herbalist

After 15+ days and an unknown amount of traffic running as a Tor exit node, my system became unstable, forcing me to reboot. I was quite surprised when I compared the performance of this 98 exit node to the other exit nodes running Windows at the time. There were just 16 exit nodes running Windows that had remained up for an equal amount of time or longer, half of which were server versions. Out of a total of 2448 Tor relays, this is the only one running 98 and was listed as valid, named, fast and stable, a real tribute to the developers of Kex and RP9. I'm fairly sure that the majority of the instability was due to Vidalia, which gives me 3 options. Find Kex settings that will make Vidalia stable in the long run. If it can be done, it's the most desirable option. Run Tor in expert mode without Vidalia. At the moment, this is my most stable option as Tor is stable on 98 on a long run but it does restrict my ability to monitor and control Tor "on the fly". Use Vidalia only to start and check on Tor and kill the process when it's not needed. A quick test using a fixed password shows that I can reconnect to Tor with Vidalia. Unfortunately, the traffic graphs and message logs reset each time. The network map also fails to function properly when used this way. During the last run, I had to set Atomic Time Sync to adjust the system clock every 10 minutes. So far, I can't pinpoint what is causing the system to lose time. I also need to determine if Tor itself is causing any of the long term instability or if it was all caused by Vidalia and/or SocksCap. I need to test if this system can still perform other tasks heavier than web browsing while serving as a relay/exit node. Judging by the memory and resource usage, it should be able to, bit I'm suspecting that there's other limitations that Tor is taxing. For the next run, I will modify the torrc config file, run Tor without Vidalia and try to determine if Tor itself is contributing to the system clock losing time. This will also help to determine if 98 can still perform the other heavier tasks like virtualization at the same time or if serving as a relay/exit node approaches the limits of 98.

I'm looking for a bandwidth monitor for 98 that works with ethernet cards and keeps a running total of traffic volumes in and out. Preferably freeware. AnalogX netstat live doesn't work on mine.

My experience with ME is limited to servicing several of those units. Those were some of the biggest nightmares I've ever worked on. While a lot of the problems were the users fault (huge quantities of adware/malware, almost 4GB worth in one case) the OS was touchy and temperamental in ways I've never seen before or since. I've never owned a PC with ME so I haven't had the opportunity to modify one and see just what it could do or how good it could get. So far, my "ultimate setup" doesn't yet exist. This PC for instance is the one I use for internet and virtualization. Right now it's serving as a Tor exit. I'm not sure if it can do that and run the virtualization software at the same time. ATM I'm hesitant to try it. It's lousy for music, horrible sound quality, pops, squeaks, lots of harmonic distortion. I'm pretty sure that I don't have the right sound card driver but it's the only one I've found that works at all. It can't burn a decent ISO, lousy cd-dvd combo drive that's about shot. For those, my old 98FE HP works great, but it doesn't have the processing power or the RAM (366MHZ 160 MB RAM) to deal with virtualization. I have another Dell that I might try 98 on eventually, maybe this winter. It will be more difficult to do on this one, 2GB RAM and requires a USB keyboard and mouse. Right now, it runs XP. I use it for some gaming and my other half uses it. It might be able to serve as my "ultimate system" but would leave me without a decent PC for XP and the one game I got addicted to. This PC, booted to XP will play it, but 1GB RAM lags too much when it gets busy.

There is still 3 of them? Actually, since most of us are using one or more of the unofficial upgrades that contain some WinMe components, aren't we all running 9X hybrids? Back on topic, a partial list (too lazy to look ATM) Primary security apps, System Safety Monitor 2.0.8.583 Kerio 2.1.5 Proxomitron 4.5 (2003-6-1) Additional pri-sec apps. Privoxy Tor-Vidalia NIS Filecheck Filemap Browsers, SeaMonkey 2.0.14 K-Meleon 1.7 Other (too lazy to sort) Connectix Virtual PC Win ISO Magic ISO Magic disk ImgBurn BurnAtOnce PDFXchange SocksCap Clipboards (multiple clipboard utility) Launchkey Splinterware system scheduler NDN Universal extractor, both versions 7zip Dcopy ISO buster PGP NotePad+ Putty WinSCP Sam Spade µTorrent WinHTTrack WinMerge WinAmp Wink IrfanView WinPCap NMap Ethereal Other miscellaneous utilities, editors, etc, and some stuff I can't think of ATM

