If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
KC2KDY wrote:
I was a system builder back in the mid-ninties and still find it enjoyable to putter around with a 98 machine. I have a nearly mint Dell Inspiron 7000 that's set up to dual boot 98SE and NT 4.0 - You start off by talking about being a system builder (which means putting a computer together from component parts). In your next sentence, you talk about a Dell computer (which has nothing at all to do with being a system builder). I've been a REAL system-builder since 1987. The only computers that I've ever owned that I did not build myself are 4 HP-mini-note netbooks (2133 and 2140) that I bought refurbished for less than $200 each (and naturally they don't / can't run win-98 - I've tried). I'd be interested to know what others are doing with 98. What I'm doing with Windows 98-se today is the same stuff that I've been doing with Win-98 since about 2000/2001 - which is to use it as my primary/only computer OS for day-to-day activities on my computers at home and at work. The installation of KernelEx has been very useful in that regard. I'm still running windows-98 because I want to be in full control of my computer and it's file system. Windows XP (to some degree) and Windoze 7 (to a huge degree) makes it a real pain in the ass to achieve that control easily and quickly when needed. Also, I realized from the very start that Windows XP was "the emperor with no clothes" even though everyone else seemed to be enamored and fascinated, dazzled by XP's clothes - woven from the finest, most expensive code. XP turned out to be the most effective trojan/virus-hosting platform the computing world had ever seen. XP is the reason why hacking became a profession instead of a hobby. XP is the reason why the spam e-mail industry could even be an industry in the first place. So while I was using Win-98, I was watching the rest of the computing world cope with XP and it's hundreds of vulnerabilities being discovered every year - because it turned out that win-98 was largely if not almost completely invulnerable to those vulnerabilities and exploits. (I've added microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion because that group is much more active than the alt.windows98 group you originally started this thread in) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
In message , 98 Guy writes:
[] So while I was using Win-98, I was watching the rest of the computing world cope with XP and it's hundreds of vulnerabilities being discovered every year - because it turned out that win-98 was largely if not almost completely invulnerable to those vulnerabilities and exploits. Although I still like '98, I've been using XP for a few years now - _without_ interminable security updates - and not suffered from any of these vulnerabilities. I use an AV, and an (ancient) firewall, and just general careful computing. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf .... on Thursdays on BBC Two, the former BBC2. (John Peel in "Radio Times", 1-7 May 1999.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
So while I was using Win-98, I was watching the rest of the computing world cope with XP and it's hundreds of vulnerabilities being discovered every year - because it turned out that win-98 was largely if not almost completely invulnerable to those vulnerabilities and exploits. Although I still like '98, I've been using XP for a few years now - _without_ interminable security updates - and not suffered from any of these vulnerabilities. Would you agree that from the time that XP was introduced (Fall 2001) up until well after SP2 was released (say, mid-2006) that during those 5 years, that XP was a horror-show in terms of remote exploitation and vulnerabilities? I use an AV, and an (ancient) firewall, and just general careful computing. I had a couple-dozen win-98 systems connected directly to the internet in a corporate setting from 2000 through the end of 2005 (no NAT router, no firewalls) and NONE of them were ever infected with anything. Several win-NT and Win-2k systems were infected with network worms during the same time-frame. It was a joke that Win-2k and XP-SP0/SP1 systems couldn't be connected to the internet without going through a NAT-router before they had their first update or they would be hit by a worm within 10 or 20 minutes (look up "Internet Survival Time"). I used to keep NAV 2002 up-to-date on my win-98 systems for several years (from 2002 through 2008) but I gave up that useless excercise because they never detected anything - because there was never anything to detect. I never did run firewall software on any win-98 systems - because it is totally useless. Win-98 was never vulnerable to network worms, and if you have a NAT-router then you already have an in-bound firewall anyways. I agree that XP finally became a stable / secure OS by the time SP3 was rolled out - ironically about the same time as the general retail availability of XP came to an end (the summer of 2008). But XP (and any NT-based OS) is way too over-managed and bloated OS for the average home or SOHO user. NT and it's varients were designed first and foremost for institutional and corporate settings and there was no real reason (or benefit) to force it onto home computers, for example. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
