Upgrading Windows 98
Metspitzer
his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs 98 second
version. I assume that means SP2 for 98.
The computer works "fine" with AOL, but he wants to use broadband. Is
there a way I could download SP2 and put it on a CD for him? I assume
that it would take days to upgrade using dial up.
Paul
98SE is a commercial product, which you purchase. I know, because
I purchases 98SE as an upgrade package for my 98 original machine.
98SE is not a Service Pack, although in retrospect that is what
it resembles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/98SE#Windows_98_Second_Edition
"Windows 98 SE could be obtained as retail upgrade and full version
packages, as well as OEM and a Second Edition Updates Disc for existing
Windows 98 users."
And I can't remember why exactly I purchased it. Looking at the feature
list, nothing really stands out.
HTH,
Paul
Jan Alter
"Metspitzer" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:t5ikj55en0nhe0kls...@4ax.com...
What your friend is looking for is Windows 98SE.
It is not a download that can be found from the Microsoft website and
patched to the original Windows 98 but a later version of Windows 98.
Generally speaking it had much greater functionality and versatility than
the original Windows 98. If you can get a hold of it one can install it and
upgrade Windows 98 to Windows 98SE. If you know of any computer friends
who've been in it for awhile they may be able to help you locate a copy.
--
Jan Alter
bea...@verizon.net
John Doe
Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP. If he protests,
tell the moron that the only difference the real upgrade will make
is positive. Windows XP can be made to look EXACTLY the same as
Windows 98 through Display Properties, including gradient title
bars (the most impressive thing about Windows 98SE/ME).
Also, if you contact this person regularly, do the installation
using incremental backups (with Macrium Reflect or whatever).
Incremental backups are the only way to install and maintain
Windows.
Good luck.
nobody >
> Metspitzer wrote:
>> I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to work with
>> his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs 98 second
>> version. I assume that means SP2 for 98.
>>
>> The computer works "fine" with AOL, but he wants to use broadband. Is
>> there a way I could download SP2 and put it on a CD for him? I assume
>> that it would take days to upgrade using dial up.
For the OP:
It's probable that the Ethernet adapter (NIC) doesn't have driver(s) for
Win 98/98SE. Both 98/98SE use the same NIC drivers.
Probably the safest choice would be to use a different Ethernet adapter
(NIC). From my own experience, the most trouble-free one is the
Intel 10/100 PCI Network Adapter. It's possible to find "new" ones on
eBay, but any second-hand computer parts place (recyclers, etc) will
have bins of them, often for $1.
The basic driver package (all you need for broadband use)is available at
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Detail_Desc.aspx?ProductID=38&DwnldID=4235&agr=Y
(http://snipurl.com/twsn4 [downloadcenter_intel_com])
(Warning; the page says 98SE, but I know it works with "plain" 98)
But... if I recall correctly, there's a MS driver that works on the
install disk.
Regarding AOL:
Google "remove AOL". It's possible that AOL's kludgey "software" may
have interfered with your friend's computers "communications systems" to
the point that Ethernet won't work. I do remember that AOL's stuff broke
the "Winsock"/Ip Protocol Stack quite often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsock
>
> 98SE is a commercial product, which you purchase. I know, because
> I purchases 98SE as an upgrade package for my 98 original machine.
> 98SE is not a Service Pack, although in retrospect that is what
> it resembles.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/98SE#Windows_98_Second_Edition
>
> "Windows 98 SE could be obtained as retail upgrade and full version
> packages, as well as OEM and a Second Edition Updates Disc for existing
> Windows 98 users."
>
> And I can't remember why exactly I purchased it. Looking at the feature
> list, nothing really stands out.
>
> HTH,
> Paul
For Paul and the OP:
Yes, 98SE was mostly a "service pack" for 98, but there wasn't really
that much really wrong with "plain" 98. There was so much hardware
progress at that time that made 98SE more friendly with the newer stuff
at the time, so it was more of a "massive driver layer update"
I did the full-blown "tech beta" on both 98 and 98SE, BTDT, even got a
Memphis (M$ codename for 98)T-shirt.
At this point in time, it probably doesn't matter much whether you have
98 or 98SE if the hardware and software works .
As an aside, the absolute *fastest* Windows ever made was the beta
builds of "plain" 98 just before M$ decided to "integrate" Internet
Exploder.
Peter
useneth...@aol.com says...
> Paul wrote:
>
>
> For Paul and the OP:
> Yes, 98SE was mostly a "service pack" for 98, but there wasn't really
> that much really wrong with "plain" 98. There was so much hardware
> progress at that time that made 98SE more friendly with the newer stuff
> at the time, so it was more of a "massive driver layer update"
>
> I did the full-blown "tech beta" on both 98 and 98SE, BTDT, even got a
> Memphis (M$ codename for 98)T-shirt.
>
> At this point in time, it probably doesn't matter much whether you have
> 98 or 98SE if the hardware and software works .
>
Wasn't USB practically unworkable with win98? However, no USB device
these days is going to provide 98 drivers so even the SE version isn't
going to fair any better.
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
Jan Alter
>>
>
> Wasn't USB practically unworkable with win98? However, no USB device
> these days is going to provide 98 drivers so even the SE version isn't
> going to fair any better.
Actually it was with 98SE that I remember USB improving so much. With 98 USB
was flakey and hit and miss. The OP inferred by his friend's need of 98SE
that the ethernet device would work with it. The OP gave no information to
the quality of his friend's computer so it's all a guess that the friend
could actually take advantage of a newer OS. As often is the case with a
poster for help, more hardware information would be helpful for the
possibility of more helpful suggestions.
