CharlotteTheHarlot

Thanks for the answers, but you skipped some stuff ... You could spend a lifetime searching and moving threads around that are off-topic. And the forum would suffer by being stained with MOVED labels on every thread title. I cannot believe that this is something that y'all would waste any time on. It is all downside, nothing positive. That thread is extremely active and yet for some reason moderators are discussing "We must do something about it"? This defies credibility. And frankly it mirrors the Microsoft logic of "Windows 7 is doing great, let's destroy it". So what is "on-topic"? Who decides? The original thread-starter? As I asked, what if Jorge just edits the name to "Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions" adding a subtitle of "... and related controversy and rants". Then the title would perfectly match the content. So then it goes back to where it was? Tripredacus, because I am unclear of what you said, Are you telling us there is no influence from Microsoft here? Another question is Has a Microsoft employee who is a moderator or supervisor caused this problem? I think you are saying no, but Are you even in a position to know the answer to this? EDIT: typo

I just made a comment over here. I have no idea what this is all about but it looks completely ridiculous on the surface. I don't like the arbitrary-ness of this and it smells bad. EDIT: I have thought of a possible edited title to this thread as a suggestion, and we'll see if it goes back on-topic and gets restored to its original home ... Title: ... Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions Subtitle: ... and related controversy and rants

Right now I can't find an older post I made about this, but I was researching this a while back. There are two main methods ... [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Classes\Directory\Shell\xxx] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Classes\Folder\Shell\xxx] It looks to me that using FOLDER is preferable because I am pretty sure that DIRECTORY is not processed when right-clicking hidden/system folders. Furthermore, I noticed that on Win9x, when using both methods they appear consecutively in the list. By inserting a label into dummy entries I was able to get horizontal lines to show up directly inside the right-click menu, and this is roughly how Win9x displayed it ... ===[ BEGIN Shell:Directory ]================== item item item ===[ END Shell:Directory ]================== ===[ BEGIN Shell:Folder ]===================== item item item ===[ END Shell:Folder ]===================== However, on WinXP, so far the label for DIRECTORY does not show up, but the label for FOLDER does. Interestingly, the items are co-mingled together. I will need more time to experiment though. Consider these preliminary observations. I'll try to get some screenshots next time.

Jeez, I go away for a few hours and all he!! breaks loose! Trying now to get up to speed on what happened, but there is very little hard information from the moderators that I can even find. First of all, I am not a mod here so I am not privy to the backchannel discussion that has occurred. It would be nice if they would explain What problem has been brought to their attention and by who? Informing the members helps to prevent incorrect speculation. One big question is this: Is there external pressure being applied on MSFN or is this completely an in-house matter? The answer is key to journalistic integrity and as it stands I see no way to answer it. Another item is this: What is this slavish paradigm of trying to keep all threads completely on-topic ( whatever that means )? I have said before that doing this 99% makes sense with those targeted, highly focused specific discussion threads, but not all. Why this is so weird is precisely because the name of the thread "Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions" is not one of those focused topics. Furthermore, is "on-topic" defined by the thread OP? If so, why can't Jorge simple modify the thread title to "Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions" adding a subtitle of "... and related controversy and rants" ( or similar ) to satisfy this urge to stay "on-topic". This begs the question however, if that alone is not sufficient, then something larger must be afoot, correct? It makes absolutely no sense at all for that thread to be anywhere else except for in the Windows 8 forum. None! It contains tons of information from the Beta to present. And we are left with the odd case where "First Impressions" is still in the original location. Furthermore, that is a very active thread in both Views and Posts. I cannot see the detailed statistics but it must rank up there in the top ten most active. This generates real traffic and site views which aids Google page-rank, and it is feeding lots of topical red meat into Google subject searches. This is not normally considered a bad thing. So what possible reason justifies burying such a thread? Obviously there is activity taking place behind the scenes. Many boards are administered in quasi-democratic fashion ( perhaps weighting votes from moderators according to seniority or privilege ), so: Was there some kind of voting going on? Maybe you can just inform us if '3 out of 5 moderators wanted it closed' or whatever. Or much more troubling, Is there a rogue moderator ( or sponsoring member or whatever ) that is causing needless trouble and controversy? This is Xper's forum so he ultimately decides what goes, so these are obviously just friendly questions and suggestions. But I sure wish Xper would just state here what his thinking is on this matter. After all, ultimately it is his reputation that can suffer, either from incorrect speculation because of the lack of information given, or when there is absolutely needless drama from his "staff" causing trouble in the first place. To Xper, I'm not sure it has ever been discussed here, and I might regret even bringing this up, but I think the Moderators and supervisors really should disclose their affiliation ( if any ) to Microsoft. IMHO, this is an incredibly pertinent issue ( and it is not only about Microsoft, because if threads were bashing Firefox or Apple, then affiliation with those companies would also be relevant ). For example, If Microsoft employees were allowed to moderate threads that criticize Microsoft, that would be an undeniable conflict of interest, with respect to the concept of journalism ( the general definition, but not necessarily the modern "free press" ). Again, it is your forum, but speaking for myself I would definitely be disapproving of any moderators who didn't recuse themselves from an obvious conflict of interest. It would really offend me because it tells me they are loyal first to their real employer rather than my board, and I could never really trust such a person. But again, here I am wildly speculating, and it is precisely because of the lack of information! I hope that Xper steps in and clarifies whether this is a mountain or a mole hill. Especially in this day and age where other sites will pounce on it if Microsoft is seen as influencing free speech. You will actually be doing Microsoft a favor by clearing up the controversy. EDIT: typo

