Multibooter, I don't understand the reasoning for some of your choices. Why did you choose FAT16 for the Win98 partition? Why separate the 98 programs to a different drive that's formatted differently than the 98 partition? What is the advantage of doing it this way? My setup uses 3 internal drives with 4 operating systems. Except for the Linux and encrypted partitions, I made all of them FAT32. Considered using NTFS for 2K but opted for FAT32 so I could access it with 98 if I needed to. Rick

98 is not only more secure without IE being integrated into the OS, it's also much more stable and reliable. When all the MS apps that integrate into the OS are stripped out, 98 becomes very easy to secure, not to mention much faster. On my lite98SE testbox, I'm trying a different approach to dealing with apps that "need" Internet Explorer. Instead of installing IE, I'm profiling the apps thru Dependency Walker and identifying the specific files they need from IE. Just getting started with this, so no idea how well it will work yet. T.N.G.O.G. If you decide that you do want to keep IE, upgrade to IE6 and make it one of the first updates you install.

On the original question "what to install first?" The first thing I'd install is drivers and get all the hardware working. Depending on how your drivers are packaged, an app like 7zip or WinRar might have to be the first install. 98 has no built in unzipping software. Get your basic configuring done, network, display, sound, explorer, folder prefs, etc. Then install the update package of your choice. Finish configuring. I'd install the security apps next, then user apps. Internet Explorer is the biggest vulnerability in a 9X system and one of the biggest memory drains. Most any alternate browser is better. Some apps need IE or some of its components. There's alternative choices for most of them. If you install 98 using 98lite, you're more likely to run into instances of software needing IE6 components that aren't there. If you let the CD install IE normally, then remove it using IEradicator, it leaves a few more files behind and quite often it's the files the other apps need. IMO, 98 is a much better OS without Internet Explorer. If you have room for another hard drive and your BIOS allows you to choose the boot order of the hard drives, you could put 2 copies of 98 in one PC, one with IE, one without, and see if your apps need it and which ones. In order to do this, you'll have to build each OS individually without the other drive installed at the time. Build one OS, switch drives, build the other. Install both and choose which you'll load from the BIOS. I'm running 2 dual boot systems in one PC this way. The first is 98FE (with IE6) and Win2K. The other is 98SE (no IE) and Linux. Rick

Thanks. That explains it. I guess I could install it on my 2K box. Might give me a reason to use it once in a while.

After updating innounp.exe, I tried using UE to extract Win32 OpenSSL v0.9.8i. The extraction process seems to work well. The 6.73MB installer yielded 180 files contained in 15 folders, totaling 28.7MB. Near the end of the extraction, I got this error message: As far as I can tell, the extraction was successful, so why am I getting this?

If you like trying different things with the 98 registry but are worried about causing problems, consider using TestRun, a group of batch files that protects your registry by creating and loading an exact duplicate of it. You can tweak on the duplicate to the point that you kill your system, then restore right back to where you started. TestRun is available here. It takes the risk out of registry work. Rick

I've found that the wayback machine doesn't always have the file versions that went with the page dates. Tried doing what you suggested with a different program. The download links were often dead or linked to a newer version than what was on the page.

Thanks Both of those sites will be helpful. I'm not as familiar with MBRs, boot sectors, file tables, etc as I need to be. Never needed to do much with any of it. Learning as I go. I'm gradually assembling all the pieces to build a DOS/Windows replacement for the Acronis CD that doesn't use proprietary formats. I've got a DOS CD that works well with my external drive. Working on LFN support for it. Still need to test command line versions of the archiving tools. I can't complain about the performance of the Acronis CD. It's always worked for me, but there's a couple of limitations I've wanted to get away from. I don't know of anything else that can open one of their .tib archives. I'd much rather use a format that can be accessed and edited with standard archiving tools from within Windows or DOS. I've gotten into a bad habit, downloading and saving files to my desktop and cleaning it up later. On the desktop of my primary unit, it just makes a big mess (there's an image under all those icons somewhere), but on my test units, it's files I can't get to without installing that image on a test drive. Shut down Windows, reboot with the CD, back up the existing drive, pick an archive, choose a hard drive, wait for the process to finish, remove CD, reboot, it's not on this image, repeat process, As much as I get sidetracked when doing something, anything could end up being anywhere. I'm also disappointed in its compression after seeing what 7Zip and WinRar can do. Free space is becoming scarce on my external drive and a bigger one is just not in the budget right now. If 7Zip or WinRar does as well with the other images as they did the first one, converting the backup images would gain me about 12GB of disk space and buy me some time. It's either that or cleaning out the download folder, which is a scary looking job. Rick

