The Windows 98 Challenge

[TheJackal]

New here, been looking around for some things and I've come across this site a few times, looks pretty neat.

One day I remembered that I had an old hard drive with freshly-installed Windows 98 on it from an old computer I threw out a few months ago. I thought, I wonder if I could boot Windows 98 on a relatively new Acer M5630. hmm...

After getting some initial bugs worked out (had to set a memory limit because of the >1GB issue, also had to deal with a PnP issue as it was originally configured for APM instead of ACPI BIOS) I was able to boot to the Windows 98 desktop. Never thought I'd get this far, so even at 620×480, it looks pretty good to me!

As expected some of the hardware was not able to be recognized by Windows. I did find chipset drivers, but they are for Windows 2000. Gave it a shot anyway, and it mostly works except for 3 devices that say that the "computer is reporting two PCI.VXD types." What exactly does that mean, anyway? I'll probably go back to the default drivers, not that those were without fault but at least the PCI stuff worked.

Oddly enough Realtek has a Win98 driver for their Gigabit Ethernet card. They don't write sound drivers tho and it appears that the HD audio stuff is impossible to use on 9x. No big deal.

I found a generic video driver that works OK, it lets me get close to what my monitor's resolution is, but not quite. Still, better than that 640×480 mode. I have noticed 2 issues with it tho.

I do have the AutoPatcher program, that thing is great, I had no idea where all the updates were going to come from as Microsoft has recently redone their "Service & Support" section and removed a lot of stuff from it.

I know most people using Windows 98 are running it on old hardware, not trying to run it on new stuff. But I know some people have tried it. What did you learn from that experience?

[Drugwash]

There's already a thread dedicated to running Win9x on new hardware. Please search for it and you'll find some information on this topic.

[Multibooter]

I know most people using Windows 98 are running it on old hardware, not trying to run it on new stuff. But I know some people have tried it. What did you learn from that experience?

Welcome to this forum. Win98 on new hardware is a great luxury: it cost a lot of time getting there. The reward is a highly secure system, where Big Brother has a hard time listening. A new WinXP or Vista computer costs very little, but Win98 on new hardware money cannot buy.

[cannie]

Win98 on new hardware is a great luxury.

I've spent in my self-made computer for Windows 98 SE more than I needed to buy a new one with preinstalled Vista. You may find a lot of information about how to do it in several threads in this same forum, which has been very useful to me.

I'm sure it pays in terms of security, privacy and simplicity: no backdoors, no supervision of anybody at all and no Internet at start. Resources are limited, but I notice it very rarely. Using Unofficial SP-2 and some other unofficial improvements I never see the BSOD. If you use the Internet it is rather difficult to be affected by any virus. In case of trouble I have a cloned drive to change instantly from one drive to the other and it takes 2 minutes to rebuild from scratch the main one. IMO it is worth also to use Microsoft Office 97 and many old programs made specially for Windows 98 because they are more simple, easy and secure than the sophisticated ones that they are offering nowadays. Of course, if you want to play games it is better to have a playstation, and for DVD films you'd rather use the best DVD player-recorder and the widest plasma TV screen instead. Maybe MS doesn't like to hear that any customer prefers their old products, but they cannot avoid it and should be more attentive to the needs of people instead of going higher and higher in their technical and financial goals. The computer has become a very serious thing in our lives and IMHO the real goals for many users are simplicity, security and privacy, as I have already said.

Edited July 31, 2008 by cannie

[togermano]

Win98 on new hardware is a great luxury.

I've spent in my self-made computer for Windows 98 SE more than I needed to buy a new one with preinstalled Vista. You may find a lot of information about how to do it in several threads in this same forum, which has been very useful to me.

I'm sure it pays in terms of security, privacy and simplicity: no backdoors, no supervision of anybody at all and no Internet at start. Resources are limited, but I notice it very rarely. Using Unofficial SP-2 and some other unofficial improvements I never see the BSOD. If you use the Internet it is rather difficult to be affected by any virus. In case of trouble I have a cloned drive to change instantly from one drive to the other and it takes 2 minutes to rebuild from scratch the main one. IMO it is worth also to use Microsoft Office 97 and many old programs made specially for Windows 98 because they are more simple, easy and secure than the sophisticated ones that they are offering nowadays. Of course, if you want to play games it is better to have a playstation, and for DVD films you'd rather use the best DVD player-recorder and the widest plasma TV screen instead. Maybe MS doesn't like to hear that any customer prefers their old products, but they cannot avoid it and should be more attentive to the needs of people instead of going higher and higher in their technical and financial goals. The computer has become a very serious thing in our lives and IMHO the real goals for many users are simplicity, security and privacy, as I have already said.

Would be cool if someone gave a list of the last good/fast motherboard that supported windows 98 se

[eidenk]

I'll let you know how my ASUS A8V Deluxe (Revision 2) and Athlon 64 FX-55 fare some time next week if they are not faulty.

I just bought those two things on eBay. I haven't received the CPU yet but I'll try to install the mobo this weekend anyway as it came with an Athlon 64 3000+ fitted on it.

Edited August 1, 2008 by eidenk

[Multibooter]

Would be cool if someone gave a list of the last good/fast motherboard that supported windows 98 se

I can recommend the Asus P5PE-VM. It is compatible with Core 2 Duo CPU, even with the X6800. Its major disadvantage is that it has only 3 PCI slots and a 2 GB memory limit. I was so satisfied with this board that I bought at ebay 19 of them, as spare parts for several identical computers. Sounds eccentric, but I intend to use a Win98/WinXP combo for another 8-10 years.

