Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?

On 24/08/10 16:55, Mark Warner wrote:
Bear Bottoms wrote:
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?

There certainly are alternatives. Linux being one. The best one,
actually, if security is your prime motivation for switching.



Or, Windows 98SE?

Ed wrote:
Mark Warner wrote:
Bear Bottoms wrote:
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?

There certainly are alternatives. Linux being one. The best one,
actually, if security is your prime motivation for switching.

Or, Windows 98SE?

I don't think so. I wouldn't recommend running 98SE any more than I
would recommend running a 2.4.x kernel.

I also suspect many of the software & hardware compatibility issues that
Linux detractors like to point out would come into play with W98SE as well.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
....lose .inhibitions when replying

On 24/08/10 17:17, Mark Warner wrote:
Ed wrote:
Mark Warner wrote:
Bear Bottoms wrote:
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?

There certainly are alternatives. Linux being one. The best one,
actually, if security is your prime motivation for switching.

Or, Windows 98SE?

I don't think so. I wouldn't recommend running 98SE any more than I
would recommend running a 2.4.x kernel.

I also suspect many of the software & hardware compatibility issues that
Linux detractors like to point out would come into play with W98SE as well.



Like what for example?

"Ed" ex@directory wrote in message
o.uk...

There certainly are alternatives. Linux being one. The best one,
actually, if security is your prime motivation for switching.

Or, Windows 98SE?

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats (especially
those with flash video) and updated PDF formats. WinXP can
be configured to be almost as fast, and can be updated in these
respects.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Don Phillipson wrote:

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.

I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.

And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.

Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.

Opera 10.61 is a special release - designed specifically to be
compatible with windows 98.

There is also the KernelEx project, which provides API-level
compatibility for win-98 for a number of "NT-only" applications, such as
Firefox 3.x and Adobe Flash 10.x.

By installing KernelEx, there is no real problem for a win-98 system to
watch videos on Hulu, youtube, and for Google Streetview to function
perfectly.

WinXP can be configured to be almost as fast, and can be
updated in these respects.

Windows XP was a horribly vulnerable operating system for the first 5
years of it's life. That fact is almost universally ignored by those
that favor NT over win-9x.

It was XP, that was foisted on consumers in the fall of 2001, that is to
blame for the moderm botnet and spam problem that the world has today.
The malware industry is now hard to kill because it got such a boost and
entrenched by the opportunities that XP-SP0/SP1 gave during the years
2002 - 2006.

It was more important that Micro$haft replace windows 98/me with a
registerable operating system in the form of XP with the WGA mechanism
than insure that it wasn't a vulnerable and exploitable OS in the hands
of consumers.

Windows 98 was never vulnerable to the 6 or 7 different network worms
that have emerged over the past 10 years. It was a joke that if you
took a fresh install of windows 2k or XP and connect to the internet to
perform your first WindowsUpdate session that your system would likely
become infected before the update was finished. This was known as
"Windows Survival Time" and was measured in minutes (usually 10 to 20
minutes).

The vast majority of IE6 exploits do not function properly on win-98
systems. But if you wanted your IE6 to be as up-to-date as possible on
a win-98 system, then no problem. Simply download and install the
IE6-SP1 rollups that Macro$haft released for win-2K (yes, they function
just fine on a win-98 system).

Windows 98 is compatible with hard drives up to and usually exceeding 1
tb in size (I've installed win-98 on a 500 gb SATA hard drive attached
to an Asrock motherboard) and win-98 has a "hard" limit of a little over
1gb of usable memory, and there are third-party patches that allow it to
use a full 4 gb of installed ram.

Those that are interested in knowing just what win-98 is capable of
today are advised to read the win-9x/me forums on msfn.org.

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-959898seme/

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/91-w...5064080d84d140

Acrobat Reader PUG-In are for Web Browser like Internet Explorer 8
For Windows 98 go up to Internet Explorer 6 is why Acrobat Reader PUG-In DO
NOT FUNCTIONS PROPERLY!
And on XP sp6, if you not running Internet Explorer 8, is Why Acrobat
Reader PUG-In DO NOT FUNCTIONS PROPERLY ON IT TOO!

So Go Opera 10.61 Internet Brower and add Acrobat Reader PUG-In to it and
all the FUNCTIONS will work PROPERLY on win98 & XP!


"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Don Phillipson wrote:

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.

I have yet to come across a pdf file that Acrobat Reader 6 can't open.

And I have yet to find a pdf exploit that FUNCTIONS PROPERLY on a win-98
system when opened with Acrobat Reader 6.

Besides - there is always Foxit and other third-party readers.

Opera 10.61 is a special release - designed specifically to be
compatible with windows 98.

