herbalist

It's been several years, 2003 I think, so I don't remember the exact quantities. A WinME unit I serviced for a friend was so incredibly clogged, it took a full 5 minutes to boot up, and 2 minutes to load a simple web page. At most, it could run about 30 minutes before crashing, or about 5 web pages, whichever came first. The AV was years out of date with 2 teenage users. It had Kazaa on it for a long time, and all the garbage that comes with it. CoolWebSearch. Too many trojans to remember. Tools like Ad-aware and SpyBot would just freeze up. Couldn't update the AV or install a new one. The malware processes defended each others files and autostart entries. System files had been replaced with malicious copies. The only tool I could effectively use to start was an old copy of F-Prot for DOS, back when it all fit on 3 floppies. By the time it was over, 2 days later, the PC had 5GB more hard drive space than when it started, most of it adware/malware and stored banner ads. The web pages that had taken 2 minutes to load were now loading in 2 seconds. Malware was different back then than it is today. Most of it today is pretty stealth. Back then, it was very "in your face", challenging you to get it out. Thankfully, it was on a 9X system and DOS was the tool of choice. Rick

The latest version works fine on both versions of 98. It definitely seems that way. It's bad enough when a software, driver or hardware vendor doesn't mention that their product works with 98, but I've actually found instances where the products box or manual makes it a point to say the product does not work with 98, only to find it works just fine. We've also seen several instances of apps that don't work with 98 because of version checking in the installer. When the version check is fixed, the apps work fine. I can accept not mentioning 98 because of its unsupported status. When vendors resort to creating false incompatibility with the installers or giving the users false compatibility information, I have to believe that there's other reasons besides Microsoft dropping support and vendor profits. If a vendor sells a hardware or software product that works with 98, how does it benefit them to lose those customers by making their product incompatible? It does seem like someone has a problem with 98, someone with enough money and/or power to get vendors to do those things. Care to bet that DOS and the access/control it gives the user over Windows is the reason? Rick

Very true. It's also a good idea to save copies of the software you use. Not all companies make the older versions available. The same applies to drivers and patches released by your hardware vendor. At least one printer company has removed the 9X printer drivers from their site. If you should ever need to reformat, having copies of everything you need will save you from a lot of searching. Setting up a default-deny security policy might sound intimidating, but it's not as difficult as you might think. It can be done a little at a time. You can keep running an AV and other conventional security apps while you slowly harden your system. Rick

Software patents and intellectual property only benefit the company that owns them. They interfere with competition and make good software development difficult for everyone else. Sadly, we live in a world where big companies like M$ can purchase influence and get laws written that benefit them at the expense of the people and small companies. They're wrong and should be outlawed, but lawmakers don't have the moral backbone to change it. If we managed to produce code worth patenting, doing so would only make the situation worse. Rick

With software and security app vendors dropping support for 9X, the user now bears the support burden. The user can't rely on Microsoft latest patches, the AV vendors newest definition files, or a software vendors next version to patch the latest vulnerability. The situation isn't as bad as it sounds. New media formats and file types may present problems, but everything that works now will continue to work. Firefox 3 might not work but SeaMonkey does. IMO, it's better than Firefox. Miranda is an excellent multi-protocol IM program that works well on 9X. Open Office runs well on it. Foxit works in place of Adobe Acrobat. Check out the Last Versions of Software for Windows 98 for lots of options. Regarding security apps, conventional AVs, anti-spyware, adware removers, etc might be dropping support but 9X systems can be secured very well without them, and at no cost. An older version of a firewall will work just as well as a new one, probably better as the older ones were designed when hardware wasn't as powerful. I have yet to find a better firewall for 98 than Kerio 2.1.5, which hasn't been supported for a long time but works great. The resident AV and all the other "anti" tools can be made unnecessary with a default-deny security policy enforced by the right combination of free software and system configuration. I stopped using a resident AV in mid 2005 and removed it completely in early 2006. In order to do so safely, you do have to be very familiar with your system and the processes that run on it. Instead of the conventional blacklist approach used by AVs to keep tract of an incredible number of malicious files and processes, you whitelist the known good processes and user apps on your system and block everything else from running. Properly implemented, such a policy will protect you better than any AV and/or anti-spyware. IMO, 98 can be used on the internet until IPv6 is fully implemented or most of the major formats that deliver internet content get changed to something 98 can't open. Rick

