Sfor

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.

Well. I abandoned the "98 (FE), 98 SP1, 98 SE + ME SHELL32.DLL fix, for Explorer lockups with IE 5.xx/6.xx" for quite a long time. So, I felt happy when I found the polish version of the fixed SHELL32.DLL in the last post. 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.

I've tested the SHELL32.DLL fix from the thead: http://www.msfn.org/board/98_FE_98_SP1_98_...137#entry572137 The results are very promissing. Unluckily, the fix is not working properly with other language Windows version. Apparently the country specific folder names are hard coded into the SHELL32.DLL.

Xplorer2-free is not a solution for me, as it is free for home or educational use, only. In other words it is not completely free. As for the "98 (FE), 98 SP1, 98 SE + ME SHELL32.DLL fix, for Explorer lockups with IE 5.xx/6.xx" thread. There is no Polish language version of this fix. So, I did not tested it, myself. Also, I've readed this thread some time ago. The general feeling was, it is not a 100% reliable solution. ---------------- I've been experimenting with a LiteStep and Dark.Lua theme. It is almost 100% compatible with the standard windows interface. Unfortunatelly it uses Explorer for displaying desktop and file exploration windows. So, the result is even worse than without the LiteStep running (hangs without large file operations, as well).

I would start from reducing the memory installed to 512MB maximum. There is a memory fix in the unofficial service pack. It would be good to install it, if it was not applied, already.

IMO, those sites can go to hell. No site should require a third-party plug-in to be viewed. Perhaps you are right. But, trying to persuade the whole world to do something other way is like changing a direction of a river with a stick. If it is untested, it can't be deemed unstable.If the author says his solution is untested, and possibly unstable, I will not argue. Isn't the same true for Win98? No it is not. Windows 98 reports space taken by folders correctly, while Windows 95 starts from 0 after reaching 4GB mark. Well, true. The Windows 98 works. But there are a few things driving me nuts in it, while Windows 95 just works. And the Explorer freezing after large file related operations is the one I hate the most.

Well. Windows 95 does have some advantages. Now here are the reasons to switch to Windows 98: - No newer Flash Player support. (Some sites do require this plugin) - Very limited USB support. - Problems with LBA 48 hard drives. I know there is a fix, but it is believed to be untested and unstable, still. - Some small nuisances like up to 4 GB file set size couter limit. It is not much, but the LBA48 limitation forced me to switch to Windows 98 a few years ago. Finally the Flash Player problems persuaded me to abandon Windows 95 as an Internet browser platform.

The built in Windows 98 defragmentation utility does not work correctly with partitions exceeding 137GB. The solution is to split the drive to smaller partitions, or to use a third party defragmentation utility.

Well.... If there is no problem, we will think of something.

That's exactly what I was telling. Almost all hard drives can be clipped with the HPA function. According to the ATA specification its an optional feature, but all HDD manufacturers are using it as a standard function, today. Samsung does it as well, but their disk tool software is not maintained as good as others.

There are motherboards unable to detect and use larger disk drives. Partitioning will not solve it. But, a HDD size decrease will.

mobo = motherboard. That's exactly the reason to not to use slang on forums. Slang is not as popular as the english language.

The LBA means Logical Block Adressing. Old disk drives were adressing a particular sector through a Cylinder Head and Sector values. At some point the CHS addresing was unable to cover the large disk drive capacity. Then LBA solved this problem by changing the way a sector is being adressed. The LBA is the way BIOS talks to the HDD. So there is no need for additional software. Windows can use LBA, as well. As for decreasing the capacity of a disk drive. LBA number is used to tell HPA what the capacity should be. So, LBA can not restrict the size of a HDD. It is just a measurement system (like address or size).