The Windows 98 Challenge

[Multibooter]

Any benches of a so-called highly luxury win98 (No pun intended.) system? I'm interested in DPC latency checker and that sort of thing. Examples of showing responsiveness. I assume that is what it's main strength is.

I am not into benchmarking, any suggestions for a good benchmarking software, which runs under Win98 & WinXP?

Also, my objective is not to run a top Win98 system. My objective is rather to run WinXP (and later a Unix-variant and maybe Vista) with recent hardware; but on the same hardware I also want to be able to run Win98. In a combo WinXP/Win98/DOS/Linux/Vista you have to make compromises somewhere, it starts with the motherboard. I am using the Asus P5PE-VM, which only allows 2GB of RAM; only AGP, no PCIe; Core 2 Duo up to X6800, no quad core; only 3 PCI slots; only 1 floppy drive from which you can boot. The difficulty of getting a combo to work continues with finding drivers/workarounds to get other hardware to work (PCI-cards, printer, scanner, etc).

The overall strength of such a combo is more in its ability to use the opsys best fitted to specific tasks (e.g. secure access of the Internet). The results of a benchmark software will not reflect this.

Here an example of some simple tasks: try to transfer an encrypted file from a 5.25" floppy disk, written in Osborne CP/M format, to Win98/XP and decrypt it then. Or encrypt a file under Win98/XP, then save it onto a 5.25" floppy in, for example, the KayPro 4 CP/M format?

Edited August 5, 2008 by Multibooter

[BenoitRen]

All I want from cookie management is blocking of third-party cookies. Too many sites use unnecessary first party cookies but I can live with that. There is an obvious selection in configuration that says "Accept cookies from originating site only" so I selected it.

Ah, yes, that particular feature never worked well. In fact, that's the very reason that option was removed from Firefox 2's options window.

Initially I thought the popup blocking was ok until I closed the browser one day and found a big "pop-under" so that system is flawed as well.

There is one type of pop-up that SeaMonkey doesn't block. If you follow a JavaScript link that opens a new window, it can open an extra pop-up window. I imagine it's hard to decide programmatically what's a pop-up in that case and what isn't. All new windows open in new tabs, so I haven't had pop-unders, but they still open in a new tab.

The zone system allows me to have 3 levels of security.

That idea was flawed from the start. No page should get less security. They should all get the same level.

I can't understand anyone surfing the net without a (big) hosts file. In Australia, most people have down load (and upload) limits so I don't want half a dozen banner ads etc. for every page I visit.

I use Adblock Plus with a list of filters of my own that blocks most ads. I agree with the sentiment, as I live in Belgium, were we also have capping. Though the biggest advantage to me is not having slow page loads because of a slow ad server.

[TranceEnergy]

Here an example of some simple tasks: try to transfer an encrypted file from a 5.25" floppy disk, written in Osborne CP/M format, to Win98/XP and decrypt it then. Or encrypt a file under Win98/XP, then save it onto a 5.25" floppy in, for example, the KayPro 4 CP/M format?

So your reason for win98 is legacy hardware ?

[Multibooter]

So your reason for win98 is legacy hardware ?

No, primarily security in the internet. Hiding stuff on old 5.25" media with CP/M format can be done under DOS 6. On more readily available 3.5" floppies data can be secured/hidden with a modded Win3.x using a modded code page. BTW, DOS 6 works fine with Core 2 Duo.

[Multibooter]

I'm curious. What is the significance of IE6 pre or post Sept 2001?

Just paranoia. herbalist gave an excellent answer:

http://www.msfn.org/board/Last-Versions-of...808#entry767808

[herbalist]

Even when IE6 is tightened up and secured as well as it can be, it still has one major problem.

Is IE 5.5 any better?

Do you have a version of IE6 which is definitively pre-Sebt.2001? I only have v6.0.2600.0000IC which (according to my personal download notes) I downloaded from MS on 20-Sebbt.2001

My copy of IE6 is from 2003. OldVersion has what appears to be the full version of IE6, version 6.00.2600.0000. I didn't unpack the cab files but they're all dated 8/17/01 and 8/20/01 if you want to look into it.

I've never worked with IE-5.5. As far as I know, it has the same problem, OS integration. It also has a lot of flaws that were never patched. Version 5.5 may not have any potential problems with "official backdoors" due to 9/11, but it's vulnerable to even more than IE6. IMO, using it is trading away one possible problem and accepting many more that are very real.

