Error message in Windows 98 Second Edition

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:02 -0700, Dan wrote:

Thanks PCR!!! I have a total of 3 MSVCRT.DLL --- they are as follows:

1. ver. 6.10.8637.0 ---- located in c:\windows\system
2. ver. 6.10.8637.0 ---- located in c:\windows\temp\crfo\drivers\addon
3. ver. 6.00.8397.0 ---- located in c:\program
files\creative\sbaudigy\playcenter2

On that, see:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/dllhell.htm

On Win9x in 2G RAM, I'd prolly prefer to install a boss OS (XP or
Vista) and then run the Win9x within a Virtual PC on that ;-)



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote
in message
| On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:02 -0700, Dan wrote:
|
|Thanks PCR!!! I have a total of 3 MSVCRT.DLL --- they are as follows:
|
|1. ver. 6.10.8637.0 ---- located in c:\windows\system
|2. ver. 6.10.8637.0 ---- located in c:\windows\temp\crfo\drivers\addon
|3. ver. 6.00.8397.0 ---- located in c:\program
|files\creative\sbaudigy\playcenter2
|
| On that, see:
|
| http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/dllhell.htm

I think Dan has gone beyond the pale of a regular DLL-hell & loaded an
XP-irradiated MSVCRT.DLL into the 98 side of his machine! He has
v.6.10.8637.0 in there, & it came in with Audigy drivers. My fully
updated Win98SE has v.6.00.8797.0 only. (At first, I thought mine was
the higher version-- BUT note my "00" where his is "10".

| On Win9x in 2G RAM, I'd prolly prefer to install a boss OS (XP or
| Vista) and then run the Win9x within a Virtual PC on that ;-)

Yep. He has decided one way or another to re-install or reestablish the
Win98 side. Perhaps doing it this way he may keep his "10". (I don't
know.)

|-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Tip Of The Day:
| To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
|-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

Thanks for the suggestion, Chris. I will do that if limiting the memory in
the msconfig is not successful.

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:02 -0700, Dan wrote:

Thanks PCR!!! I have a total of 3 MSVCRT.DLL --- they are as follows:

1. ver. 6.10.8637.0 ---- located in c:\windows\system
2. ver. 6.10.8637.0 ---- located in c:\windows\temp\crfo\drivers\addon
3. ver. 6.00.8397.0 ---- located in c:\program
files\creative\sbaudigy\playcenter2

On that, see:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/dllhell.htm

On Win9x in 2G RAM, I'd prolly prefer to install a boss OS (XP or
Vista) and then run the Win9x within a Virtual PC on that ;-)



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

I give everyone my warmest thanks and appreciation in helping to give me
advice in regards to Windows 98 Second Edition. Hopefully, the final post in
this thread. grin

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:44:07 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

There are 2 aspects of firewall functionality.

1) Inbound handling of unsolicited data packets

2) Outbound handling of packets from unauthorized or
unrecognized local processes.

A NAT-router handles #1 IN ALL CASES, be they TCP or UDP. And it
handles this for all computers connected to it on the local LAN. It
is very efficient at doing this, and it does it in a secure manner.

A software firewall performs both 1 and 2, but only on ONE computer.

(or rather, on each computer on which it is running)

If you have more than one computer on a local lan, you already have
NAT, so you are already protected for #1.

Not always. A router can be configured to act as a dumb bridge, so
that it passes the ISP's Internet-accessible IP address directly to
the PC it is connected to. When this happens, it may as well be an
"ADSL modem", as it's not NAT-routing at all.

In this scenario, things change as follows:
- the PC that is assigned the IP address, is the router
- other PCs connect via this PC using Internet Connection Sharing
- the PC's sware firewall now acts to manage theier traffic as well?

So it's not only important to have a NAT router, but to have that
router act AS a NAT router.

Broadband other than ADSL (satellite, ?cable) may work more like a USB
ADSL modem, i.e. lack the NAT routing component, acting as above.

Function #1 is a bona-fide protection mechanism that prevents some
systems from being comprimized (this almost never applies to
windows-98 anyways, but it applied almost 100% to Windows 2K, XP-gold
and XP-SP1). Function #1 -IS- protection.

True.

Function #2 IS NOT protection. Function #2 is an alert mechanism.
Unless it's a false alarm, #2 tells you that YOUR SYSTEM IS ALREADY
COMPRIMIZED IN SOME WAY.

True, in a way. It's more useful as a way of curbing unwanted or
unexpected behavior of wanted software, e.g. the free screensaver that
"calls home", etc. which can be a useful thing in its own right.