Thanks for the link. The author has a very nice, succinct way of encapsulating the history of what has actually occurred into a single sentence ... That is very nicely stated. Then he quotes the subject of the article, Demerjian, verbatim ... Quite the phrase turner. I'm glad to see this one because so many Wall Street related articles are simply junk, they have no understanding of "Windows" or a "GUI" or even the personalities involved. It's not perfect by a long shot, but far better than most. If Wall Street and all the related outlets ever focused on the problems at hand with the consumer and the products, rather than the books and earnings, Microsoft would be finished.

Firefox OS phones to debut in 2013, no US launch until 2014 ( NeoWin 2013-02-24 ) Samsung reveals Galaxy Note 8.0 tablet for Q2 2013 launch ( NeoWin 2013-02-24 ) HP announces Android-based $169 Slate 7 tablet ( NeoWin 2013-02-24 ) HP Jumps Back Into Tablets With The $169 Slate 7 ( Maximum PC 2013-02-24 ) Lenovo Goes After The Nexus 7 With a Revamped Lineup of Tablets ( Maximum PC 2013-02-24 ) Seriously, this is now almost a daily occurrence. Boatloads of non-Windows 8 devices hitting the streets, and priced to sell. Each one of these things directly impacts Microsoft's foolproof foolish "Plan A". What was that again? Oh yeah. Destroy Windows and sacrifice it to the Gods of mobile marketshare. They destroyed their defining product solely for the purpose of gaining a piece of the action, a higher lower percentage of the expanding mobile space. But wait, how is that gonna happen when for every Nokia Lumia or Surface or other WP some competitor sells 50 copies of some other device. What math do they use up in Redmond? I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried, no. I'm saying that you should fire all the idi0ts that thought sacrificing Windows was the admission ticket to this arena. It was not. Microsoft should have protected Windows instead of destroying it. They have earned this fail. LG says it has no plans to return to Windows Phone ( NeoWin 2013-02-24 ) Whoopsie. "LG doesn't see enough of a demand for such a product at the moment." How can this be possible? Easy, Microsoft Tiles is loved by a few, mediocre to many, insulting and annoying to the rest of us normal people. You blew it. You had this on WP a few years ago and no-one was beating the doors down to buy it. It was not a seminal event, it was just adequate. Now who was the birdbrain that thought this mediocre interface should become the face of everything going forwards? I want names! Microsoft adds new features to Office Web Apps ( NeoWin 2013-02-24 ) I just thought this was rather funny. EDIT: clarity

