Jump to content

JustinStacey.x

Member
  • Posts

    174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Everything posted by JustinStacey.x

  1. Defaults... security... obscurity... going round in circles... etc After reading this post, I now understand fully your lack of understanding of Windows. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Windows NT works, and to be quite honest, after reading that... rubbish... I think it's quite fortunate you have stuck to Windows 98 or whatever it is you use. Your arguments throughout this entire thread have consisted of 'I am more secure using my OS because of features that aren't there or are not enabled by default'. Seriously, what kind of argument is that? I've heard more sense than that from MySpace forums. RunAs is actually a service which can be disabled if the user feels it so necessary. I don't even believe the exploit you are talking about exists, but if it did/does, it would be negated anyway by having a password on the administrator account and guest account which should be standard practise anyway. Not only that, but it would have been addressed by Microsoft, like they did with the Messenger service when it started being abused bigtime. Admittedly, that service was a cockup right from the start, and if it had been designed only to allow LAN communication (instead of WAN communication) it would have been feasible to leave it enabled.
  2. Odd. I was certain that if you were playing audio from Windows Media Player and then, say, tried to launch into a game, the OS would scream and b***h at you to turn one of them off. Maybe it was hardware/driver specific or not present in 98 -- I have much more hands on experience with 95, thankfully.
  3. Well it's obviously a conflict of some kind. Resource, device, software. Like the fact that 9x hated you if you tried to play sound from more than one source at once. I'd be betting that if you did an upgrade on any of the modem software (if applicable), firmware or any other variables you could solve it. If you dual boot with any other OSes try them and see if you get any further.
  4. I don't feel that cleartype makes fonts sharper... to me it seems to make them slightly 'fuzzy'. The only thing I think Cleartype really solves well is jaggies in italicised fonts - it totally eliminates them. Everything else just looks smoothed down and sometimes it makes text 'sink into the page' more.
  5. "Runtime error 5 -- Invalid Procedure call or argument" Dude. You're running Windows 98. It will happen. In order to get 9x in a usable state I either have to remove IE from Windows 98 altogether with 98lite/IEradicator or just revert to 95. At least it was actually usable, didn't leak resources like a ship with no floor and didn't require extraneous resources to run on.
  6. AVG has gone from being a decent product in 2006/2007 to a complete pile of garbage as it is now. The versions which used to work on Windows 98 even had a funky DOS file scanner which would scan the key DOS boot files on startup.
  7. Edit DOSBOX.CONF. Just use DOS commands under the [autoexec] section to launch straight into the game. Clicking the DOSbox icon will launch DOS which will then autoexec into the game. I'm hoping you know enough DOS lingo to be able to do it? If you need a hand give us an idea of the directory structure and I'd be willing to write the autoexec lines which you can then just paste in.
  8. I am PC only because I pretty much can't afford a new Mac. Well, I can, but I'd have to save up for a while and I'd rather settle for what I have now and spend on other things like a camera. I think you'll find a lot of people would like a Mac but don't feel up to paying the premium and so settle for the other side. If Apple saw sense and lowered their prices they'd have people swarming into the Apple stores. I have a second gen iPod Touch and I like it. I wish like the iPhone it had 3G capabilities, but again I am settling for less because I am no way paying the ridiculous price for the iPhone just to have an iPod touch that can phone and text people and go on the Internet from anywhere. (because that's really all an iPhone is.)
  9. With me it seems to differ. On XP I can either take it or leave it depending on the monitor, it tends to look better on LCDs and worse on CRTs and since I use a CRT with XP at home I think I have it off right now. CRTs are pretty good at antialiasing text anyway. I don't really notice it in Vista because it's always there, but it seems better than XPs cleartype. More 'one size fits all'. I had a customer phone me up once complaining about IE 7 and how she couldn't read any of the text because it was incredibly fuzzy and 'illegible'. I asked her if she was using a CRT etc and after 5 minutes I just couldn't see why the Cleartype was making everything so bad. I eventually just gave her instructions to turn off Cleartype. I guess some people just really don't like it! BTW: Antialiasing of screen fonts on Apple Macs has been an option since Mac OS 8.6 I think, and OS X antialiases screen fonts like there is no tomorrow... yet I see no complaining there.
  10. Win9x doesn't run remote services by default Cars don't get stolen, driven by lunatics, and end up killing people 'by default'. Your point holds weight in the fact that most home users are unaware of the fact that NT based OSes default settings may leave them at risk, but it does not make NT inherently insecure. It simply makes it badly configured, which, I will 100% agree with. Up until Vista, Microsoft OSes default configuration has been nothing short of a godawful security disaster. I have to spend at least an hour fiddling with XP before I am satisfied enough to use it, but once it has been fiddled with, any NT based OS can be made so secure to the point of being virtually impenetrable. 98 and 95s only cover is its so called 'secure default setup' which again, doesn't make it secure by design. Saying that it is secure because it is set this way or that 'by default' is almost as bad as the security through obscurity argument in other words the Mac users who think they're secure or the Firefox users who also think this. As a side note I should make it crystal clear that I don't hate Windows 9x. I am fully aware that it runs faster than Windows NT and I think it is a great OS that I grew up on, and yes, I know it does several things better than NT. But it is not stable. It is not secure (Such a novelty on an OS that runs everything as root is an oxymoron). And it can never manage its resources as well as NT. I would much rather suffer the lag that you get with NT for a more solid, reliable, secure OS that won't bring itself down when a naughty app throws its toys out the pram.
