
Nomen
MemberContent Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Nomen
-
Last week (and again today), for the first time ever, I'm seeing zip-compressed .js files as spam email attachments. These are polymorphic files that seem to have very low initial detection rates (such as less than 10 out of 57 at Virus Total). An analysis of today's .JS file can be found here: http://wepawet.iseclab.org/view.php?hash=1404be252a3d2861fdffc6af412d2495&type=js I'm trying to understand how an end-user, using a windows-based email client (such as outlook, thunderbird, etc) would end up executing the attachment. For example, after saving the attachment and decompressing the .zip file, I dragged the resulting .js file over to a few of my installed browsers. Firefox 2.0.0.20, Netscape 9.0.0.6 and Opera 12.02 all did the same thing - just opened it as a text file and displayed the text of the .js file. IE 6 seems to have actually known it was a script file, because it first threw up a warning if I wanted to open, run or save a potentially dangerous file. I said sure - run it. It then threw up this error: -------------- Windows Script Host Script: (path to js file)\Invoice_whatever.doc.js Line: 1 Char: 15876 Error: Arguments are of the wrong type, are out of acceptable range, or are in conflict with one another. Code: 800A0BB9 Source: ADODB.Stream --------------- I had to dismiss that error message about 10 times before it went away. I would have thought that Opera 12, being somewhat "new" or newer, would have known how to handle or execute a .js file. Is IE the only browser that opens / executes .js files if you drop the file onto the browser? Is this unique for IE6, or do other versions of IE also do this? Do newer versions of Mozilla-based browsers execute .js files if you drop them on them? Is the Windows Script Host (or file-handler?) that Win-9x/me has somehow "invulnerable" to this seemingly recent development in malware email attachment techniques?
-
It's not Kex that you're testing. It's a specific program / software that you're testing. And there are certain specific deficiencies in those old P2's and P3's that affect multimedia / video rendering if I'm not mistaken. Absolutely no reason to be putzing with win-98 on anything less than a socket 478 P4 with 512 mb ram these days. Five years ago you could find PC's like that sitting on the side of the road - being thrown out with the garbage.
-
Probably something to do with your hardware. Video driver, or not enough system ram, or old (non-P4) CPU. If not hardware or drivers, then what updates / patches / tweaks to your system files do you have as a starting point before you try KernelEx?
-
Windows 9x SSL Protocol WinSSLWrap 1.17 (Rev 08)
Nomen replied to PROBLEMCHYLD's topic in Windows 9x Member Projects
I make extensive (even insane) use of my HOSTS file to block contact with any host that I figure my win-98 computer doesn't need to talk to. I add entries based on what I see when I examine web-page code and also what my router shows in the out-going contact logs. Some of these entries probably makes browsing on some sites difficult or impossible (it's hard to know which entries are responsible) but if FF2 can't perform then Opera 12.02 frequently can. In an effort to see if I can serve up some of the frequently accessed files locally, I installed Abyss Web Server free version, which you must choose either http or https service (I chose https). So it serves up quite a lot of .js files that I've retrieved manually and placed in the local web-server directory (214 files at last count, 90 of them being .js files, 22 of them .css files, etc). Various jquery.js files being the most common. I examine these .js files (expand them when necessary and store them that way) and look for references to other hosts and mung them for the fun of it. I mention all this because one of the things that Abyss has is this: the host that is shown in that example (apis.google.com) is currently rem'd out in my hosts file. It will serve up TLS/SSL ciphers on port 443 for any hosts that I have in my HOSTS file. Here is the Abyss help-page for these functions: http://www.aprelium.com/data/doc/2/abyssws-win-doc-html/ssl.html I don't know if any of this would help outlook when contacting a mail host (like gmail) as a way to get around SSL or Certificate errors during login... ?- 44 replies
-
1
-
- Eric Young
- Handshake
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Booting DOS 7.1 on system with 4 gb ram (not enough for Smartdrive?)
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
> And no, most probably I will never find out Jaclaz - do you not have a PC with 4 gb with a floppy drive? That's all you need to find out yourself by booting DOS 7.1 from a floppy and seeing if you can load smartdrv with the regular himem.sys (and any suggested switches). The system I was working with is now at another location, but later today I will be able to test numhandles on several different machines with various amounts of ram. Regarding the Numhandles argument - after looking through the results of many web searches, I can find: - no authoritative explanation from any source as to what NUMHANDLES is for, what it does, when to use it, etc, and - no explanation as to how NUMHANDLES affects or alters himem.sys's ability to provide XMS memory to applications such as smartdrv.exe, especially in situations when a system has a large amount of installed ram. -
Booting DOS 7.1 on system with 4 gb ram (not enough for Smartdrive?)
