Nomen

> > Does the installation of Win-98 on an unremarkable old computer qualify as a Windows 9x Member Project? > > I really don't see why it wouldn't. It was my impression that "Member Projects" are efforts and works that could be used by many (or most, or all) win-9x users. Such as KernelEx, various update packages, etc. And that troubleshooting or problem solving or system-specific questions or observations happened in the main forum.

What would be the level of Win-98 functionality / driver availability with this board: http://www.asrock.com/mb/ULi/939SLI32-eSATA2/ Northbridge: ULi M1695 Southbridge: ULi M1697 Audio: Realtek ALC 660 Lan: Realtek RTL8111B And this board: http://www.asrock.com/mb/ULi/939Dual-SATA2/ Northbridge: ULi M1695 Southbridge: ULi M1567 Audio: Realtek 850 Lan: Realtek RTL8201CL

Does the installation of Win-98 on an unremarkable old computer qualify as a Windows 9x Member Project?

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2850890/windows-update-is-broken-on-xp.html ----------- A number of search engine provided fixes did not work for me. What did work, on all three machines, was this: 1. Stop the Automatic Updates service and the Background Intelligent Transfer Service 2. Rename the SoftwareDistribution sub-folder in the C:\Windows folder 3. Start the two services That's the good news. The bad news is that this only works for one go-round with Windows Update. Thus, I had to do this before running Windows Update every time. It wasn't hard to find other reports of the same problem, and this trick has, apparently, not helped everyone. If I hear of a permanent fix, or at least an explanation, I'll update this blog. ------------------

Ah - so I wasn't the only one asking this question: ============ Why is Microsoft updating Windows PCs for a security bug on the server? http://www.computerworld.com/article/2851333/why-is-microsoft-updating-windows-pcs-for-a-security-bug-on-the-server.html The Kerberos vulnerability is only in Windows Server, but Windows PCs are getting extra security fixes When Microsoft released a critical update for multiple versions of Windows Server this month, it also pushed out a fix for several releases of the Windows client OS, including even the technical preview for Windows 10. It was critical to get the patch out for Windows Server: An exploit affecting Windows Server 2008 R2 and earlier versions has already been detected, and Windows Server 2012 and later releases are vulnerable to a related but more difficult attack. But the vulnerability isn't present in the desktop versions of Windows. In Windows Server, the flaw allows attackers to employ the username and password of anyone in an Active Directory domain to get the same system privileges as a domain administrator, using a forged Privilege Attribute Certificate to fool the Kerberos Domain Controller that manages remote access. The bulletin for the patch says there's no security impact for the client versions of Windows. So why did Microsoft also release an update for Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1 and the Windows 10 Technical Preview? It's because although they don't have that specific vulnerability, looking into the Windows source code to understand how the Privilege Attribute Certificate could be forged revealed some older code that Microsoft was no longer satisfied with, a representative for the company told us. That could mean other potential attacks, although they declined to give more details. "The 'hardening' on the client side is the replacement of older code with newer code. In our investigation, although we did not discover a vulnerability on these platforms, we did discover code that needed to be improved in order to meet our current security standards," the representative said. Although Microsoft hasn't said whether Windows XP also had the problem code, it's likely it does given the age of the code involved. As XP is out of support, only companies that are paying for extended support contracts would get an update for it -- another incentive for anyone still using the older OS to upgrade. The update applied to the Windows Server Technical Preview as well, but Microsoft said it doesn't list security impact and severity ratings for previews. "As customers know, beta software is not fully supported and we do not want to cause customer confusion," the representative said. ======================

Some details here: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/70958 ---------- Vulnerable: Microsoft Windows Vista x64 Edition SP2 Microsoft Windows Vista SP2 Microsoft Windows 7 for x64-based Systems SP1 Microsoft Windows 7 for 32-bit Systems SP1 (and other various versions of Windows Server) ----------- From this: https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/MS14-068 --------------- What systems are primarily at risk from the vulnerability? Domain controllers that are configured to act as a Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC) are primarily at risk. --------------- So I ask - Can Vista or 7 (any version) act as a domain controller? And be a Kerberos Key distribution Center? I also ask if NT4 server or 2K server would also have this Kerberos vulnerability... ?

I take it that you are indicating the package which can be downloaded from here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11782Or this direct link: http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/c/a/8cada3d5-e737-4a5d-8c27-e1fbc4c32be7/VB6-KB946235-x86-ENU.exe Which contains several different OS-specific versions of oleaut32.dll (NT4, 2K, Server 2003, XP and Vista). I believe you are indicating that the NT4 version (2.40.4520) is the one (the last one) that works with 9x/ME. The 2k version is 2.40.4532 - and we know it to NOT work with 98? Interestingly, the XP-SP1 version (3.50.5022.0) says this in the comments section: -------- Microsoft OLE 3.50 for Windows NT and Windows 95 Operating Systems ---------- ?

