PROBLEMCHYLD Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 (edited) Hello forum i'm trying to get a list of unsupported featuresthat Win98/SE/ME don't have without a 3rd party app.1.Ntfs2.Long file Names/LFN3.USB 2.0- drivers supported but only for specific motherboards therefore it doesn't have all around support Edited December 18, 2006 by PROBLEMCHYLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 1. http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=395732. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted December 18, 2006 Author Share Posted December 18, 2006 (edited) There are lots of functions that are missing thats not includedi only listed the ones i could think ofI 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/MEsuch as the one i listed above.like Ntfs for example is not supported in Win9X without a 3rd party toolthats not what i'm looking for. Edited December 18, 2006 by PROBLEMCHYLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noguru Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Good unicode support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted December 18, 2006 Author Share Posted December 18, 2006 (edited) Thanks for understanding my ? Edited December 18, 2006 by PROBLEMCHYLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmsta Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking supportSecurity 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristols Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) - 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 December 22, 2006 by bristols Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenoitRen Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking supportI thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)Better security regarding file permissionsNo, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted December 22, 2006 Author Share Posted December 22, 2006 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 iam please correct me on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristols Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 (edited) Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking supportI thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)Better security regarding file permissionsNo, 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 December 22, 2006 by bristols Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awergh Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscardog Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking supportI thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)Better security regarding file permissionsNo, 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marius '95 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now