Sfor

The LFN support is necesary to create a long file name. If we have the LFN support the simplest thing is to write the file with a correct name in a single operation. I see no reason to create a long name and then to write a file in a separate operation. Your procedure is logical only when restoring a copy over the old operating system files. When creating the system files leaving the old ones in a different folder creation of empty file names and then writing them over would be just an unnecesary complication. Another problem is this procedure would work only, when the system is bootable. As the initial write of long file names is necesary. On the other hand, my procedure is effective also when there are no system folders, or the system does not boot. Another fact is, my procedure is not suited for partial system backup/restore operations. It always has to restore the whole system. So, in case of a incremental backups it would be necesary to process the initial backup and then all incremental backups more than once.

Yes, I have a new version. I added a few improvements: - the program always expected the Temporary Internet Files folder is in the Windows folder. Now it can be anywhere. - Microsoft Win32 Smart Card Base Components addition is creating a smartcrd.dat file in the windows folder. It is always kept open. So, it can not be backed up. It is a temporary file created on every boot, so the backup utility has to treat this file the same way as win386.swp. - I enabled the application to use DOSLFNMS utility for backup and restore. But, I did not tested it yet. The only conclusion I got so far is, the DOSLFNMS depends on the DOS codepage and requires own codepage settings files to work correctly. So, it it necesary to load codepage files before backing up or restoring. Also DOSLFNMS can not handle the file names with certain characters. It is necesary to restore those files with WIN32 application (like ARJ32 for an instance). That's why I do prefer the Windows built in LFN support. I do believe the system should not be restored by overwriting the current system file set. Such a procedure will leave unwanted software and malware. My application changes the names of the current system folders and restores the whole file set to replace them, instead. It is much easier to keep the system clean, that way. The old system folders can be deleted by the user, later.

I've been working on my own solution to Windows 98 backup/restore problem for many years, already. The result is something in between to partition copy and built in system restore function. I started from copying the Windows files to another partition with Explorer. It worked, but restoring of such a copy was not an easy task. After many experiments I've noticed it is possible to restore just 8:3 file names from the Windows folder, then to run the system with such a partial copy, then to restore files with long names from WINSTART.BAT script. And this idea and ARJ compression utility becomed the foundation of my backup application. The final version makes snapshots of Windows and Program Files folders excluding temp and Temporary Internet Files folders. This covers the system registry and all config data. With such a copy it is possible to restore the system to a new disk drive in case of a critical HDD failure, or to replace the current damaged or infected system with the previously made copy. The whole solution was targeted towards my clients needs. If the system became problematic it is possible to restore it from the CONFIG.SYS menu. That way I do not have to go to my clients office by myself, because the client can restore the system by himself in most cases, sometimes with a minor telephone help or suggestion. I found it takes much less time to restore the whole system, than to clean it with AV software. The system copies can be stored on the same partition as the Windows is located. It is possible to restore from a bootable CD drive, as well. The application was made in the Polish language only, I'm afraid.

Intel Application Accelerator provides LBA48 support for Intel HDD controller chipsets. I'm using IAA with Intel 815 and 845 chipset series and it works witout any other additional patch. According to the readme file IAA works with Intel 82801AA, 82801AB, 82801BA and 82801DB IDE controllers. Perhaps, there is a newer version available, as I did not update it for a few yers, already.

I'm testing the BookmarkBridge, right now. - It's Open Source - Works on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT 4.0, 2000, XP and UNIX. - Works with IE, Firefox, Opera and some other browsers. - Can not synchronise with other computers.

The HP offers drivers for Windows 98. But, it is called a "driver bundle" and it is located in the Windows 2000 and XP sections.

In Windows 95 not many USB devices will work. It will be necesary to use Windows 98 in order to connect the computer to the internet through USB port. If you are going to visit web pages with Adobe Flash Player 9 requirement, the Windows 98 is a must. USB significantly slows down computers with slow processors. PCMCIA requires much less processor power to handle. I do not know if it is possible to use wireless in Windows 95. I never tried to do so.

