Nomen

I've been noticing that Firefox 2.0.0.20, when viewing more websites lately, is doing something in the background that is dragging down the whole system. This doesn't seem to be related to script timeouts. Is there any way to know what FF2 is doing during these periods of extreme unresponsiveness? Edit: Upon posting the above message, I got this: ------------------------------------------------- An error occured with the SQL server: mySQL query error: SELECT cs_value, cs_updated FROM x_utf_ibf_cache_store WHERE cs_key='mail_processing' This is not a problem with the IPS Community Suite but rather with your SQL server. Please contact your host and copy the message shown above. ------------------------------------------------- With no indication that msfn server had accepted the post. I'm using Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.6 to post this.

Isin't (wasn't) there an issue with Nvidia cards with "Turbo Cache" not being compatible with win-9x - including the 6xxx series? Would the AGP aperture setting in the motherboard BIOS play a role when installing more than 512 mb of system ram?

So - nobody here uses (or did use) Skype with win-98 then...

Um - Skype is not voip.

Today I started skype and got a message that auto-login didn't work. The message said that my password might have been changed (or was changed) from an alternate location, and I need to log in using the new password. I understand that skype has been forcing people to upgrade to newer versions, but this old version I use (3.2.0.175) was working fine yesterday or a few days ago. I've been unable to get this same version working on another win-98 machine that I have very rarely used for skype, so I'm not sure if they've permenantly made this version unworkable now. So - does anyone else out there still have skype working on their win-98 system? If so, what version? I understand (vaguely) that there are other alternatives to skype, and would like to know which of them work under win-98. Edit: I've tried setting up a new skype username, and I'm using a throw-away email address. When I try to start skype using the new account, I get: Skype may be blocked on your network. Contact your network administrator, or (2) make sure skype is allowed on your network. Given this is win-98, there is no firewall on this computer, but I'm also not forwarding any ports for skype on my router. But I understand that skype doesn't require any ports to be forwarded (because of how it spoofs connections) - and my current setup was working until a few days ago. I understand that these old versions of skype connect to a different database run by Skype, and perhaps they've finally closed down the servers for those databases? Either that, or Skype doesn't like it when I use a throw-away email service... (?)

Anyone seen this before? A computer at $dayjob (running win-98 / Office 2k) was turned on today (this is a normal work PC) and it starts sending "Your message - To (the user of this PC), Subject, Date, was deleted (today)." Everyone is getting these messages from this computer. Some of them date to 2006. What would cause Outlook 2k to all-of-a-sudden do this?

I'm just saying that anyone running win-98 on motherboards with relatively complete (or fully complete) driver availability for all hardware components will find it easy (with no additional cost) to attach sata hard drives. Running win-98 natively on a motherboard with PCI-e slots is probably not going to be very satisfying for many people, hence having a solution for sata PCI-e cards is of questionable value. Any motherboard with an AGP slot and on-board sata controller will have no problems attaching large (1 or 2 tb) sata drives to these systems running win-98. If you don't have on-board sata controller, then a 2-port SIL 3112 PCI card that you can buy for $10 will also work just fine.

Yes.I've used cards based on Sil 3112 and 3114. The 4-port cards have driver issues, so don't buy those. The 2-port SATA cards are fine and work perfectly under win-98 using the drivers you can get for them. I have drives over 1 tb and have no problems. I'm using SI3112r.mpd version 1.0.0.51. Any sata controller that is SATA-1 (like the 3112 and 3114 chips) will have Win-98 drivers available. Somewhere. And these will be ordinary PCI cards. Any Sata card that is PCI-express will be Sata-2 or sata-3, and almost certainly no win-98 drivers exist for them. Any motherboard with Sata-1 controller (which usually means it was made no later than 2006) will have win-98 drivers (somewhere).

RegDelNull won't run on (my) win-98se system. The first error I got was "requires Windows NT/2000/XP/2003". After changing the Kex properties to Win-2k compatibility, the error changed to "Unable to locate required NTDLL exports. RegDelete requires Windows NT4 or higher". (I was running it without any command-line arguments). Now, why did it mention "Regdelete" in the error message? Was that it's original name?

According to this: http://www.symantec.com/security_response/earthlink_writeup.jsp?docid=2014-080408-5614-99 Windows 9x/me is vulnerable to this exploit. Under the registry RUN keys, an entry is created where the name of the target is composed of encrypted javascript as well as using "non-ascii" characters (which renders the entry as invisible when viewed using standard tools such as regedit). Would msconfig show such entries - even if it just lists them on a separate blank line with nothing printed on it? Can Win-9x/me process javascript code present in the registry? Something else that has been said of this malware: "The non-ASCII trick is a tool Microsoft uses to hide its source code from being copied, but the feature was later cracked." So, how compatible is win-9x in terms of operability with this method of storing and running "mal-code" from the registry?

