Nomen

From the "older is better / more secure but they won't tell you that" department: --------------- This Phishing Attack is Almost Impossible to Detect On Chrome, Firefox and Opera http://thehackernews.com/2017/04/unicode-Punycode-phishing-attack.html ---------------- Firefox 2 renders the example URL (as displayed in the location bar) as this: https://www.xn--80ak6aa92e.com/ Opera 12.02 renders the URL as a not-quite-right looking apple.com (looks like appie.com).

Just doing a bit of searching and there was a Biostar PT880 Pro-A7 board with VT8237R and the specs say SATA-1. So it must be the S version of the 8237 that can do SATA-2? The Biostar board has DDR + DDR2, PCIe +AGP, but (and get this) it has AC-97 audio (Realtek ALC-655) so this means there are win-98 drivers for sound - yes? RAM limited to 2 gb. I don't see this board on ebay at the moment. Something I found out about the 8237S from wikipedia: "The SATA-II feature of VT8237S is limited to 300 MB/S Data Transfer Rate bearing no NCQ functionality."

This is the board I have: http://www.asrock.com/mb/via/4coredual-vsta/ 4core dual-vsta. So it's not the dual-core VSTA you mentioned in your previous post. Yes, it is SATA-1. If the 4core dual-sata has a SATA-2 controller, explain how because I thought the sata controller was in the chipset and I thought both boards have the same chipset (PT880 / VT8237A). If the dual-sata has SATA-2 controller, and there are win-98 drivers for it, then that's going to be the only sata-2 controller I know with win-98 drivers.

> What's wrong with VIA-Chipsets? Ruthan said he's never gotten a PCIe video card to work on VIA-chipset boards (or at least the Asrock 4coreDual boards, specifically the VSTA which I have). Aside: What's the difference between the dual-VSTA and dual-SATA anyways?

First thing: As a result of fooling around with swapping the Q8200 core2 cpu with a xeon cpu (had to mod the bios to do that) and disabling the on-board IDE controller in the bios, XP decided that it needed to re-validate itself, which I got a chuckle from and I did do the re-validation and checked using XPinfo.exe and I'm back to full-power valid state. The board is now running with an E5450 ($25 from ebay). Second thing: Intel ICH10 2-channel and 4-channel SATA controllers now show up in device manager in the hard drive controller tree, in the same branch as the ide controller devices (which still show up despite having disabled the IDE controller in BIOS?). In XP, do SATA controllers show up under a separate branch in device manager, like they do in win-98 (typically or always as "SCSI" controller) ? Third thing: BIOS is still set to IDE-mode because XP fails to start when set to AHCI (a blue-screen with some text flashes briefly during XP-spash-screen before the screen goes black). But (as I said above) SATA controller shows up in device manager as "present and working" so I don't know how both of those things can happen at the same time. My primary question now is -> what sort of utility program can I run to know exactly if the drive is being controlled under a "SATA" paradigm or an IDE paradigm? Device manager does not explicitly give that information (it does not say which controller the drive is connected to) but a thought just occurred to me - there are different device-views in device manager and I haven't tried them all yet...

775i915PL-SATA2 ? 915 chipset has win-98 drivers? Too bad it's not DDR-2. Even though there *appears* to be many boards, the reality is different. The search results show many boards that don't show win-98 in the actual page. Besides the 915-based boards, I see AMD SiS756 based boards. And it seems all of them are DDR, perhaps DDR 400 at that. And they all have HD-Audio, so you're not gaining anything there because there will not be HD-audio drivers for win-98 (has anyone checked the driver download for the 775i915PL-SATA2 ?) Funny how it looks like SATA-2 in the model name, but is actually SATA-1 controller. And there are win-98 SATA drivers for the 915? I thought the 875 was the last Intel chipset to have Win-98 SATA drivers. Even if there are win-98 drivers for the 915PL (including SATA, USB and LAN controllers) I don't see the point in getting these boards over a socket-478 board unless they have DDR-2. Fully-functional PCIe is a good thing, but for win-98 it's not going to out-perform AGP so the DDR vs DDR2 thing becomes more relevant. Having win98 sound drivers for the 915PL would, however, tilt this in favor of the 915. Show me a non-Via chipset board with socket 775 and DDR-2, with win-98 drivers for LAN, SATA, USB, PCIe bridge, not necessarily having audio driver. Or show me the same except without PCIe slot but with AGP slot. I'm not familar with AMD CPU's of the same vintage and performance of the Intel 478/775 models and the level of win-98 driver support for such AMD-based boards. Maybe there are some?