There is no official support now. That ended quite a while ago. Everything here is unofficial. With the right upgrades and the garbage removed, running on decent hardware, 98 is an excellent OS. Out of the box on its default settings, it's an unreliable and insecure mess. Yes, a large part of that was due to the weak hardware it usually came with, but a lot of its problems were caused by Internet Explorer. Get rid of IE and 98 becomes a lot better system. IMO, the fewer MS components and apps it contains, the better 98 gets. When I first started using 98 with IE6 and a standard AV based security suite, its usable uptime was a few hours after which it became unstable. When I got rid of that security suite and used Mozilla instead of IE6, the uptime increased to 3-4 days. Stripping out IE completely and switching to a default-deny based security package raised the usable uptime to 2 weeks or better, depending on how hard I used it. Since I installed the unofficial upgrades found here, 98s usability has increased again. What its limits are now, I don't know. ATM, I'm testing how long 98 will hold up running Tor as an exit node. It's been holding up very well, especially when compared to other exit nodes running Windows. If it wasn't for Revolutions Pack, it would have never handled the connection load. Without Kernel Ex, it wouldn't even run the Vidalia component. Their work made it possible. 98 has gone down this road too. Microsoft dropped support, then reinstated it due to the number of users still running it. Eventually they dropped it again. XP is following 98 down this same road. It's ironic when you think about it. A few years back, XP users were telling me I had to "get with the times" and spouting all the usual rhetoric. Now some of those same users are turning to the few 98 users that are left, wanting to know how we deal with planned obsolescense. The only real difference is that there's more XP users, and that's because more people have PCs than they did in the 9X days. This is and will continue to be a repeating story for Windows users. When Microsoft decides to release another OS, it will do everything it can to make it hard to stay with the earlier version, including coercing vendors and manufacturers to make their wares incompatible. That's the price we pay for using Windows.

Most of the worlds users don't want 98 any more. Most of those who have recognized just how good of an OS it can be tend to be here and a few other sites. It's basically pointless to make an install package that you describe. Except for individuals who have released upgrades for 98, it is an unsupported OS, meaning that the user has to provide all of its support. That will include editing , replacing, and modifying files. In order to keep 98 viable, the user has to know how to do these things. Much of the rest of what you list is optional. Myself, I don't want the 95 shell. I like single click. As for the rest of its appearance, I think it looks fine, which is more than I can say for the playschool interface in the newer versions of Windows. Besides, it's easy to alter with Revolutions Pack. Items like Windows update are useless now. Even with the system components, there's big variation in what each user needs. Some of us run 98Lite and don't need or want updated Internet Explorer components.

I don't see why it's such a big deal. Unless your system is running on hardware that's marginal even for 98, running 32 bit isn't going to slow performance enough to notice it. I've run 32 bit on all my 98 units save 1, my old 98FE HP which was 24bit. Using the built in Intel 82845 graphics, this PC runs quite well at 1600X900 resolution, 32 bit using an AOC F22 monitor. I won't claim to know the exact difference between 24 bit and 32 bit. What I do know is that on mine, images look more natural at 32 bit than at 24 bit. To me, that's all that matters.

A lot of the software these discount access companies want to force on you is adware or spyware. The best solution is to find a real service provider and avoid those guys. Beyond that, it might be possible to unpack their sofware and get the settings out of it or selectively block the adware if they're separate installers with classic HIPS, but doing so will violate the user agreement between that's part of their package. Disgusting as the practice of bundling adware with internet access disks might be, this forum wouldn't allow the posting of any methods that described how to circumvent it. Regarding KernelEx, it hasvery little to do with 98 not having the ability to access the internet. It's almost totally compatibility with their undesirable software. A Linux or BSD user would have the same problem with those companies. edit. Until a short time ago, dial up internet access could be obtained around here from the local public library. The service had a connection time limit but for dialup was pretty reliable and fairly fast, at half the price of NetZero. Might be worth a look. Also check this site out. http://www.freedomlist.com/ Also their forum. If there's cheap access nearby, they probably know about it.