I've been experimenting with using archiving utilities for backing up and restoring 98. So far, the results are promising. At the moment, I'm using a 98SE test system which is using 477MB. WinRar 3.51 compressed the drive down to 187MB using what they called "best" compression. 7Zip 4.57 compressed the same drive down to 152MB using "ultra" compression. For a comparison, an image of the same drive made with an Acronis CD was 237MB. I extracted each image to an empty partition, then compared the partition to the original drive using WinMerge 2.10. Both WinRar and 7Zip produced exact duplicates of the entire file system. Does anyone know of a utility that can save and restore a copy of the MBR, preferably one that works in DOS or Windows? On one PC, I'm using the 2K bootloader. The one I'm working on will use Grub when I get it finished. Rick

Not another one of these threads. Read the Why do you still use 9X thread. Why use 98? I use it because it does everything I want. I also have a multi-boot system with Win2000, 98FE, 98SE, and Linux. The majority of the time, 98FE is running. My 98 box runs 24/7, is very stable, and in spite of what you may believe, it is extremely secure. I don't know where you get your information, bit a well configured 98 box is very hard to attack from the net. My security package is all freeware, enforcing a default-deny security policy. No AV, AS, AT, etc installed for almost 3 years. At least 6 different people use it regularly, half of which know nothing about safe computing. It never gets infected. The only way 98 is more vulnerable than XP is when the attacker has access to the keyboard. I don't see how you can call XP more secure. 98 didn't need a dedicated patch day. Shall we compare the number of patches released for each OS or the total MB of those combined patches? What do you have against DOS? If XP had an equivalent that didn't run in windows, rootkits wouldn't be half the problem they are. In the hands of someone who knows how to use it, DOS can be huge asset to security. DOS may not be as versatile as Linux command line but it's more capable than command line in XP. Regarding whether 98 is 32 bit or half 16 bit, who cares? 64 bit is where windows is going, so your 32 bit XP is obsolete as well. As long as 98 does what I need, runs dependably, and protects my data, I don't care 2 bits one way or the other. Must be nice to still be able to see Star Trek. That's a pretty good comparison though. Instead of Landru, I would have used the Borg. Rick

See End of support for Windows 98/ME in OpenOffice.org 3.

Regarding the displaying of the first post, with 98FE and IE6, the page is much wider than the screen. With SeaMonkey 1.1.9, everything fits very nicely on the screen. Same with K-meleon 1.5.0. With SeaMonkey, all but the first codebox have both vertical and horizontal scrollbars. With IE6, only the 2nd codebox has a horizontal scrollbar. I'm guessing that it's the 3rd codebox that's making the screen so wide when such an inferior browser is used. The rest of the posts are normal in all the browsers I have. Rick

Duffy, Check your messages.

I've removed OE from every OS I have except for a couple of test unit images. IMO, it's too vulnerable to trust and too integrated into the OS which makes any vulnerabilities that much more damaging. I've used SeaMonkey since its early days as the Mozilla Suite. It's always worked well for me.