There is also the KernelEx project, which provides API-level
compatibility for win-98 for a number of "NT-only" applications, such as
Firefox 3.x and Adobe Flash 10.x.

By installing KernelEx, there is no real problem for a win-98 system to
watch videos on Hulu, youtube, and for Google Streetview to function
perfectly.

WinXP can be configured to be almost as fast, and can be
updated in these respects.

Windows XP was a horribly vulnerable operating system for the first 5
years of it's life. That fact is almost universally ignored by those
that favor NT over win-9x.

It was XP, that was foisted on consumers in the fall of 2001, that is to
blame for the moderm botnet and spam problem that the world has today.
The malware industry is now hard to kill because it got such a boost and
entrenched by the opportunities that XP-SP0/SP1 gave during the years
2002 - 2006.

It was more important that Micro$haft replace windows 98/me with a
registerable operating system in the form of XP with the WGA mechanism
than insure that it wasn't a vulnerable and exploitable OS in the hands
of consumers.

Windows 98 was never vulnerable to the 6 or 7 different network worms
that have emerged over the past 10 years. It was a joke that if you
took a fresh install of windows 2k or XP and connect to the internet to
perform your first WindowsUpdate session that your system would likely
become infected before the update was finished. This was known as
"Windows Survival Time" and was measured in minutes (usually 10 to 20
minutes).

The vast majority of IE6 exploits do not function properly on win-98
systems. But if you wanted your IE6 to be as up-to-date as possible on
a win-98 system, then no problem. Simply download and install the
IE6-SP1 rollups that Macro$haft released for win-2K (yes, they function
just fine on a win-98 system).

Windows 98 is compatible with hard drives up to and usually exceeding 1
tb in size (I've installed win-98 on a 500 gb SATA hard drive attached
to an Asrock motherboard) and win-98 has a "hard" limit of a little over
1gb of usable memory, and there are third-party patches that allow it to
use a full 4 gb of installed ram.

Those that are interested in knowing just what win-98 is capable of
today are advised to read the win-9x/me forums on msfn.org.

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-959898seme/

http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/91-w...5064080d84d140


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:21:08 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

Don Phillipson wrote:

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.
I used win98SE on my wife's PC until a couple of months ago.
Then I needed to install a new DVD drive and started getting crashes.
So I "upgraded".
Win98SE was just as efficient and faster than XP. But I had to
switch because of the trouble it took to find adequate drivers. Ralink
does not even link drivers for win98 anymore, probably true for other
manufacturers.
[]'s

mm and you need was DeepBurner and the DVD would been up and running with no
crashes on win98!

http://www.deepburner.com/

So we can not help you now ..

"Shadow" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:21:08 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

Don Phillipson wrote:

Win98SE has been left behind by several web formats
(especially those with flash video) and updated PDF
formats.
I used win98SE on my wife's PC until a couple of months ago.
Then I needed to install a new DVD drive and started getting crashes.
So I "upgraded".
Win98SE was just as efficient and faster than XP. But I had to
switch because of the trouble it took to find adequate drivers. Ralink
does not even link drivers for win98 anymore, probably true for other
manufacturers.
[]'s

But whit XP and up all Dogs out to gave you a virus!


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

wrote:

On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with NTFS,
and if I can not access my data from dos, its not going to be
saved on my computer. That NTFS format is a guarantee to
losing all important data.

You can install XP and Win-2k on a FAT-32 formatted drive. If you
install DOS first (like DOS 7.1) then you can have a dual-boot DOS/XP
system. I've build a few systems by doing that.

I've done it for basically the same reasons - I can access the all files
from DOS, and the system runs faster because of the lack of NTFS
overhead. And yes, your data is actually safer and more recoverable
under FAT32 vs NTFS.

You can set XP up to give it the "classic" look so it has the look and
feel of win-98, but the worst thing I hate about XP is the file-find
window. The file-find gets worse under Vista and Seven.

And the fact that XP is way more vulnerable to exploitation compared to
98.

98 Guy wrote in :

wrote:

On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with NTFS,
and if I can not access my data from dos, its not going to be
saved on my computer. That NTFS format is a guarantee to
losing all important data.

You can install XP and Win-2k on a FAT-32 formatted drive. If you
install DOS first (like DOS 7.1) then you can have a dual-boot DOS/XP
system. I've build a few systems by doing that.

I've done it for basically the same reasons - I can access the all files
from DOS, and the system runs faster because of the lack of NTFS
98 Guy:

I've done it for basically the same reasons - I
can access the all files from DOS, and the system
runs faster because of the lack of NTFS overhead.
And yes, your data is actually safer and more
recoverable under FAT32 vs NTFS.

This is interesting. Could you please provide refer-
ences to prove these facts about FAT32 vs NTFS?

--
Anton Shepelev