Internet Explorer checks for new versions by itself. This feature is enabled by default, as far as I remember.

I would agree in case of the Windows 3 series. But, Windows 9x is much more than that. As, the 32 bit patchwork (as you call it) has it's own kernel, which takes direct controll over all system resources just like Windows NT kernel does. Also, the DOS sessions available when the GUI kernel is running is not 100% compatible with DOS, and are working more like DOS emulation services.

That was the problem. It works correctly now. The interesting thing is all my Windows 98 computers have this issue. So, it is somehow related to the default IE 6 setup settings for Windows 98, I think.

I have a strange problem with downloading files using IE 6 SP1 from Windows 98 systems. The funny thing is the same links are working correctly from Windows 2000 and IE 6 SP1. Im trying to understand where this difference is comming from. Since it works in Windows 2000, it should (in theory) work in Windows 98.

Could you backup this opinion with some evidence? Since the 9x does not have any ports opened, there is no security risk with connecting it to the Internet 24/7 without a firewall, in my opinion. It is necesary to install and run some network services software, in order to keep some ports opened 24/7 in a 9x system. So, any security holes will be related to the installed software, not for the system itself.

I can not agree. Windows 9x series is much better choice than the DOS itself, if the DOS compatibility is required. It is possible to simple stop Windows 9x system from loading WIN.COM leaving just DOS kernel working. Such a configuration is as effective as a plain DOS, but it leaves the ability to boot to GUI when needed. As a matter of fact there are no open ports in the Windows 9x default setup. It does not have server services as NT based system do have. So, all exploits affecting 9x series do have to use browser or local LAN. As for the local LAN security, there is almost none in the 9x. NT is much better here. But, a 9x without resource sharing enabled is quite secured. I'm not sure if there is a way to break in a 9x system without resource sharing turned on, from LAN side.

What would be a point of adding an USB support to a computer without USB port? There will be no BIOS usb support with PCMCIA USB controller, for sure. Another problem will be the type of the PCMCIA controller. The older type of PCMCIA is not CardBus compatible and almost all PCMCIA devices in productions are of CardBus standard, today. It's almost certain a Pentium I class computer will not be CardBus compatible.

I'm using IAA 2.3.0.2160 with Intel 845 chipset, as well. However more important is the IDE controller chip. According to the readme IEE requires Intel 82801AA, 82801AB, 82801BA or 82801DB controllers.

If the BIOS does not detect the whole HDD capacity, the solution is to: - create a smaller partition, - install the windows 98 - if the motherboard is made on an Intel Chipset install the Intel Application Accelerator. It provides the LBA 48 support, even if the BIOS does not support LBA 48. If not, than some other LBA 48 patch could be necesary. - now it could be possible to increase the partition size to be 160 GB, but I would recomend to create a second partition, leaving the first one to be not greater than LBA 48 limit.

I was sure the internet browsing over a known servers is safe. But, by an accident my computer was infected through a local page. I called the admin (as I know him personaly). He was very surprised and unaware of the page infection. The page was corrected, but the conclusion remained: browsing through the Internet is not as safe as we think. When I encountered more pages with the same or alike infection system, I decided to change the IE 5.5 to a safer browser, as the JS infection system is too common to keep the IE 5.5 running, any longer.

I can not reproduce the effect on Windows 98 IE6SP1 with and without the SHELL32.DLL fix, but: - The Polish Windows 98 version is using a different folder as the Desktop folder (C:\Windows\Pulpit). - I do have the browser DLL fix apllied. (Browseui.dll and Browselc.dll were replaced with IE 5.5 versions).

According to my router log, the CHM file makes a TCP connection with 81.95.146.98. As for an infected site: http: // userjs.org / At the end of the page code there is an IFrame link: The trojan downloader code was downloaded from sunyiu.com by a link to adv522.htm file on some other server. So everything was hidden as an advertisement. But, I saw other versions with a JS code added directly at the bottom of a page code.