Looks like official (unreleased) Royale Noir Bingo. Almost. It is actually one of the tweaked versions called: Royale Remixed ... the main file is Royale Remixed.msstyles, in the selector box ( top field "Windows and Buttons" ) you can see it shows up as Royale style and in the "color scheme" it has three variations and I've been using Royale Noir. I've been meaning to edit these things so that the name in the selector box ( "Windows and Buttons" ) matches the name of the *.MsStyle. It can get confusing because I have a few more "Royale" styles and it is a PITA to tell which is which in the list without selecting them. BTW, here is the filelist of the theme in case you want to search for it ...

One thing we can do is directly contact OEMs, particularly those that make critical hardware like video cards and motherboards. Demand that they supply drivers for Windows XP. Remind them that approximately 40% of all PCs on Planet Earth still run it. Ask them not to collude with Microsoft in their intentional planned obsolescence for Windows XP and that they should look after their own interests by continuing to sell their hardware directly to XP owners.

Windows 8 and Toyota come together to build a faster race car ( NeoWin 2013-02-23 ) Okay everyone, be honest. I'm not the only one who thought of this when reading that headline ... NYPD has a group dedicated to recovering stolen iPhones ( NeoWin 2013-02-23 ) What? No Lumia or WP8 phone recovery task force? How come? ( hey, it's the weekend, lighten up! ) Microsoft claims no involvement in raid of hacker who leaked next-gen Xbox info ( NeoWin 2013-02-23 ) "We had nothing to do with it" says Microsoft. Yeah right. It smells a lot like the RIAA and Kim DotCom fiasco ( that one with with commandos and helicopters ). Somewhat related, well, at least to the high tech police state we find ourselves in, there was another story at CNet a few days back: Facebook pic of toy mortar leads to armed cops raid where a guy looks out his window to see "five carloads of police who raided ..." his house because of a misunderstood picture he had on Facebook. I don't know about anyone else, but in my opinion the only time SWAT or commandos should be swooping in on private property is when there is a high probability of a Uranium enrichment lab on site. Anything short of this, especially including enforcement of dubious violations in the opinion of the BSA, RIAA, Microsoft or any other IP "owner" should be considered verboten, period. When governments become the SS stormtroopers for corporations, what else can this be called but fascism? John Carmack Gives PlayStation 4 a Thumbs Up ( Tom's Hardware 2013-02-24 ) I submit this as proof that Microsoft isn't the only giant to be chopped down to size with the passage of time. It hurts to see this from a legend such as Carmack, but for the love of God, how can he not be aware of the radical privacy invasions that Sony is perpetrating, it's everywhere, including above as mentioned by Formfiller referencing this ZDNet column: PS4 socials all the gaming, says Sony; but why?. Always connected, NON-anonymous, plugged-in like the Matrix, what could possibly be wrong with that? Jeez John, come back to Earth son. You made your mark specifically by writing a killer non-networked graphical 3D output engine by thinking entirely outside-the-box, and now you cheer for mega-corporate consumer sheep-herding devices that coral them inside-the-box, and worst of all, Sony's box? So very disappointing. EDIT: typo

I would never have noticed except for that juxtaposition that Formfiller did where the geometry of the windows pane lines lined up so nicely ... Obviously the child drew a blue rectangle, applied a perspective and then pasted a normal "+" plus sign. I wonder what Microsoft paid him? You're right! My bad, I was thinking old school! EDIT: typos

If that is exactly what happened ( FF2 picking the best version regardless of filename ) it wasn't from Nostradamus. It probably does something like this when executed ... FF2 fires up, enumerates all files in its plugin search path, requests standard file information for each, throws away every file except those with npswf32.dll in the "Original File Name" field, weighs the remaining versions and then keeps the best one. That pretty much describes a thinner algorithm for a portable application. Of course they may enhance that decision-making by using the registry and by expanding the search path to other folders perhaps under other browsers, it's up to them ( actually I believe this is the case because I think I've seen Opera or Firefox find Flash under each others' folder structure in the past ). Rest assured there is an algorithm, perhaps very complex, for plugin handling. You could have a look at the source code if you are so inclined or try to nail it down using FileMon and RegMon in tandem ( that's on Win9x naturally ). On WinXP using ProcMon will definitely expose all the search locations, but naturally it turns up a LOT more extraneous events than Win9x! EDIT: typo