The end of Win98 will come when Kaspersky will not provide virus updates for v6.0 (last version for Win98) anymore and when Opera will not provide an updated browser for Win98. By the way, Kaspersky is still providing current virus updates for the really old v4.5 (2003), which I never bothered to upgrade, and their v6.0.2.621 (Win98 compatible version) is still available for download/purchase at their website.

[herbalist]

The end of Win98 will come when Kaspersky will not provide virus updates for v6.0 (last version for Win98) anymore

Kaspersky may be a good AV but 98 can be secured very well without it, or any other AV for that matter. It's rather pointless to go through the work of getting 98 to run well on new hardware, then drag it down with an AV. The loss of AV support might be a problem for the average user, but anyone who is willing to take the time to get 98 running on new hardware isn't an average user and doesn't need to rely on such inefficient security software and the outdated policies on which they're based.

Rick

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

I have to agree with herbalist on the above post. To keep viruses away all you need to do is know where you shouldn't click, and to not use IE.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Th3_uN1Qu3

[herbalist]

I have to agree with herbalist on the above post. To keep viruses away all you need to do is know where you shouldn't click, and to not use IE.

With a little work and a couple strategic pieces of security software, 98 can be made secure enough that you don't have to worry about what gets clicked on, because it won't be able to run. Instead of using an AV to keep tract of and block several hundred thousand pieces of malicious code, you take the opposite approach. You whitelist the required system processes and installed user software, then block everything else. If it can't run, it can't infect.

Not using IE makes the job easier. With some work, IE6 can be made fairly secure. I question if it's worth it to go through the trouble of configuring IE6 to make it as secure as an alternate browser is, as installed. Even if IE is made equally secure, it's still slower, bloated, and resource hungry option that's still inferior in many other ways.

Whether it's Opera, SeaMonkey, or whatever, as long as we have an alternative to IE6, 98 will remain very usable. Kex may well address this problem, but there's more that needs to be done. Unfortunately, Kex also has the potential to create new security issues in 9X systems. 9x systems are naturally resistant to much of the code that infects NT systems. By adding new functions from NT systems to 9X, we could be making it vulnerable to code and exploits that previously didn't affect it.

Rick

Edited August 2, 2008 by herbalist

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

With a little work and a couple strategic pieces of security software, 98 can be made secure enough that you don't have to worry about what gets clicked on, because it won't be able to run. Instead of using an AV to keep tract of and block several hundred thousand pieces of malicious code, you take the opposite approach. You whitelist the required system processes and installed user software, then block everything else. If it can't run, it can't infect.

To me knowing what's safe to click and what not is a reflex already. However, it's too bad that antivirus programs don't apply the whitelist strategy, it would be so much simpler to control viruses.

[herbalist]

However, it's too bad that antivirus programs don't apply the whitelist strategy, it would be so much simpler to control viruses.

Many of the security suites have components that can whitelist executables, DLLs, etc. They're calling them Host Intrusion Protection Systems or "HIPS". They used to be called Application firewalls. Process Guard, System Safety Monitor, and Abtrusion Protector were the pioneers. Out of the 3, System Safety Monitor still survives. The AV and big name security vendors didn't come up with the idea. They just copied it, primarily because their development could make conventional AVs and their vendors unnecessary. Unlike AVs, freestanding HIPS or application firewalls are extremely light. Unfortunately, most of them chose not to support 9X systems. As far as I know, only the free version of System Safety Monitor does. In the hands of a knowledgeable user, it can put an end to malware infections, present and future.

To me knowing what's safe to click and what not is a reflex already.

That's great, as long as you're the only one using that PC. Too often, it's other users besides the owner (friends, kids, etc) that get the PC infected. A well planned default-deny security policy, enforced by the right software and configuration, can make 98 secure against most anything they can do, short of using boot floppies or live CDs.

Rick

[98-Guy]

Would be cool if someone gave a list of the last good/fast motherboard that supported windows 98 se

That list has already been posted to this forum.

It's a sticky right near the top of the list. Don't you see it?

http://www.msfn.org/board/Modern-motherboa...-wi-t97588.html

[Sweet William]

I have to agree with herbalist on the above post. To keep viruses away all you need to do is know where you shouldn't click, and to not use IE.

Hi,

I'm inclined to agree with you, partially. 98SE is the best I have found, I don't use real time virus scanning or any other malware detection but I do run a humungus hosts file and IE5.5sp2 c/w Outlook Express is locked down tight so I haven't seen any nasties (on my system) in the last 10 years. Proper use of security zones is important with IE.

I've been trying Seamonkey lately and IE is easier to lock down. Cookie management in Seamonkey simply does not work. I'm also doubtful about its popup blocking.

Everyone here is pretty savvy so I don't see why IE should be proving problematic.

Sweet William

[BenoitRen]

Cookie management in Seamonkey simply does not work.

This is false. I've used it a lot, and it works great, allowing you fine-grained control. It's more probable that you don't know how to properly use it.

I'm also doubtful about its popup blocking.

The pop-up blocker works well.

Everyone here is pretty savvy so I don't see why IE should be proving problematic.

It's insecure by design. Microsoft even admitted it. It's also quite unstable and hungry for resources.

I haven't had any nasties just by switching to SeaMonkey. No locking down needed. No hosts file blocking needed. I get the full experience without a crippled web browser.

I'd argue SeaMonkey is easier to lock down because its preferences window is organised instead of the mess that IE calls its options.