A quick update. I've reached a bit of a dilemma regarding which way to go with the testing. This has become at least 3 separate but related tests. 1, Can 98 effectively serve as a Tor relay, for how long, and under what loads? As a client, there's no problems running Tor on 98. 2, Can Vidalia be made to run stable on 98 for an extended period? 3, Can SocksCap be made stable on 98 for an extended period? If not, what alternatives can replace it? Tor itself is running very well as an exit node. At times, Kerio has displayed over 100 connections to it with the average number being around 40-50. According to TorStatus, it has reached the 4 day mark. At present, this is the only relay or exit node running Windows 98 listed there. That in itself is a tribute to all of those who worked on all the unofficial upgrade projects. Vidalia is proving to be another matter. Starting last night, Vidalia has been gradually becoming dysfunctional. First, it stopped displaying the network status. This was followed by the traffic graph and the message log failing. Memload and the system resource meter showed the systems had plenty of both available. When Kerio no longer showed any connection between Vidalia and Tor, I terminated Vidalia via SSM. The graphics errors I described in the Oct 12 post, were beginning to appear again, but disappeared after I'd terminated Vidalia. Kex for Vidalia was set to default, which seemed to work good for the previous version. The default setting for Vidalia was to automatically generate a random password when it authenticates itself to Tor. Unfortunately, if Vidalia crashes or gets shut down and Tor continues to run, Vidalia is not able to reconnect to it when restarted. For all further testing, I'll assign a static password to avoid this problem. At this moment, Tor is running and relaying traffic, but I have no ability to monitor its activity. Tor does not actually require Vidalia in order to work and will continue to function according to the torrc config file. The Tor "expert bundle" doesn't include it, but it is a very useful and handy interface. Any further testing of Vidalia would require me to terminate and restart Tor. Without Vidalia, I have no way to alert the other relays that my exit node would be shut down. For the present, I'm going to continue testing the ability of 98 to serve as a Tor relay until one or the other fails. Without Vidalia, I won't be able to get accurate traffic volume figures, but I can get a good indication from TorStatus and from Kerio's status screen. If/when one or the other fails, I will resume testing Vidalia and SocksCap with different Kex settings (and a fixed Vidalia password so I can restart it if needed).

It seems that every time I try to get a long test run going, Tor updates and I have to choose between running an old version or starting the test over, but this time it's necessary to update. Tor has recently patched a vulnerability that allows an attacker to deanonymize users. More info here. The present stable Tor/Vidalia bundle is version 0.2.2.34-0.2.15, available here. The Vidalia bundle remains compatible with Kex modified 98 systems. I ran the installer with the default Kex settings. Vidalia works with Kex on the default setting. On my PC, the Tor executable seems to work best with Kex disabled. Thankfully, the Tor network has been consistently accepting my system as a valid relay which greatly increases the traffic volume and allows me to test 98 under load. I'm running Tor as a somewhat limited exit node. I had to reduce the bandwidth settings for Tor 24 KB/s average and 32 KB/s maximum due to my low capacity DSL service, which is also my phone service via a separate VOIP modem. When the settings were higher, the bandwidth Tor consumed prevented me from receiving incoming calls. At these settings, both seem to work properly. I haven't changed anything with the old PC I'm using for Smoothwall. I don't have enough network cards to equip another PC for Smoothwall. Switching would require removing the cards from the existing unit, building the next one, then installing,testing and configuring Smoothwall. This would take down both my phone and internet service for an extended period. As far as I've been able to determine, it is not a limiting factor in my home networks performance. The registry changes mentioned in post 5 are still in place. In the torrc config file, I've kept the address entry and removed the KeepAlive entry as it doesn't seem necessary. I can confirm that SocksCap was responsible for the increasing memory usage by kernel32.dll and has also been responsible for a few system lockups. As time permits and as much as I can without shutting down the relay, I'll explore using different Kex settings for the SocksCap executables and into alternatives to using it. SeaMonkey itself is able to connect to Tor via socks but Proxomitron is not. I'm not convinced that SeaMonkey itself (with or without extensions) can be configured not to leak identifiable and trackable data without having Proxomitron filtering the content. Privoxy is a potential alternative to Proxomitron, and it is socks compatible but I'm not familiar with its filtering abilities and limitations. Another possibility would be to use Privoxy strictly for socks compatibility, using it as a substitute for SocksCap, eg SeaMonkey>Proxomitron>Privoxy>Tor. This would require very specific firewall rules and proxy settings in order to prevent javascript, java, flash, etc from bypassing the filtering and revealing your true IP and location. For most users, this isn't that big of a deal, depending on your usage, but in some countries (oppressive regimes) leaking your real IP could literally be a death sentence.