Jan Alter
Metspitzer
wrote:
Thanks for everyone's suggestions.
I don't have any more info. My friend says his machine does not meet
the hardware requirements of XP.
I am going to get him to bring it to me and I will see what I can do.
About the only thing else I know about the machine is that it is a HP
from Walmart.
It would be nice to get it going. Just about any machine that will
connect to the Internet is still useful.
Unknown
Before telling him to dump Win98 just check whether he has software
dependant upon it. Not all programmes can be run via emulation.
An example being DOS based Genealogy discs which will not work on XP
and VISTA.
km
John Doe
If you have an application that is so lame it will not run on
Windows XP even using compatibility mode, it is time to upgrade
your application. Windows XP is not state-of-the-art, but it is
light years ahead of Windows 98.
--
Mike Easter
> Metspitzer
>> I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to
>> work with his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs
>> 98 second version.
> Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
> Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP.
I don't think the advice to upgrade to XP is good advice unless you know
what the hardware is, how the licensing costs would/could be handled or
avoided, and how the machine is purposed.
There is a lot of machine hardware and purpose possibilities which can
not and should not be so upgraded.
--
Mike Easter
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> Metspitzer
>>> I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to
>>> work with his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs
>>> 98 second version.
>
>> Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
>> Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP.
>
> I don't think the advice to upgrade to XP is good advice unless you know
> what the hardware is,
Are you asking what the hardware is?
> how the licensing costs would/could be handled or
> avoided, and how the machine is purposed.
Are you asking how the machine is purposed?
> There is a lot of machine hardware and purpose possibilities which can
> not and should not be so upgraded.
Bullshit.
--
>
>
> --
> Mike Easter
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Mike Easter" <MikeE ster.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:53:45 -0800
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID: <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net tEcZTG6VtqqTS1tgbU+fxwZHqXIdL4YCk1/V7jzmAZDo+haiUD
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:XKRW9ySbBmI+UuTGQ2u0EdOuoFI=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
>
Mike Easter
> "Mike Easter" <
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Metspitzer
>
>>>> I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to
>>>> work with his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs
>>>> 98 second version.
>>
>>> Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
>>> Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP.
>>
>> I don't think the advice to upgrade to XP is good advice unless you
>> know what the hardware is,
>
> Are you asking what the hardware is?
The OP didn't say.
>> how the licensing costs would/could be handled or
>> avoided, and how the machine is purposed.
>
> Are you asking how the machine is purposed?
The OP didn't say.
>> There is a lot of machine hardware and purpose possibilities which
can
>> not and should not be so upgraded.
>
> Bullshit.
That reply has no meaning in this context. It is not an adequate
rebuttal.
The OP's friend's hardware may not be appropriate for XP while it is
appropriate for W98 - that is a very common condition of old hardware
currently running W98. The OP's friend may not wish to pay for XP
licensing for that machine and may not wish to use unlicensed MS
software on it. The limitations of W98 may not be a problem for the
unknown purpose of the OP's friend.
What I said isn't bullshit given the limitations of the original post's
information, and what you are saying may be bullshit based on the
conditions for the OP's friends machine and its purpose.
--
Mike Easter
Metspitzer
Good idea.
I installed XP and the network card.
Everything is working fine.
Thanks everyone
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> "Mike Easter" <
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> Metspitzer
>>
>>>>> I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to
>>>>> work with his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he
>>>>> needs 98 second version.
>>>
>>>> Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
>>>> Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP.
>>>
>>> I don't think the advice to upgrade to XP is good advice
>>> unless you know what the hardware is,
>>
>> Are you asking what the hardware is?
>
> The OP didn't say.
If you need to know, you should ask.
>>> how the licensing costs would/could be handled or avoided, and
>>> how the machine is purposed.
>>
>> Are you asking how the machine is purposed?
>
> The OP didn't say.
If you need to know, you should ask.
>>> There is a lot of machine hardware and purpose possibilities
>>> which
> can
>>> not and should not be so upgraded.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> That reply has no meaning in this context.
It fits your assertion perfectly, Mikey.
> The OP's friend's hardware may not be appropriate for XP while
> it is appropriate for W98 -
That is possible, but then there are such things as "upgrades".
> The OP's friend may not wish to pay for XP licensing
Are you his accountant, Mikey?
> The limitations of W98 may not be a problem for the unknown
> purpose of the OP's friend.
Windows 98 sucks next to Windows XP.
> given the limitations of the original post's information
If you are ignorant and need to know, Mikey, you should ask...
> and what you are saying may be bullshit based on the conditions
> for the OP's friends machine and its purpose.
A machine running Windows XP can easily be assumed to have
practically the same purpose as a machine running Windows 98. THE
DIFFERENCE IS THAT WINDOWS XP IS INCREDIBLY BETTER THAN WINDOWS
98. Hardware requirements matter, but even a slow computer running
Windows XP is better than the same computer running Windows 98.
--
>
>
> --
> Mike Easter
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.wiretrip.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Mike Easter" <MikeE ster.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:55:03 -0800
> Lines: 50
> Message-ID: <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net a9xNbk0hkE7djLUKexDDlAZV1i88ApEl0y2jxJNQjmSxwDyPlw
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:4jF4fmmj0L8p9N7wydaUImEUvro=
John Doe
> Windows 98 sucks next to Windows XP.