I couldn't help but notice that right after MS bought Sysinternals, many of their utilities became quite a bit larger in size, with no obvious changes in the way they work or their features. Examples: Process Explorer Version 10.04 is 1.37MB Version 10.21 is 3.45MB Regmon Version 7.03 is 417KB Version 7.04 is 600KB Filemon Version 7.03 is 436KB Version 7.04 is 730KB I see no real changes in any of these from the last Sysinternals versions to the MS versions, except that the "save as" option of the MS versions of Filemon and Regmon doesn't work on 98. The previous versions do. I really have to wonder just what they changed that nearly doubled their size or even more. Regarding the EULA, if we work with versions that were released before MS bought them, the old EULA applies, not the new one. I have copies of all the Sysinternals utilities from before the purchase if anyone needs them. Rick

IMO, the best firewall for 98 is an old one, Kerio 2.1.5. It's set up quite differently than ZA and requires a basic knowledge of internet protocol. I've used it since 2003 and see no reason to stop. Download link: http://oldversion.com/program.php?n=keriopf Small tutorial to familiarize you with it: http://www.urs2.net/rsj/computing/kerio/index.html

From the EULA on 98FE: © Back-up Copy. If Manufacturer has not included a back-up copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT with the COMPUTER, you may make a single back-up copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may use the back-up copy solely for archival purposes. Back-up Utility. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT includes a Microsoft back-up utility, you may use the utility to make the single back-up copy. After the single back-up copy is made, the backup utility will be permanently disabled. Except as expressly provided in this EULA, you may not otherwise make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, including the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE.

A lot of USB devices use Orangeware drivers. Most of the time, they're on the CDs that come with the hardware. On my 98 box, version 2.3 seems to work the best. I've uploaded version 2.3 to http://rapidshare.com/files/135651992/ousb2.3.zip.html Rick

Is IE 5.5 any better?Do you have a version of IE6 which is definitively pre-Sebt.2001? I only have v6.0.2600.0000IC which (according to my personal download notes) I downloaded from MS on 20-Sebbt.2001 My copy of IE6 is from 2003. OldVersion has what appears to be the full version of IE6, version 6.00.2600.0000. I didn't unpack the cab files but they're all dated 8/17/01 and 8/20/01 if you want to look into it. I've never worked with IE-5.5. As far as I know, it has the same problem, OS integration. It also has a lot of flaws that were never patched. Version 5.5 may not have any potential problems with "official backdoors" due to 9/11, but it's vulnerable to even more than IE6. IMO, using it is trading away one possible problem and accepting many more that are very real. If I read correctly, the new versions of SeaMonkey work with KernelEX. For me, KernelEX isn't an option, not compatible with other software I use. That said, I don't see a problem with using an older version as long as it's compatible with the web content. Up until 2 months ago, I was using SeaMonkey 1.07, which is from December 2006. The alternate browsers update far more often than IE, at times too often it seems like. It wouldn't be so bad if updating didn't end up making me reinstall most of the extensions I use, then getting annoyed when the update breaks some of them. Many of the updates are bug or vulnerability fixes. Most of the vulnerabilities that are found are not as serious as the ones found in IE6 and can be mitigated in other ways besides a new version. With IE6, it's a broken record: "new vulnerability....may lead to remote code execution..." The usual result when a browser flaw is also an OS flaw. With an alternate browser, a flaw doesn't generally lead to a compromised OS. With a good security policy and software, the effects of a vulnerability can often be confined to just the affected application. My security policy for internet apps is to isolate them as much as possible. If one is exploited, it doesn't automatically allow access to everything else or the OS itself. IMO, an older version of an alternate browser, media player, etc can be used safely as long as the user is aware of its vulnerabilities and adjusts their security policy and system configuration accordingly. Rick

I run SeaMonkey on most every OS I use with good results. The cookie manager works quite well. In its earlier days when it was the Mozilla suite, there were some types of popups it didn't catch, but that's been fixed long ago. SeaMonkey is very easy to configure. IMO, the preferences are much better organized. Even when IE6 is tightened up and secured as well as it can be, it still has one major problem. Anything that compromises IE also compromises the OS, because IE is part of the OS. That integration is Windows biggest security problem because it exposes the OS to the internet. I have to agree that using an alternate browser is the easiest way to prevent most of the internet garbage from getting into your OS. It's been a repeating story, sites that rip IE6 apart can be visited with an alternate browser with no problems. Only one of the OS I use has Internet Explorer installed. The only way it's allowed to connect to the web is through Proxomitron. Rick