The last Tor test has been cut short, not by 98 crashing but by a power failure here. The increased memory usage by kernel32.dll does appear to be caused by SocksCap. After I shut it off, the memory load for kernel32.dll dropped to 2.6MB. The browser graphics improved some but did not get back to normal. The browser wouldn't render properly at full screen. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by 98s performance. It had handled nearly 4GB of traffic without any problems. I had to reduce the bandwidth settings for Tor as it consumed all of my DSL bandwidth at times and was interfering with the phone service's ability to function. I'm going to change some Kex settings for SocksCap and Vidalia, then start the test again. Hopefully I'll get listed as a valid relay again so I can get the traffic load.

Can you explain more about this issue? (eg. How to test for it, what is the last version of Flash Player not affected?) Joe. I'm not sure how far back Flash Player has been installing a control panel applet. Version 10.3 r183 installs one. I've never managed to make it work. Depending on the Kernel Ex setting for it's real file, FlashPlayerCPLApp.cpl in the system folder, clicking it either gets an error message or does nothing at all.

Some observations after running as a relay/exit node for almost 3 days. Tor has handled 2.5GB of combined inbound and outbound traffic. System and GDI resources have dropped slightly, still over 66%. Processor usage stays low except for when Vidalia is updating the server listings, at which time it's 100%. My system clock loses time when this happens. Since Tor requires accurate system time, I had set Atomic Time Sync to update the clock. Originally the interval was daily but the time loss events are becoming more common and I've repeatedly shortened the synchronize interval, which is now at every 15 minutes. According to Memload, the combined memory load for Tor and Vidalia is just under 30MB. So far, my system has not used the swap file and still has 222MB available of physical memory available out of a reported total of 917MB. This number seems to be slowly dropping, both as reported by Memload and by the system properties screen. My system normally reports 922MB total. I have no explanation for this drop. Memload also reports a substantial increase in memory usage by kernel32.dll. Normally the memory usage for kernel32.dll iis between 400 and 750k. It is now at 8.8MB. I'm not certain that this is due to the Tor/Vidalia load or if SocksCap is causing a problem. According to the properties screen, I'm using version 4.10.2226. It's MD5 is d8fc316196045f3cf4c348bd61fc4540 Are there any known memory leaks or other problems associated with this version? Is there a way to determine why kernel32.dll is using so much more memory than normal? Right now, I'm seeing graphics errors with the browsers (SeaMonkey and K-Meleon), mixed up page elements, desktop items visible thru the browser window, and parts of the page not rendered at all. I'm suspecting a crash is close at hand. I just hate to shut Tor down and reboot since this is the only time my PC has been listed as a valid and active relay.

After concluding that my low traffic levels were due to their not listing my PC as an active relay, I stopped testing running Tor as a relay. After several months and a few Tor version updates, I decided to try running Tor as a relay/exit node again, same settings, new name. After about 30 minutes running, I was listed on their active relay/exit node list for the first time. Because of this, I've seen almost as much traffic in the last 7 hours as I saw the last time in a full week. Several times Tor had 50 or more connections made, both in and out. Other than a couple of version updates to Tor (presently using 2.2.32), not much has changed on my end. Same basic PC and settings. I don't know what changed, but assuming it continues, it's finally giving me a change to test how well an upgraded 98 unit will serve as a Tor relay under a real load and how long it will hold up.

Why virtualize when the real thing runs so well? It's the fastest, most reliable Windows I've used, including 2K and XP-Pro. If Virtual PC 2007 (is that the one that runs 98 properly?) will run on XP without completely depleting the system, I'll consider it for some testing purposes. Myself, I don't have or want Vista or Win-7. As for the other available virtualization options, Win 98 doesn't seem to run well at all on VirtualBox. Puppy Linux didn't seem to behave properly either. The processor stays at 100% when I tried 98 and everything on both host and guest lags bad. So far, VirtualBox has been disappointing for me. Haven't tried VMWare but if I've heard right, it has the same problem with 98. At present, my use for VirtualBox is limited to checking out some of the new versions of Linux. For virtual 98 systems, I've had good results with the old Connectix Virtual PC 5.1. The VPC additions it comes with solve the high processor usage. I haven't tried hacking them to make them work with VirtualBox yet. It makes me wonder why the newer versions have that problem with virtual 9X systems. I starting to think it's deliberate because big money doesn't want 98 around even as a virtual system. Connectix VPC also runs 2K and XP guest systems quite well. I've also run some Linux based CDs on it, including the Acronis Rescue CD, which has opened up all kinds of possibilities, including near-clones of existing physical systems (re-installs some drivers on the first virtual run). The best thing about the original vendors version of VPC is that it runs well on a 98SE host. Microsoft removed a lot of VPCs abilities when they acquired it, a lot more than most people are aware of.

