Nomen

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?

Why does IE6 give me "The page cannot be displayed" for this site: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/ Even if I have the check in the box "Require server verification (https:) for all sites in this zone". You said that if I put a check in that box, then IE6 will render (display) https (ssl) site / pages.

What - For IE6 to render https sites, I have to first put the sites in the trusted zone? Makes for cumbersome surfing. Don't have to do anything like that for FF2.

When I go to the control panel, select "internet options", select the Advanced tab, under Browsing I have the option to check/uncheck "Enable third-party browser extensions". Would anyone running win-98 with IE6 have that option? Some people apparently don't have that - but I'm not sure if it's because they're running IE 5 or 5.5, or if there's some other reason why I have it and they don't. Tangent - what exactly is it about IE6 that renders it incapable of displaying https ?

In XP, there apparently is an option under accessories/tools/Internet Explorer (safe mode). I don't think there is anything equivalent in Win-98. Can IE 6 be started in "safe mode" (no add-ons, extensions, BHO's, etc) in win-98? If so, how? Alternatively, is there some "easy" way to disable (even nuke / delete) anything that might be interfering with IE6 browsing capability?

Can someone with knowledge of html tell me why this link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/perk-facebook-apple-now-pay-women-freeze-eggs-n225011 is rendered as a completely blank page with Firefox 2.0.0.20 and Netscape Navigator 9? When I view the page source code, it's all there - lots of code. Yet those browsers display nothing. With FF2, I have altered the user-agent and tried several FF/OS versions, up to FF16/Win-8, and still get a blank page. (all this is with hosts file deactivated by renaming it to something else) Opera 12.02 does seem to render the page ok. For IE6, it does load the page (and it's pretty readable, well formatted, and no advertising at all?) - but sometimes throws this error: ------------ AppName: iexplore.exe AppVer: 6.0.2800.1106 ModName: mshtml.dll ModVer: 6.0.2800.1651 Offset: 001931a1 ------------ So what are the code elements in that link that renders the page as invisible or just blank on FF2/Navigator 9? I'm seeing more and more of this behavior as I bring up news stories linked from sites like drudge.

I have a couple of win-98 computers that are in 2 different locations but for some reason I can bring up the virustotal site and submit a file (and get results) on one computer but not the other. For the one that works, I can use FF 2.0.0.20 and I have to have the full path of the file in my clipboard, and I click in the file-submission box on the VT site and hit shift-insert, then hit enter twice. VT goes into download mode, then brings up the screen showing scan progress. On the computer where this doesn't work, I do exactly the same steps, but the VT page stays in download mode, never progressing to the screen showing scan results. I've tried Netscape 9 and Opera 12 but get same results. I've disabled the hosts file and it doesn't change anything. For Opera 12, when clicking in the "Choose File" text-entry box, it immediately brings up file explorer, but with FF2 or Netscape 9 this doesn't happen (this behavior is the same on both computers). There is a utility that provides scanning a file from a right-click context menu: https://www.virustotal.com/static/bin/vtuploader2.2.exe It does install and run under win-98 on both computers (both have kex, if it matters). On the first computer, submitting any file always seems to start fine but stops early in the upload and just stalls in the same place according to the progress bars. On the second computer, the upload progresses smoothly to 100% and then spawns a browser window showing the scan results. So the problem seems to be an incomplete or stalling upload of the file being submitted on the computer with this problem. Does anyone else see this when submitting files to VT using win-98 and any browser?

I should have said that I make aggressive use of my hosts file, where I periodically check my router's outbound logs to see what domains my computer is trying to contact. I block all click-tracking, web-metrics, advertising, fecebook and twitter access that I can identify through host file entries. I also run Abyss Web Server, which serves up any HTTPS files locally as a result of redirection to 127.0.0.1. I've gone out and obtained these files manually (the vast majority being .js files, about 77 of them so far, rum.js, various versions of jquery.js, etc). I expand the js files and inspect them to see if they themselves are trying to access hosts that I don't want them to, and modify the URL as necessary to prevent the access.

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.