Microsoft secure Azure Storage goes down WORLDWIDE. Looks like Redmond forgot to renew a security certificate... ( UK Register 2013-02-22 ) Windows Azure storage issue: Expired HTTPS certificate possibly at fault ( Mary Jo Foley ZDNet 2013-02-22 ) Windows Azure suffers yet another extended outage ( NeoWin 2013-02-23 ) What more is there to say really? EDIT: added link, new picture URL

Microsoft's attempts to clarify Office licensing policies fall short ( Ed Bott ZDNet 2013-02-22 ) He!! has frozen over. Ed Bott criticizes Microsoft over the Office licensing fiasco and their lame attempts at "clarity" ( related stories linked above ). He zeroes in on a couple of things that haven't got a lot of attention. Specifically this thing about what happens when the PC dies or is lost to theft or fire, to which Microsoft offers an absolutely crazy attempt at a new responsibility-shifting precedent: "An exception is granted when the software is on a PC that is replaced under warranty." Say what? What does a computer warranty have to do with Microsoft? Nothing. Not only that, what do you mean by "exception"? They're saying they will only do something to benefit the paying customer in only the rarest of circumstances? This is clearly an attempt to get the sheeple used to reduced responsibility from Microsoft, to officially lower customer expectations. Trust me, later they will reduce them further and further. Note that it has also been suggested in comments by some MicroZealots that in the case of fire or theft a person can simply call the insurance company, instead of Microsoft, no worries mate!. Again, Say what? The latter case is obviously the thought process of basement-dwelling children who do not have the slightest clue about how insurance works and the consequences to your premiums of trying to collect for damages, even when perfectly legitimate. However, this too is a distraction. No-one is even asking for money or material from Microsoft. The remedy to make the customer whole again is neither of those things. It is only to legally re-activate the friggin software, and perhaps provide a downloadable installer! The problem is on their end, not ours. What they are actually doing is tightening the activation procedure from the old days. Instead of improving the experience that many angry legitimate customers underwent with Windows XP and Office XP who made the phone call, explained the situation and got re-activated or a new code, they are worsening it! They simply altered it to "Sorry, no re-activation!" They have actually found a way to make things worse! Ed Bott also discusses an interesting past event, a stunningly Orwellian example of attempted manipulation of the historical record ... Whoa! Has any company in history ever viewed their customers with such contempt? It's as if they have a task force charged with scouring all aspects of the business to identify areas where the customer is treated fairly and then reverse it with extreme prejudice.