I can confirm the problem with PDFXchange 2.5.198 and 2.5.199. I'm getting the same insufficient resource message. All my resources were over 80% free at the time. Used the zipped installer, installed in XP-SP2 compatibility. 2.5.197 works good. Same results using the portable version. Changing Kex settings doesn't help. Unless tracker is willing to fix this new compatibility issue, 2.5.197 looks to be the last 98 compatible version.

At one time, that might have been possible but nobody ever proved it. There's no need for an AV vendor to do that any more. There's already way more than they can keep up with. Identifying and blocking malicious code was fine when there was a few dozen or hundred of them, not the 6 and 7 digit quantities we have now. IMO, the AV is an idea that has long outlived its usefulness and should have died long ago. The primary reason AVs are still around is because they're profitable for the vendor. They keep users dependent on constantly updated signatures in order to get any semblance of protection (rented pseudo-protection at best). I wouldn't call them a scam, more like a racket where the flawed design of the OS (the "out of the box" default-permit settings) creates the need for something to protect it. On any version of Windows, a user who takes the time to understand how their system works can implement a default-deny policy that will make an AV unnecessary. It's been about 6 years since I've run a resident AV on any system and almost 5 since I've had a manual scanner. IMO, AVs are for those casual users who don't want to know about computers or how they work and don't want any active role in securing it, but still think that they need to run as an administrator. They need an AV to protect them from themselves. The 98CD has a policy editor that's not installed by default. It can be installed from the control panel>add-remove programs>windows setup tab. Use "have disk" and navigate to it. It's located at "Install_CD\Image\tools\reskit\netadmin\poledit.inf". You can use it to create a whitelist of allowed apps and allow only those applications to run. If you want something stronger and more configurable (and a lot more complicated) the free version of System Safety Monitor is the only Host Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS) that is compatible with Win98. Definitely not for the novice. Yes, it is much easier. XP and newer have a lot bigger attack surface than 98. XP and newer systems have a lot of services running by default, many of which are unnecessary for most users. These services often open ports that are completely unnecessary. On 98, all that's open by default are the NETBIOS ports (137-139). Websites like Black Vipers have extensive sections dedicated to Windows services, getting control of them and the ports that they open. On 98, one configuration change will close the few ports open by default. Instructions for closing those ports can be found here. Unless you need or want control over the outbound connections for individual applications, 98 doesn't really need a firewall. Unlike AVs, some of the software firewalls that are 98 compatible are so light that they have almost no impact on your system at all. Kerio 2.1.5 is one such firewall. The single best thing that you can do to stay malware free on 98 is avoid using Internet Explorer or remove it completely with 98lite (even the free version) or IEradicator. Any browser (except IE5) is a better choice. You'll not only be less vulnerable to malware from the web (what little of it still works on 98), your system will be faster and more stable. The bloat masters. I used Norton Internet Security one time for a few months. My boot time went from 45 seconds to over 2 minutes. Once it finally booted up, my system resources were under 50%, before I did anything. With just casual web browsing, my system would run out of resources in about 30 minutes. Norton would pop up every few minutes, claiming to have protected me from a "wincrash" attack (which I think was nothing more than a port scan). A Google search for info on a medicinal plant one day landed me on a malicious page that completely destroyed Norton's built in popup blocker, after which the rest of Norton crashed, followed by the OS crashing. Once I managed to reboot, Nortons AV claimed I was infected and it couldn't remove it. Found removal instructions elsewhere. Removing it was easy. No idea why NIS couldn't handle it. A few weeks later, first thing in the morning, I found several layers of "alerts" from Norton on the desktop. Sometime during the night, something (never could determine what it was) managed to make the PC dial out (was on dialup at the time) then granted itself internet access through Nortons firewall. Norton kept a very nice log of the entire incident but did nothing to stop it. That was the end of Norton on anything that I use. Never again.

