cyberformer

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not SpyWare Blaster, create it's own, or modify----the HOSTS file too? Now that I think of it, right before I started to get these script error messages in greater abundance, I installed SpyWare Blaster on most of, if not all, my computers. What about the immunization process of Spybot Search and Destroy? Would that not have to create or modify the HOSTS file in order to work?

Well, (in relation to installing latest browsers pertientent to Yahoo Mail as brought up in this thread) I just yesterday attempted to install KernelEx on my Dell GX 110 tower, and it was a no-go! First, there is no thing very odd about this machine, other than the fact that I found it in the street along the curb, on a rainy night before garbage day! The tower was on its side with about two inches of water in it. I used about four rolls of bathroom tissue in one week to absorb as much water as I could from every nook and cranny; letting it dry further for 2 whole weeks more. Sure enough, when turning it on, it booted up!. All I did was remove some un-needed programs the "upgrader" had installed, including what appeared to be some Dell programs such as "Dell Jukebox" or something similar. Then I did what I do with all 98se computers I buy or find: Install the Unofficial SP2, New USB, and a few free programs such as Jarte word processor, Fast tone image viewer, etc. Also, I removed Zone Alarm and put my favorite "Tiny Personal Firewall" . I also installed the clean up utility (similar to CCleaner) called Cleanup. Upon installing KernelEx, all seemed normal until boot up. The PC only got so far as a blank desktop with the wall paper in view. Pressing Ctrl-Alt-Delete, brought up "Cisinject" or something spelled like that. Stopping the program, did not allow normal boot up (not even one icon appearing). So I removed KernelEX in safe mode, and everything works again. When installing KernelEx, I left the check mark option, checked. Will try again later just to make sure.

herbalist, from what I can recollect, ....KernelEX works quite well in, My 2 very old Dell Dimension XPS M200s, as well as the giant, yet mechanically troublesome, Dimension 8100 running Me. It did not run quite well at all in my Gateway Essential 400. And strangely enough---a Compaq Presario 5000---! I've not tested it on the HP Pavilion Windows Me (Katrina rescue) yet. I am though, going to do it quite soon! It's under a pile of stuff at this time, and I cannot get to it yet, but I seem to recollect it being a 46____model number. I cannot remember if I ever tried it on my Dell GX 110 yet, but will experiment next week. At the moment, I do not have it running on any of them, as I do not have the time (right now)--to explore that avenue of getting down to the nitty gritty. Soon enough though! It was not that any programs did not run with KernelEx--on those specific computers mentioned. The problem was, that after installing KernelEX, the operating systems just slowed down to what could be considered an actual freeze! Neither one, once KernelEx was installed, ran anything well---such as the OS itself (in some cases before any programs were installed). I always found it easily removable---and the OS worked well enough after it was removed. All of these computers, have the usual free programs one finds on FileHippo---etc. As well as IE6--except in one case (the m200s) where I removed IE with Eradicator, and it ran the first Beta of FIreFox 4 very well indeed (with KernelEx---other than the slowness of the machine itself. Also, all had New USB 3 whatever (the latest) installed---except for the Me PC-s. The only thing I would need KernelEx for, is to run modern browsers; and hopefully one day--a modern Anti Virus program. So I agree that the problem could well indeed be caused with certain mother boards/chipset (which I would have to check--not knowing offhand) as well as quite possibly---the type of Hard Drive used---if the notion of specific Hard Drives causing such a problem with KernelEx, is not too far fetched. I will investigate, (especially my memory) further.

......"IMO it has to be regarded as experimental as it does not always behave the same on different systems".... I think your opinion is a fact, herbalist! Other than those script errors occurring on "all" my 5 operational computers, KernelEX works wonderfully on all but two of them for some reason. So I simply stick with Bon Echo and K-Melon for those two KernelEx non-compliant/problematic machines. But these script errors! Tonight, it was my XP having a slew of them! Perhaps it's the service providers firing up and testing their new IPV6 eventualities.... That's how "paranoid" I seem to be inclined to be at the moment! Might be a topic for another new thread, sometimes... if more than enough members continue to see, an increasing number of script errors occurring.

In reference to these script error messages, as mentioned in your post--- LoneCrusader, and wsxedcrfv. . . . I am wondering how many other forum members are experiencing this situation? I've started to get them on Win 98se, Win 95, and, believe it or not....XP! This seems to have started a month or so ago---on a frequent and somewhat annoying basis. If I were not such a laid back fellow---I would be pretty much seriously aggravated by it !!!! The 98 se machine, does not have KernelEX installed---but has Revolutions Pack installed, as well the original unofficial SP version 2.. Browser of choice: Bon echo The 95 machine is pretty standard other than the latest version of the unofficial service pack for 95---using the Firefox I mentioned earlier. The Xp is home edition---with "only" SP2 installed--- using some beta version of Firefox 4---and sometimes K-melon as my browsers. Just wondering.... what if anything is occurring?

