Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
PROBLEMCHYLD

Whats Missing from Win98SE

Recommended Posts

Hello forum i'm trying to get a list of unsupported features

that Win98/SE/ME don't have without a 3rd party app.

1.Ntfs

2.Long file Names/LFN

3.USB 2.0- drivers supported but only for specific motherboards therefore it doesn't have all around support

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of functions that are missing thats not included

i only listed the ones i could think of

I thought windows 98 had a problem with LFNs i could be wrong though.

I don't want links to fixes i want a list of broken functions that not included in Win98/SE/ME

such as the one i listed above.like Ntfs for example is not supported in Win9X without a 3rd party tool

thats not what i'm looking for.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for understanding my ?

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support

Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)

That's basically all we need to build into Win98SE... Lots and lots of work to do anything like that, but if accomplished, we'd be closer to a Dos-based NT than anything else. :thumbup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Better GDI resources (e.g., 32- rather than 16-bit - I think; there's an interesting thread somewhere here on the forum that explains the issue).

- The ability to support the Cairo graphics library (a GDI replacement, used by Firefox 3 that, amongst other things, provides far better font-rendering in web pages).

- Cleartype, or some such advanced font-rendering technology.

- IE7 - it will never happen, I know this (I much prefer Firefox and Opera, but IE7 on Windows 9x would be handy to me).

- Better Unicode support (seconding noguru's suggestion above).

- Better security regarding file permissions (seconding jimmsta's suggestion above), although I can't see this happening at all.

Edited by bristols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support
I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.
Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)
Better security regarding file permissions

No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I can think of is (instead of administrtorship) having a "reboot in administrative mode" and "reboot in user mode" options.

"User Mode" Totaly forbidding adding or modifying files in (part of) system and program folders and writing in (part of) the registery until you restart in "administrative mode".

---

2.Long file Names/LFN ? I don't understand, I have no problem with LFN? Do you?

Maybe Unicode file name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2.Long file Names/LFN ? I don't understand, I have no problem with LFN? Do you?

Maybe Unicode file name...

I wasn't for sure about this so don't quote me on it i might be wrong if i

am please correct me on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support

I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.

Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)
Better security regarding file permissions

No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity.

I hear you, BenoitRen, and I kind of agree. Moreoever, I guess, it would be to make 9x something that it's just not.

Retreating back from that (sort of), some better password protection at boot time would be good (although again, I'm really not sure how this could be achieved, since such measures are always easily bypassed through DOS). Windows 9x remains totally insecure at the (physical) point of access. I don't think I'd ever run 9x on a laptop, for example.

Edited by bristols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i sort of secured 98 with a domain and somehow at one stage i forced the policy on safe mode but you would still have to stop access through to dos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support

I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.

Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)
Better security regarding file permissions

No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity.

I hear you, BenoitRen, and I kind of agree. Moreoever, I guess, it would be to make 9x something that it's just not.

Retreating back from that (sort of), some better password protection at boot time would be good (although again, I'm really not sure how this could be achieved, since such measures are always easily bypassed through DOS). Windows 9x remains totally insecure at the (physical) point of access. I don't think I'd ever run 9x on a laptop, for example.

Dos can also be your friend in securing Win9x, a multiitude of apps exist to encrypt your system files before your system can start (just type your password at system start,takes a couple of seconds),installing the os to a non standard folder prevents safe mode attacks. Using the freeware pgp disk prevents anybody accessing your program folders/important files. Putting untrusted user accounts into ram or onto a bootable cd prevents them infecting theirs or your own system.

Using the above with even a basic 128bit encryption would be far harder to break into, than to rename/bruteforce sids on xp, even on a laptop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a way to totaly denying writing on some sectors of the HD.

Once you can do that, and find on which sectors crucial files are, you are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of programs and boot managers that offer good protection before windows starts. Some boot managers move partition table from it's normal location. Without the password you see no partitions on that disk. A smart person (one that knows what a partition table is) may be able to find the partitions and rewrite the partition table, but such knoledge is rare today.

BTW, did you know that ATA disks have a hardware security feature? Take a look at this: http://www.fitzenreiter.de/ata/ata_eng.htm You can insert a small program into your MB BIOS and it will ask for password *before* POST is complete! No password - no HDD access.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...