That's a new one on me. I never thought to look for such a problem, but then I rarely change resolutions. What resolution was the wrong one and what did you switch to? I'm not sure I even want to try to investigate that one without access to the actual PC. On my old HP which had built in ATI Rage graphics, changing the hardware acceleration level would change the autostarted programs. Above a certain level, an executable that was part of the graphics package was added to autostart. It's been a long time, but if I remember right, if that executable wasn't allowed to run, the PC became quite unstable. This is the only thing I've seen that comes close to what you're describing.

Adobe has released Flash Player 11 as a release candidate. Versions for Internet Explorer and other browsers are both available at Adobe Labs. The present RC version is 11,0,1,129. So far in limited testing, the player is working properly on my Pentium 4, 98SE unit with SeaMonkey 2.0.14. and K-Meleon 1.7a2. I haven't tried it on the older PCs (a P3 Compaq and a Celeron equipped HP). So far, I haven't got the flash player control panel applet to work on 98. Unless something changes between the release candidate and the normal releases, Flash Player 11 appears to be compatible with 98 and KEX.

I've got a Bubble Jet 200 that works too. Probably needs ink by now but I do very little printing. If I remember right, it was with an old P5-133mhz Gateway that I converted into a hardware firewall. It appears that HP has removed most of the drivers and upgrades for the older units. I have several drivers and updates for HPs from that time period, downloaded for PCs I've serviced long ago. I don't know which ones if any will match your PC. Less than 2 years ago, I was using an HP Pavilion 4463 with a 366MHZ Celeron and 160MB RAM, upgraded from 64MB. With 98FE, it was a very reliable unit for many years and still works good. It was a bit weak when it came to videos and flash but did everything else I asked of it. It's still got the original 5.1GB hard drive but has worn out 2 floppy drives and 2 CD drives. If I hadn't been spoiled by the speed of this unit, I'd have no problems using it. Earlier this year, a friend gave me a large box full of old software CDs and floppies. A lot of it looks to be Win95 and older. As soon as I can, I'll inventory it and see if there's anything there others might find useful.

Any user that asks such a question does not have the knowledge or skill to be using an unsupported OS. Even XP, which by default gives these users an administrative account, is really unsuitable for the typical user. The percentage of compromised XP units shows the results of that idea, and the results of "clicking on anything and everything". For those users, I find it hard to recommend anything but a Live CD. For a reasonably skilled user, 98 is a very viable option. Most of those who post here either qualify as skilled users or are working towards that goal, or more accurately,are on that journey. A lot of the experiments I try will crash an OS, 98 and XP alike. Once the system is built and configured, that rarely happens. I can''t remember the last BSOD I had on my 98 unit that wasn't directly the result of some experiment, but I can remember several on XP units I maintain that were the result of automatic updates to an AV. I''d much rather track down what went wrong when the BSOD is the result of one of my ideas than to get called and be told "the BSOD was there when I got up this morning".

Of course ignorant users, ineffective AV based security setups and an OS based on a default-permit policy is the core of the problem, but this is the case with all versions of Windows. I was looking strictly at a 98 install. Which is part of and shares components with Internet Explorer. It's the integration of these 2 with Windows that made it such a useful attack vector. I remember getting hit while using IE6 doing what would normally be considered safe behavior. The site crashed thhe security suite, then Windows. By the time I rebooted, I was infected. Just another IE exploit. Not including user caused problems such as the old Kazaa bundle and all of the junk it brought with it, most of the messes I cleaned on Windows got there via IE6. That brings back memories of how I beta tested System Safety Monitor on 98 for about a year. That's just about how I treated it. It was quite an educational experience and a great way to build a collection of malware and exploit code. It showed me the power of a default-deny security policy, especially when its applied to parent-child settings on a per-application basis. It's so nice when you can let someone else use the PC and not have to worry about what they might do or run into.