So what is the function of the WEPOS, WES and WindowsEmbedded\ProductVersion registry keys? Because there are reports that having just the PosReady key will work.

I have read about one instance where a user performed the registry hack, downloaded what-ever updates were now being made available to his system, and upon a subsequent system restart got a "non Genuine Windows" notification or message. Is it possible that one of those WGA "updates" was presented to his "POS2009" system, and it didn't like what it found and put his system into a WGA failure state? Even if he had previously either downloaded/installed the same WGA update - or perhaps there is a WGA update specifically for POS2009 systems? I guess the take home message is, if you're using the POS2009 registry mod, you MUST select "Manual" mode when performing a WindowsUpdate session and look over every update being offered, and DE-SELECT anything related to WGA (and can anyone confirm or refute that any such WGA updates are actually being offered?)

Ok, so I need this explained to me. Why would I want to compress a program to run it? I can already run VLC, so what would compressing it with UPX do? And why UPX? Why not some other compression format?

I wouldn't mind seeing that 2mb limit increased. I just scanned my systems to see how big drvidx.bin is, and in one case it was 1.15 mb and another was 1.590 mb. But in terms of making an updated universal installation CD, I thought that just adding new inf's and drivers to one of the directories on the CD would accomplish the same thing in terms of Win-98 finding all required drivers during installation. No?

I thought the heartbleed bug was a mishandling of a variable (some sort of "heart-beat" function) having to do with SSL (or something that normally a server that handles SSL authentication). In other words, why would a client device be vulnerable to heart-bleed? How (or why) would a browser contain SSL-server functionality? (it's my understanding that the only time a consumer-operated client device would expose itself to a heart-bleed condition is if it were sharing files in an unsecured setting, like a public wifi situation - which is not a typical or common use-case).

I thought that any PCIe video card with TurboCache was definately not functional under win-98. Has this changed?TurboCache is a hardware feature that is only possible with PCIe (not AGP or PCI) cards - yes?

If I see differences in mshtm#.ini between mshtml.dll in my windows/system folder and this new mshtml.dll (after running both of them through import patcher), for example: --------------- current mshtml.dll (6.00.2800.1651): [Patches needed] appHelp.dll=Functions, Unbind UxTheme.dll=Functions, Unbind BROWSEUI.dll=DLLs SHDOCVW.dll=DLLs ----------------- new mshtml.dll (6.00.2900.6550 xpsp_sp3_qfe_escrow.140429-1337): [Patches needed] appHelp.dll=Functions, Unbind mshtml.dll=DLLs, Functions [sHLWAPI.dll] SHRegGetValueW= [msjava.dll] execute_java_dynamic_method= execute_java_dynamic_method64= javaStringLength= javaStringStart= convert_Java_Object_to_IUnknown= jcdwGetData= FindClass= convert_IUnknown_to_Java_Object= makeJavaStringW= execute_java_constructor= GCFramePop= is_instance_of= GCFramePush= [urlmon.dll] CoInternetSetFeatureEnabled= CoInternetIsFeatureZoneElevationEnabled= CoInternetIsFeatureEnabled= CoInternetIsFeatureEnabledForUrl= ------------- What would that indicate? Why so many references to java in the new file?

Is there any way to know if win-9x/IE6 is vulnerable to this exploit? Is anyone hosting a proof-of-concept test page, maybe something that opens calc.exe like used to be done by milw0rm? Does pastebin have anything like that? Edit: Ok, I've got the file. Now is there any way, on a win-98 system, to decode it and get mshtml.dll? All I get are a bunch of ._p files and an _sfx_.dll that I have no idea what to do with. Is there a tool or utility program that (I suppose) can generate the target file?

So what's the deal with this IE vulnerability that has existed for almost 10 years but has somehow, mysteriously, never been discovered until just days after XP goes EOL? Supposedly affects IE6 - but is that the same IE6 that win-9x/me and 2K uses, or the IE6 that only XP and higher can use? Has anyone downloaded WindowsXP-KB2964358-x86-custom-ENU.exe and unpacked it? I can't seem to find a direct download link for it. Does it function on win-9x? Or does it die when its exposed to a win-9x system - just like so many other windows and IE exploits?