  11. Looks like Aerial to me... or any of the similar fonts from the Sans Serif family. I miss the one that was displayed with IE6 and 5.x. Ironically, that was a hugely complicated version of the IE4 'I cannot display the webpage' error which was actually rather similar to the one seen in 7 and 8. And in IE 1, 2, and 3, the error was simply a Windows popup error message. Ironic how things became gradually overcomplicated until now they're starting to become simple again.
  12. I know that LCDs are funny about resolutions, I can in fact go to 800x600 but that stretches images horizontally. I would set it to its native resolution but it's almost unreadable which is why i no longer use this machine as a portable computer in the first place - to read anything you have to practically glue your eyes to it. It's the HP Mini note 2133.
  13. I have a netbook permanently connected to a CRT, which is the main screen. I use the netbook screen as nothing more than a secondary which displays taskmanager and process explorer. However, even on 1024x600 the text is still a bit of a strain to read so I want to set it to something like 800x480 or exactly half the native resolution 640x384, for instance. However I can't. I looked up how to set custom resolution in the registry but it didn't work... so how can I go about it, anyone?
  14. And these two paragraphs prove nicely how fragile Windows 95 and 98 is. Clogging up Windows NT based systems with loads of programs are much more likely just to slow it down. Destabilising the NT based OSes is much more difficult than destabilising a 98 or 95 which can be done with just a few wrongly set options. In other words, it has crap fault tolerance, which I can vouch for, even although I like it. Windows Vista, XP, 2000, NT, will never run quite as fast as 98 and 95, but will always run more stable. The slight tradeoff for speed is worth it for the extra protection that the NT based OSes offer, and is also offset by increasingly more powerful hardware. Simply put, NT was designed to be robust while 95 was designed to be easier to play with. It's a single user operating system with a kernel which will do absolutely anything it is told to. There is no concept of access control, security permissions or who's who. Sure, there are lots of security holes in an NT default setup, but once these are plugged, the system will be far more secure than a 95 or 98 system could ever hope to be. These may be more difficult to plug, but that does not mean it is less secure. To think otherwise when the system is not even based on a secure concept is bizarre. It's like saying a car with no brakes is safer because it has no accelerator. It's the same argument as people who think Apple Macs are the best thing since sliced bread. If it really were true, more people would use 95 and 98.
  15. Good for him... but I still can't see any logic at all in why someone would go out, spend a premium on Macs, wipe off the great OS that comes with it, and then run only Windows?
  16. Why?!?! They need to be set up with bootcamp which requires the Mac OS... smh bigtime...
  17. This is one of the things I love about 95 and 98... doesn't work in Windows 2000!
  18. I quite like Virtual PC. It's stable enough to rely on and reasonably fast. It has good networking and the additions can allow drag and drop and higher performance.
  19. Just having DLLs on the system is not much to worry about... I would be more worried about how much crap they load into the registry... and most of that crap you can thank IE for.
  20. Booting from an already booted OS is different from booting inside an OS that isn't booted
  21. More like the fact that the boot manager is generally loaded *before* OSes are taken into consideration? The boot manager's job is, afterall, to allow selection of OSes. Running it inside an OS is just not something that happens... even on Macs it isn't run from 'inside' the OS, although you can make changes to the bootable device in the OS, it still writes the change in the EFI... OP should just install WUBI and be done with it already...
  22. There's a lot more to it than 'just taking a chance' but I certainly can't bothered explaining except I'll say it's proactive defense...
  23. I thought about that exact same thing just after I'd posted, BenoitRen, and it did suddenly occur to me why the sound in Duke Nukem had worked despite the sound driver in my OS at that time being borked. The simplicity of days gone by.. I miss it. Of course, the machine I am planning to install this stuff on has no sound hardware that any of these old games is going to recognise, except perhaps I might be able to get away with it if I select 'General Midi' as the sound device. This works for some old games on my XP Machine using the Command Prompt, so I might be in for a chance of getting it working.
  24. Okay lads and ladies... final question before I consider going with this and installing Windows 3.1... Will the Microsoft Speaker driver allow for sound in DOS games such as Duke Nukem and DooM - and by sounds I mean actual sounds rather than the PC speeker 'blip' which is available on some of those older games. I vaguely recollect Duke Nukem working with audio on an old 486 of mine which had Windows 95 installed but no working audio driver. The main reasons for me wanting audio are so I can play those older games and at a push play audio files. Also... I am aware the version of DOS that comes with Windows 95 and 98 boots Windows 3.1 fine - are there any known ramifications to doing this as opposed to using DOS 6.22?
  25. Try running the Command Prompt in Administrator mode. I use it on XP and it works peachy keen... as does ROTT and some of my other DOS games, which surprised me.
×
×
  • Create New...