I would be surprised if any regular in this group is ignorant of that
fact. Like some others here probably do, I push the envelope regularly,
Windows XP makes doing difficult stuff on a PC possible without so many
persistent hassles coming from the operating system (31/95/98/SE/ME)
itself. And then there is stuff that prior versions of Windows just
cannot do. The only problem I have with XP is the likelihood that
upgrading will be necessary someday.
nobody >
I support a small fleet of laptops at work running 98SE because of it's
DOS capability. There's an huge amount of "industrial software" out
there for (non-computer) "legacy devices" that will only run on DOS.
There's even a working Windows for Workgroups (WFG 3.11) install on
those for some old 3x Windows apps.
One get's very adept with SETVER, "Mo'Slo", and such doing this.
The NT OSs (NT, W2K, XP, Vi-stab-in-the-back, W7) won't work well (if at
all) on many of these old apps due to their "non-direct" access to
serial and parallel ports.
I also support a few senior citizens whose income won't handle a new(er)
computer. They also aren't willing (or capable) of moving to new apps
and OSs.
John Doe
> I support a small fleet of laptops
Sure you do...
> Windows for Workgroups (WFG 3.11) install
Been there, done that, but it has nothing to do with the subject
at hand. If you are saying that a computer on which Windows 3.1
was installed probably will not handle Windows XP, who needs to
know that?
> The NT OSs (NT, W2K, XP, Vi-stab-in-the-back, W7)
So you feel ripped off by Microsoft? Maybe next time you will know
what you are doing before upgrading (or not upgrading).
> won't work well (if at all) on many of these old apps due to
> their "non-direct" access to serial and parallel ports.
Nowadays, there are free applications that surpass the junk you
are talking about. But seriously... What sort of mysterious
ancient applications that only run on a junk computer are you
talking about?
> I also support a few senior citizens whose income won't handle a
> new(er) computer.
If all you can afford is an IBM PC XT, you are not going to be
running the vastly superior operating system Windows XP. But
finances is a different subject and clearly the original poster
does not have that problem.
Being able to afford something is personal and has nothing to do
with this group since no one here can decide that for you or them.
> They also aren't willing (or capable) of moving to new OSs.
That is why you sound ignorant to me (and apparently you did not
read my original reply). An operating system, even from Microsoft,
is almost entirely under the hood. And Windows XP can be made to
look exactly like Windows 98. Given the minimal hardware
requirements, the only difference would be that their computers
run better and that they would not have to see you as often.
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:47:56 -0600
> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:47:54 -0800
> From: "nobody >" <usenetharvested aol.com>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net>
> In-Reply-To: <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100101-0, 01/01/2010), Outbound message
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> Message-ID: <s_-dnYKNApRQOKPWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d supernews.com>
> Lines: 35
> X-Trace: sv3-Dl9PggdII0CThtr8tqOwftz46fRO7qC5y7zkjY+Wadzpn+06h+BWOrDKj/QCnObJ0t6zTAFXy/h466X!GBzwIDM+UeF16Vcv7xRRDKB3MX+EjRe552YDRGWqoe7R94+bj7teJeKXNEF4WWkN1HQ+uHIdjKaS!VvW+fDvN9Hs=
> X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
>
Toolpackinmama
> I installed XP and the network card.
> Everything is working fine.
>
Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model
name or number?
Toolpackinmama
> A machine running Windows XP can easily be assumed to have
> practically the same purpose as a machine running Windows 98. THE
> DIFFERENCE IS THAT WINDOWS XP IS INCREDIBLY BETTER THAN WINDOWS
> 98. Hardware requirements matter, but even a slow computer running
> Windows XP is better than the same computer running Windows 98.
I am inclined to agree with this opinion. It's possible to make XP run
on computers that supposedly can't run it. I've done it. If the
machine can run Win 98, it's worth it to try XP.
You have to tweak it to run lean, but it is possible. It helps to have
an anti-virus like AVG free that isn't a resources hog, too.
Just turn off all the start-up stuff, turn off active desktop and junk
like that. Deactivate as much of the background frippery as you can.
AND advise your cheapskate client to get the box of dollar bills out
from under the bed, and go buy themselves a new computer. Sheesh.
I have a gal-pal who used the same laptop for something like nine years.
NINE YEARS! She got her money's worth out of it! Incredibly, the
thing still works!
One day I said to her, "You know, just because your old tricycle still
works doesn't mean you should still be riding it." LOL
She finally broke the piggy bank and bought a new one last year. She
loves the new one! She sorry she waited!
Metspitzer
<philn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Metspitzer wrote:
>
>> I installed XP and the network card.
>> Everything is working fine
>>
>
>Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model
>name or number?
It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive.
Just fine for a second computer to surf the net.
Toolpackinmama
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama
> <philn...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Metspitzer wrote:
>>
>>> I installed XP and the network card.
>>> Everything is working fine
>>>
>> Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model
>> name or number?
>
> It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive.
Oh... wow. And XP runs on it. That's awesome. :)
Unknown
What a pointless response. You have no idea what software may be
affected. In the case I quote the software is DOS based and has not
been upgraded since issue. The main feature of the package is a DOS
database of several million names and dates which have not been made
available for public use since the discs were first released a number
of years ago.
Unhelpful sneering responses like yours ultimately lead to in-fighting
in a Newsgroup and a gradual breakdown of its worth.
km
fwibbler
> Metspitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:51:41 -0500, Toolpackinmama
> > <philn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Metspitzer wrote:
> >>
> >>> I installed XP and the network card.