----------- The IBM X-Force Research team has identified a significant data manipulation vulnerability (CVE-2014-6332) with a CVSS score of 9.3 in every version of Microsoft Windows from Windows 95 onward. We reported this issue with a working proof-of-concept exploit back in May 2014, and today, Microsoft is patching it. It can be exploited remotely since Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) 3.0. This complex vulnerability is a rare, “unicorn-like” bug found in code that IE relies on but doesn’t necessarily belong to. The bug can be used by an attacker for drive-by attacks to reliably run code remotely and take over the user’s machine — even sidestepping the Enhanced Protected Mode (EPM) sandbox in IE 11 as well as the highly regarded Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit (EMET) anti-exploitation tool Microsoft offers for free. What Does This Mean? First, this means that significant vulnerabilities can go undetected for some time. In this case, the buggy code is at least 19 years old and has been remotely exploitable for the past 18 years. Looking at the original release code of Windows 95, the problem is present. With the release of IE 3.0, remote exploitation became possible because it introduced Visual Basic Script (VBScript). Other applications over the years may have used the buggy code, though the inclusion of VBScript in IE 3.0 makes it the most likely candidate for an attacker. In some respects, this vulnerability has been sitting in plain sight for a long time despite many other bugs being discovered and patched in the same Windows library (OleAut32). http://securityintelligence.com/ibm-x-force-researcher-finds-significant-vulnerability-in-microsoft-windows/#.VGNwwPnF-Sq ------------- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see oleaut32.dll as being a win-9x file. I've scanned my system for that file and have found many different versions, but none of them with the traditional or expected file-date of 4/23/99. I don't think that file exists on (any) win-98 CD. The one I have in c:\windows is version 2.40.4518 (october 2003). I would imagine that we'll see a patch for the POS2009 version of XP (which should be available now?) and should be easily ported to regular XP systems. Has anyone had a look at it to see if it can be used on win-98?

Program: Hey, OS are you there? OS: Sure I am here, ready. Program: Which OS are you? OS: I'm Windows XP. Program: Hmmm, OK. How many cores are available to you? OS: Probe me and you will see. Program: I see that you are running on a system that has single-core CPU which is a pity as I have been written with multi-core support. OS: Well, but surely you have single core capability, don't you? Program: Sure, now that you tell me this I could have it, but I was compiled without support for it, I need a multicore-CPU. OS: Sorry but you cannot run, then. So tell me how common the above scenario is. It certainly would have been VERY common for XP to be running on a single-core CPU during it's first 4 or 5 years of life. Many budget computers were made with single core Pentiums and Celerons. I'm not questioning or debating the fact that software that defacto MUST have a multi-core CPU available to it can therefore not run under 9x/me. I'm questioning the assertion (that this thread has turned into) that not having multi-core CPU support is some sort of fundamental show-stopper for win-98. I think we all know that quite a lot of software that is multi-core "aware" is also single-core compatible, and hence the operatibility of that software on win-98 will depend on other factors other than 98's lack of multi-core support.

He left unsaid: (...) Well I can't exactly agree (or disagree) with what he left unsaid. So why put words into his mouth?He said that software that could benefit from multicore / multii-threading won't run on win-98. Is VLC or Flash (just to name 2 modern CPU-intensive programs) written to be compatible with single and multi-core systems? If so, do they not run under win-98? How much software, written between 2000 and 2006, was written to be compatible with windows 98/me, AND at the same time was written to utilize more than 1 core (when multiple cores was available for their use, obviously when run under some version of NT) ? According to Herbalist, the answer is zero.

I'm not disputing that. I'm questioning what herbalist said: "Most of the applications that could benefit from (multi-threading or multi-cores) won't run on 98 anyway." If what he said is true, then software such as media players (VLC or Flash) browsers (such as Opera 12) must not be written with multithreading / multicore operation in mind. Because that software obviously *DOES* run on windows 98.

So software like VLC 2.x or Adobe Flash player (what-ever the most recent that runs on win-9x with Kex) or browsers (like Opera 12) wasn't coded with multi-threading capability?

I know that Win-9x/me natively utilizes only one core (on multi-core CPU's) but I was wondering if the Intel feature known as "Hyperthreading" would perform some sort of automatic or transparent multi-threading (transparent to the OS). In other words, all else being equal, would Win-9x (and/or any apps running under 9x) see a performance increase when running on a CPU with hyperthreading? I'm thinking of intensive apps like 1080 video playback (VLC) or maybe photo editing (photoshop). I'm trying to figure out which socket 775 CPU would give the best performance for win-98, knowing that the specs for a dual or quad-core CPU are largely meaningless in this case. And it might even be that no socket 775 cpu even has hyperthreading (maybe only limited to socket 478?). Passmark CPU tests show scores for single-threading performance, even for multi-core CPU's. Is that what will ultimately allow me to determine which CPU is likely to have the best performance running under 9x?