In message , 98 Guy writes:
[] Would you agree that from the time that XP was introduced (Fall 2001) up until well after SP2 was released (say, mid-2006) that during those 5 years, that XP was a horror-show in terms of remote exploitation and vulnerabilities? Can't say: my first XP system (this one) was bought with XP3 (towards the end of XP availability: I deliberately got an XP system, though Vista ones were appearing then. Seems avoiding Vista was a good-ish idea). [] I agree that XP finally became a stable / secure OS by the time SP3 was rolled out - ironically about the same time as the general retail availability of XP came to an end (the summer of 2008). But XP (and any NT-based OS) is way too over-managed and bloated OS for the average home or SOHO user. NT and it's varients were designed first and foremost for institutional and corporate settings and there was no real reason (or benefit) to force it onto home computers, for example. Do you mean NT-based, or NTFS-based? I have the feeling that I'd use a FAT-based system if building a system myself, as I feel the alleged advantages of NTFS wouldn't apply to me and I'd prefer the improved access. But I will admit this one has behaved itself, mostly. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Solution: a more subtle problem |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
But XP (and any NT-based OS) is way too over-managed and bloated OS for the average home or SOHO user. NT and it's varients were designed first and foremost for institutional and corporate settings and there was no real reason (or benefit) to force it onto home computers, for example. Do you mean NT-based, or NTFS-based? I mean NT-based. The file-system is a secondary issue. I've installed XP on systems with hard drives formatted as FAT32 (deliberately - not by accident) and you still end up with an over-managed OS that is overly complicated for the single-user home or soho situation. Windoze-7 takes those complications to whole new levels. Try to edit your HOSTS file with notepad on a Win-7 system. You'll be pulling your hair out. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
What else is there?
MS quit making OSs after Win98..... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
KC2KDY wrote: I was a system builder back in the mid-ninties and still find it enjoyable to putter around with a 98 machine. I have a nearly mint Dell Inspiron 7000 that's set up to dual boot 98SE and NT 4.0 - You start off by talking about being a system builder (which means putting a computer together from component parts). In your next sentence, you talk about a Dell computer (which has nothing at all to do with being a system builder). I've been a REAL system-builder since 1987. The only computers that I've ever owned that I did not build myself are 4 HP-mini-note netbooks (2133 and 2140) that I bought refurbished for less than $200 each (and naturally they don't / can't run win-98 - I've tried). I'd be interested to know what others are doing with 98. What I'm doing with Windows 98-se today is the same stuff that I've been doing with Win-98 since about 2000/2001 - which is to use it as my primary/only computer OS for day-to-day activities on my computers at home and at work. The installation of KernelEx has been very useful in that regard. I'm still running windows-98 because I want to be in full control of my computer and it's file system. Windows XP (to some degree) and Windoze 7 (to a huge degree) makes it a real pain in the ass to achieve that control easily and quickly when needed. Also, I realized from the very start that Windows XP was "the emperor with no clothes" even though everyone else seemed to be enamored and fascinated, dazzled by XP's clothes - woven from the finest, most expensive code. XP turned out to be the most effective trojan/virus-hosting platform the computing world had ever seen. XP is the reason why hacking became a profession instead of a hobby. XP is the reason why the spam e-mail industry could even be an industry in the first place. So while I was using Win-98, I was watching the rest of the computing world cope with XP and it's hundreds of vulnerabilities being discovered every year - because it turned out that win-98 was largely if not almost completely invulnerable to those vulnerabilities and exploits. (I've added microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion because that group is much more active than the alt.windows98 group you originally started this thread in) I still have several old machines which came with Win98 as well as some less old WinXP ones which I use more frequently. I agree that Win98 is a straightforward but very useful OS for home users without all the corporate complexity of WinXP. However, I find it hard to believe that win98 is largely if not almost completely invulnerable to the vulnerabilities and exploits which you say infect WinXP, apart from the obvious point that nobody bothers to attack Win98 these days. Could you give some reasons/examples to support your assertion? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why are you still running Windows 98?
