Jump to content

herbalist

Member
  • Posts

    733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by herbalist

  1. Regarding NT systems, I do keep forgetting about the pre-2K systems. The earliest NT system I've used is 2k. It was OK if one excludes some rather strange oversights from an OS that was supposedly built to be multi-user, and the NTFS file system which I consider a security/privacy liability. The first thing I do with every 2K or XP system I get is convert it to FAT32. You're definitely right about present day operating systems and their suitability for the average user. For them, even the so called management via Windows Update is better than no management at all. That said, combining a "typical user" and an unsupported OS, whether it's 9X or NT is a mess waiting to happen. Most of the readers here don't fall into this category. Those typical users are on Facebook maintaining imaginary farms. Most reasonably knowledgeable users can also see how badly the conventional approach to security (default-permit based AVs) is failing, but continues to be pushed because it's profitable. For a user that's willing to learn, a 9X system is easier to secure, if for no other reason, that's there's so much less attack surface to defend. Compared to 2K or XP, the purposes of the few (in comparison) running processes on a 9X system is obvious, making it much easier to decide what should and shouldn't be allowed. By comparison, the services alone on XP and newer systems are so interlocked that closing a port can require the disabling of several services, some of which might break other features the user actually needs. They seem to be designed to have a large attack surface that's difficult to eliminate. It's obvious that MS didn't learn a thing from Slammer and the consequences of unnecessary ports opened by default. It won't be that long before this gets exploited again.
  2. Except that it doesn't handle files larger than 4GB, I don't see a problem with 98. Unless you're into movies and big videos, how often will such a limitation be reached? The software and hardware limitations of 98 are for the most part artificial, largely because the apps that build the software are configured by default to make it that way. KernelEX addressed a lot of this. Except for attack surface apps, there's no reason that everything has to be the latest version. Except for apps that handle the most recent web content, the older versions of apps do the job as well as the new ones and are often lighter and better coded. Other than handling large video files and modern games, what else can't 98 do? Unless you're talking about the typical user that knows little more than how to turn the PC on and browse, I completely disagree. 98 can be made just as stable and secure as an NT system. I can't remember the last time I had a BSOD on my 98 system during non-experimental use. It's beyond my understanding how anyone can call an NT system secure when: 1, It's uninfected lifespan was being measured in minutes for quite some time. 2, XP and its NT kernel made rootkits a household word. 3, The size of the patches released for XP exceeds the size of most fully equipped 9X systems. 4, Was found vulnerable so often that it needed a regularly scheduled patch day, and even that was too slow. 5, its NT file system easily hides data, usage tracks, and executables from the user. 6, It has a huge attack surface due to all of the unnecessary ports open by default. As far as I know, on Win-7 some of them can't be closed without disabling large parts of the OS. On 98, one tweak closes them all. I would trust a properly secured 98 system much more with financial transactions and sensitive data than I would XP. The majority of the keylogging malware and rootkits are designed to exploit NT systems and won't function on 98. In the last several years, many of the exploits that worked against XP and other NT systems did not work on 98. With 98, I could safely browse the sites that were compromising the NT systems that went there. I won't give XP access to my e-mail account. IMO, anyone who trusts an NT system with "critical information and solid online security" is not looking at the track record of the NT systems, how often and how badly they've been exploited, and how difficult it can be to remove some of that malware once they are compromised.
  3. I was somewhat surprised to see the built in Intel graphics being listed as a problem. Mine uses the built in Intel 82845 graphics chip but the rest of the chipset is 82801. It has no problems with 32 bit color and a 1600X900 resolution. A different driver might make all the difference. I'm using version 4.14.10.3722, which has worked better for me than the newer drivers. Intel still has download links for all the drivers at this page. Click on discontinued products. They've made all the difference in the world on my system.