This thread is (to me) still fundamentally about how / where to obtain certain win-98 driver files. I don't see how the fact that it also pertains to a certain website (where those files used to be found) would take this topic out of the realm of being a win-9x discussion - especially since there seems to be no resolution or additional info or conversation about why the files are no longer on mgdx (no real discussion happening here along those lines). So if it's not about "websites", then why is it here? And I still don't know where "here" is. Is there any way to see the name of the forum that this thread is taking place in? I don't see the forum name or forum tree structure anywhere on this page. The url that I see is simply /board/topic/172994-forbidden-sound-blaster/ and that doesn't tell me what forum this thread is taking place in. The only way I know it exists is because of the link from the win-9x forum.

Odd how this thread is showing 0 (zero) views (and no replies) on the forum topic display page. Ah - this topic has been moved. But to where?

Upload your copies here: http://www.filedropper.com/ No account needed. It just takes your files and gives you a download link that you can then post here for anyone to download.

Looking at the source of that page, the only place I see "sbdrv" is on this line: (A TARGET=_self HREF=/sbdrv/>Creative Labs Sound Blaster AWE/PCI/Live!/Audigy series Windows/WfWG 3.1x/95/98/ME + native MS-DOS 5/6/7/8 Audio Drivers, Patches + Tools(/A) This google query: site:http://www.mdgx.com/sbdrv strangely says there are 17 results, but only gives one clickable link: www.mdgx.com/sbdrv/ Which is returning 403 Forbidden. I found these on a pastebin page: SB_Live!_Setup_CD_ISO_1713331000.rar http://www.mdgx.com/sbdrv/SB_Live!_Setup_CD_ISO_1713331000.rar SB_Live!_24-bit_Setup_CD_ISO_3201ML0000306.rar http://www.mdgx.com/sbdrv/SB_Live!_24-bit_Setup_CD_ISO_3201ML0000306.rar SB_PCI512_Setup_CD_ISO_1713330882.rar http://www.mdgx.com/sbdrv/SB_PCI512_Setup_CD_ISO_1713330882.rar SB_Live!_Value_Setup_CD_ISO_1713330760.rar http://www.mdgx.com/sbdrv/SB_Live!_Value_Setup_CD_ISO_1713330760.rar SB_16_Setup_CD_ISO_1713310318.rar http://www.mdgx.com/sbdrv/SB_16_Setup_CD_ISO_1713310318.rar (the pastebin page where I found those also contains a lot of links to a wierd assortment of other content. Strange...) But all of those are also giving 403 forbidden. Does MDGX not have any Sound Blaster files? Or were they moved to another part of the site? The wayback machine has none of those, due to robots.txt. (Strange - how can "Disallow: /robots.txt" be listed *in* robots.txt?) BTW, if you do a search for just the above file names, you'll see that some of them were posted on Vogons (at least one was, back in June 2011). I'm guessing the OP came here after seeing them on Vogons and discovering the links don't work. I found some files here: http://www.generalfil.es/files-c/creative-sound-blaster-live/?qa=creative+sound+blaster+live&ca=168427779 Don't know if they're the same or not. Is there something I / we don't know about these old Sound Blaster files? Have they been forced to be taken down over the past 2/3 years?

Some stuff here you might want to try: http://forum.xfce.org/viewtopic.php?id=9055 http://dnet-km.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6141064033/m/2173960087 http://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/win7-easy-sharing-batch-file.339540/ http://www.vercot.com/~serva/advanced/NullSessionShares.html http://windowsitpro.com/security/scrutinizing-windows-authentication http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749096(v=ws.10).aspx (search for "Windows 98" on that page) https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/4f82ce33-1999-4124-ab8e-9e9f5eb97318/windows-9x-family-9598seme-cannot-access-windows-7-pro-x86?forum=w7itpronetworking -------------- http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-networking/networking-a-windows-7-and-a-windows-98-computer/6d26ac72-d367-4731-abb4-e8681e1327c7 Networking a Windows 7 and a Windows 98 computer Short answer: cannot be done. You can access shared folders in the Win98 computer from Windows 7 but not the other way around. Scan on one, transfer files afterwards using the other. You can't use a Windows 7 Homegroup to connect this way, you need to use basic file and printer sharing (as in workgroups). Create one account on the Windows 98 computer that has the same username and password as an account on the Windows 7 computer. Set up file sharing as normal on the Windows 98 computer and assign it to the same workgroup name as the Windows 7 computer is using. It should then appear in Windows 7 Network and allow you to access the shared Win98 folders. You may see the Windows 7 computer from Windows 98 but you won't be able to access it. All confirmed as true, but - WHY?? ---------------------- There some stuff here: http://mirror.picosecond.org/defcon/defcon20-dvd/Speaker%20Presentations/Kirk/Extras/DEFCON-20-DSS-ODAA-Baseline-Standards-Final-March-2009-v2-2-JamesKirk.pdf It's not exactly a "how-to" but seems to contain lots of info. What about Samba / SMB? Does / can Win-98 operate as a proper SMB server? If anyone knows how an android tablet can transfer files from a win-98 system, I'd like to know. One final idea: -> NetBeui

