Jump to content

Windows Me is still usable


sparky4

Recommended Posts

You're forgetting the drive-by exploits like Sasser that exist because NT likes to show its services to the outer world. Conficker also uses a drive-by exploit, though the situation wasn't the same because a patch was out for months before the malware appeared. Still, the services are an attack vector.

Those haven't existed for awhile, although it is correct. Also, Windows (since SP2, at least) has a firewall enabled at least on the host to mitigate these. Obviously Vista and Win7 do a far better job at this than 2000 or XP did, which I'd also agree to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sparky4,

There should be quite a few threads in this forum about what software still works with ME.

Don't get the XP/Vista/Windows 7 zombies get to you(...you must install...you must install...). I use Win 2K but also Win 98 (with 98SE2ME and IE, OE, WMP, Windows Update, etc uninstalled) and it is still a viable OS with all the unofficial updates here and on mdgx's site.

With XP and later OS, your computer contacts MS daily, sometimes multiple times a day, all beyond your control! Who knows what info is being sent? ("Don't worry about us connecting to your computer...just stare into the colors and icons on your desktop...isn't aero pretty?")

Did you know with XP SP2, Vista and later, you cannot add MS domains to the host file to block your computer from connecting to MS?

I also see on the main page of MSFN of reports of 'stealth' updates to XP to users that have set their systems NOT to automatically install updates!

ahh, yes 2000 is very good os

(the best of the NTs)

and I cannot stand those zombies

I am currently defragmenting the disk

looks pretty messy

anyway my current specs are

2.4GHz Pentium 4 possessor

768MB of RAM

260 GB of total hard disk space (4 hard drives total)

OS is the rare Windows 4.90.3000 + unofficial SP + RP9 + Kernelex 4.0 RC2

This is my very 1st PC and i simply upgraded the parts

I perfer Watercolor theme over anything

(old school yet futuristic too, Just the way how i like it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6. 350MB is the full installation

How did you get such result? My 98 is bigger (with latest unofficial updates, DirectX, RP9 and drivers), and it is impossible to work on 98 without this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wsxedcrfv
1. Security through obscurity is bad practice. Besides, many modern viruses are not XP only at all. And vulnerabilities in XP are still being patched unlike ME.

- Did you know XP has a decent, fast en secure filesystem, called NTFS, that has none of the ancient FAT limitations?.

Malware writers have no choice but to code their exploits differently if they're going to infect (and stay hidden) on NT-based systems vs win-9x systems. It doesn't matter than win-9x systems are obscure today. If you look at the evolution of NT-based OS's from 2k sp0 to XP-sp3, those OS's were absolutely abysmal at being internet-secure.

A lot of loose talk is thrown around when it comes to computer "security", and many IT professionals and media drones confuse the concept of desktop security vs internet security. NT was designed for desktop and LAN security, something that doesn't even come into play for most users who were forced to migrate to XP when win-98 was canned.

I could take an original installation of Win-98se (no updates or patches) and attach it to the internet right now (no firewall, no nat router) and nothing would happen to it. Win-98 was NEVER vulnerable to any network worms, for example. On the other hand, win-2k and XP were vulnerable to about 6 or 7 different worms. Real security for XP didn't happen until SP2.

Call it luck, or good software design, but 98's core files are simply not vulnerable to many buffer over-run or heap spray exploits as 2K and XP are. And 9x doesn't run two dozen different services and open ports given a default configuration. Even XP-home runs way too many services that you'd only see in corporate or enterprise environments.

When it comes to NTFS, that's another pile of horse sh*t. Almost all of it's features are of absolutely no consequence to the average user. The ONLY real advantage that NTFS has over FAT32 is that it can handle files larger than 4 gb. Now ask yourself how many times you've had to work with a file larger than 4 gb? Contrary to popular belief, NTFS is not more "reliable" or "robust" than FAT32. What NTFS does is more auto-self-correcting than FAT32. File errors still happen on NTFS, it's just that 2K and XP run their own versions of chkdsk and clean up those errors and don't leave any .CHK files behind. So because of those invisible operations, most people think that NTFS must be more reliable or robust.

In fact, you will lose data when a journaling operation fails. With FAT32, you can end up with lost clusters where potentially important info can be retreived. In NTFS, that data is lost forever. With FAT32, an incomplete file write will not roll back to some earlier version of the file, resulting in (again) lost data.

NTFS was designed in a time when hard drive performance and reliability was a real concern, and multi-tasking apps and servers needed more sophisticated file access than FAT32 could deliver. Those days are long gone, but everyone using 2K and XP (and now vista) must continue to live with NTFS. I've installed XP on 100% FAT32 drives and if functions just fine - even better because it doesn't have the overhead of NTFS journalling. And I have access to dozens or hundreds of file maintainence and recover/repair programs written for FAT32. Very few third party apps written for the undocumented, propriatary NTFS. And the NTFS file system can fail in more ways than FAT32 that can result in a very difficult, or impossible, recovery or reconstruction attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please tell me what is good programs for Windows Me [utility and others], and for me to test on Windows Me?

I experiment with Windows Me daily and surprised that it is still usable and compatible with many modern programs, and more is compatible thanks to Xeno86

There's lots of good software for 98/ME. You need to be more specific regarding what types of software you want or what tasks you want to perform.

There's no comparison between the NT command prompt and true DOS. The NT command prompt is restricted by Windows. DOS is not. Try replacing a registry or core system file with the NT prompt. With real DOS, it's easy.

The "security" of the NTFS file system contributes nothing to operating system security. Regardless of how it gets there, the ability for malicious code to be concealed in ADS offsets any other security benefits NTFS offers. A file system that can hide files from the user is a security liability.

and it is very frustrating to be attacked by over 8000 people who are saying INSTALL XP constantly!