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
While we're on the subject - some quotes from http://www.programdoc.com/1017_4787_1.htm here: ============ "The script to get the setup started works but immediately before the file copy starts in earnest (it has copied the udb file) setup stops with a heap of disk activity lasting several hours. Setup does eventually continue and complete correctly. Is the an entry in the unattend file to skip disk checks or do a quick format perhaps? or am I missing something else?" "The short answer is that you need to load smartdrv. This "feature" was introduced in Windows XP" "smartdrv.exe as the setup-from-DOS 'feature' was introduced in NT4" "Using smartdrv.exe always made it faster. But you could do an NT or 2k install without smartdrv and only pay a penalty of a few extra minutes. Starting with XP, that penalty increased to hours. Thus the need for (?). The XP (and Server 2003) winnt.exe performs a tremendous number of tiny writes. The NT (and 2k) winnt.exe does not." ================= By all indications, DOS 7.1 himem.sys should be compatible with 4 gb ram, but all I can find on that topic is unsubstantiated comments that DOS (or himem, or smartdrv.exe) has problems with more than 2 gb ram: https://community.landesk.com/support/message/34771 I don't think this helps to explain anything here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/95555 -
Booting DOS 7.1 on system with 4 gb ram (not enough for Smartdrive?)
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
My last test (if you read my previous post) was to invoke smartdrv from the command prompt with no arguments. I got the same message that it can't load because the XMS driver himem.sys is not loaded. That message must be built into smartdrv.exe. I was just doing web searches for combinations of smartdrive, smartdrv, xms, himem.sys, and get very little, even when doing google search on site:microsoft.com. One thing I did come across was this: ftp.microsoft.com/MISC1/peropsys/WINDOWS/KB/Q85/4/24.TXT It should be easy enough for anyone with a PC with 4 gb ram and a floppy drive to create a DOS 7.1 boot floppy with smartdrv.exe on it and see if you get the same thing I do. But I'm not able to bring up anything from the ftp.microsoft.com server, not even when log in using an FTP client. And I can't find any archive of that "peropsys" folder. -
Booting DOS 7.1 on system with 4 gb ram (not enough for Smartdrive?)
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
During previous attempts I had removed the load-high, so that line was this: C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.EXE A- B- C+ /V 4096 4096 /E:8192 /B:8192 But as one final test, I removed the autoexec.bat completely and booted into dos with no config.sys or autoexec.bat. Then I executed the command smartdrv (with no arguments) from the dos prompt, and AGAIN was told that smartdrive can't load because the XMS driver himem.sys is not loaded and I should check config.sys for device=himem.sys. I haven't searched the web for this for any authoritative confirmation - but is this fact (that DOS 7.1 smartdrv.exe must have XMS memory available to it, which means himem.sys must be used) not known to us? -
Booting DOS 7.1 on system with 4 gb ram (not enough for Smartdrive?)
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
> what happens on your machine without any config.sys nor autoexec.bat, > simply running SMARTDRV on command line? Starting the system in question without any config.sys (but with smartdrv in the autoexec.bat - as the only active line in that file) does not work. Smartdrv says it's can't load because the XMS driver (himem.sys) is not loaded. -
Booting DOS 7.1 on system with 4 gb ram (not enough for Smartdrive?)
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
Replaced himem.sys with himemx. This did not work: DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEMX.EXE/X2MAX32 But this did: DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEMX.EXE /MAX=512000 Smartdrive now loads and can see / use some XMS ram. And let me tell you - when you're installing XP from a CD copied to a source directory on a FAT32 hard drive and installing it on the same drive, you really do need smartdrive running. Prior to fixing this, I let the install run for 3 hours - and it looked like the install had hung. Every time I restarted and tried resuming the install, XP said it couldn't find the EULA and couldn't go any further. -
Booting DOS 7.1 on system with 4 gb ram (not enough for Smartdrive?)