I said: set of files counter limit, not single file size limit. Windows 95 explorer is not able to display how much space is occupied by a set of files. In case of a single file, everything works correctly. When counting space taken by many files windows 95 counter wraps around at 4GB mark. So, this nuisance is not related to FAT32, as everything works correctly on Windows 98.

Well the script is much more complicated, but the change detection part is like that: where the HLM_run.reg file is a saved for future reference registry key. Unfortunatelly, I do not know which particular update did the trick. I just installed all available at the microsoft update site, and it worked. As for the .CHM file. When I'm clicking the link the IE asks what I want to do with it (open, save, cancel or more information).

The installer works great. It would be good to translate the installer interface to Polish, as well, I think. Do you use any language file, or something like that?

Well, I do have a few toys, as well. But the one I do like the most is an Okano Edition 486 DX 33 computer case able to accept ATX motherboards. I did a quite a few improvements to make it work, but the result is interesting: - Dimensions: height 68cm, width 22cm, depth 45cm - Modified ATX PSU. If the ATX MB goes off the devices connected to the computer case (monitor, scanner,...) are powered down, as well. - The front main power switch can cut off the power to the computer and all devices connected through it. There is additional ATX power switch available, as well (converted from reset switch). - The Turbo switch was converted to power on/off additional front fan. - The case had 6x 5.25" bays. I've converted two of them to accept 3x 3.5" devices. - The led display is 3 digits long. It's a bit strange to fit such a display in 33Mhz computer, but it's perfect for displaying something like "1G8", now. Anyways, it's the most powerfull 486 case I saw, so far. And, I made no additional hole, in it.

For one this happens as a mean to force people to upgrade to a newer OS and enrich MS I believe and for two you certainly can catch as many viruses, if not more, through IE with a 9x system than you can with an XP one. The advantage is that most won't execute on 9x once they are on your machine because they target NT specific stuff. But some do execute on 9x, including certain rootkits for which there is absolutely no removal tools unlike for the NT platform. I can pass you on some of them. I knew I had catched something but could not detect anything. Finally I scanned the memory for exes and dlls and found the path of two exes in my win dir. I could not see them with explorer nor with any third party tool including the tools I use to scan my dirs for new files or changes. They were in the run keys but I could only find them by opening the .dat files. Regedit or any other third party registry editor could not see their entries. Had to reboot with a startup disk and delete them with DOS. On reboot their run keys were then visible in regedit. I think oscardog is right to consider ditching any version of IE alltogether if that's what he means. Opera is pretty good but for some reason I don't manage to switch fully to it because I find my customized IE 5.5 perfect (besides not having tabs). Well. You said there is no tool for spyware removal. You are wrong. DOS is a perfect tool for removing spyware. No windows based spyware can escape a DOS based and clean DOS running AV scanner. Also, it is possible to check registry keys in DOS without GUI. I do have a script checking the registry "run" keys for new entries, every time compuer is booting, on every 9x based computer I'm using. As for the IE 5.5. This application should be considered as useless for internet browsing activity. It is much too unsafe. I found many web sites do have spyware downloaders attached, this year. I do believe someone found a way to automaticaly infect numerous poorly protected web sites. All of them were fitted with a java based downloader. I found, it is not possible to patch the IE 5.5 against those downloaders. IE 6 is also affected, but installation of all available patches solves the problem.

I waited long for the polish version of the SHELL32.DLL fix. I can only say it works better, than any other solution I found. I did tested it along with the IE 5.5 browser dll substitution. I do not know how it will work without the browser dll fix applied, but when both are applied I can not replicate the locking effect, any longer. The only problem is downloading this file from the rapidshare.com. I'm connected through a large WAN. So, I'm sharing the same IP with many users. The Rapidshare limits the ability to download files from the same IP. Since, there are some Rapidshare lovers in my lan, I was unable to download it. I had to ask a friend with a DSL line to download it, and then to send it to me.