> >>> Everything is working fine
> >>>
> >> Awesome! I am curious to know what the machine is? How about a model
> >> name or number?
> >
> > It is a HP Pavilion. 500Mhz with 192K memory and a 12G hard drive.
>
> Oh... wow. And XP runs on it. That's awesome. :)
>
I have an old Compaq Armada M300 (with the same CPU) with XP Performance
Edition installed on it.
It Boots up and shutsdown and generally feels more responsive than my nieces
brand new Dual core laptop with Windows 7.
Obviously its slower (a lot) for CPU intensive tasks but for basic
webbrowsing etc its perfectly capable.
--
Graham
Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk
John Doe
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> km <> wrote:
>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Metspitzer <kilowatt charter.net> wrote:
Software and its distribution has evolved radically over the
years. Some of the best software is free, especially from those
who actually use the software they write. The idea of being stuck
with some ancient piece of software that runs only on Neanderthal
hardware is just silly.
> You have no idea what software may be affected.
Actually I do, as a matter of experience and knowledge about the
subject.
> In the case I quote
> the software is DOS based
Exactly, the case you quote sucks. Reminds me of my pre Warcraft
II days, seems like eons ago.
"Your sound card is working perfectly!"
Rearranging jumpers on add-in cards is for the pterodactyls.
> Unhelpful sneering responses like yours ultimately lead to
> in-fighting in a Newsgroup and a gradual breakdown of its worth.
Says who? This group is doing just fine, maybe better than most.
If you expect to be treated with kid gloves, the unmoderated
USENET is not the place for you.
--
>
> km
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 04:02:20 -0600
> From: km <>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:02:21 +0000
> Message-ID: <c66uj590tdjsv0rcqnjejqc2hbcokvr1r8 4ax.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <vkorj5p90hs101qfo7j5v12vflju6achg3 4ax.com> <00af936f$0$8176$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 49
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-Ccvk8kKdQ9zTG6WdGKkQNwD+eRN1gGAGwki4T93l93FEihs5kA7dHyVWEFKf6CMB3Md1cXsOdj0q44E!Xi7TxRRrUmVQmdq1Q67ImbKxNZ2vZuNHrEw3+ifpWkEZOBOsceN5bQRuaJrenGeJ/WvcbT6c0fIA!upXxLX70hW0a2N67
larry moe 'n curly
Metspitzer wrote:
> I have a friend. He is trying to get an Ethernet adapter to work with
> his old machine. He says that he has 98 but he needs 98 second
> version. I assume that means SP2 for 98.
98 Second Edition (98SE) is a separate product from 98, and while
there's no official SP for 98SE, somebody's put together all the
updates for it into a single download and has named it the Unofficial
Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1a, available from. among
others:
http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html
This SP will NOT turn 98 into 98SE.
Most Ethernet adapters should have 98 drivers for them, even some that
claim to require 98SE. USB 1.1 support is OK for 98, and 1.1 is more
than fast enough for almost all broadband connections, up to about
12Mbps. USB 2.0 support for 98SE is common, but much less so for 98,
and AFAIK only VIA and NEC chips have drivers for it. NEC says they
no longer distribute the driver, but it's available from some
companies that have sold NEC-based USB cards, like IOgear (models
GIC220U -- some are not not NEC, GIC250U) and Seagate (Maxtor USB
card):
http://www.seagate.com/staticfiles/maxtor/en_us/downloads/usb20.exe
VIA's USB 2.0 driver for Windows 98, 98SE, and ME can be downloaded
from:
http://www.viaarena.com/Driver/VIA_USB2_V270p1-L-M.zip
Almost all VIA-based USB 2.0 cards are listed as requiring 98SE or
later, but that's inaccurate, and they also work fine with 98. I've
used them myself with 98.
I don't know where to buy a legitimate copy of 98SE cheaply, but maybe
your friend can get a junked computer that had been running a
legitimate copy and then make a copy somebody's 98SE CD-ROM. Just
copying the CD without obtaining a computer containing a legitimate
copy is illegal because it increases the number of computers running
unpaid copies of 98SE.
It's possible that Windows 2000 or XP are now cheaper than 98SE.
Microsoft says XP Home needs a 300MHz CPU and 128MB of RAM, but I
found it to be sluggish with even twice as much RAM, whether the CPU
ran at 450 MHz (Celeron) or 1.5 GHz (Athlon XP 1800+). XP worked much
better with 512MB, even with a 466 MHz Celeron, but it was still too
slow for good YouTube performance. But if there's enough memory, a
1.0-1.5 GHz CPU seems to be adequate. Windows 2000 reportedly can
tolerate a smaller amount of RAM and slower CPU than XP, and Microsoft
says 64MB RAM and 133MHz CPU are good enough for it. I have doubts
about the 64MB recommendation because even Windows 98 and 98SE ran
noticeably faster with twice that amount of RAM.
John Doe
> It's possible that Windows 2000 or XP are now cheaper than 98SE.
> XP worked much better with 512MB, even with a 466 MHz Celeron,
> but it was still too slow for good YouTube performance. But if
> there's enough memory, a 1.0-1.5 GHz CPU seems to be adequate.
I have seen Windows XP run better than Windows 98 on a 700 MHz CPU
with 512/768 MB of RAM.
edfair
This is kinda a replay of the 95/3.1 arguement I had with a buddy. He
insisted that 95 was the greatest thing since sliced bread until I
pointed out that the 3.1 would boot, work for what I needed, and shut
down before the 95 was finished booting.