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
DOS boots fine with emm386. It's just that smartdrv.exe isin't loaded because there is, apparently, no available XMS memory. This is what's in my autoexec.bat: LH C:\DOS\SMARTDRV.EXE A- B- C+ /V 4096 4096 /E:8192 /B:8192 And this is in my config.sys: DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS /verbose DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE NOEMS VERBOSE DOS=HIGH,UMB,NOAUTO BUFFERSHIGH=50,0 FILESHIGH=50 STACKSHIGH=32,512 SWITCHES /F /W BREAK=ON Does emm386.exe have problems detecting / allocating XMS memory when a system has 4 gb ram? -
How exactly do I construct the autoexec and config.sys for DOS 7.1 booting on a system with 4 gb ram so that I don't get the message that there is "not enough XMS memory for Smartdrive" because what I normally have in those startup files isin't working. If I recall correctly, according to the mem command DOS isin't detecting or hasn't allocated any XMS memory. If this involves the use of any custom / modded himem.sys or emm386.exe, then naturally I'm going to need the details...
-
So just a bit of an update. I appear to be getting the irritating "0x80096004" message/error for both the Gmail IMAP and POP logon's each time that outlook performs a mail-check (not just the first time, but every time). Answering Yes or No to the question "Do you want to continue using this server?" seems to do nothing in terms of how it handles the next IMAP or POP login into Gmail. Searching around, I found that this registry setting: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Office\9.0\Outlook\Security Dword value SupressNameChecks = 1 In my case, the Security key did not exist - so I created it and then added the SupressNameChecks dword value and set it to 1. I also created the dword value Options and set it to 1. I also found references to a string value "RequiredCA" but don't know how to use it (or if it can be used) to prevent the offending security certificate issue. Also, for those running Office 2000 / Outlook 2000, you might get confused by the existance of this registry key path / tree: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\10.0\Outlook\ I have that key path, but I don't know why. Outlook 2000 (Office 2000) and below seems to store it's reg values in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, but newer versions of outlook / office seem to use HKEY_CURRENT_USER. I still get the 0x80096004 message when Outlook performs the first mail-check on the Gmail IMAP and POP accounts, but adding SupressNameChecks = 1 to the registry seems to stop all subsequent message pop-ups while outlook is running, and the gmail accounts are indeed checked for new mail. It would be useful to know what the "Options" string registry value does, and also if there are other values in the outlook Security key that could further improve this situation. Also, I came across (and installed) a .CER file that didn't help - but I'm wondering if there might a .CER file out there somewhere (or if one can be constructed) that would satisfy Win-98/Outlook 2000 in the case of Gmail servers (imap.gmail.com and pop.gmail.com). I also noticed that many XP users had trouble in the past with the 0x80096004 error while using iTunes. Many questions were posted in several different blogs / forums - and the only answer seemed to be to upgrade from SP2 to SP3. Which raises the question - what is known about the security certificate handling of XP-SP2 that could only be fixed by upgrading to SP3? Knowing the answer to that question might tell us if the 0x80096004 certificate error can ever be fixed for win-98.
-
Ok, so here's what I did. In Outlook 2000, in order for me to see IMAP server options when creating new accounts, I need to do something that was called (I think) - "Reconfigure Outlook". I believe my outlook was operating in some sort of corporate workgroup mode, and this reconfiguration took me out of that mode. In order to complete the process, outlook was asking for "data1.msi" that is found on the Office 2000 Premium SR1 CD - which I had to look for. After that, I create a new outlook account, where it can access the test gmail account using IMAP. I then used some newer version of Firefox running on an XP machine to log into the gmail account and enable IMAP access and then I enabled access for the so-called "less secure" device (which it did not identify but was Outlook 2k running on win-98). After that, I report that I can indeed access the test gmail account using both pop and imap under Outlook 2000 running under win-98se. The only issue is that upon starting outlook and performing the first mail retrieval from all the various accounts, I get this message: --------------- The server you are connected to is using a security certificate that could not be verified. 0x80096004 Do you want to continue using this server? (yes)(no) ----------------- I say yes and I don't believe I get that error again while outlook is running. I don't know if the error is associated with the pop access to the gmail account, or the imap, or both. If there's a way to fix this certificate issue, or even some way to tell outlook to automatically ignore it (maybe a registry entry?) let me know.