> > > PCI-E cards work fine under 98SE > > > > Based on what I'm reading here about video cards, I just bought these off e-bay: > > BFG Tech GeForce 7950GT DirectX 9 256MB PCI Express x16 ($30) > > BFG Tech GeForce 7900GS DirectX 9 256MB PCI Express x16 ($28) > > Will use one or the other on an Asrock 4-Core DUAL-VSTA > > I had this board and i have failed to make Geforce 7600 PCI-E running Nice to find that out now. > PCI-E cards work fine under 98SE Tell me - what motherboard with PCIe has decent win-98 driver support?

I've got a system running XP on a Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3L board and found that the SATA controller was set to IDE in the bios (the system has no actual IDE drives - they're all sata). Changing the setting to AHCI resulted in a system that wouldn't boot. Changing back to IDE and booting back into XP, did some poking around and it sure looks like the SATA drivers are installed. So what exactly needs to be done to prepare XP, while it's running, to prepare it for the next boot when the BIOS is changed from IDE to AHCI mode?

Based on what I'm reading here about video cards, I just bought these off e-bay: BFG Tech GeForce 7950GT DirectX 9 256MB PCI Express x16 ($30) BFG Tech GeForce 7900GS DirectX 9 256MB PCI Express x16 ($28) Will use one or the other on an Asrock 4-Core DUAL-VSTA motherboard (Via 880 chipset) and a Core2 CPU (one of these ->E8400, E8500, E7500 or E7600). Running Win-98, naturally.

I'll throw this in here, since it looks useful: http://wu.krelay.de/en/

This might be of interest to some here: =========== A ‘smart’ clock with Windows 98 (and Raspberry Pi) March 7, 2017 http://fixmibug.com/a-smart-clock-with-windows-98-and-raspberry-pi.html ============ I think they mean "A Smart Watch with Windows 98 and Raspberry Pi". One thing that maybe someone here can explain: ============ The truth is more complicated is to get to the software itself, because of copyright and distribution details. The case of Windows 98 is very particular. After the agreement between Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, Windows 98 is not available through MSDN, therefore, there is a legal way to get the operating system beyond buying a physical copy on eBay or another similar site. ============ What is this agreement between MS and Sun, and how exactly does it affect Win-98 distribution/availability (or ownership?) ?

Over the past day or two I've downloaded all these same .MSU files from MS and they do compare (byte-for-byte) with the files in the wikileaks vault-7 archive. I don't know if there's a master document that's part of this archive that explains the layout of the archive, what certain files are, their relevance or meaning, etc. The significance of why those particular MSU files are there remains unknown.

I've uploaded maybe 6 or 7 of these .msu files to VT and all but one of them tested positive for W32.Virus.Jeefo.Gen as detected by "Webroot" AV program. All other AV programs detected nothing.

These are the files: IE10-Windows6.1-KB3032359-x64.msu IE9-Windows6.1-KB3032359-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3000483-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3004361-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3013455-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3019215-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3019978-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3020387-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3020388-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3020393-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3021674-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3022777-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3023562-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3029944-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3030377-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3031432-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3032323-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3032359-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3033889-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3034344-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3035017-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3035126-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3035131-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3035132-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3036493-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3039066-x64.msu Windows6.1-KB3046049-x64.msu (wasn't sure if I should post this thread to the win-7 forum or here, since I think a lot of the same people would be interested in this no matter where it's posted)

I'm decrypting the wikileaks Vault-7 file released last night, and I'm seeing a bunch of MS .MSU files inside this 500 mb archive. I'm not sure what this means or why they're there. These are somehow related to the CIA and their ability to hack various platforms, phones, and OS's.