98 is fine for some things. If a user is comfortable with it, more
power to them. I keep one machine triple booting SE. It works for what
it is set up for, and like the 3.1 in the previous paragraph, it boots,
does what it is supposed to, and shuts down while the XP is still
stirring the pot.
Reminds me of the Eastwood line in one of his movies: "You've got to
know your limitations."
John Doe
> This is kinda a replay of the 95/3.1 arguement I had with a buddy.
If you are new to USENET, you might be in for a surprise.
> I pointed out that the 3.1 would boot, work for what I needed,
> and shut down before the 95 was finished booting...
That argument is shit, Jack.
> 98 is fine for some things.
Windows 98 is a great source of frustration for anyone like the
original poster who lives in the modern PC world.
<Snipped another simply ridiculous argument>
> Reminds me of the Eastwood line in one of his movies: "You've
> got to know your limitations."
If you are so limited, you should consider a device that is much smaller and less expensive than a modern PC and does more than your Neanderthal hardware running an ancient operating system.
Windows XP has much improved memory management, that makes it
superior to Windows 98 for anyone who lives in the real PC world.
For most users, the obsolete and relatively dysfunctional
operating system like Windows 98 or 3.1 is useful only if their
hardware is very limited and cannot be upgraded.
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:25:35 -0600
> From: edfair <edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 20:36:32 -0600
> Message-ID: <edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid>
> Organization: NNTPGW
> User-Agent: vBulletin USENET gateway
> X-Newsreader: vBulletin USENET gateway
> X-Originating-IP: 98.88.81.75
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net> <00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <001d7ee6$0$2160$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> Lines: 15
> X-Trace: sv3-0LFeXLvXzQ7msobPrxu4iZRvAFmjc/hRjMOgpGv8snh/PqcBc4GrRQ+ags55s7AbqvXzyV/+QMTgQbj!vuPDoY2tZB5uhHX5DQ3tTL3/MCEEj3vzMaFQMlKooVMD89IKRMQAZhdMZMM8cWk=
> X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> X-Original-Lines: 5
>
>
GEO
Well said.
Geo
98 Guy
> Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
> Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP.
All the NT-based OS's suck big time.
> Windows XP can be made to look EXACTLY the same as Windows 98
But you won't get a simple and efficient file-finder with XP like 98's
native file finder.
98 Guy
> THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WINDOWS XP IS INCREDIBLY BETTER THAN WINDOWS
> 98.
What a joke.
It took XP 5 years and 2 service packs to get most of it's
vulnerabilities worked out of that piece of shit operating system.
In the mean time, because XP was an open sore on the internet, we have
spam zombies and trojan botnets thanks to XP.
Meanwhile, you can hang a win-98 system directly on the net, no firewall
or nat-router, and nothing can penetrate it. And that's win-98se right
out of the box - no updates or patches.
> even a slow computer running Windows XP is better than the
> same computer running Windows 98.
In your dreams.
98 Guy
> I support a small fleet of laptops at work running 98SE because
> of it's DOS capability. There's an huge amount of "industrial
> software" out there for (non-computer) "legacy devices" that
> will only run on DOS.
Why don't you dual-boot DOS and XP?
It's trivial to do - just format the drive as FAT32 and install DOS
(there's a DOS 7.1 floating around on the net) and then install XP as a
second OS. You'll get a boot screen where you can select either one.
No fancy boot-managers or shit like that.
Just don't let XP re-format the drive as NTFS.
I've installed many XP systems on FAT32 drives. Works great, and you
have full command-line access to your files (system and otherwise).
NTFS is horse shit.
98 Guy
> I don't know where to buy a legitimate copy of 98SE cheaply,
Get it off a torrent. There are several, and they come with a few dozen
product keys.
Win-98 doesn't have to be "activated" by Micro$haft, like your precious
XP does.
And how 'bout that WGA eh? You like your XP Genuine disAdvantage?
98 Guy
> Windows 98 is a great source of frustration for anyone like the
> original poster who lives in the modern PC world.
Blow it out your ass, you dim fuck.
You obviously have no clue how well win-98 can function these days.
And why are you a full-quoter and a top-poaster?
Why are you quoting full-headers?
Where did you learn such an asinine usenet posting style?
John Doe
> edfair <edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid> wrote:
Please elaborate.
Are you stuck using Windows 98?
--
>
> Geo
>
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!not-for-mail
> From: "GEO" Me home.here
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:57:54 GMT
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <4b415274.35418770 news.eternal-september.org>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net> <00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <001d7ee6$0$2160$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid>
> X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX1/w2Tp8039HASENWYoSHyDJN7jNE42eUBayYeYnk5N1aXmUJnoOPflrjC0CFYq0c8WAjFSPKsCWTPpR4fBe+92JUAjEolpkp9QDVFMFwht4BQOGq4I1fEPHpGozRRBZrWXhUaSM7sbdKA==
> X-Complaints-To: abuse eternal-september.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 03:01:49 +0000 (UTC)
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/16.243
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX186mwrOFHt0EECzVNOzmg/ml5YnG3f3umKzCMYic1pOJA==
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:lWyFB5+rS0blW2GfYP2538GV+TM=
>
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WINDOWS XP IS INCREDIBLY BETTER THAN
>> WINDOWS 98.
>
> What a joke.
I have spent thousands of hours pushing the envelope with Windows
from 3.1 to XP. I am dead serious.