Just adding the latest site stats to the bottom ... MSFN Board Statistics ---------- 2010-12-25 ---------- Wayback Machine URL Total Posts ............. 851,982 Total Members ............ 69,970 Newest Member ........... rawais1995 Online At Once Record .... 11,048 ... 30 November 2010 - 05:45 PM ---------- 2011-01-01 ---------- Wayback Machine URL Total Posts ............. 852,615 Total Members ............ 70,406 Newest Member ........... poople Online At Once Record .... 11,048 ... 30 November 2010 - 05:45 PM ---------- 2011-12-24 ---------- Wayback Machine URL Total Posts ............. 886,682 Total Members ............ 81,080 Newest Member ........... ViekExege Online At Once Record .... 23,998 ... 15 April 2011 - 03:31 AM ---------- 2012-01-02 ---------- Wayback Machine URL Total Posts ............. 887,366 Total Members ............ 81,653 Newest Member ........... clausco2 Online At Once Record .... 23,998 ... 15 April 2011 - 03:31 AM ---------- 2012-09-20 ---------- Wayback Machine URL Total Posts ............. 912,976 Total Members ............ 96,924 Newest Member ........... vijay1857 Online At Once Record .... 23,998 ... 15 April 2011 - 03:31 AM ---------- 2012-12-21 ---------- Total Posts ............. 924,257 Total Members ........... 103,099 Newest Member ........... galeksandr Online At Once Record .... 23,998 ... 15 April 2011 - 04:31 AM ---------- 2012-12-24 ---------- Total Posts ............. 924,705 Total Members ........... 103,362 Newest Member ........... insutsbix Online At Once Record .... 23,998 ... 15 April 2011 - 04:31 AM ---------- 2013-01-15 ---------- Wayback Machine URL Total Posts ............. 916,235 Total Members ............ 97,317 Newest Member ........... rio2k11 Online At Once Record ..... 9,333 ... 09 January 2013 - 10:58 PM ---------- 2013-02-03 ---------- Total Posts ............. 918,397 Total Members ............ 98,117 Newest Member ........... bart Online At Once Record .... 10,218 ... 22 January 2013 - 03:22 PM ---------- 2013-02-23 ---------- Total Posts ............. 920,379 Total Members ............ 98,907 Newest Member ........... mimirou Online At Once Record .... 13,783 ... Yesterday, 12:58 PM

Dear Microsoft, sorry to nitpick, but I just noticed a mistake in that Windows 8 logo. If that is really meant to show perspective, the horizontal line in the blue Window panes should be tapered thinner to thicker from left to right. As it stands, the blue Window is tapered for faux-perspective with a normal "+" sign superimposed. So just who was the child using Microsoft Paint that scarfed up this contract? And they paid what? EDIT: clarity

I can honestly say that the Windows 1.0x logo is much more attractive than Windows Code Blue.

But that's precisely what's great about this wild and woolly thread! It certainly has developed over time. Because Microsoft insists on foisting the same uniform UI on users of all of its devices, what started as a critique of Windows 8 specifically grew out to WOA/RT and the Windows Phone, and from there has come to (also, but not only) encompass what's wrong with Microsoft. If the topics get split off mandatorily, they will each become that much less prominent. Not to mention the fact that this thread is a running time-capsule snapshot-in-time of the Windows 8 and Metro Beta2 >> RTM >> Oblivion chronology. It really is a good use of the concept of forum "threads", being able to later traverse past events as they happened. Not all threads need to be focused and closed or "solved", having 99% of them managed that way is fine, but not all. The only thing I regret is that "First Impressions" and "Deeper Impressions" weren't one continuous flow, perhaps just "Impressions". But that horse left the barn long ago! Now that's funny right there!

In that case they obviously won't first t exist. But there is more than one way to skin a cat! Lots of programs are hardcoded to look in specific folder structures, others are softcoded to look in the current directory and below ( Opera in at least some versions ), or they can do both in either order of precedence. Once a browser locates a file in this manner ( without registry keys ) it might then call some of its functions directly with no fuss, it might load the whole DLL into memory, or, it might first call the self-register procedure which sets up those aforementioned registry keys ( using that particular filename and location ). BTW, the registry keys being are most often used as a quick source of file pointers by applications created with standard tools like Visual Studio that are aware of the COM model with Registry keys, etc. It is standard procedure for big, traditional, non-portable applications. Also be aware that there are further possibilities as well. Some applications don't even require a valid filename at all and will load all DLLs it finds in its path even if the file is called abc.old or just abc. This doesn't yet pertain to Flash in browsers but it is part and parcel of debugging Windows errors. especially on big programs like CorelDraw which might have literally thousands of libraries in its path, so you can imagine how easy a conflict can arise. So there are many possible combinations of problems. For example, IrfanView will load up every plugin underneath it regardless of name. This is why I mentioned doing an audit of both the registry and disk so that the user can get all their ducks in a row, because:. The registry might be correct, pointing to the latest flash somewhere on disk while a different version is tucked away in a folder that the program manually searches, and a version conflict might arise. And I wouldn't be surprised if all browsers work slightly differently in their order of precedence. As above, it loaded the file from either the browser directory structure or it searched hardcoded traditional well-known paths. As Zoinkity mentioned, it is simply their latest distribution scheme probably meant to make things easier in their eyes. Complain to Adobe, they're good listeners, NOT What I do myself, is an audit of the registry and disk, then I prefer to normailze the names to the original format without versions numbers. It probably does not matter, but there is also the possibility of a program not only searching a hardcoded path, but also the traditional filename. Such a hypothetical program would find no Flash DLL file on disk using the newer compound filename+version format ( well, unless it also used the registry ). So to summarize the entire problem ... there are lots of combinations of Flash versions, filenaming, location, and browser methodology. If you want to have zero conflicts ( or security holes from not using the latest greatest most secure release ), do an audit of everything, step back and understand all the possibilities that may arise and fix it accordingly. Okay! But this isn't email and you're not the only one here, and other visitors will visit this thread years into the future! I just wanted to point out that they are doing the exact same thing with both types of Flash, DLL and OCX. They name them similarly, and they self-register in the same way. Also note, I am NOT saying that the OCX and DLL must be matched, there is no technical reason for that and someone might actually want different Flash levels in MSIE than in Mozilla/Opera maybe for dev purposes or some other experiment.