Function #2 is also a pain in the ass to configure and live with.

True, also. It's in the same class of monitoring/alertware as PrevX,
All-Seeing-Eye and UAC - quite a different usage profile from #1.

Because function #2 is only provided by a software firewall, it
can be deactivated by malware or by misconfiguration by the user.

True, plus it can be spoofed in various ways.

In real life, there are always unwanted / unsolicited packets
hammering away at your internet connection (item #1) so it's a given
that they are more of a threat and should be delt with - moreseo than
dealing with #2. It is MORE important to deal with #1 vs #2

I'd agree with that. I'd say #1 is something every user should have,
and the less the user knows, the more it is needed. In contrast, #2
is more useful for users with an interest in knowning what is going
on; as it's more visible, it's more of a source of "warm fuzzies".

If you were to prioritize the various security appliances, software
and settings you could obtain to insure a safe computing experience,
the first item on the list is a NAT-router. Even if you have only 1
computer and you don't need the ability to have a local LAN, a
nat-router will perform your internet log-in for you and will maintain
your internet connection even when your computer is off. This means
you don't need to run buggy or troublesome ISP login software

Such software often dumbs down the router to act as a bridge, via a
fake "dial-up connection" type of icon.

Once you have a NAT-router, you have item #1 covered.

In the context of the Internet, yes. But not in the context of the
LAN side of the router, which is relevant if one of the PCs on the LAN
is compromised, and especially relevant if your LAN is open to WiFi
access (and intrusion). This is where the software firewall's #1
effect becomes highly relevant, and why I would insist on such a
firewall even when a physical NAT router is in use.

I place #2 far down the list of important functions, I have other items
next (like a hosts file, locking down browsers with spybot and spyware
blaster, updating JAVA JRE engine, etc). At the bottom I place
anti-virus software (it is close to becoming useless these days)

I'd disagree there. It's always been leaky as a sole protection
component, but it is still useful as a "tubour de-bulking" tool.

If your #1 firewall is you first layer of protection, then your av is
your goalie of last resort - and useful as such.

software firewall (or more specificaly, item #2) at the very bottom
(I don't run one, I never have and never will).

I do use #2 in some contexts, and have found it useful. But like av,
I have no illusions that it is an impenitrable armour that lets me get
away with acting like a click-happy moron ;-)

Typically I use #2 as a replacement for the built-in XP firewall when
that has been FUBAR'd by malware that's been cleaned up.

Moreover, he also thinks the Microsoft's XP firewall will
provide some sort of protection, should he need it.

The software firewall built into XP is ONLY an incoming firewall.

It's not, actually. It's not an alert hog, and may or may not be as
powerful on #2 as those that are, but you certainly can set it to
block egress for particular items, and I use it as such. For example,
I'll have it block F&PS, Remote Desktop, Remote Assistance etc. where
I do not want these functions exposed to the Internet.

Assuming it works correctly at all times, it is exactly equivalent
to what a NAT-router does. But because it is a process running
on the local machine, it is vulnerable to being tampered with or
being deactivated by malware, and for that reason it is inferior
to a NAT-router.

Routers can be hacked too, but as there's more variation between
these, they are less attractive as a point of attack. OTOH, if they
are considered to be invulnerable objects, they can be more attractive
as a potential point of exploit against actively-managed systems.

A NAT-router is THE FIRST THING YOU NEED.

Along with destruction or very careful setup of all wireless access..



--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Tech Support: The guys who follow the
'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

MEB, why aren't you participating in this discussion? Could it be
that you have no clue how effective a NAT-router is, and how it
duplicates the most useful aspects of a software firewall without the
hassle?

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:

If you have more than one computer on a local lan, you already
have NAT, so you are already protected for #1.

Not always. A router can be configured to act as a dumb bridge,
so that it passes the ISP's Internet-accessible IP address
directly to the PC it is connected to.

My explanation pertains to the typical broadband SOHO situation where
a single static or dynamic IP is being used by one or perhaps a dozen
machines on a local lan and the NAT aspect of the router is in use.
Which I would guess pertains to 99.999% of the readers of this group.

Function #2 IS NOT protection. Function #2 is an alert
mechanism.

True, in a way. It's more useful as a way of curbing unwanted
or unexpected behavior of wanted software,

Yes, I agree with that. Which is why I feel that the out-bound
monitoring that a software firewall does is more suited for the
curiosity or control needs of a "power-user" rather than the security
needs of the average user.

Once you have a NAT-router, you have item #1 covered.