Definitely. It gets even faster when you use 98lite to strip out Internet Explorer and the other junk. Screwupgrading, That Dell Optiplex GX260 is the same model I built my present 98 system on. Mine is a P4-2.4GHZ, 1GB RAM. I got rid of the 40GB hard drive and replaced it with a 160GB. All of the drivers are easily available, both thru Dell support and thru Intel downloads. The Intel site has the best graphics driver for this PC. Skip the most recent one. The previous version (4.14.10.3722) works better on 98. Between the unofficial upgrades and the help I received here with the setup, I've ended up with a rock stable and dependable 98 unit that does everything I've asked of it. Whille 1Gb of RAM might not be enough to edit video, it's more than enough to run Virtual PC and a Tor relay. Yes, building a really good 98 unit does require some knowledge (which is abundant here) and it does take a little time. You only have to do it once. After that, you add to it, modify it, and enjoy seeing just how much it can do that used to be impossible on a 98 unit. The teachings of capitalism. They do not hold true when it comes to software. A lot of the best software I know of is free, including the security apps I use on 98. All but one application on my PC is freeware or Open Source. Between them, you can find almost anything you want. Regarding upgrading 98 and what to use: IMO, the ideal format for an updating/upgrading guide would be a branching flow chart. It would take a lot of thought and time to cover the more common variables but the results would be more useful to more people. Example, I've found the unofficial service pack 2.1 to be very good, but it includes updates for files and components I stripped out during the initial setup with 98lite. For me, a package with no Internet Explorer components would be a better choice. LoneCrusader mentioned not using Revolutions Pack because he prefers the original interface. I installed it, but not for the interface update or the eye candy. I wanted the improved resource handling that it includes. Other upgrades like NUSB are almost must have improvements, unless you don't plan on ever using USB accessories. If your hardware is USB 1.0 or 1.1, it's worthwhile getting a 2.0 USB card. Many of them use the Orangeware drivers, which are completely compatible with NUSB. I bought one for my old HP, 366MHZ Celeron running 98FE. Between NUSB and the Orangeware drivers, it works great with external hard drives and flash drives, at 2.0 speeds. Upgrades like KernelEx are necessary if you plan on using a newer browser or the latest version of flash player. I've had better results upgrading all of the system components first, then installing KernelEx afterwards. They're not hacking Google directly. There's an ongoing battle between Google and those who work at manipulating their search results. They poison the results of common searches so that their links appear high up in the list. Those links lead to malicious sites that attempt to infect your system. They use unpatched browser exploits, malicious javascript, vulnerabilities in flash player, PDF software, and most anything that is usually integrated into the browser. Modern interactive web content has only made the problem worse by effectively increasing your attack surface. A default-deny security policy will defeat the majority of the methods used to compromise PCs. The worst attack vector on 98 has always been Internet Explorer. It's also responsible for much of the instability and resource problems that have been blamed on 98.

That is the best reason of all for running dual and multiboot systems. Even though KernelEx made it possible for 98 to run the online multiplayer game I enjoy (too much) 98 can't properly render the graphics. For me, that game is the primary reason I keep XP. Except for that, everything else I do works on 98 just fine. I used to volunteer at a few malware removal forums, a couple of which were linked to specific products. It was sad just how much politics and money figured into what some of them did and didn't detect. It was enough to destroy my trust in signature based detections and got me started exploring a default-deny security policy, its ability to protect your system, and the software that enforces it. One thing I've found is that tight security can be contrary to user convenience but it doesn't interfere with the ability to run user applications. The primary concern I'd have with your approach is the avoiding of "questionable sites". With legitimate sites being compromised at a rapidly growing rate, can any of them be considered a "trusted site"? There are a few very talented individuals here that code these upgrades. The rest of us try them, test them, report what we find, suggest improvements, and enjoy using them. It's the knowledge and dedication of all of those here combined that's making the 98 systems discussed here as good as they are.

Not too unusual. I'm in the process of rebuilding my default PC. I still haven't got around to installing the drivers for the sound card. I also like a quiet PC, the exception being that online game I play. It helps to hear when you're being shot at while playing. Unless I'm playing music, I usually have 98 muted. I don't bother with eye candy either. My desktop is black. Sometimes there's a picture, sometimes not. I did avoid listing the things I dislike about NTFS. But when the discussion moves to OS security, the "newer is better" crowd goes right to that point and all of its alleged advantages, it gets hard to avoid, but I will leave it alone. Too much of what is presented in OS security discussions is nothing more than vendor hype with little basis in fact, while the issue of user privacy is ignored or whitewashed over. Too much of what is part of the newer operating systems has a distrust of the user as its basis. Examples: WGA, DRM, which brings me to a question that's rarely answered decently. When the OS vendor and those it caters to don't trust the user, why should the user trust them?