-
This is outlook 2000's log file when connecting to gmail.com for pop-mail login with "Log on using Secure Password Authentication" enabled, port 995, with SSL: Connecting to 'pop.gmail.com' on port 995. srv_name = "pop.gmail.com" srv_addr = 173.194.196.109 Negotiating secure connection with 'Microsoft Unified Security Protocol Provider'. +OK Gpop ready for requests from (...) AUTH -ERR malformed command QUIT +OK Bye This is what happens when "Log on using Secure Password Authentication" is disabled: Connecting to 'pop.gmail.com' on port 995. srv_name = "pop.gmail.com" srv_addr = 209.85.145.108 Negotiating secure connection with 'Microsoft Unified Security Protocol Provider'. +OK Gpop ready for requests from (my IP) USER (someone)@gmail.com +OK send PASS PASS ******** -ERR [AUTH] Web login required: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78754 Connection to '' closed. I then log into gmail using various browsers, using various forged user-agents to see what I can do. This explains the issue: =============== Someone just tried to sign in to your Google Account (what-ever) from an app that doesn't meet modern security standards. We strongly recommend that you use a secure app, like Gmail, to access your account. All apps made by Google meet these security standards. Using a less secure app, on the other hand, could leave your account vulnerable. Learn more. Google stopped this sign-in attempt, but you should review your recently used devices: REVIEW YOUR DEVICES NOW Allowing less secure apps to access your account Google may block sign in attempts from some apps or devices that do not use modern security standards. Since these apps and devices are easier to break into, blocking them helps keep your account safer. Some examples of apps that do not support the latest security standards include: The Mail app on your iPhone or iPad with iOS 6 or below The Mail app on your Windows phone preceding the 8.1 release Some Desktop mail clients like Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird ============== I don't know (yet) to what extent gmail will allow me to edit or change any settings to allow outlook to have pop3 access to the account. The various browsers I'm using (on win-98) won't allow me full accessibility to the gmail interface. I'm going to have to try it on a PC running a more modern browser. Note also that you need to enable POP access to your account in the first place in order to get this far.
-
> Hey Nomen, since you said you have Outlook 2000, I'm going to ask you. > Do you still actively use it Yes. It's the primary mail client on a few of my win-98 systems. > and if so, what email provider do you use? Outlook (on my home PC) connects to a few different accounts associated with my ISP (which is operated by Microsoft as a sort of hotmail account) which are just legacy accounts which get very little mail and also connects to the mail server at $dayjob (which is my primary email account). And this is pop3 for both of those - not IMAP. > I'm using Gmail and I have Office 2000 upgraded all the way up to service pack 3 > and it doesn't seem to want to connect to Gmail, it seems to complain about a > server certificate and when you do a send/receive using imap, it seems to just > hang. I've double and triple checked my settings and it never seems to work out > like it is suppose to. I could try to see if my outlook 2000 can connect using pop3 to gmail if you'd like me to try. I was just checking and I don't see any options to use IMAP under the outlook server settings.
-
> The reason for MS Outlook not working on my system is due to > this PATCH, MPR.DLL 4.10.1999 from SP3 > > Replace MPR.DLL 4.10.1999 from SP3 with the original Windows 98 version 4.10.1998 I can confirm that I have the original 4.10.1998 version of MPR.DLL (and hence do not have this problem with Outlook 2000). Since we're on the topic - has anyone tested the win-ME version of MPR.DLL (4.90.3000) on win-98? They have the extact same file-size...
-
If you're getting the page-fault caused by OUTLLIB.DLL while running Outlook 2000, for what it's worth my version of that file is 9.0.6627, with a file date of June 28 / 2002 and a size of 5,337,138. Also - if you can at least start Outlook 2000 and start the system info utility as I described above - or find msinfo32 and run it before you start doing things with outlook, turn on Dr. Watson from msinfo32 tools menu. The Dr. Watson icon should show up in the system tray. See if it creates any log files during the outlook crash.
-
I've been running Office 2k premium on many Win-98se machines for about a decade now. My specific version of Outlook is Outlook 2000 SP-3 (9.0.0.6627) Corporate or Workgroup - Security Update. One thing you have to watch for is to not let any .pst file get larger than 2 gb. There is a Microsoft System Information utility (which I didn't know existed until now) that might tell you something useful. You can start it from outlook (Help - About Microsoft Outlook - System Info). It starts msinfo32.exe - seems like an interesting program. Gives a list of a KB updates installed, a list of all running tasks, list of 16 and 32 bit modules, a list of all kernel mode, user mode and ms-dos drivers, and more.