  4. Dialup is definitely a big part of your problem. It's wasn't that long ago that it was my only option as well. Any OS will feel dead slow on dialup if you've used DSL or better. There are a few things that can help speed things up for you. 1, Use an alternate browser. Internet Explorer 6 is slow compared to SeaMonkey and K-Meleon. 2, Use a web content filtering app such as Proxomitron. Most of the time, it's ads and javascript that slow down the web. Pages load much faster with the junk removed. Extensions like FlashBlock will also help speed the web up. 3, Use a rule based firewall. Contrary to popular opinion, a good firewall doesn't slow your internet. It can in fact speed up the apparent speed by blocking system components (like Windows Explorer) from consuming bandwidth. The difference isn't big, but on dialup it can be noticeable. 4, Use a download manager that supports pause and resume. They're a lifesaver when you lose connection. When I had dialup, I used Star Downloader which was excellent on 98. I managed to download an entire Knoppix Live CD with it by pausing it during the day and letting it run at night. My present 98 unit started as an XP-Pro, converted to dual boot. It has a Pentium 4, 2.4 GHZ with 1GB ram. Both operating systems are modified, stripped down, and well tuned. Comparing the 2 as fairly as I can: Speed and reliability: 98 starts up and shuts down faster. On DSL (1184/448Kbps) their internet speeds are about equal. User apps seem to start up and run at about the same speed. USB speeds seem equal, thanks to NUSB. There might be speed differences but I'd have to measure the speeds to tell. There's no noticeable difference. Regarding stability and reliability, using just "official" updates and upgrades, XP is far more reliable and stable than 98. If you remove Internet Explorer and the other excess components with 98lite and add the unofficial upgrades like KEX, RP9 and others, then 98 becomes a very stable and reliable OS that performs far better than it ever did when it was officially supported. Compatibility: There are some apps that I can't run on 98, even with KernelEX. One is a multi-player game I enjoy. 98 can't handle the graphics. 98 can't run the latest version of SeaMonkey, 2.3.3. It can run version 2.0.14 with KEX. I don't play facebook games or stuff like that, so I have no idea how they compare at this. For my use, both work just fine, and as far as I can tell, they work the same. Both OS run the latest version of Flash Player. Both will play flash full screen. The rest of the software that I use runs equally well on both, with one surprising exception. For me, Tor-Vidalia has been more stable on my 98 unit that it is on XP. Both OS work equally with the USB devices that I have, an external hard drive, a couple of flash drives, and a card reader that I borrow on occasion. I haven't managed to get the printer/scanner/copier combo unit working properly on 98. Haven't found drivers. The same applies to a Phillips Webcam, no 98 drivers. Security: Users that prefer security packages based around anti-virus are finding that most are dropping support or already have. Default-permit based solutions are no longer a viable option for 98. While most malicious code doesn't target or work properly on the 98 operating system itself, there is plenty of malicious code that targets applications which do run on 98. The only real option left for 9X users is a default-deny security policy, which is also the most effective solution for all versions of Windows. XP users have more security software options to choose from. 98 users will have to rely on older and unsupported applications, several of which are still very effective. Kerio 2.1.5 and the free version of System Safety Monitor are 2 powerful examples. 98 has a much smaller attack surface to defend. The few ports open by default on are easily closed by configuration. XP has a lot more open ports but they can be closed by disabling services that are unnecessary for most users. On Win-7, it might not be possible to close all of the open ports without using a separate firewall. How quickly Slammer and the consequences of unnecessary open ports is forgotten. Out of the box, both 98 and XP were very insecure. Both can be made much better with the included tools. Both can be secured quite well with available 3rd party software. The primary downside to securing 98 is that it will require a good deal of knowledge from the user. Unlike XP, there are no security solutions left for 98 that will do the work for you. Privacy: Windows stores a lot of records of its users activities. Each new version of Windows stores more than the one before in more places, using more varied methods. It gets harder to find and even harder to access or remove, often requiring specialized 3rd party tools. When it comes to giving the user control over and access to the data Windows stores about their computer activities, 98 is better by far. Thanks largely to DOS, all of the stored user tracks can be accessed and/or removed. With batch files, removing this data can be made part of the regular startup or shutdown process. On NT systems, performing the same tasks will require 3rd party software and at times accessing the file system from another OS. If you feel that the web pages you visited, the e-mail you've read, the documents you've opened, the applications that you ran today, etc are no ones business but your own and you don't want records of these and other activities stored on your PC, then 98 is the better choice than the newer NT systems. Even if there is no more development in projects like KEX, 98 will remain viable for at least a few more years if not longer. For me, 98 is my OS of choice and will remain so for the forseeable future. IMO, an operating system should be an interface between the hardware and the user, and a platform that runs the users applications. It should do what I tell it to and only that. It should store what data I want stored, not what someone else wants. It should connect out only when I want it to and only to where I specify. It should not receive or acknowledge incoming connection attempts unless I specifically allowed it. Beyond that, the operating system should stay out of the way. Windows has been going in the opposite direction for some time, with each new version giving the user less control over what it does and less access to the data it stores. Except for some gaming, a PC to me is a tool. I have no use for a tool that does what it wants or what someone else wants.