They call registry keys which contain the file locations ( see list above ). Consider them pointers to files on disk. These keys get created or refreshed when the DLL or OCX is self-registered ( when flash is installed or updated ) and then it loads a set of registry keys using that particular filename and location. Registering a DLL or OCX can also often be done just by doubleclicking it, and that location right there is what will get stored in the registry keys ( until the next time one gets self-registered ). One problem is that you can easily wind up with different filenames ( old and new ) in different keys. There are other version mismatch problem possibilities also. IMHO, the best thing to do is a thorough Flash audit of each type, both on disk and in the registry. Do the file search mentioned above npswf*.* and *flash*.ocx* ( including hidden etc ) and also search the registry. The registry is a little tricker, because in the live REGEDIT it will require multiple passes to catch all the filenames ( two minimum: flash and npswf. Same thing for a REG export ( unless you know how to do complex regular expression text searches ). Be prepared for a lot of false positives.

Most likely these are not something to bother disconnecting for ( more links ). You say all the ports except 1-2 are "stealth" right? So on those higher ports the packets should just be harmlessly rejected anyway. If you have a rule to handle them, set it to just log it for future reference with no prompt and be done with it. I just double-checked what Gibson had to say about those definitions ... and with "closed" the best a real intruder can do is know that your computer port exists, but go no further. I suppose if he was really evil and intent on penetrating your 56K system ( probably 5 KB/s, not a lot of value for them ), he could ping it mercilessly 24/7/365 until that moment your firewall is off and, well, still do nothing Don't sweat it. Even if you were on broadband I wouldn't sweat it ( It kinda takes the fun out of it ). But it is worth checking the port status periodically to make sure something doesn't get opened up behind your back and stay open. If you run all kinds of expert uber-utilities or dangerous programs they might change something. I still would suggest just cloning the C: drive to a separate spare HDD on a shelf, and also keep a backup computer around for scanning and cleaning the C: drive if possible. With those two fallback plans in place nothing can really hurt you.

Note that this renaming and re-registering of Flash files by Adobe affects both versions, the DLL used by Mozilla/Opera, and the OCX for MSIE. I usually search for ... npswf*.* and *flash*.ocx* Examples ... Flash.ocx SwFlash.ocx Flash32_11_4_402_287.ocx Npswf32.dll Npswf32_11_2_202_233.dll The problem is also in the registry where it is possible for different names to be in different keys. FYI ... The last time I did an audit I found Flash entries in the following keys, which may not be all inclusive because I may not have searched the Expand_SZ values ... Also note that I found ACL's were altered on the following keys by the flash installer ...