Based on what I read on the Seamonkey web site, I don't think the suite is going to be of much use to us as 9X users for much longer. They are planning major changes which amount to a Major rewrite that is very likely to break 9X compatibility.

If I read correctly, the new versions of SeaMonkey work with KernelEX. For me, KernelEX isn't an option, not compatible with other software I use. That said, I don't see a problem with using an older version as long as it's compatible with the web content. Up until 2 months ago, I was using SeaMonkey 1.07, which is from December 2006. The alternate browsers update far more often than IE, at times too often it seems like. It wouldn't be so bad if updating didn't end up making me reinstall most of the extensions I use, then getting annoyed when the update breaks some of them. Many of the updates are bug or vulnerability fixes. Most of the vulnerabilities that are found are not as serious as the ones found in IE6 and can be mitigated in other ways besides a new version. With IE6, it's a broken record:

"new vulnerability....may lead to remote code execution..."

The usual result when a browser flaw is also an OS flaw.

With an alternate browser, a flaw doesn't generally lead to a compromised OS. With a good security policy and software, the effects of a vulnerability can often be confined to just the affected application. My security policy for internet apps is to isolate them as much as possible. If one is exploited, it doesn't automatically allow access to everything else or the OS itself. IMO, an older version of an alternate browser, media player, etc can be used safely as long as the user is aware of its vulnerabilities and adjusts their security policy and system configuration accordingly.

Rick

[TheJackal]

Wow thanks for all the responses guys, looks like this topic ended up drifting a bit

I did some fishing around in the registry and fixed the "more than one PCI.VXD bus type" error. I found where the information for the devices were stored and deleted the "Driver" string. I was then going to work on it but realized it worked just fine without loading any drivers so I left it at that. AFAIK it looks like it loads PCI.VXD for the entire PCI bus, and doesn't need to load it again, or else you end up with that error.

I'm still working on the sound and video drivers. Don't think I'll get too far with those, but I did find a couple of threads about that here and on other forums. Someone said that Realtek made HD Audio drivers for 98 a few years back, and if you download the old version it'll probably work. I did that but it still came up with an error that said the driver was "not supported under 'Windows 9X.'"

Another thing I discovered was that installing the unofficial Native USB Drivers caused Windows to not be able to recognize HID devices anymore. So I could use my USB DVD-RW drive and card reader, but my USB mouse and keyboard was not being recognized properly. As a result I couldn't use the mouse wheel and for me that is a must. So I uninstalled the drivers and unpacked them manually, then I installed them manually for the unknown devices. Now the keyboard, mouse, and card readers work just fine. The DVD drive works too but only as a CD-ROM drive. That's fine as I probably won't burn any CDs while in 98 anyway.

[herbalist]

A lot of USB devices use Orangeware drivers. Most of the time, they're on the CDs that come with the hardware. On my 98 box, version 2.3 seems to work the best. I've uploaded version 2.3 to

http://rapidshare.com/files/135651992/ousb2.3.zip.html

Rick

[Multibooter]

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...

This is a perfect recipe for wasting many hours, or for a long learning experience. Since you have already thrown out the old computer, I would also throw out the old HDD. Only a few modern motherboards work with Win98. If the motherboard of your Acer M5630 does not officially support Win98, then you will get from one mess into the next with this HDD.

[TheJackal]

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...

This is a perfect recipe for wasting many hours, or for a long learning experience. Since you have already thrown out the old computer, I would also throw out the old HDD. Only a few modern motherboards work with Win98. If the motherboard of your Acer M5630 does not officially support Win98, then you will get from one mess into the next with this HDD.

Hmm it's not so bad, at least, it works a lot better than I expected. Sure not everything's going to work but I don't expect it to. If I was really serious about using Win98 stuff, I'd just get an old computer and run it on there.

One thing I would like to figure out tho is how to extract the boot sector into a BOOTSECT.DOS file so I can use the Vista boot menu to start Win98, instead of having to hit the F12 key at just the right time. I tried one method (create "read.scr" and use debug) but that didn't work.

Any ideas?

[Multibooter]

About 10% of eMule software downloads are infected... The major reason for using Win98 with new hardware is its limited malware/spyware/etc vulnerability in the Internet.

I just came across a rootkit for Win98 for the first time in the wild, on eMule. Kaspersky calls it Rootkit.Win32.Agent.ajn. It is currently available as a 6.01MB file under the name "infoselect 2007 keygen(1).exe" via eMule on the Kademlia network.

It would be interesting to know if this rootkit really works under Win98.