In the context of the Internet, yes. But not in the context
of the LAN side of the router, which is relevant if one of
the PCs on the LAN is compromised,

This really depends on what OS the various machines on the LAN are
running - what services are running, what is being shared, what is the
malware that now has access to the local lan, etc. Since NT-based
OS's are more vulnerable, and since XP has it's own firewall, then
that risk is already mitigated. Since 98 is relatively invulnerable
to network exploits, again the risk is low. Five years ago, we might
be talking about the benefits of running a software firewall on win-2k
systems that are part of a multi-system lan - and that's a whole other
ballgame.

I do use #2 in some contexts, and have found it useful.

It may be useful in that it tells you about the behavior of known-good
software, but for most people that is not why they are told they need
a software firewall.

The software firewall built into XP is ONLY an incoming
firewall.

It's not, actually.

Yes it is.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320855

That KB talks only about the in-bound or unsolicited incoming
monitoring that the XP firewall does.

http://pctechshield.com/ICF.htm

"Basically the first best line of defense from Internet
Scanners and hackers is a $50 Router which can also
shield your I.P. Address and allow instant connection
for multiple computers."

Did you read that, MEB?

"Since Internet Connection Firewall provides inbound
protection only, if you have concerns about programs
that “phone home” or send outbound data to an unknown
destination over the Internet, you may want to consider
a third–party firewall."

Again another reference to XP's firewall being an inbound-only
firewall.

Routers can be hacked too,

I don't believe there have been any documented examples of circulating
malware that hacks into routers - for example to alter their
configuration, to open ports, etc.

A NAT-router is THE FIRST THING YOU NEED.

Along with destruction or very careful setup of all
wireless access..

Locking down a WIFI adapter is critical.

Given that this is a win-98 newsgroup, wifi and win-98 don't usually
go together, especially not for a desktop machine or network of
machines. WiFi should be disabled on a NAT-router serving a 100%
wired network of machines - or better yet don't buy a NAT-router with
wifi for such a network.

MEB wrote:

Look limp brain, why don't you finish your hard drive
discussion, what's the problem, can't figure it out...
need some help....

What exactly are you expecting?

What tests are you waiting for me to perform?

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
| MEB, why aren't you participating in this discussion? Could it be
| that you have no clue how effective a NAT-router is, and how it
| duplicates the most useful aspects of a software firewall without the
| hassle?


Look dimwit, look at the web pages on my site,, try to actually READ them.
Just as all pages are on the site, they are limited BY DESIGN to
Fleish-Kincaid Grade Level 10 so even you SHOULD be able to understand
them...

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re.../firewalls.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re...ty/spyware.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re...ts_install.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re...NETWORKING.htm
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/re.../antivirus.htm


BTW: I see your still trying to act like you know something SOMEWHERE,
shall I post where to look, where you post, where you live, your
identification numbers, your postal address?

Also, don't create *OUT OF THIN AIR* things I supposedly said as you did
for this segment... you may not be able to read and understand, but others
can..


Finish your hard drive discussion ... see if you can make yourself appear
somewhat intelligent ...


Oh, since your such an expert, describe exactly how a NAT works, why it is
called a NAT, what functions it can also provide, its circuitry, how its
firewall activities are established, what is the best rate router, and other
relevant material,,, please do, the world awaits your extensive knowledge
,,,, hehehehehe