> It took XP 5 years and 2 service packs to get most of it's
> vulnerabilities worked out of that piece of shit operating
> system.
Says who? A Neanderthal stuck with Windows 3.1 hardware?
> In the mean time, because XP was an open sore on the internet,
> we have spam zombies and trojan botnets thanks to XP.
And the Neanderthal troll thinks Windows 98 is less vulnerable?
> Meanwhile, you can hang a win-98 system directly on the net, no
> firewall or nat-router, and nothing can penetrate it. And
> that's win-98se right out of the box - no updates or patches.
That is very interesting, Neanderthal, please explain.
--
>> even a slow computer running Windows XP is better than the
>> same computer running Windows 98.
>
> In your dreams.
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:39:30 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID: <4B417102.A6457CB2 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net> <00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:hrKMivzU0MRa86B78LjIRNRa7fs=
>
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Prove yourself to be a real friend, stop screwing around with
>> Windows 98 and upgrade his computer to Windows XP.
>
> All the NT-based OS's suck big time.
Says a Neanderthal stuck with Windows 3.1 hardware.
>> Windows XP can be made to look EXACTLY the same as Windows 98
>
> But you won't get a simple and efficient file-finder with XP
> like 98's native file finder.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
What a moron...
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-
out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!
feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-
mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:32:46 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 11
> Message-ID: <4B416F6E.89432C4 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd
$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pff82wfQMowAF8n7RjGbtMyZbrs=
>
John Doe
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!weretis.net!feeder2.news.weretis.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:49:38 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 14
> Message-ID: <4B417362.B0DA2EDD Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net> <00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <001d7ee6$0$2160$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid> <001fcefb$0$25193$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:5Y+dZwq3dfMmnoem4Jx8QXMwzrA=
>
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Windows 98 is a great source of frustration for anyone like the
>> original poster who lives in the modern PC world.
>
> Blow it out your ass, you dim fuck.
I would not want to dirty your mother, Neanderthal whiner.
> You obviously have no clue how well win-98 can function these days.
>
> And why are you a full-quoter and a top-poaster?
Because I feel like it.
> Why are you quoting full-headers?
Because I feel like it.
> Where did you learn such an asinine usenet posting style?
Your mother, Neanderthal whiner, do you mind?
John Doe
> larry moe 'n curly wrote:
>
>> I don't know where to buy a legitimate copy of 98SE cheaply,
>
> Get it off a torrent. There are several, and they come with a
> few dozen product keys.
>
> Win-98 doesn't have to be "activated" by Micro$haft, like your
> precious XP does.
Windows XP does not have to be activated either, Neanderthal
moron.
> And how 'bout that WGA eh? You like your XP Genuine
> disAdvantage?
In other words, you are a Third World lowlife scum pirate that
does not value software enough to at least pay for the operating
system. And you try to justify it by posting bullshit all over
USENET.
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!wns14feed!
worldnet.att.net!204.235.61.27!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!
feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-
mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:47:12 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 11
> Message-ID: <4B4172D0.9A14D764 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <d40e9f78-
a0b6-4abe-831e-1ca23671f2dc a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:XTXPZ6Lsx7qkJixqOmYLOpJhG5A=
>
John Doe
Says a Neanderthal scumbag pirate troll.
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.235.61.27!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:43:32 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 20
> Message-ID: <4B4171F4.57E7054B Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <s_-dnYKNApRQOKPWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d supernews.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:jkd5eFjCFh1rWSClMT8QltlOIKY=
>
98 Guy
> >> THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WINDOWS XP IS INCREDIBLY BETTER THAN
> >> WINDOWS 98.
> >
> > What a joke.
>
> I have spent thousands of hours pushing the envelope with Windows
> from 3.1 to XP. I am dead serious.
You are dead wrong.
> > It took XP 5 years and 2 service packs to get most of it's
> > vulnerabilities worked out of that piece of shit operating
> > system.
>
> Says who? A Neanderthal stuck with Windows 3.1 hardware?
It's a known fact that XP has been vulnerable to 6 different network
worms so far in it's life, and those worms have been responsible for
infecting millions of XP systems and enrolling them into botnets.
Combine that with several dozens of IE vulnerabilities (heap sprays,
iframe exploits, buffer overruns) and you've got a piece of shit OS. XP
was not ready for the consumer and SOHO market back in the fall of
2001. Only with SP2 was it actually ready to be connected to the
internet. Until then, the only place that XP should have been on is the
network-hardened and firewalled corporate or enterprise lan.
> > In the mean time, because XP was an open sore on the internet,
> > we have spam zombies and trojan botnets thanks to XP.
>
> And the Neanderthal troll thinks Windows 98 is less vulnerable?
See, you are ignorant when it comes to win-98 aren't you?
Win-98 was not vulnerable to any exploit that could result in remote
code execution resulting in control over the machine. There were never
any network worms that could do that to win-98.
Many of the IE exploits that were used against XP never worked correctly
on win-98.
Microsoft planted this false idea in the minds of most people in their
security bulletins that the bulletins applied to 98, but when you drill
down into the details you find win-98 was NOT affected by most of them.
> > Meanwhile, you can hang a win-98 system directly on the net, no
> > firewall or nat-router, and nothing can penetrate it. And
> > that's win-98se right out of the box - no updates or patches.
>
> That is very interesting, Neanderthal, please explain.