Does it have anything to do with XP's default mode for "Simple File Sharing" ? Are you trying to share files on an XP system so that they're visible on a win-98 system, or vice-versa?

What if Microsoft released an operating system in the chasm between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95? It might look something like Windows 93, an interactive art project by Jankenpopp and Zombectro that you can try right in your browser. Try it here: http://www.windows93.net/ And if anyone can make that link work on any browser running on Win-98, tell me how...

So FF must maintain some sort of list of "remembered" domains / hosts. Where does it keep it? In the registry, or a file somewhere?

Yes, I have installed the "Remember Mismatched Domains" extension at some point in the past. Because if I didn't, I wouldn't be seeing the check-box giving me the function "( ) Don't warn me again about this certificate for this domain" that I mentioned in my first post. But I find that FF doesn't seem to honor that setting, because when these situations arise, I'm still getting these messages for domains that I've already check'd off the box for. Has anyone else ever installed that extension while running FF2, and have you found that it does work?

When I add your files (which I very well might have obtained from elsewhere in the past) I have over 40 W95INF32.DLL files spread around different places on my drive. Binary analysis reduces those to 9 unique files. 8 of those show the same version (4.71.0016.0) but one says version 4.71.0017.0. I believe they all say "Copyright 1994-1995". File creation/modification dates seem to have no relavence or utility in ranking them. As for updroots.sst, I have 4 different versions (based on file-size) - 258kb, 267kb, 345kb, 432kb. None of them are in my Windows or program directories so I have no idea how the system interacts with them. I did not look at W95inf16.dll - I assume it's somehow related to 16-bit operations and thus of little value or use today. There does not appear to be a "W98INF32.DLL" file - what is the significance or meaning of that? Because my system is serving up https files and using a self-signed certificate to do so, updating my system's root certificate store would not stop these messages being thrown up by FF. I would like FF to simply not throw up these messages when I put check off the option to not show them again for the same domains.

FF2 throws up various security errors, but I can't remember if it originally had a check-box "Don't warn me again about this certificate about this domain". I seem to think that I found some way to have a checkbox when that warning comes up. Except that I find it's not working: ----------- Security Error: Domain name Mismatch You have attempted to establish a connection with "ajax.cloudflare.com". However, the security certificate presented belongs to "test". It is possible, though unlikely, that someone may be trying to intercept your communications with this website. If you suspect the certificate shown does not belong to "ajax.cloudflare.com", pleace cancel the connection and notify the site administrator. ( ) Don't warn me again about this certificate for this domain. View certificate / Ok / Cancel --------------------- That's just one example. I'm always checking those "don't warn me" boxes, and FF2 never seems to honor the setting. (it's ok, I'm running https server on my computer for hosts file entries 127.0.0.1, so the above message is expected).

I've got Exchange running on a win-2k server. it's been running for years and recently have cloned the hard drive (just to be on safe side) and while I had the machine running, decided to check exchange using some sort of performance tool DL'd from Microsoft. I don't have DNS server running on this box (don't really want to). Exchange is not used for email. The performance tool says that exchange can't resolve it's own FQDN / host-name, even though I have it in the HOSTS file and ping and tracert can resolve the name to 127.0.0.1 just fine. But nslookup must query the DNS server directly (bypassing the hosts file). (tangent - I've noticed on NT systems that nslookup never seems to know about HOSTS file entries, I didn't think it had a choice since I thought that the TCP/IP stack was tied into HOSTS file lookup so I don't know how NSlookup can bypass it, but it does. Can anyone explain how?) So I'm wondering why (or how) Exchange (or the exchange performance analysis tool) doesn't honor or recognize the info in the HOSTS file (or even the LMHOSTS file) when resolving host names. This leads to the bigger question - where exactly in the process of host lookups on an NT-based system does the HOSTS file fit in, and why or how can it be bypassed by certain processes / programs?