Using WinMD5Free v1.20, I get an MD5 of 644bd3b6d12e3bf89c02316bb7ad9d3b - which is matched to yours. File size is 497,345 bytes. Winrar (version 3.71, Sept. 20/2007) is not able to unpack that file. Well, it unpacks it, but all files have size of zero bytes. Winzip (version 18.0, Aug 16/2004) does not recognize it as a format it can unpack. 7-Zip (7zG.exe, version 4.65, 2/3/2009) acts similar to Winrar (generates files of zero length). Universal Extractor (version 1.6.1, 5/12/2010) is a program that I installed a few months ago, and it also can't unpack that file - but trying just now on several other .zip and .rar files and it also can't unpack those either, so obviously either my version is broken or it's not compable with win-98/kex. edit: I just scanned my entire computer and I have a grand total of 12 (twelve) .7z files (and 6 of those are hacked versions of npswf32.dll). I know I have thousands of .zip and .rar files. I must conclude, as I stated previously, that .7z files are "odd-ball" in the windows world. It's my impression that they come from the unix or linux world (or maybe atari or something equally arcane). The largest of those 12 is mplayer_lite_r35250.7z (9.4 mb) - dated 10/21/2012, and winrar is able to unpack it without errors.

After downloading this: http://www.mediafire.com/download/2wx6fb9pscad3zl/RegUtils.7z Both Winrar and 7-zip are giving me errors while processing RegUtils.7z: --------------- WinRar is saying this: Unknown method in RegUtils\RegCon\REGCON!.TXT Unknown method in RegUtils\RegCon\REGCON.TXT Unknown method in RegUtils\RegiStrip\REGSTR!P.TXT Unknown method in RegUtils\RegCon\REGCON.EXE Unknown method in RegUtils\RegiStrip\REGSTRIP.EXE In addition to having problems with the above 5 files, 7-zip is also saying this: Unsupported compression method for RegUtils\Regcon\UNLHA32.DLL -------------- Uni-extract also has problems with this file. Can someone explain why an abscure compression method that is rarely used to compress files in the Windows world was used for this RegCon software?

I'll try RegCon - once I sort out and unravel which version I should be using based on the convoluted discussion happening about it here. Regarding Rloew's information regarding large system.dat files and having gigabit ethernet, here's another data point: Another win-98 system I have has a system.dat file with size 13,565kb and D-link DGE-530T Gigabit ethernet adapter. I don't know if the adapter has to be set to 1 gb (or be using jumbo frames, or both) for the "gigabit-ethernet" effect to kick in (in terms of causing problems with large registry files) but I believe the card is working at giga-speed (it is connected to a 24-port switch with giga-speed capability). Just out of curiosity - what is the registry size of a default install of Win-98, say on an i845 motherboard with nvidia agp graphics, directx 9c, all MS updates and patches applied?

Ok, I had a look at the CTH thread from 2012, and I obtained regcompact1.0 (file date 12/01/00) and I ran it. Results: System size 12676kb - Compacted 12652kb - Ratio 0% User size 1860kb - Compacted 1856kb - Ratio 0% I killed RegCompact (I use cctask) before it could make any changes. It doesn't seem to have done much to reduce the size. Should it have? I have on-board ethernet on this system (Davicom 9102/A PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter) it only does 10/100 speed. I have disabled that adapter on my other win-98 PC and have installed a 1000/100/10 PCI ethernet card on that system (offhand I don't know how big system.dat is on that system - I'll check tommorrow). So what's my next option to compact my registry - since RegCompact did squat? Should I try SmalReg4 (mentioned in the 2012 thread) ?

crap. posting to wrong thread...

A while back I posted about having a system.dat file that was 15 mb in size. Scanreg /fix /opt from DOS did nothing. I uninstalled about a dozen (maybe more) programs from control panel, and midway through that I noted that system.dat size did go down to 14 mb, but did not change even though I continued to uninstall more stuff. I ran regclean about 3 or 4 times in a row (until it no longer gave me the "fix" button to click) and I forgot exactly that scanreg (dos) did, but when using the /fix and/or /opt it either did nothing or it hung. None of those tools did anything to reduce the size of system.dat below 14 mb. I then fired up Norton SystemWorks 2002 and ran either Windoctor or Optimization wizard, but one of them spent a lot of time analyzing the registry, and had a bunch of entries that it wanted to fix (either a drive assignment was changed, or delete the entry). It was only after running the Norton programs that system.dat was reduced to 12.7 mb. The win-98 version of scanregw doesn't seem to detect anything wrong with the registry, but the win-2k version immediately says there's something wrong and replaces it with an older backup (15 mb version) which it doesn't seem to check before it replaces it. So is there a program that will run on win-98se that can correctly diagnose if there is a problem with a system.dat registry file (even a LARGE system.dat file)? Is there a program that can really fix and/or optimize a large system.dat file without hanging? What exactly is known about how large the system.dat file can be under win-98se without exceeding some limit or causing operational problems? PS: I have version 4.1a, build 7364.1 of microsoft regclean. It's dated as December 30, 1997. Does a more recent version exist?