MikeS wrote:
So while I was using Win-98, I was watching the rest of the computing world cope with XP and it's hundreds of vulnerabilities being discovered every year - because it turned out that win-98 was largely if not almost completely invulnerable to those vulnerabilities and exploits. I find it hard to believe that win98 is largely if not almost completely invulnerable to the vulnerabilities and exploits which you say infect WinXP, apart from the obvious point that nobody bothers to attack Win98 these days. Could you give some reasons/examples to support your assertion? I paid close attention to all the CVE's that were announced for windows up until maybe 2008, and paid close attention to Secunia's list of security issues for win-98 up until it went EOL in 2006. Also all of Micro$oft's security bulletins during those years (2002 - 2008). The absolute fact is that even during the years when win-98 was still in it's support phase and running on a significant fraction of computers (and therefore a sufficiently large target for hackers), the fact is that almost all of the vulnerabilities that were discovered for IE back during the 2002 - 2006 timeframe applied only to 2k/XP and not to win-98. There were hardly any non-IE vulnerabilites discovered for win-98 during that time, but tons for NT-based OS's. I would argue that home and soho systems running win-98 from 2000 to 2004 would have been EXTREMELY useful to penetrate because (a) there were a LOT of them in use during those years, and (b) the likelyhood that they were connected to the net through insecure modems without NAT. The facts are that pretty much the only way those systems were exploited was through activation of viral e-mail attachments - user-facilitated or user-controlled exploitation - which you can't fault the OS for. Here are Secunia's reports for win-98 and Win-XP: Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition: ======================= http://secunia.com/advisories/produc...ask=advisories Affected By: 33 Secunia advisories 22 Vulnerabilities Unpatched: 9% (3 of 33 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched: The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical. ======================== Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows XP Professional: ======================== http://secunia.com/advisories/produc...ask=advisories Affected By: 408 Secunia advisories 564 Vulnerabilities Unpatched: 11% (44 of 408 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched: The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical. ======================== What a joke. People were fools to be using Win-XP to connect to the internet and do anything (e-mail, web-browse) during the years 2002 through 2006 and arguably through 2008. But they had no choice, because new computers always came with the most recent, newest version of Windows. Of the 6 or 7 network worms discovered over the past 12 years, NONE of them could operate against a win-98 system. Even if that win-98 system had a direct connection to the internet (no nat router, no firewall). Even if it was a fresh install of Win-98 from the original CD. Other vulnerabilities such as IE-based exploits - I think there were a few. The ANI (animated icon) vulnerability could theoretically exloit win-98 but it had to be written differently than the ones found in the wild (targeting XP, of course). Back in the summer of 2006 (the official end-of-support for win-98) Secunia.org was listing a grand total of 35 security issues with win-98 - most of which were patched and none of which were "critical". (and there were hundreds of security issues posted by secunia for win-2k/xp by July 2006) In the year or two following that, many or most of the IE patches released for IE6sp1 for Win-2k were directly usable on win-98. But it's not clear that win-98 was exploitable to the vulnerabilites being addressed by those patches in the first place. I've experimented with several of the java-script-based pdf exploits in conjunction with acrobat reader 6 (the last version to officially run on win-98) and the combination of win-98 and reader-6 was not vulnerable to any pdf exploits I found "in the wild". You may be aware that there is something called the blackhole (or blacole) exploit kit, which if you browse to a malicious website your browser might run some nasty javascript that causes the browser to download and run arbitrary .exe files (usually fake AV software). I can tell you that my win-98 system (in combination with Firefox 2.0.0.20) did actually do that - except the .exe performed an illegal operation and crashed. In other instances, the .exe file is passed as an argument to regsvr32 (where it again crashes). I have since created a "dummy" version of regsvr32 which simply writes to a log file the argument that was being passed to it. When I want to install legit software I'll replace the dummy version with the real one. Apparently this trick of using regsvr32 to invoke malicious files downloaded with rogue javascript is somewhat common. Blackhole is the most common vector in use right now to infect people browsing the internet. It leverages 5 Java JRE vulnerabilities as well as a "Microsoft Windows Help and Support Center" MS10-042 vulnerability. Windows 98 is completely immune to the MS10-042 issue (which affects XP). The Java vulnerabilities exist in older versions of JRE 6, the most recent of those being update 10 (I'm running update 30). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I value whatever privacy i can still get which is 1 major reason i love Win98se (That and i just love the general look,etc) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Running 16-bit games in Windows 98 | Jason S | General | 7 | July 21st 10 12:38 AM |
Running 16-bit games in Windows 98 | Buffalo | General | 1 | July 20th 10 06:22 PM |
Scan disc keeps running and running and running...... | mj | General | 6 | December 28th 04 12:20 PM |
Running XP programs in Windows ME | Ben | Software & Applications | 2 | August 13th 04 10:05 PM |
Windows running very slow | John | General | 1 | June 12th 04 11:36 AM |