>And, out of curiosity, are similar CD's still somehow distributed, or did it all move to the internet? I highly doubt that you can get these old MSDN CD's from MS today. Either in original form or re-packaged as archival material. Anyone with a current MSDN membership (do those still exist?) or maybe Technet can verify that you either do, or don't, have access to old MSDN CD's. And just to add - regarding the win-98 KB files, they are present on all the 2003 MSDN library CD's (disk 3) for April and (I think it was) July and October 2003 and January 2004 as well. I haven't fully checked, but the July or October had 2 extra KB's compared to April.

I found our binder containing the subscription library CD's. So I do have the set of 3 CD's for April 2003, and a few more of these sets for other months in 2003, and it looks like the last one I have is for January 2004. I haven't checked these other later months for the win-98 kb files. The win-98 file (enu_kbwin98x.HxS) contains 2,260 htm files, each one numbered to match (I presume) a KB number. 12 of these are 5-digit numbers (44,249 being the lowest, 90929 being the highest) and the others are 6-digit numbers (ranging from 107634 to 327551). The MSDN CD's this came on are labeled as: MSDN Subscriptions Library Essential resources for developers Disk 1 / April 2003 / 0403 part no. X09-45793 Disk 2 / April 2003 / 0403 part no. X09-47794 Disk 3 / April 2003 / 0403 part no. X09-45795 I tried to install this entire library thing on a win-7 PC, starting with the install/setup found on disk 1, and I tried this while logged in as a user with admin rights and as "THE" admin, and both times I got all the way to the end of disk 3 and then got this: ======== ERROR 1317 while attempting to create the directory c:\programdata\microsoft\windows\start menu ======== That folder does already exist, so I don't know why it was trying to create it, or maybe it was trying to create something under it. But again, the superior security safeguards built into Windows 7 steps in to save the day! I could do nothing but cancel the install, and it was rolled back to zero - so I don't know what this library thing looks like when it's installed. It's a lot of stuff - almost 2 gb.

Here's what I have for what is probably the most comprehensive "bad" kb list on the internet for Windows 7. Also note this: I have paid ZERO attention to updates starting Sept. 2016. From what I know, those are now monthly roll-up packages, and I don't know to what degree anyone has unpacked them or even if separate updates still even exist in kb-number form inside them and if so - are these kb's available individually. I also don't know if anyone has made any discoveries or made statements as to the "bad-ness" of these roll-ups or individual components inside them. If there have been such statements, let me know where to find them and I'll include them in this bad-list. I have a win-7 SP1 32-bit system with .net 4.61 and IE10 that was installed from an image created by RT7 that has *never* performed a WindowsUpdate download. At the time I made the install image (August 2016) that system was up-to-date as far as WindowsUpdates was concerned (aside from a handful of KB's that I classify as bad). That image contained over 200 "good" KB's rolled in. I've just performed an update check and this is what is being offered by WindowsUpdate for this system: Cumulative Security Update IE 10 KB3124275 ? possibly part of RT7 install rollup December, 2016 Security and Quality Rollup for .NET KB3205402 ? no data on this, not in my bad list January, 2017 Security Monthly Quality Rollup for Win7 KB3212646 ? no data on this, not in my bad list Update for Win 7 KB2506928 bad was mentioned in a "bad" list, no reason given Update for Win 7 KB2545698 bad was mentioned in a "bad" list, no reason given Update for Win 7 KB2592687 bad was mentioned in a "bad" list, no reason given Update for Win 7 KB2647753 ? no data on this, not in my bad list, can't find out what it's for Update for Win 7 KB2660075 bad was mentioned in a "bad" list, no reason given Update for Win 7 KB2726535 bad was mentioned in a "bad" list, no reason given Security Update KB3042058 bad contains Winlogon Spying Security Update KB3086255 bad disables SafeDisc games Update for Win 7 KB3138612 bad "Fishy update" Security Update KB3177186 ? pertains to SMB server security? badkb.txt