Yes LoneCrusader, I kept thinking to myself---after having installed this Beta version of FireFox 2, that I had read somewear---that the final verson could be installed; but I could not recollect where. To think it was on this very forum! I do think that rather than trying to update what I am now using ( I do not know if a Beta version can be updated by a final version--having never tried it)... I will remove the Beta version---and do a fresh install. The only problems I've had so far, are "stopped script " message boxes poppoping up now and then----but not in so annoying a way as to cause me to desist in using Firefox in Win 95.

Well phil8192. after going to the link you provide, I receive the following: No IPv6 address detected [more info] World IPv6 day is June 8th, 2011. No problems are anticipated for you with this browser, at this location. [more info] You appear to be able to browse the IPv4 internet only. You will not be able to reach IPv6-only sites. Your DNS server (possibly run by your ISP) appears to have no access to the IPv6 internet, or is not configured to use it. This may in the future restrict your ability to reach IPv6-only sites. [more info] Your readiness scores 10/10 for your IPv4 stability and readiness, when publishers offer both IPv4 and IPv6 0/10 for your IPv6 stability and readiness, when publishers are forced to go IPv6 only Needles to say, I am not at all pleased! Nevertheless, I am left with a certain small bit of optimism, that all will work out for us 9x users.

Just went to all the links provided by wsxedcrfv, followed his instructions---and all is working well on my 98se box. So... I did the same thing on my Win 95 B Box using Firefox 2 Beta 1(version 2 0b1)---and that seems to be working just as well!

I've been using IZarc for many months now artemus, and it might work. I do not think the latest few versions support 9x any longer, so one would have to find an earier version which does;FileHippo being where I found it. It might work for those .exe files, as you can allow it to be associated with a great many kinds of files that have been compressed/zipped.

Thanks for the info herbalist! I just Googled and found it at BrotherSoft! Though I never seem to get spyware that horrible (no cliche will be used) it seems like something to have in one's stock.

It is odd, how simple and supposedly well "proven" programs can screw Me up, in a seemingly more so way-- than 98 or 98se. Only yesterday I installed a Linksys wireless G usb for my Me machine; the install went quite well. Every time there-after, the machine would freeze just a very short while after boot up---before everything and anything could be used. After I un-installed those drivers (the right ones) all was back to normal! There have been a few other "proven" softwares, that I have been forced to un-install (which work perfectly in 98/98se) in order to get things working again; one being a real time consuming deal. Also, one does seem to have a lot less problems with Me when one has Norton System-Works/Utilities at the ready!

The beauty of various elements of it's Graphical interface perhaps? The one thing I've always loved about Me, is the design of the boot screen, and its colour scheme. Also, click on My Computer, and there are those three coloured squares all the way to the upper left of the opened window---I just love the way they look! This might seem quite trivial and unimportant to most, but I think the astehetic beauty of those graphical elements---are indeed---beautiful!

Ive never had a problem using Me for just sailing the Internet, or word processing, or looking at on-line video; exceedingly stable. I have had problems that really were hard to extract myself from, when trying to install certain programs that 98Se handled with ease! Seems that certain programs can mess Me up when going through the installation process; I wonder why? Am I the only one? Other than that I like it for the "novelty factor" in the same way I fancy my XP for the "novelty factor". I've yet to come across any OS better than 98Se after having patched it up to my taste with the excellent programs which the most dedicated folk on this forum have blessed us with!

I am wondering if the following is practical. This concept is derived from how an old PC, can have a Linux version installed to make it into a firewall. Could one use a Linux version---that would turn an old PC into a router, which would then be the go between---between-- a 9x PC---and the Internet? Either using an available Linux distribution, or a specific program which would allow for such a thing? What about XP? Can one "funnel" a dedicated 9x machine---through a dedicated XP machine---for Internet use? Would this work in the worse case IPV6/9x possibility? Is this a very far fetched scheme, or is it something that could indeed be done?

I've been contemplating the possible scenarios which could likely occur, in reference to the "router" aspect of things, especially as it relates to something bought up by wsxedcrfv, who said: "I would think that the vast majority of people that are home or SOHO internet users will have (or be given) new DSL or cable modems by their ISP's that are IPv6 aware (on the WAN side) and perform NAT translation to IPv4 IP address's on their LAN side. So any equipment on the LAN side theoretically wouldn't need to know anything about IPv6 - unless ..." Would not these new routers have to have Win 9x drivers? What is the likelihood that such service providers would be so kind to do such a thing? The only thing that could possibly prompt such a possibility, would be for them to arrive at the decision that there are enough Win Me, Win 98, and Win 95 users---to make it worth their while as a company---to provide such routers? What is the chance of that? Do not get me wrong, I would fervently hope, that wsxedcrfv would be quite right! But the sad trend, seems to be less and less software, hardware, and drivers for our 9x systems---as time goes on, unless something exceedingly strange should manifest itself.

Hello JorgeA, and everyone else addressing this issue: the likes of which I am still, Very, Very, Very, worried about! No matter what anyone has said so far in seeking to alleviate the stress of us worry-worts concerning our increasing stress, I will not be at all my usual happy relaxed self, until one of the greatly knowledgeable, folk (to whom we 9x users should be forever great-fully indebted to) comes up with an "Actual patch" that once implemented---gives us the only and true antidote to our prevailing worry-wort condition. I still believe, dare I make prophesy---that this Sword of Damocles has yet to be stayed; that it looms as the greatest challenge the 9x user will face, in our vehement resolve to use the OS we Will to use!