That constant echo does get annoying at times. The only good thing there is that those who are staying with XP get to hear the same noise from the Vista and Win7 crowd. As long as an OS runs the software you need and performs the tasks you need done, there's no need to "update" to something newer. I have several operating systems installed, including 2K and a recent version of Linux. Win 98FE is still my "daily driver."

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please tell me what is good programs for Windows Me [utility and others], and for me to test on Windows Me?

I experiment with Windows Me daily and surprised that it is still usable and compatible with many modern programs, and more is compatible thanks to Xeno86

There's lots of good software for 98/ME. You need to be more specific regarding what types of software you want or what tasks you want to perform.

There's no comparison between the NT command prompt and true DOS. The NT command prompt is restricted by Windows. DOS is not. Try replacing a registry or core system file with the NT prompt. With real DOS, it's easy.

Haha NT.

The Programs I want to try is the ones that can move files, and mean LOTS of files, big ones too

and programs that can help my system have longer uptimes

[modern programs tend to suck up all the CPU these days]

Edited by sparky4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the evolution of NT-based OS's from 2k sp0 to XP-sp3, those OS's were absolutely abysmal at being internet-secure.

A lot of loose talk is thrown around when it comes to computer "security", and many IT professionals and media drones confuse the concept of desktop security vs internet security. NT was designed for desktop and LAN security, something that doesn't even come into play for most users who were forced to migrate to XP when win-98 was canned.

I could take an original installation of Win-98se (no updates or patches) and attach it to the internet right now (no firewall, no nat router) and nothing would happen to it. Win-98 was NEVER vulnerable to any network worms, for example. On the other hand, win-2k and XP were vulnerable to about 6 or 7 different worms. Real security for XP didn't happen until SP2.

Call it luck, or good software design, but 98's core files are simply not vulnerable to many buffer over-run or heap spray exploits as 2K and XP are. And 9x doesn't run two dozen different services and open ports given a default configuration. Even XP-home runs way too many services that you'd only see in corporate or enterprise environments.

You tell 'em wsxedcrfv! Windows NT based OS' run a bunch of extra services that are useful in a corporate LAN enviroment but are worse than nothing for a single user on a freestanding home machine connecting to the Internet. They provide open doors for all sorts of worms and other nasties to invade home computers, as well as increasing boot up time and consuming more memory, not to mention all the critical fixes home users have to download to patch services that they never needed or would use in the first place. A default 98 installation has no ports open to the Internet at all, unlike XP for example that has multiple open ports to the Internet just begging to be infected. It took Microsoft years to patch up all these holes.

XP Home should have been stripped down/otherwise modified to better meet the needs of home users connected directly to the Internet using high speed connections with no routers or firewalls. Barring that, the 98 model should have continued to been updated as the "Home OS".

Edited by the xt guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Programs I want to try is the ones that can move files, and mean LOTS of files, big ones too

Move files to and from what? Between folders, different hard drives, different computers on a LAN, over the internet, between different kinds of operating systems? Regarding "big ones", within the limits of what FAT32 can handle?

and programs that can help my system have longer uptimes

Without knowing how your PC is used, it's hard to be specific. Keeping the bloat out of the autostart always helps. 9X systems have limited resources. The OS doesn't manage them as well as it should. The key to long uptimes on 9X systems is efficient use of the resources by the software. On mine, not using and/or getting rid of Internet Explorer made the most difference. This PC originally had 64MB RAM. Using IE6, after 2-3 hours of browsing the system would start getting unstable. When I switched to Mozilla (now called SeaMonkey), it took all day before the system lost stability. Adding some more RAM and adjusting settings in system.ini increased usable uptime more. Security suites (if any still run on 9X) and AVs are another resource killer. Switching to a default-deny based security policy that didn't depend on signature based detections made a big difference in speed and stability.

Monitor the memory and resource usage of the software you use. Watch for apps that don't release them when they're done and replace them. MS software is some of the worst on a 9X system, especially Internet Explorer. It wouldn't surprise me if this was deliberate, part of their "planned obsolescence" policy. The equivalent Open Source software is usually much better. Chances are you'll find 1 or 2 apps are causing most of the problem.

A default 98 installation has no ports open to the Internet at all, unlike XP for example that has multiple open ports to the Internet just begging to be infected. It took Microsoft years to patch up all these holes.

On 98, the NetBios ports are open by default, but they are easy to close. Much easier than closing all the ports on XP.

Rick

Edited by herbalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 98, the NetBios ports are open by default, but they are easy to close.

I used to think this as well, until I installed Win98 SE. NetBIOS isn't enabled (but it is installed) by default. Maybe this is different in the first edition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
6. 350MB is the full installation

How did you get such result? My 98 is bigger (with latest unofficial updates, DirectX, RP9 and drivers), and it is impossible to work on 98 without this stuff.

that is a fresh installation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

350 MB is quite attainable. My lite98FE system is 356MB. No IE or ActiveX, but it does have SeaMonkey with full Java installed, CD burning software, Foxit, and the standard complement of tools.

On 98, the NetBios ports are open by default, but they are easy to close.

I used to think this as well, until I installed Win98 SE. NetBIOS isn't enabled (but it is installed) by default. Maybe this is different in the first edition?

I'd have to do a fresh install to be sure, but I'm almost positive that NetBIOS is enabled on FE by default. It might also be getting enabled when I install IE6. I don't ever recall enabling it but I do remember having to close those ports on several of the images I've built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I originally chose Me over xP because of speed

I was running xP in 2007 and i hated it.

Its good seeing you keep ME going :)

I have seen several people now say they have had good success with ME (While most say the opposite)

I guess it all depends on WHAT YOU TRY TO RUN ON IT :)

Good luck with her!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...