  5. Addition to my last post regarding: "Most KernelEx equipped PCs should run the Vidalia bundle just fine as a client. If you opt to run Tor as a relay, exit node, or bridge, it will increase the demand on your system and internet service substantially." Tor-Vidalia is a substantial load on your system, primarily due to the number of connections it opens. This increases greatly when it's run as a relay or exit node. When run as a relay, the Tor-vidalia bundle causes a lot of newer Windows operating systems to run out of buffer space and fail, usually in a few hours to a few days. See https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/98#comment:74. You can also see what to expect if you report a potential solution or workaround as a 98 user. The results on their IRC channel were no better. On this PC, with RP9 and 1GB RAM, the Vidalia package has run steadily as a relay for almost 3 weeks. I'm almost positive that Revolutions Pack is largely responsible for this long term stability. In this thread I've listed some of the registry changes and Tor configuration file changes I've made to improve stability. As far as I can determine, 98 (on reasonably strong hardware) with the KEX and RP9 unofficial upgrades is completely capable of functioning as a stable Tor relay, exit node, or bridge, but the Tor network will not accept it as a valid relay or exit node because it is running on 98. Even if your 9X system will run Tor as an effective relay, very little traffic will come your way. Fortunately, for use as a client that just connects you to the Tor network, your OS doesn't matter.
  6. I updated to the current stable Vidalia bundle just a couple days ago. The Vidalia bundle includes Tor, Vidalia, Polipo, and the Torbutton. Since I don't use Firefox, the Torbutton wasn't installed. I did install Polipo but am not currently using it. Vidalia requires KernelEx to work. Tor itself works with 98. I haven't really used it but I'm pretty sure that Polipo does too. Polipo serves 2 purposes in the bundle: 1, Content filtering 2, Connecting to Tor via the Socks protocol. I use Proxomitron and Sockscap instead of Polipo, primarily because I prefer Proxomitron as a content filtering app. Since Proxomitron doesn't "speak" Socks, SocksCap handles the conversion to the Socks protocol. There is a substantial amount of configuring to do if you don't opt for the complete browser bundle. A good rule based firewall that does control local/loopback connections properly should be considered a necessity in order to prevent data leaks. Browsing through Tor is quite a bit slower than connecting directly. It's primary purpose is to make it very difficult to identify you or track your internet activities. It helps to defeat surveillance and censorship. If these things are important to you and how you use the internet, then I highly recommend it. If your internet usage is more casual and you don't need to conceal your activities or identity, then Tor is unnecessary. Most KernelEx equipped PCs should run the Vidalia bundle just fine as a client. If you opt to run Tor as a relay, exit node, or bridge, it will increase the demand on your system and internet service substantially.
  7. I'm pretty sure that SeaMonkey 2.0.14 needs KernelEX to work on 98. One complaint I've had on it is that it can't set itself as the default browser. I had to set it manually and it keeps asking. Regarding K-Meleon, I downloaded it straight from sourceforge. Link to 1.7a2 I'm not familiar with the unofficial versions you mention. Where are they at?
  8. For me, the 1.7a2 version has been a pleasant surprise. Much more responsive than the 1.5 and 1.6 versions. While SeaMonkey will remain my default browser, K-Meleon will come in handy on those occasions when I want a 2nd browser for quick, direct connections while my default browser connects through Tor. As much as I like it, I've been trying to avoid using the 1.X versions of SeaMonkey and get used to the changes in 2.0.14. Unless KEX development resumes, that will probably be the last good version of SeaMonkey for 98 with KEX. When so many of the 9X systems here have so much in common, the unofficial upgrades and file versions for instance, I've often wondered just what factors make the performance of an app vary so widely. There's definitely a lot more involved than file versions, RAM, processor speed, and other installed apps. It would be interesting to compare the systems being used when apps (especially newer ones that need KEX) performs well on one of them but not the other, and see if there is a pattern. I don't have the equipment, skill or the time to investigate it properly, but I'm suspecting that the type of processor (P2, P3, P4) and the chipset versions has a lot to do with it.