I run an office of about 20 machines in a mixed environment (production,
development, sales, admin) with several different application software
(accounting, inventory, contact management, engineering design and
development). The PC's used in admin, sales, and production run win-98
and have been running win-98 since 1999. Other PC's have been running
win-2k or (for the past 3 years) Win-XP. Two servers (web and SMTP) run
win-NT 4 server.
During the years 2000 - 2005, these PC's had ISDN connection to the
internet via a bridge modem with no firewall, no nat. Each PC had it's
own routable IP address (we had a /32 subnet). We used file/print
sharing with NetBEUI (not TCP). Our NT machines were usually infected
with one or two malwares each year. The win-98 machines were never
infected by anything (and they were used by far less computer-savvy
people).
Every few years we rebuilt all PC's with new hardware (motherboards,
hard drives, video cards, etc). Currently our win-98 systems are
running with 512 mb ram, 80 gb hard drives, 256 mb Nvidia AGP-8x video
cards, Socket 478 P4 Celerons or Pentiums (2.6 ghz), i845 chipset
motherboards.
The next hardware upgrade will be using the AsRock Dual or 4core VSTA
motherboards and 250+ GB SATA drives (win-98 has no problem with SATA
drives larger than 128 gb).
(headers deleted)
Why are you quoting full usenet headers?
98 Guy
> > NTFS is horse shit.
>
> Says a Neanderthal scumbag pirate troll.
Ah, so you're a Macro$haft appologist and sycophant are you?
Microsoft has proven time and time again that they are a sociopathic and
criminal organization. They have been found guilty of violating
numerous laws and patents in many countries. They show time and time
again that they nor their products are deserving of protection under law
or copyright that society conveys to deserving, law abiding citizens and
companies.
Microsoft has subverted the authority of law and those charged with
upholding laws to sucessfully quash all attempts to break up the company
under anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.
Because of all this, I fully support the downloading, uploading,
copying, sharing and using of all Microsoft software and product
activation keys in complete and utter violation of their EULA - because
Micro$haft is a psycopathic and criminal organization that does not
deserve protection under law of it's products.
Toolpackinmama
> Win-98 was not vulnerable to any exploit that could result in remote
> code execution resulting in control over the machine. There were never
> any network worms that could do that to win-98.
>
> Many of the IE exploits that were used against XP never worked correctly
> on win-98.
Interesting. I learned something new today. Still, it is OLD NEWS.
Old news... is that an oxymoron? :)
You know, newspapers and books aren't vulnerable to code execution
exploits, either. You also can't run any modern programs on them.
> Every few years we rebuilt all PC's with new hardware (motherboards,
> hard drives, video cards, etc). Currently our win-98 systems are
> running with 512 mb ram, 80 gb hard drives, 256 mb Nvidia AGP-8x video
> cards, Socket 478 P4 Celerons or Pentiums (2.6 ghz), i845 chipset
> motherboards.
>
Your Win 98 systems don't run Dragon Age: Origins.
Toolpackinmama
primitive pocket calculator. It was good enough for them, why don't we
just stick with that?
I'll tell you why: because the cheapest 250.00 netbook you can buy now
is ten times better than any system that was built for Windows 98. Come
on you cheapskates, buy a new computer.
John Doe
> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>> Win-98 was not vulnerable to any exploit that could result in
>> remote code execution resulting in control over the machine.
>> There were never any network worms that could do that to
>> win-98.
>>
>> Many of the IE exploits that were used against XP never worked
>> correctly on win-98.
>
> Interesting. I learned something new today. Still, it is OLD
> NEWS.
>
> Old news... is that an oxymoron? :)
>
> You know, newspapers and books aren't vulnerable to code
> execution exploits, either. You also can't run any modern
> programs on them.
And then there is the (need for stability) comparison between
pulling a little red wagon on a country road and operating heavy
machinery or racing...
Mike Easter
> the cheapest 250.00 netbook you can buy now
> is ten times better than any system that was built for Windows 98.
Come
> on you cheapskates, buy a new computer.
However; the best deal you can get on a computer which comes
preconfigured with an operating system is one with either windows7 or
vista or maybe XP if it is sufficiently hardware deficient to qualify
for the OEM XP license (instead of the Win7 starter).
Then, along with that pre-installed OS which does *NOT* come with a MS
installation disk, you get a boatload of bloatware.
So next, in order to have a lean and mean OS plus only the apps of your
personal choice, you have to go thru' the installation picking out all
of the little parts which are imbedded into the registry.
That is, you have to 'de-construct' the OS plus junk and try to create a
good OS + apps yourself. Then after that you have to make some kind of
image or clone of your debloated system -- because you have no OS
installation disk, only an image of what you bought with the bloatware.
Else you have to spend approximately twice as much for your hardware and
put it together yourself and then buy a MS operating system at full
retail -- no OEM mfr price breaks for the end user to install it from
scratch.
Alternatives are to steal the OS off a bit torrent or to install some
other non-MS OS such as linux.
--
Mike Easter
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> > NTFS is horse shit.
>>
>> Says a Neanderthal scumbag pirate troll.
>
> Ah, so you're a Macro$haft appologist and sycophant are you?
I am a personal computer enthusiast, with many thousands of hours
experience pushing the envelope with Windows from 3.1 to XP.
Windows XP is remarkably more stable than any prior consumer
version of Windows. The reason is obviously because of its far
superior memory management.
I was a regular in (alt.destroy.Microsoft) during the big
antitrust trial. In my opinion, the technical know-how in our
United States was and probably still is far greater than anything
else in the world, and Microsoft does not need protection from
Third Worlders who do not even value software.