I hope that what I am reading on this web site--http://news.softpedia.com/news/Opera-10-61-RC2-Proves-Windows-98-Still-in-Use-150227.shtml is true: If it is, than everyone here should give a very royal toast to the Opera people! If only the anti-virus makers would not leave us out too!

Were these faulty Dell computers sold to citizen-consumers, or just to government agencies, and various companies? Also, what are the exact models of these faulty computers? Was it "every" OptiPlex PC sold during that time period, or just certain ones? Anyone?

I play Brutal Death Metal! Sludge Metal! and some morbid sounding Metal! using various pawn shop electric guitars, through some very old pawn shop Crate amps. Aha, yes... Fantastic Metal tones, through old solid state Crates!

I will continue to use my all time favorite OS---Win 98Se---! I really like my XP, for the fact that I can go to it for something that just does not work (due to malovelent intent/planned obsolence)--on a 98 or other 9x varient. But, if that same prog worked on 9x, I would have no need to go to any other Windows! If someone gave me a Win Vista, or 7 machine, I would use it---perhaps even use it more often than XP, if I liked it---but would still use 98Se as often as I do now. I have and will, always enjoy Clippy's concerned look as I pause to think what I am going to write next. I got rid of the search dog on my XP machine, but missed him so much---I had to get him out of the pound. On the whole, I actually do not dislike, anything Windows--- except "dropped support" practices of Microsoft itself. But, even then, I am not a Microsoft hater, since I fully understand that Mr. Gates runs a business; the purpose of a real business being, to make money.

On my Windows Me Pc--with 667 processor and 128 mb, I had "all" recent updates for Search and Destroy; and after waiting 45 minutes for it to start, I just could not take it any more and uninstalled it. I then re-installed it, but did not chose the update as it is being installed feature. It opened in only about 3 minutes after this fresh install. Then I went on line and installed only the maleware updates, and the def/dat files, leaving out all the hijack, dialers, trojans etc. Also no IE protection or tea timer stuff. It opened in about 6 to 7 minutes, and finished scanning in a little less than one hour. It found two instances of "double-click" and I was able to terminate the program the usual way---not having to use Ctrl/Alt/Delete---as is the case in my 98se machines. What is odd, is that with "all" the updates installed (except IE protection and Tea Timer) on my 133-64mb Win 98se PC--it still opened in about twenty or so minutes! Yet on this faster Me PC--forty five minutes and no thing happening was just too much to take. Seems like their are a lot of variables at work here--! It's rather sad, that I cannot use all the updates they provide (on this PC), considering how the AV progs are stopping support for 9x. It looks like Search and Destroy is trying to fulfill a sort of Anti-Virus type role too---being able to find things other than just the usual spy-ware. So for all the features of it's bloat (good bloat) to be used---one should up the memory as much as possible. Of course whenever I use it, I shut all other progs off. But even then, 45 minutes and nothing is too much for even someone as patient as me to take. All people having trouble with it should not give up though---for the effort to get it working right is well worth it!

I've got Search and Destroy installed on two 98se computers, one is a 133 with only 64 mb, and the other is 667 with 191 mb. It takes about half an hour for the first I mentioned to open up, and a very long time to scan. The second faster PC opens the prog in about 10 to fifteen minuets, and takes the usual hour and one half to almost two-- to scan. Once the scan is completed in both, the only way I can shut the prog down, is using the Ctrl + Alt + Delete keys. But the thing is, that at first I was impatient--and did not think it was working at all (in both computers) and would use Ctrl + Alt + Delete to shut Search and Destroy down: in both cases was told that the program was not responding. The point being, that one day I decided to just wait, no matter how long, to see if the prog was or was not really responding --and sure enough, to my surprise---the prog was indeed responding---so slowly, that Windows must have thought it was not! So now, I find something else to do, whilst I wait the usual 20 to half an hour for Search and Destroy to open up---which it eventually does indeed do.

Do people really fall for this kind of insanity? I wonder how much money has actually been gained from such schemes? I do recall some kind of TV show I saw once, where they were interviewing "intelligent" and supposedly very educated people who actually bought into such scams; even a United States Senator!---if I remember correctly. This is the first time I've heard of the FBI one.

Welcome! fellow 9x user, M31. This is The Place to be, for 9x fans. One day soon, when I'm rich, I shall come to Scotland, to continue my years there.

Thanks for trying to help multibooter! I will endeavor to use the info you gave me to see if I can get things working. wsxedcrfv, I think your idea of slaving the win 9x hard drive, to an XP machine, so that it can be checked for viruses---is an excellent idea, but tedious to have to do. I will try it out using one of my 9x machines. It would not work well for "heavy handed" people though, being that taking hard drives from one pc to another always risk the chance of breaking a pin---or putting extra stress and wear on the pins. Perhaps someone from this very forum, will one day solve our problems by coming up with their own AV just for 9x----! ....along with that special IPV6 patch too! Not as unlikely or improbable as many might think!!