JustinStacey.x

I can't remember. i don't really bother with 9x anymore, I consider it a dead OS and for me often just amounts to stress and more hassle than XP. But I am positive that about two months ago I installed the latest VLC, pretty sure it was version 1.0 because I remember the improved interface over the old one. I had one problem with it not playing files (gave an error about an ordinal or something? I really can't remember) and I just googled and installed the Microsoft Layer for Unicode http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&saf...mp;oq=&aqi= And then it worked

VLC does not need Kernel Ex. It should run fine, and I think to run it on Windows 95 all you need to do is copy across one DLL, the name of which eludes me right now.

You mean Miranda 0.8 - The product isn't finished yet. VLC 1.0 was recently released and works fine on Windows 98. As does Opera 9.

5.5 was an excellent choice for Windows 95, and provided you hadn't installed IE4 previously with all the Active Desktop crap it would make hardly any difference on System performance and wouldn't install too much crap.

I don't think I mentioned this before but if anyone is looking for relatively recent laptops that support Windows 98 the Medion MIM 2080 does, and has working drivers for everything. Finding them is difficult and obviously the driver disks don't always have 98 compatible drivers. But, it is possible and I have done it on that machine. it also runs Windows 2000 very nicely. Since it has no internal CD drive, the setup files have to first be copied to the hard drive.

http://www.oldapps.com/internet_explorer.p...rnet_explorer=3 Looks like they don't have IE 5.01 (except for Windows 3.1) but they have 5.5... give that a go.

Original Quake and Quake II on the Playstation/PC = win. To play Quake 3 you practically need to be dosed up on speed - it's so fast paced!

HAHAHAHA. Sigged. That was classic.

I would rather a feather and ink... it even runs out faster.

See... We're just getting into semantics here. My next argument would be that a bios/hard drive level password stops boot CDs from being used to tinker with the machine. The next argument could then involve flashing the BIOS to remove this layer of protection... but it's all beyond the scope of the argument since boot CDs are used outwith the Operating System and are nothing to do with them therefore it is moot. We are talking about security WITHIN the OS... this is starting to head in the direction of PC security and will ultimately boil down to 'lets all switch our PCs off, bury them 6 feet under the ground, and let's all go home'. Post edited to remove some comments that could be perceived as aggressive: I want to keep this as friendly as possible.

It's really the only way to get the message through is to rinse and repeat. IE was also 'forcefully integrated' just as much if not moreso in Windows 2000 and XP systems, but they didn't suffer a fraction of the laughable stability outcome of 98. OHWAIT. 2000 and XP are NT based. Snap. Wait -- some of you guys are arguing that NT remote security sucks, now you're saying local security does too? I'd invite you (or anyone) over to sunny Scotland to come to my Windows computer right now at the 'Press CTRL-ALT-DEL' screen to hack into it 'in a matter of seconds' and gain admin rights. I'll get the kettle on. Given all my user accounts are password protected, good luck with that. What did one have to do to elude the 'security' of a password protected account in 98? Right, press the escape key.

I believe there's a registry tweak that can do that for IE6 but I don't know what it is. My preference is to let Proxomitron alter the headers. Proxomitron can modify the user agent string and most any other web content of anything that connects to the web through it. I'm finding Proxomitron to be more and more useful. It can filter out or modify undesirable or troublesome web content, remove ads, filter out malicious code, and much more. It's a small, lightweight program that you unzip and use. It can be looked at as a rule based content filter. More info on Proxomitron is available at The Un-Official Proxomitron Forum. I edited my user agent string to say Duke Nukem; 3D; Get back to work, you slacker! Websites think I run Mozilla 4.0 on an 'unknown platform'

Most of what you can configure in Firefox is gratuitous. At least the configuration options for IE (most of them found in Group Policy) actually do things to bolster security... Albeit, a secure IE is most often a pain-in-the-butt to use IE, which is why I tend to use Opera nowadays.

If better means more secure by design, more stable, not as leaky as a bottomless ship with resources and with a hybrid tamperproof kernel not based on the monolithic architecture, then yes, a lot of us here are saying NT is 'better' than 9x. Something's not right. Windows shouldn't crash that often. One thing I could *never* get to work in Windows 98 was standby. The PC would never wake up. Nor would it ever work in a stable manner until I removed IE and its shell. Completely. It would simply leak itself out of addressable resources within hours. I'd do my usual, stay up until 2 or 3 in the morning, leave a crapload of programs open on my desktop, and fall asleep. I'd wake up in the morning to find a screenfull of MSN IMs. Which had consequently ran the machine out of GDI resources and f*cked it. So I had to force reboot. Or, I could just avoid all 98s crap and install 95, one of the best OSes of its time made by MS. But alas, with 95 came p*** poor USB support or none at all, and rubbish application support. Some apps just worked better on 98. Lol. What kind of average driver knows how to control the car like a pro? Not many. Does this mean the car is inadequate? Of course it doesn't. The design is there, the possibilities are there. How it is used/setup does not fundamentally change anything. Windows 9x has a flat memory model with absolutely no segregation of system, kernel, and user. This does not equal security. This can not equal security. This is an oxymoron to security. It is nothing but consumer based basic design principle. Oh wait. It's bad design. All of the major OSes of its day were. Linux at that stage was still being born and Windows and Mac OS were both single user systems with no security whatsoever. Anything else was either a lucky find but incompatible with everything or unintelligible unless you had a degree in *NIX commands. And Windows 9x systems have been made infamous for the fact that they crash constantly, randomly need rebooted due to resource leakage or becoming unstable for no apparent reason. Some members of this forum will state that Windows 98/ME can be made very stable with some tweaks and I too can testify to this as I have used 98lite and IEradicator in the past. You have to tweak 98 to make it stable, which is acceptable by the 9x community, but its unnacceptable to them the fact that you have to tweak NT to take advantage of its security? How ironic. Lol lol. Lol lol lol lol. See above.