I usually use Shareaza for the Gnutella networks, with about the same infected results. Used to have 3 separate AVs installed just for manual scanning. I eventually opted to use VirusTotal for scanning smaller files. With files that are too large to upload there, I run them on a system I built just for malware testing. I don't install anything on my primary unit without running it on that testbox first. I used to do a lot of testing with live malware. P2P was one of my best sources for test material. That's one of many good reasons for staying with 98. I wish I had newer hardware to put my 98 system on. Some day, I'll get to experience that luxury. Until then, I'll enjoy the fact that 98 gives me a secure and viable system on old hardware over which Microsoft, Big Brother, etc have no control. IMO, another of the best reasons for using 98 is its simplicity, which makes it ideal for all kinds of experiments, many of which would be impossible with an NT system. I'd question if that's more of an issue with Nero than with what version of Windows is being used. I'd have to see this repeated with multiple PCs, multiple brands/models of burners, and several different burning programs, each combo tested with both operating systems to accept that as fact. I only have a CDRW, but with 98FE and BurnAtOnce, I've never burnt a coaster and haven't had a CD fail in the last 4+ years. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never had to try to recover data from a bad CD. Whether it's Opera, SeaMonkey, or whatever, I'll agree that it's preferable to run an up to date browser, but it's not a necessity. Quite often, updated versions are released to fix newly found vulnerabilities. Most don't add anything new for the user or to improve compatibility with web content. If the browser connects through a filtering app like Proxomitron, it can often be used to filter out code that contains the exploit. IMO, by using good content filtering like Proxomitron and proper configuration, a user can run older browsers with very little real risk. Rick

Using a hard drive with bad sectors is asking for trouble later. quite often, hard drives with bad sectors are near the end of their usable life. What do you need drivers for? Have you checked the Compatible Hardware with Windows 9x thread? Rick

Many of the security suites have components that can whitelist executables, DLLs, etc. They're calling them Host Intrusion Protection Systems or "HIPS". They used to be called Application firewalls. Process Guard, System Safety Monitor, and Abtrusion Protector were the pioneers. Out of the 3, System Safety Monitor still survives. The AV and big name security vendors didn't come up with the idea. They just copied it, primarily because their development could make conventional AVs and their vendors unnecessary. Unlike AVs, freestanding HIPS or application firewalls are extremely light. Unfortunately, most of them chose not to support 9X systems. As far as I know, only the free version of System Safety Monitor does. In the hands of a knowledgeable user, it can put an end to malware infections, present and future. That's great, as long as you're the only one using that PC. Too often, it's other users besides the owner (friends, kids, etc) that get the PC infected. A well planned default-deny security policy, enforced by the right software and configuration, can make 98 secure against most anything they can do, short of using boot floppies or live CDs. Rick

With a little work and a couple strategic pieces of security software, 98 can be made secure enough that you don't have to worry about what gets clicked on, because it won't be able to run. Instead of using an AV to keep tract of and block several hundred thousand pieces of malicious code, you take the opposite approach. You whitelist the required system processes and installed user software, then block everything else. If it can't run, it can't infect. Not using IE makes the job easier. With some work, IE6 can be made fairly secure. I question if it's worth it to go through the trouble of configuring IE6 to make it as secure as an alternate browser is, as installed. Even if IE is made equally secure, it's still slower, bloated, and resource hungry option that's still inferior in many other ways. Whether it's Opera, SeaMonkey, or whatever, as long as we have an alternative to IE6, 98 will remain very usable. Kex may well address this problem, but there's more that needs to be done. Unfortunately, Kex also has the potential to create new security issues in 9X systems. 9x systems are naturally resistant to much of the code that infects NT systems. By adding new functions from NT systems to 9X, we could be making it vulnerable to code and exploits that previously didn't affect it. Rick