Agreed. Some of us have never stopped using it. Just because MS stopped supporting it and other big money businesses want it dead doesn't mean we have to let it happen. I see nothing in their EULA that says we have to let it die after 8 or 10 years. The Open Source community is far more responsive to the needs and wants of the user and the software they maintain shows it. How long did it take MS to add tabbed browsing? Microsoft doesn't respond to the wishes of the user unless it hurts their bottom line. Maybe we can't actually "Open Source" 98 but we can have Open Source improvements for 98. Rick

See http://www.msfn.org/board/Adobe-Flash-Play...24-t115186.html Rick

IPv6 is being deployed as we speak. Eventually, we will have to deal with it. If the goal is to keep 9X viable for the foreseeable future, IPv6 compatibility is one thing it will need. If I'm understanding this correctly, the only real legal issue here is redistributing MS code that didn't come with the 9X systems, not replacing or patching that code. I can accept that there were problems with the way this was approached in the beginning. That said, is there any reason that a community project to improve 9X and keep it viable in the future cannot become a reality? Don't get me wrong here. Many of you have done some great work on the different projects that have really improved different aspects and parts of 9X. It's just that so much more is possible and needs to be done if 9X is going to be usable 5 or 10 years from now. Rick

I don't see why a community effort to improve 9X and expand its usefulness should be illegal. As far as I can tell, about the only thing we can't do is use MS files from other OSs that we don't have licenses for. There's definitely no law against adding non-MS files to it. If that's illegal, then installing any non-MS software is also illegal. If no one wants to go along with a community effort to keep 9X viable, how about a project that addresses what will be an issue for all 9X users, IPv6 compatibility? Rick

I think it would be prudent to include MD5 signatures with the packages, zips, and/or individual files. It takes very little time and effort to calculate MD5 signatures and list them with the files. My concern isn't just corrupted downloads. It's an unfortunate fact that websites and servers are being compromised at an alarming rate. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,145151-c...rs/article.html I'd hate to see a project like this compromised or those testing the files become infected because some individual decides to replace the files with malware or some company considers an improved 98 to be a threat to their profits. We've already seen MS, software vendors, and hardware suppliers resorting to creating "9X obsolescense" with version checking in installers or just misrepresenting a devices or applications 9X compatibility. I can only imagine what the entertainment industry would think of an improved 9X system that could play protected content and still give the user full control over the OS and file system. It might be paranoid on my part, but I wouldn't put it past them to sabotage the project. Rick

The thread title gives the impression that this is for all 9X systems. Is this going to be for 98SE only or will it eventually expand to include all the 9X operating systems? I realize that 98SE is regarded as the best of the 9X systems by most of the members here. For myself, I haven't been able to make SE match the overall performance and reliability I get from my 98FE workhorse. If you need a file version/date list for 98FE, I could make a listing of what's on this box. I have copies of all the updates and patches that have been installed on it over the last 5 years. I'm sure others here who use 95 and WinME could do the same. Rick

Regarding the list of files, would it be better to have separate lists for each OS or one that covers all of them? It also might be helpful to include digital signatures for the files to help differentiate between standard system files and those that are patched by 3rd parties. Rick

It is not possible to make a hosts file that includes all the malicious sites, or all the adservers, or all of any kind of site someone might want to block. Malicious sites and servers change by the minute. Trying to keep tabs on all of them is an impossible task. It's far better to secure a PC by reducing the attack surface and closing the holes that serve as entry points. That way if a user encounters a malicious site, there's a good chance it won't be able to do any damage. Rick

Seems to me that the first thing we need is a place to come together and share ideas, data and the actual files and code, a place that's entirely under our control. The details can be dealt with afterwards. Basically, we all want the same thing, to keep using 9X and to keep making it better. If the problem is paying for or setting up a server or paying for the internet service, lets figure out what and how much we need and get it done. Has anyone contacted LLXX to see if she'd be interested in joining this project? Rick

Count me in. I'm not a coder but I can test the individual files and/or full project(s). Rick