So you are on 56K then, not ISDN? No data filtering for sure, but there should be some form of router up there providing some rudimentary port defense ( but I suppose they might just be cheap and be using some bare bridge type of device ). Testing with and without firewall should provide an answer. For a comparison, an example of running really bare would be on broadband, where you have the cable modem sitting near the computer, and rather than inserting a router between them you jack the computer NIC straight into the modem ethernet port. This is as bad as it gets since the IP is usually static at the modem and assuming no software firewall on the PC, you should get probed rather quickly and compromised soon thereafter all at Mbits speed ( hence the firewall added in WinXPsp2 ). I guess it is possible that NetZero has developed the same scenario by using something upstream that just mirrors all ports to your system, but they should have learned something by now and at least used routers with some kind of protection against DDoS and the like. Well that is surprising to me. And I guess that is your answer. NetZero apparently provides your system with the ability to use any ports and be attacked via the same. Consequently, a software firewall would seem to be critical now. The one test control I would perform would be to try one or two non-firefox browsers ( Opera and MSIE with no plugins or widgets and no extras like "Sync" or whatever ). Reboot first, and immediately launch the Shields Up page. Don't visit any other sites or pages first to rule out some flash ad or something that might open a port somehow. Get results from all three the same way ( reboot, etc ) with and without firewall for a total of 6 different passes and then we can come to some conclusions about your default security status from NetZero ( but yes, it is not looking good so far ). I'm not sure if you can disable the firewall before reboot, but it is possible that the firewall software itself is using some port even, when disabled, for back-channel communication. That is the correct message, no NetBIOS. I can't think of a good reason for it ( maybe that photo sharing option that comes with every camera or webcam? ) and it dates back to DOS, maybe even before Netware. Windows has it for backward compatibility I guess, and this is fine as long as it can easily be disabled. I think in Win9x it is a service so that registry needs to be deleted if I remember correctly. Also, I believe it comes back from time to time piggybacking on some INF file that gets launched when you Add/Remove a network adapter or use that "Windows Setup" tab in Add/Remove ( the one that reinstalls everything "checked", instead of only the things you "just" checked at that moment ). But yes, it should be disabled. Your status is correct. Like I said above, if possible do a more controlled test with 3 browsers and firewall on and off. A quick Google finds this thread with users of Comodo firewall, and one possible reason is that ICS ( Internet Connection Sharing ) changes those ports to "closed" when ICS is disabled. If ICS isn't present in WinME, then perhaps something similar is doing the same. From what I read, it is most likely not a problem, but since we cannot rule out something in Sea Monkey yet ( hence the multiple browser experiment ), it is still too soon to know why they are not "Stealth". Yes, it is starting to look like NetZero is not blocking any ports. If your software firewall is catching pings they certainly are not preventing anything from swimming downstream to you. For all practical purposes there is no hardware firewall present. Does your software firewall show attempts on any port or just those not in "Stealth"? I'm not sure what is an appropriate or unusual level of pinging for you. I believe it directly correlates to the bank of IP addresses your ISP and you reside in. The bad guys will go for the low hanging fruit and they would know where that fruit is. It could be that NetZero IP's gets more or less than say another ISP so it simply comes with the territory. Or, there might be more war dialing port scanners in operation this week rather than last. Who knows. Yep, that makes sense. Open ports are a prerequisite for file sharing. When you have a router or software firewall you will almost always need to edit the configuration temporarily to use something like a torrent. As far as not getting hijacked, that is the result most people on dial-up report, including myself when I used it. The biggest security risk was never from remote invaders, but actually from executing an infected file or malware installer locally. The payload may be present already and is easily installed or it simply phones home knowing your exact defenses and comes back through whatever ports are open, with a payload ready to go. I think we are now understanding why they bundle AV in there, their customers have the ( low speed ) equivalent of a naked broadband router modem and without some protection they will get compromised. A better question is why not include a firewall instead or in addition to it ( note, you said they include NAV not NIS ). Realtime AV, as I often state, is completely optional as long as the computer user is careful because IMHO the bad outweighs the good, but YMMV. Without a proper router though, a software firewall is clearly essential. EDIT: modem, not router