Not at all. It's evolved into a debate between two types of people: Those who think Windows 9x is secure, and those who know it isn't. I couldn't give a rats a** who uses Windows 9x, or who drives their car upside down. What does bug me is ill informed facts. Windows 9x is nowhere near as secure or robust as NT. PERIOD.

Yeah, that's called progress. If progress wasn't forced, and competition wasn't forced (like Microsoft) we would all still be stuck in the stone age. If people still used methods of living that they 'preferred', humans wouldn't have evolved to the state we are in today, period. Some kind of progress needs to be forced otherwise we would literally be stuck in a loop. Progress and saying goodbye to defunct products while seeing in new products is part of life. by all means document the past and keep a record of it (This is why I like urban exploration, for instance) but don't dwell on it forever. Retrocomputing is *not* always suitable for present-day mission critical computing. Exactly my point! If everyone was still using DOS because it was all what we preferred, we'd think it was all that and wouldn't be making the same amount of progress that we do nowadays. We wouldn't know there was potential for anything better, and any possibilities brought to us by newer computer technology (such as medical breakthroughs and ways of tackling crime) wouldn't be/have been possible. If you like retrocomputing, fine, I am cool with that. I even partake in it somewhat myself, and most of my computers are at least 5 years old. But it is *not* a means to an end, and I wish people could see this. Technology is always improving, and if the whole world remained stuck in the past waiting for the Langoliers, this world would be a very stagnant one.

UNIVBE: http://www.bearwindows.boot-land.net/vbe9x.htm SCITECHSOFT: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...22401&st=20 http://web.archive.org/web/20080120054601/...ft.com/ftp/sdd/ jaclaz Kickass links jaclaz but would the generic drivers ever be able to do as good a performance as the real ones? I run a railway simulator on that machine and so I need smooth video. [bTW: I've already decided I am **not** going to continue trying to run Windows 98 on this one nor am I going to generally put any more effort into running pre-XP OSes on my machines. It's becoming too much effort to maintain and anything pre-XP is dead as far as I am concerned... I will be purchasing a RAM upgrade instead and sticking with XP.]

qft my man... Nero is horrible... for basic burning I use XPs IMAPI CD burning interface and for backing up to DVD-RAM disks I use Deepburner freeware which is only a few Megs... and it does ISOs!

Thank you Cluberti.

If I could become JustinStacey.x that'd be grand...

How did you manage to get a trojan if you're running an IE free so called secure version of Windows, Fred? It's a bit startling if you are running that version of Windows and this still happened...

Reinstall again. If no go, your motherboard is dying.

I tried to install Windows 98 on one of my computers last night but I ended up not being able to find a display driver (I've done it before, and I knew I should have saved the driver, oh well...) I ended up giving up. It's just become so much of a hassle to run 9x these days that I'd rather run a newer OS, skin it like 9x, and use DOSbox whenever I need the age old functionality... I mean, when the hassle of running an older OS like 9x wastes so much more time than just chucking on XP, having to port a few games over (like Duke Nukem and DooM) and spending a few moments skinning it, and still saving hours, I'd much rather do that. Although I love my computers, there are (believe it or not) things I'd much rather be doing than arsing about trying to get 9x to work. In a way though I'm just as stubborn with XP as all these 9x users are with 98/95. Although there are some things that really make my blood boil about XP (the extra overhead compared to Windows 2000 for almost no extra functionality except a few new wizards and services) there are so many things about it that are really quite great even if it pains me to admit it. The fact that since I started using it in around 2004/5 (when I had to get rid of my old 486 running 95...) I've ALWAYS ended up coming back to it no matter what, kinda proves that it's a good solid product. I've been to Linux, Windows 2000, 98, Vista, and all came back to XP. The only place where I use Vista is work and that's because it's rockin' on my PC there. I think in a few years time XP is going to become the NT4 of today and will probably be seen in cash machines, embedded systems and godknows what else for years and years to come. The fact is though, it is being replaced fast by better technology. People are already considering XP 'oldschool' and in a way I feel that too. I guess what I am trying to say here is use what you prefer, and be happy. In many ways I prefer Windows 2000 and 95 over XP but for me its just not viable to use them so I stick with XP, and, in all fairness, i DO seem to have less issues with XP. I don't have to arse around with it just to get software to work and it is relatively stable. (Hell Windows 2000 can't even do dual monitors natively, how sucky is that!) There is a fine difference though between having a personal preference and then just blatantly believing that it's better than everything else citing biased preferences as 'advantages'. I know fine well, that Vista wipes the floor with XP in terms of some things - and although I don't like it much, I am aware Windows 7 is probably much of the same. I know fine well that modern games like Crysis wipe the floor with DooM, Duke Nukem etc even though I prefer them. And I know that older cars are not as safe and economical as newer ones... I could go on and on.

I've seen this problem a lot lately with a client of ours that uses FTP regularly and I usually end up resetting their Internet Explorer using the option under the Advanced Tab in Internet Options. The upgrade from earlier versions seems to fubar some of its functionality. A reset wipes the slate clean, kinda thing. Before you do that though, try disabling passive (PASV) FTP mode in the Internet Options, as the big man of the Venn Diagram suggested.