Properly configured System Safety Monitor can protect a PC better than any AV. The free version works very well on 98 and is much lighter than any AV. When combined with a lightweight firewall and web filtering software like Proxomitron, 98 can be made very secure. The only downside is that it does require that the user is reasonably knowlegable about their system and the processes that run on it. Microsoft might not be supporting 98\ME any more but others have taken up much of the slack. Check out the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME section of this forum. There's some excellent projects here. Rick

The trial version of 98lite gives you a choice of sleek, chubby, and overweight, all of which are still lighter than a default install. Sleek uses the 95 shell. The other 2 use 98. Chubby has no web integration or active desktop features. Overweight does. http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html Even on the "chubby" setting, enough IE components are removed that apps that use IE components will not install. IEradicator leaves just enough components behind to allow those apps to install. WMP and other media players are some of them. Can't remember the others at the moment. Rick

Flashplayer 9 works well for me on both 98 and 98SE using a 366Mhz processor. Once in a while, some flash based games get a bit sluggish but no other problems. Rick

Flashplayer9r47winax.exe from the archive collection can be made to work with IE6. This worked on my 98FE box. My 98SE box doesn't have IE installed so I can't try it there. This assumes version 124 is installed. Filenames for version 124 contain "9f". If version 115 is installed, the filenames will contain "9e". Version 47, the last one that works properly contain 9d. To make flashplayer9r47winax.exe work proceed as follows. Files: In C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\MACROMED\Flash unregister "flash9f.ocx", then delete it. Delete "FlashUtil9f.exe". Delete "uninstall_activeX.exe". No need to run it. Delete "install.log". Registry: Delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Macromedia\FlashPlayerActiveX and all subkeys. Delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Macromedia\FlashPlayer and all subkeys. Delete HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Macromedia\FlashPlayer and all subkeys. Install flashplayer9r47winax.exe. Register "flash9d.ocx" Some time ago, I made 2 shortcuts in the "SendTo" folder for quick registering and unregistering of files. To register add shortcut: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\REGSVR32.EXE To unregister, add shortcut C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\REGSVR32.EXE /u Makes it fast and easy. Rick

No success with 9.0.47.0_winax. Installer seems to work properly but flash doesn't work.

I'm using 9.0.47.0 with SeaMonkey on 98FE. It works properly on those 2 links. 9.0.115.0 does not on either IE6 or SeaMonkey. Will be trying out the Internet Explorer version shortly. Rick

So far, no problems on a litePC 98SE testbox that has Internet Explorer removed. Working good. Rick

IEradicator also works very well. It's not quite as thorough as using 98lite but it's more than enough to really lighten up the load on 98. My 98SE box has been IEradicated and has yet to drop to 80% available system resources, no matter how long I use it. My 98FE workhorse, which has IE6 and way too much more installed, seldom drops lower than 60% when using SeaMonkey. IE6 uses up 98 more than any other browser I've tried. Regarding IE7, I don't have much experience with it. Only a few of my clients wanted it, and about half of them are considering removing it. To me, it seems slower than IE6, even on fairly powerful hardware and has stability issues. Even if IE7 could be made to run on 98, there'd be nothing gained from using it. Rick

I'm not sure if this is related to the unofficial service pack or if it's strictly a windows update problem. Every time I have WU check for needed updates, it claims that I need 823559 and Security Update, March 7, 2002. WU says the install is successful each time, but it always shows them as needed. If it matters, Internet Explorer was installed after the unofficial service pack. Rick

I've got a Stratitec USB card in my 98SE box. It came with the orangeware drivers, version 2.06 I think. I upgraded these to version 2.3, which seems to be the best overall version for my PC. Version 2.41 didn't work nearly as well. The USB that's on the motherboard is 1.0, 98FE hardware. I removed all the orangeware drivers, installed NUSB 3.3, and rebooted. After rebooting, Windows still tries to install PCI USB drivers. It doesn't accept anything from NUSB 3.3, wants OUSB2HUB.SYS and OUSBEHCI.SYS. Without them, device manager says "drivers not installed". Are the NUSB drivers supposed to replace/substitute for the orangeware drivers? When plugged into the USB card, the external HD works but is much slower than with the orangeware drivers. When using the USB plugs on the motherboard, there's also a long delay in the opening of folders, extracting archives, etc in addition to the overall slowness. Rick