I've got a win7 Professional SP1 64 bit with an issue relating to Open GL. The machine has 3 accounts: Administrator, User-1, and User-2. The "Administrator" is the Built-in account. User-1 is a member of the Administrators group. User-2 is a member of the Users group. A program that makes use of Open GL runs correctly under the Administrator account, and under User-2. But under User-1, the program window is displayed with a white background (which makes it unusable) but otherwise the program runs and displays no error messages. There doesn't seem to be a way to endow a system with Open GL functionality except by way of the video drivers, and some answers (or suggestions) to this issue are to re-install or update the drivers. But presumably the system is using the same drivers under all 3 user accounts. In running the Intel video driver install program, it says that it can't access or write to a folder (c:\ProgramData). The system periodically tries to update adobe reader, and this too fails and I think it also has an issue with the same folder. I've tried to delete the Intel folder within the programdata directory, but I get stuck when dealing with this: C:\ProgramData\Intel\SUR\QUEENCREEK\inteldata\temp\2017_02_15__16_10_18_standard.etl I simply can't delete that file. Even when logged in under the administrator account. When I look at the file's properties, one thing I get is: Unable to display current owner. If I try to take ownership (as the admin) I get "unable to set new owner - access is denied". I've downloaded FileAssassin v 1.06 from malware bytes, and have checked the "delete file" box, but when I hit the "Execute" button I get "An error occurred in function Delete file. FindRemoteFileHandles returned NULL value. This may affect deletion of file. Please report this error to the FileAssassin support team". I hit ok, and get another message box: "The file could not be deleted!". I can't even copy that file to anywhere. I don't know how "Queencreek" is related to intel. I thought it might be a name for one of their graphics chipsets, but the wiki list of Intel GPU's doesn't show anything named Queencreek. There seems to be a town in Arizona with that name, again don't know if Intel has a facility there or not. In the above path, other than a log file in the \inteldata folder (which I was able to delete normally) there are no other files present in any of the other folders under \Intel\. It would be nice to fix this OpenGL issue, and it would be nice to know how to take control of files and folders on your own god damn PC (like you can on win-9x/me) and I don't know if that is part of this OpenGL problem (ie - fundamentally a permissions issue related to OpenGL files or folders).

I've looked at an Oct 2005 MSDN library #3 CD and it's full of hxs files but only 4 of them have "9" in the file-name. I can seem to extract these files ok, but the process always ends with "The library is open with offset" message. Did the MSDN Library CD's always come individually - in their own 3-CD fat jewel case? I can find several of those for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, and even a few 2000 and 2001 Library DVD's (in their own plastic case/shell) but I haven't yet located anything for the years 2003 or 2004, but other wise I have a few of those large plastic clamshell binders with 2003 and 2004 CD's in them. I figure if I have 2003 and 2004 CD's I must have the Library CD's for those years as well. ?

Would the KB repository that's present in the April 2004 CD also be present (in some form) in any Technet CD's?

> #3 CD of the April 2004 MSDN Library What exactly is printed on that CD? Or what color is that CD? I've got so many of those things - just knowing the month and year isin't enough to figure out what CD to look at.

Has anyone looked at the html coding on the MS support KB pages to see how those pages are constructed such that they are (presumably by design) limiting access to only the most recent browsers?

> No. BTW, I do get the blank pages with IE8 on XP SP3, too... > but FF 51.0.1 displays the KB articles OK, so they're still there. My point was to ask if the kb articles are visible / readable on any browser that works on win-98. Does FF 51 run under 98? If not, what version FF does that will render these kb articles enough to be useful.

No browser I'm using on win98 (FF2, Opera 12.02, Retrozilla 2, Palemoon 3.6.32). With Netscape 7.2 I get "Error trying to validate certificate from support.microsoft.com using OSSP - malformed request). On the others, I get a completely blank page. If I select "no page style" in FF2, I get a set of content links along the left side of the page, extending several pages, but the content of the KB article is not there. Even when I view source, I don't believe that the KB text is part of the page. It must be loaded from a script or some other object that is not functional, not even with Opera 12.02. Is there a trick that will make the KB material visible with any of these browsers, or is there an alternative third-party website that has captured the KB material for a wide range of MS products (notably win-9x/me) and will present them in a viewable way without simply pointing back to MS links? (I've seen this lack-of-viewability of these KB articles for probably 3 to 5 years now when using these browsers. Is this an issue for others as well?)