  9. SeaMonkey has long been my favorite. I've used it since its early days as the Mozilla Suite. Kernel EX has allowed me to install 2.0.14, but in many ways I still prefer 1.1.19. It starts faster and just seems faster on the web. There's also several extensions I use with it that won't work in the 2.X versions for which I haven't found acceptable substitutes. For now, I use both versions, one for casual use and the other via Tor. The only disadvantage is that I can't use both at the same time. IMO, SeaMonkey has always been one of the best. I've never liked the appearance or feel of FireFox so I can't comment on the performance of any of its versions. Haven't used Opera. Don't have any version of Internet Explorer on this OS. My XP system has IE8, primarily because it's required by a game I play way too much. K-Meleon is a distant 2nd choice for me. Most of the time it's reasonably fast, but each version has its problems. I've had better results with the portable versions unzipped to folders than the installed versions. All of the versions have one common problem, at least on my system. On a forum like this, the small symbols that show when a thread has new posts or if you've posted in them, all of them disappear if I use the "privacy>block advertisement" option. Version 1.5.4 stalls badly on sites with scripts. The 1.6 beta version is slightly better. The 1.7a2 version (available via their forum) seems much better in this regard. The download is a 7z archive. I can't comment if it works without Kernel EX. On my system with the 1.6 and 1.7 versions, the privacy bar displays no text to show what each button is for. Version 1.5.4 did. This might be related to my removing IE from my system. IMO, the 1.5 and 1.6 versions have too many problems, but the 1.7 alpha version has potential and is worth a look. Most of the time I run all browsers through Proxomitron. At present I'm altering much of this arrangement and my Proxomitron filters so that all connections to certain sites (like Google) are routed through Proxomitron and Tor, regardless of the browser being used.
  10. Is there any way this "fix" could be used on the latest version of SeaMonkey? 2.0 works well with KEX but 2.1 and up have the same problem as FireFox, stalling out and taking forever to load.
  11. I don't think there will be a single individual that has all the skills and is willing to use them for 98. A group effort is probably the only real chance that KernelEx has to continue being developed.
  12. Could you give more information regarding the incoming UDP connection attempt or post a screen shot of the alert? Was it for port 53 or a localhost IP (127.0.0.1)?
  13. I wasn't aware of the 1.7 alpha version of K-Meleon. Had been using the 1.6 beta. I've only had time for a quick check on the K-Meleon alpha version, but it seems to work properly. Privacy bar text isn't visible ATM but seems to work. This is one fast browser, faster than SeaMonkey on my PC. Rick
  14. The most recent version of SeaMonkey (2.2) isn't working with KEX either. It stalls and tends to lock up while loading a page. The 2.0.X versions appear to be the last that are 9X compatible. SeaMonkey updates a lot, though not quite as much as FireFox. K-Meleon is a good browser too, and its most recent version is 98 compatible with KEX. You'll probably need to set KEX compatibility to XP-SP2. I'm not positive on that setting, not using 98 at this moment. I'm using the portable version of K-Meleon as it seemed to work better on 98 than the installed version. They don't update nearly as fast. K-Meleon, FireFox, and SeaMonkey are all Gecko based browsers. The 9X incompatibility seems to be in the latest Gecko rendering engine itself. Regarding NUSB, it's an upgrade to the USB system on 98 that allows many more USB devices with work on 98 than ever did before. Depending on your hardware, it can give you USB 2.0 speeds as well. On my P4 Dell, it's enabled me to use external hard drives, flash drives, card readers. etc, all at very good speeds.
  15. Kernel Ex basically makes it possible to run some newer software on 98 that wouldn't normally be possible. These apps use system functions that were not part of 98 but exist on the NT systems (XP, Vista, etc). With KernelEx, I can use SeaMonkey 2. Without it, I'd have to stay with the 1.X versions. Kernel Ex will behave differently on different systems. In general, and assuming 98 compatible hardware, the newer that hardware, the better KEX works. On my P4 Dell, KernelEx works very well. On my P3 Compaq and an HP with a Celeron processor, it doesn't work as well. This is just as much due to changes in the processors as anything else. Another security app I use, System Safety Monitor, works great with KEX on the P4 using the default settings. On the older processors, KEX needs to be disabled for SSM, otherwise i get error messages and an unstable system. Flash Player is another example of where the results will vary depending on the hardware you're using. Kernel EX is a work in progress, but it will not compensate for everything. In order for the developers to account for varying results on different hardware, they'd need a lot more help and time than they have. In any case, if you make a system backup before installing Kernel Ex, there's no risk in trying it, and you might be very pleasantly surprised. Between Kernel Ex, Revolutions Pack, NUSB, and some other upgrades here, they've made this 98 unit a rock solid screamer that runs circles around the XP system that shares the hardware. Regarding a firewall, I use Kerio 2.1.5 with KernelEx. There have been no problems. As for making 98 less secure, it's theoretically possible that it might make it possible for some malware to function on 98 that wouldn't before. Whether that creates a security risk depends on the security policy you are using. That said, since Kernel Ex allows you to use a more updated browser, that in itself would represent a security improvement, which IMO will offset any theoretical increase in malware compatibility. This is an area I've wanted to explore but just don't have the time. I can't address the online shopping question. I've never bought anything online. Rick
  16. I don't have an explanation for it, but mine does the same thing. I have 1GB RAM, 100MB of which is used for a ramdrive, loaded via autoexec.bat. The property sheet on mine reports 922MB. I never paid any real attention to this so I've no idea how long it's been displaying a low value or if it always has.