-
> If you have a newer Motherboard with Native Mode SATA, it's likely there is no 9x driver for it. Again I ask just how far you can go running win-9x on a motherboard made after 2006 or 2007? If we are talking single-boot OS, running win-9x natively on any system, why would you want to struggle with many drivers missing, ethernet, sound, video, usb - when there are many older boards available on ebay for almost nothing and you can build a system with pre-2007 hardware. If we are talking dual-boot OS (say, win-7 / win-9x) then you run 9x in a VM and no need to bother about driver issues (but you will have poor performance, possibly poor video resolution, but you obviously have some dire reason to run 9x so you have little choice here). > If you want to buy an Add-on Card for it, you can. But they are more expensive, take up vauable PCI slot space, > and waste the Motherboard Controllers. Many boards have many PCI slots. PCI slots are not "valuable" the way I see it. Any motherboard that has on-board SATA controller that you can't find 9x drivers for will be a motherboard that will be an absolute pain to run 9x on and certainly not worth the effort when you will almost certainly not have drivers for many other important motherboard sub-systems. > I heard the same kinds of arguments about my High Capacity Disk Patch and RAM Limitation Patch. Again, win-9x is very happy to run with 512 mb ram, and you can push that to 1024 mb very easily almost all the time without needing special patches. I don't know what the high capacity disk patch is or why someone would need it, but sata hard drives between 160 gb to 1 tb are very common, cheap, and most likely would meet the needs of 99.999% of people running win-9x today. > My customers clearly do not agree with you. I'm a win-98 "power user" and I certainly can get by very easily without any of your patches. Anyone investigating the use of win-9x should be aware of what their options are, and some of those options involve setting up systems that don't need your patches.
-
> > quick question but can windows 95 also use sata drives like > > ide devices the same way that you would do in windows 98 > > if you simply select the ide compatibility / legacy mode > > option in the bios? So let's consider this question. Is this person running win-95 "natively" - directly on the hardware in question and not in a VM? The answer would have to be yes, since we're talking about storage devices visible through hardware drivers to win-95. So what sort of hardware would someone running win-95 have? Must be old, probably does not have SATA controller on-board. But there are many motherboards made between 2002 and 2006 that have full win-9x/me support and have on-board sata controllers with 9x drivers. So if the OP has a motherboard that does not have SATA controller, then OP is using add-on PCI card. PCI cards, we believe, do not seem to have bios user interface that allows selection of Legacy IDE vs Sata (AHCI) mode operation. But many PCI cards use SIL SATA-1 controller chip for which 9x drivers are readily available. So someone running win-95 with PCI sata card will not be able to select IDE controller mode (but SATA drives will be accessible in DOS and will work in DOS compatibility mode when running win-9x) or SIL drivers can be found that allow proper Native/SATA/AHCI mode operation under 9x. > If you can select Legacy Mode rather than Native Mode > for your SATA Drives, Windows 95 will not know they > are SATA Drives and will work fine. If he has PCI SATA card, he most likely will not have the option to set working mode. But he will most likely be able to find 9x drivers for the card, and be able to use the SATA interface just fine with any hard drives up to at least 1 tb. If he has onboard integrated SATA controller, then again we presume that the OP is satisfied with the motherboard in terms of 9x driver availability, which again would mean that 9x drivers are almost certainly available for the SATA controller. > If not, you will need my SATA Patch. After typing all my various explanations above, I fail to see any reason why someone running 9x would need your SATA patch, because I can't see a use-case where OEM-supplied SATA drivers would not be available to them given the hardware that they *probably* have.
-
Firefox 2 and unresponsive scripts: What purpose do they serve?