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________


|
| "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:
|
| If you have more than one computer on a local lan, you already
| have NAT, so you are already protected for #1.
|
| Not always. A router can be configured to act as a dumb bridge,
| so that it passes the ISP's Internet-accessible IP address
| directly to the PC it is connected to.
|
| My explanation pertains to the typical broadband SOHO situation where
| a single static or dynamic IP is being used by one or perhaps a dozen
| machines on a local lan and the NAT aspect of the router is in use.
| Which I would guess pertains to 99.999% of the readers of this group.
|
| Function #2 IS NOT protection. Function #2 is an alert
| mechanism.
|
| True, in a way. It's more useful as a way of curbing unwanted
| or unexpected behavior of wanted software,
|
| Yes, I agree with that. Which is why I feel that the out-bound
| monitoring that a software firewall does is more suited for the
| curiosity or control needs of a "power-user" rather than the security
| needs of the average user.
|
| Once you have a NAT-router, you have item #1 covered.
|
| In the context of the Internet, yes. But not in the context
| of the LAN side of the router, which is relevant if one of
| the PCs on the LAN is compromised,
|
| This really depends on what OS the various machines on the LAN are
| running - what services are running, what is being shared, what is the
| malware that now has access to the local lan, etc. Since NT-based
| OS's are more vulnerable, and since XP has it's own firewall, then
| that risk is already mitigated. Since 98 is relatively invulnerable
| to network exploits, again the risk is low. Five years ago, we might
| be talking about the benefits of running a software firewall on win-2k
| systems that are part of a multi-system lan - and that's a whole other
| ballgame.
|
| I do use #2 in some contexts, and have found it useful.
|
| It may be useful in that it tells you about the behavior of known-good
| software, but for most people that is not why they are told they need
| a software firewall.
|
| The software firewall built into XP is ONLY an incoming
| firewall.
|
| It's not, actually.
|
| Yes it is.
|
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320855
|
| That KB talks only about the in-bound or unsolicited incoming
| monitoring that the XP firewall does.
|
| http://pctechshield.com/ICF.htm
|
| "Basically the first best line of defense from Internet
| Scanners and hackers is a $50 Router which can also
| shield your I.P. Address and allow instant connection
| for multiple computers."
|
| Did you read that, MEB?
|
| "Since Internet Connection Firewall provides inbound
| protection only, if you have concerns about programs
| that "phone home" or send outbound data to an unknown
| destination over the Internet, you may want to consider
| a third-party firewall."
|
| Again another reference to XP's firewall being an inbound-only
| firewall.
|
| Routers can be hacked too,
|
| I don't believe there have been any documented examples of circulating
| malware that hacks into routers - for example to alter their
| configuration, to open ports, etc.
|
| A NAT-router is THE FIRST THING YOU NEED.
|
| Along with destruction or very careful setup of all
| wireless access..
|
| Locking down a WIFI adapter is critical.
|
| Given that this is a win-98 newsgroup, wifi and win-98 don't usually
| go together, especially not for a desktop machine or network of
| machines. WiFi should be disabled on a NAT-router serving a 100%
| wired network of machines - or better yet don't buy a NAT-router with
| wifi for such a network.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
| MEB wrote:
|
| Look limp brain, why don't you finish your hard drive
| discussion, what's the problem, can't figure it out...
| need some help....
|
| What exactly are you expecting?
|
| What tests are you waiting for me to perform?


Gee, let's see, in your other discussions you expounded upon how you proofed
the 4k *no cluster problem* with large drives aspects, and in your last you
finally discovered there must be a problem... so EXACTLY where is the
breaking
point for 4k clusters and Win98, the WORLD wants to know ...

What is the MAXIMUM hard drive size you have tested and proofed as working
in Win98 and the LARGEST partition size...

Let's see, in your prior discussions you claimed you had tested the aspects
of large hard drives running in DOS compatibility mode being able to
function perfectly.. ah where was that proof...

More over, describe in detail how the functions within Win98 worked upon
those large files you were supposedly using,, was there any difficulty
working with, deleting, copying, opening, editing, and other like activity
with those massive files?

Shortly after those original hard drive postings, you expounded upon and
bragged about downloading and installing illegal
software upon your computer - VISTA wasn't it... so where did your Win98
proofing box go,, and how long did you test it... hmm

I see your having difficulties with a sound card,, oh wait that's somewhere
else ... so let's see you'll return to this group next as a supposed sound
card expert right .. . . .

Hmm, do you have ANY computers that are fully functioning? How about with
newer boards???

And since it is doubtful that you would actually posts factually, please
supply some verifiable parties who can swear to actually having seen you
personally perform these findings and tests.

Must I also remind you, when you first posted in here, you were not posting
supposedly anonymous.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

MEB wrote:

| MEB, why aren't you participating in this discussion?

Look dimwit, look at the web pages on my site

No, I'm not going to have a discussion with a bunch of web links.

Put your rebuttal to my postings into YOUR OWN WORDS. Stop hiding
behind a bunch of links. If you have a counter argument to anything
I've posted, then formulate it in your own words and say it right
here, right now.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:57:27 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:44:07 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

If you have more than one computer on a local lan, you already have
NAT, so you are already protected for #1.

Not always. A router can be configured to act as a dumb bridge, so
that it passes the ISP's Internet-accessible IP address directly to
the PC it is connected to. When this happens, it may as well be an
"ADSL modem", as it's not NAT-routing at all.

That is the default configuration of the D-Link DSL-302G modems that
were supplied by my former ISP, Optusnet. In fact many of the
router/firewall functions in the firmware have been crippled. I
suspect that most people would not be network savvy (including me),
which means that most of Optusnet's user base would probably benefit
from a software firewall.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.