  17. What video card and graphics drivers are you using?
  18. I had a similar appearing issue with an old Compaq. The boot process appeared to stop after loading msmouse.vxd. It turned out that this was not the case. Msmouse was just the last vxd to be loaded. Use the selective startup to stop loading individual vxd's. Mine proceeded to boot when I stopped loading ndis.vxd and/or another similar vxd. Changing network drivers fixed the problem.
  19. Live links to several of the apps are in this post.
  20. Also see these threads. Lots of suggestions and apps .
  21. I've reached a point where I'm unsure how to proceed. Tor and Vidalia run quite well for as long as I let them. At one point, I had problems with the Tor executable using 100% of the processor. Disabling KernelEX for the Tor executable seems to have solved it. Vidalia on the other hand, needs KernelEX. I think the 100% processor usage was responsible for my system clock losing time. Since Tor requires accurate system time, I've left AnalogX's Atomic Time Sync running and have it set to synchronize every 2 hours. So far, so good. According to Shields Up and Tor's own self tests, both the directory and OR ports are reachable. My firewall (Kerio) shows a highly variable number of both inbound and outbound connections, ranging from none to well over 20. Everything I'm seeing here says Tor is working properly. Tor's test sites show me to be properly anonymized when I browse with it. Although I'm set up to work as a relay and exit node, traffic volumes have been extremely low, and my IP has never shown up in the list of active relays or exit nodes. So far, I can't determine why, especially when both Tor and my firewall are showing it to be connected all over the world. I'm starting to think my system is not being accepted as a valid relay because it's running on 98, but have no idea on how to verify if this is the case. I did try to get some advice and help thru their IRC rooms. As soon as they saw I was using 98, all useful discussion ended. It would be a sad situation if this proves out to be the case. The only way I can think of to determine if this is the case would be to set up a Linux system on this PC, equip it with Tor, configure it in the exact same manner, then compare the results. For me, Linux is like a foreign language. I could probably manage to install one and get Grub figured out. Trying to figure out which one to install gives me a headache. I don't know what the differences are or which ones would be fairly easy to install Tor on. I've never installed anything on Linux, so I'm not sure that I could build a proper Linux with Tor for comparison. I'm open to suggestions on both fronts, determining why my existing Tor setup isn't seeing the traffic and building a properly equipped Linux system for comparison.
  22. What an embarrassing mess. Looks too much like the table it sits on, or my workbench. Piles of started and unfinished projects, all mixed together. After removing over half of the items on the desktop.... Hey, there is a picture under there?? How long as it been there??? Sorry about the image quality. Should have looked at it first
  23. Xeno86, Could you be a bit more specific regarding "stalled"? I'm hoping that this means that you need a break from it or are short on time ATM, and that stalled doesn't mean stopped, done, or abandoned. Your KernelEX combined with Revolutions Pack have made 98 into an excellent and stable OS that far exceeds anything that MS ever did for it. IMO, they've made 98 just as much a viable alternative to the current versions of Windows as Linux is, without the need to learn an OS all over again.
  24. Much of what Windows collects is usage tracks. One of the best tools for those on 9X is MRU blaster. As for destroying your system, you can avoid this by using TestRun by BB to make a test registry to work on. You can also boot to DOS and back up system.dat and user.dat to another location first. If you trash your registry, just restore them from DOS. I'm not sure of the availability of either so I've uploaded copies of both. In the thread I linked to earlier, the RegCon utility is good for compacting the registry. I've uploaded it here. The translated registry docs mentioned are uploaded here. Both are 7zip archives. When you get the registry cleaned out, compacted, and optimized, the link in my signature describes using batch files that will keep it that way.
  25. If an app needs a specific DLL such as GDIPLUS.DLL, it first looks in its own folder. If it doesn't find it, it then checks the system folder. A DLL that's used by more than one app will need to be in the system folder. When the DLL is in the applications own folder, it's available only to that app. You said you have 4 of them? Check the MD5 for each. If they're all the same file, a copy in the system folder will accomplish the same thing. If any are different, let that one stay in the applications folder.
×
×
  • Create New...