Nomen replied to Nomen's topic in Windows 9x/ME
My setting for dom.max_script_run_time was 5 - I changed it to 10. Looking at the error console, here's an example of what I see (if anything can be done about them...) Under "Errors" =============== Error: _.pf is not a function Source File: https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc) Error: iframes is not defined Source File: https:// apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&_moz-userdefined=(etc) Error: window.googleapis has no properties Source File: https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.plusone.en_(etc) Error: a has no properties Source File: https:// apis.google.com/js/plusone.js Line: 43 ============== Under "Warnings": ============= Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Source File: http:// www.msfn.org/board/public/style_css/css_20/ipb_print.css The following all reference Source File: http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/ Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-webkit-box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-webkit-font-smoothing'. Declaration dropped. The following all reference Source File: https:// apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&_moz-userdefined (etc) Warning: Unrecognized at-rule or error parsing at-rule '@font-face'. Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'display'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Expected end of value for property but found 'rgba'. Error in parsing value for property 'border'. Warning: Unknown property 'border-radius'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-moz-box-shadow'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-shadow'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'box-sizing'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'transition'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property 'animation'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Unknown property '-moz-transform-origin'. Declaration dropped. Warning: Error in parsing value for property 'border-color'. Declaration dropped. ============== Under "Messages" : ============== Security Error: Content at https://apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc)may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. Security Error: Content at https:// apis.google.com/_/scs/apps-static/_/js/k=oz.gapi.en_(etc) may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. Security Error: Content at https:// apis.google.com/js/plusone.js may not load data from http:// www.msfn.org/board/topic/173990-firefox-2-and-unresponsive-scripts-what-purpose-do-they-serve/. No chrome package registered for chrome://navigator/locale/navigator.properties . No chrome package registered for chrome://navigator-region/locale/region.properties . No chrome package registered for chrome://communicator-region/locale/region.properties . =============== I don't know if any of the above are js related. ? Would be nice to have an add-on that can scan web content and re-write code items that don't conform to FF2 (such as the above) so that they either work correctly or are not executed if they can't be made to work. -
My hosts file started with a version from MVPS some years ago and instead of updating it I've just been adding custom entries - probably hundreds - ever since. I'm also running something called the "Abyss" web server - it serves up (https only) any files that my hosts file would ordinarily block so long as I've gone out and gotten a local copy of said files and stored them within the Abyss web-server directory (c:\Inetpub\wwwroot). I note that the vast majority of these are .js files. I mention all the above in case it relates to the following: I have the firefox addon "yes script" (not "no script") which is a list of sites or hosts that are not allowed to run javascript. Yet I encounter, on a daily basis, brief browsing pauses followed by the message that "a script on this page is not responding". I cancel the script and the site or page continues to load - it is not apparent what is missing or what functionality is lost because the script did not run. So I'm asking here - what is the usual function of these nuisance scripts? What did I not experience because I blocked a script with "yes script" or I cancelled a "non-responding" script? Is Firefox-2 capable of running *ANY* java scripts that are found on a typical website today? Or is FF2 running *MANY* such scripts correctly and silently - I just don't know it - and these are scripts that are necessary and / or make the browsing experience with FF2 tolerable today? In other words, if I were to totally turn off javascript functionality for all sites on my FF2 browser, would I notice anything different other than not seeing any more "unresponsive script" messages?
-
I said earlier that I tried this 3.8.0.188 version on two different PC's (but each having the same make/model motherboard) and got the same results for both of them (skype complaining about having no audio device). Turns out the two systems (while they look identical) are slight varients of each other - one has AGP slot, the other had no AGP slot (but it has on-board video). Both based on same 845 chipset. However - the one with AGP has C-Media 8738 audio chip, whereas the other system has (in exactly the same place, same chip package) a Realtek ALC655 chip. I can select that as an audio device in Skype (Realtek AC97 Audio) but still get the same result (PROBLEM WITH PLAYBACK DEVICE) when trying to make a call. And with both systems, when skype starts and logs in, the traditional skype startup sound is not played (or - I don't hear it).
-
I've tried this skype 3.8.0.188 on two different win-98 systems. They both are running on the same type of motherboard - based on Intel 845 chipset with C-Media 8738 audio chip. Skype installs fine, is able to log in, is able to search for, find, and connect to other users, is able to have live text chats with other users. But Skype is unable to see or use the audio hardware on both systems. A google search using 8738 and skype turn up many instances of people reporting audio problems with skype. Some of these are in english forums where the problem mostly seems to involve various forums of linux / ubunto, while others are in russian or polish forums where the OS used is not clear. In some cases this specific version of skype is mentioned. Let me ask you this: Are you able to change the default Skype user picture to a custom image? As I've described above, I'm not able to do that, and I can't see how that could be related to my audio problem.