Are you dial-up on POTS ( plain telephone wire )? I've actually never seen anything except that situation so my knowledge is limited here. If it is POTS, including ISDN, your computer is using a modem to create/decipher the actual analog "phone" signals which speak to the telephone company and they talk with the Internet from up there. I can't see a way that a router can be placed in between you and the Internet because that actual gateway is remote. By contrast, for broadband users the jumping off/on point that has an IP address is physically in their house at the Cable/DSL/Fiber modem so a router is simply slipped in between there and the computer(s) via ethernet and it becomes a hardware firewall managing incoming and outgoing comm while NAT'ing the IP addresses. In your Modem-POTS situation, the IP address is actually on a device far upstream, where they perform the Internet communication and then "Modem" it into telephone signals for the trip back to your modem. The security aspect of someone using your ( probably unchangeable ) IP address to probe your ports is primarily in the ISP's hands, and presumably a thoughtful ISP would notice such activity and thwart it upstream. For some added measure of protection a software firewall with inbound and outbound blocking might be useful, if for no other purpose than to popup with a prompt every time something knocks on your door or tries to phone home. But for all practical purposes they must have a router in place upstream that rejects many port probing and flooding attacks, check here. In theory, slow dial-up is a less than optimal target for a hacker naturally. But realize that malware usually doesn't care what connection you have, particularly if executed locally, it just sees an active TCP/IP connection and does what it was told to do. In other words, if your web browser can successfully connect to webpage addresses that you type in, then any malware can do the same. So there is a threat level present, but careful computing is the primary defense. Executing all manner of dangerous programs locally on your computer is one way to still get into trouble. Having said that, I never really used a local software firewall or realtime AV on Win9x over dial-up except out of curiosity for testing. So in your situation, I would simply keep timely backups ( the best is a cloned separate HDD with incremental updates applied periodically ) left on a shelf. Then I would happily run without AV and just be careful. If the worst happens, I just swap in the spare HDD. Note, that spare HDD should NOT be left in all the time as a D: drive ( or whatever ) because that is NOT a reliable backup. In the case of a virus infection, all connected drives, should be considered suspect. So, incremental backup and then remove is the best practice. If you have a 2nd computer which is normally kept offline, you can always do what I mentioned elsewhere: insert the infected drive and clean it like its a floppy disk. That spare machine would need to have a decent on-demand AV scanner and its definitions would need to be updated from time-to-time.

This came up here in one of many NeoWin discussions ( #741 ). I was pointing out there that Stardock owning a large stake in NeoWin may be less significant than Microsoft's 0% stake ( actually Stardock takes quite a beating from the MetroTards, so much that I can easily see them selling off their interest ). Stardock involvement with Neowin FAQ Because of the notable changes over there, some people like myself who were on NeoWin long ago believe they are now over-correcting by lurching to the other side after being burned by Microsoft ... Cnet: Microsoft speaks, [Neowin] site goes dark ( CNet 2003-03-04 ) Which looks like a more significant influence than Stardock. But then again, it is entirely possible that neither of them have any effect, and it is merely Steven ( Neobond ) enjoying the MetroTard click-fest. EDIT: typos

Win9x is such an easy system to manage with such a tiny footprint that I cannot imagine a need to lock it down using realtime CPU-killing AV when you can simply clone the whole thing periodically to another HDD, stick it on the shelf and grab it as a replacement if a virus should ever strike. Replacing a HDD only takes a moment so you can be right back online very quickly. This way, you can run your system bare naked ( behind a router of course ) with the full CPU and I/O power available and unimpacted by realtime AV. Alternatively, even without cloning, if you have a separate offline computer available, it is really simple to take out an infected system HDD and install it as D: and clean it that way. It is really easy to clean a virus or malware from Win9x and FAT32 ( easier than NT under NTFS ). There are so few places for it to hide and fewer startup vectors. This is just my opinion, but why punish yourself with realtime AV intercepting all traffic and peeking in every folder and flashdrive? Definitely get behind a router first though.