> Microsoft has proven time and time again that they are a
> sociopathic and criminal organization. They have been found
> guilty of violating numerous laws and patents in many countries.
> They show time and time again that they nor their products are
> deserving of protection under law or copyright that society
> conveys to deserving, law abiding citizens and companies.
>
> Microsoft has subverted the authority of law and those charged
> with upholding laws to sucessfully quash all attempts to break
> up the company under anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.
>
> Because of all this, I fully support the downloading, uploading,
> copying, sharing and using of all Microsoft software and product
> activation keys in complete and utter violation of their EULA -
> because Micro$haft is a psycopathic and criminal organization
> that does not deserve protection under law of it's products.
Hmm. Microsoft is a behemoth force in the New World, and the
Neanderthal troll flaunts his piracy of Microsoft's products.
Sounds like a major logic failure, a feeble attempt to justify
pirating software.
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.k-dsl.de!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:20:38 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <4B41F936.34074F6F Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <s_-dnYKNApRQOKPWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d supernews.com> <4B4171F4.57E7054B Guy.com> <00bd6049$0$23464$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:+dcsKX6CyVoJgyFDvxoT0FIoFF4=
>
John Doe
Besides big games, Windows 98 does not run half of the stuff I
use, like speech recognition activated systemwide scripting. That
stuff requires a modern mainstream operating system (i.e. Windows
XP or higher).
Toolpackinmama
>
> So next, in order to have a lean and mean OS plus only the apps of your
> personal choice, you have to go thru' the installation picking out all
> of the little parts which are imbedded into the registry.
I don't mind fussing with a new computer. It's fussing over old ones
that irritates me. :)
John Doe
> Toolpackinmama wrote:
>> the cheapest 250.00 netbook you can buy now is ten times better
>> than any system that was built for Windows 98. Come on you
>> cheapskates, buy a new computer.
...
> That is, you have to 'de-construct' the OS plus junk and try to
> create a good OS + apps yourself. Then after that you have to
> make some kind of image or clone of your debloated system --
> because you have no OS installation disk, only an image of what
> you bought with the bloatware.
As has been pointed out recently, there is a free application for
that purpose and more.
> Alternatives are to steal the OS off a bit torrent
Why you are short on hard drive space for backing up the OS...
Optimization is just another reason to keep a clone of the Windows
partition.
edfair
Quote John Doe:
If you are so limited, you should consider a device that is much
smaller and less expensive than a modern PC and does more than your
Neanderthal hardware running an ancient operating system.
I have the XPs, not just the SE. But you probably will sneer at the
386 laptop with 30mb hard drive running dual boot DOS/Xenix, too,
although it is being replaced by a 486 divided the same way.
Not everybody needs a sledgehammer to drive nails, although they are
great if you need to break up concrete.
98 Guy
> Look, the computer that first went to the moon was little better
> than a primitive pocket calculator. It was good enough for them,
> why don't we just stick with that?
Your logic is cracked.
Running win-98 today does not mean that I'm also running hardware circa
1999.
Anyone who REALLY claims to know their shit about different OS's would
know that by about 2006 about half the motherboards and video cards
being sold had win-98 drivers. And even today there are *some*
brand-new motherboards where I can get drivers for almost all on-board
components.
John Doe
> Toolpackinmama wrote:
>> Look, the computer that first went to the moon was little
>> better than a primitive pocket calculator. It was good enough
>> for them, why don't we just stick with that?
>
> Your logic is cracked.
Says someone who thinks he is a guru, and yet for some silly and
unknown reason he is stuck with an obsolete operating system.
> Running win-98 today does not mean that I'm also running
> hardware circa 1999.
It means that you are using old hardware and running old software.
It could also mean that you do little with your computer, compared
to the average (or greater) personal computer user.
Whatever... This group is mainly for solving personal computer
problems. Upgrading to Windows XP tends to solve many PC problems,
as it did for the original poster.
> Anyone who REALLY claims to know their shit about different OS's
...knows that Windows XP is far superior to Windows 98 for modern
personal computer users.
--
> And even today there are *some*
> brand-new motherboards where I can get drivers for almost all on-board
> components.
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!195.114.241.41.MISMATCH!feeder.news-service.com!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:38:44 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 16
> Message-ID: <4B42B444.2D64DD86 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <s_-dnYKNApRQOKPWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d supernews.com> <4B4171F4.57E7054B Guy.com> <00bd6049$0$23464$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B41F936.34074F6F Guy.com> <hht75v$a9q$1 news.eternal-september.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:m8xGCiTm9oLkUftZvLZOh2o+6cg=
>
98 Guy
> >> Win-98 was not vulnerable to any exploit
>
> And then there is the (need for stability)
Ah, the stability myth.
The truth is that most people experienced win-98 on very pathetic
hardware. Machines with maybe 32 or 64 mb of memory. With buggy
motherboard, AGP and video card drivers. By 2000 or 2001, most techie
people had abandoned win-9x and started running win-2K (as long as there
were enough video-card and SOUND CARD drivers so they could play their
infantile games on win-2k).
But by 2002 the drivers were getting better for win-98.
I run win-98 all day on my office and home PC's. PC's with 2.5 ghz
P-4's with 512 mb ram and Nvidia 6600 cards with 128 or 256 mb ram and
80, 250 and even 500 gb hard drives and giga-bit ethernet cards and even
dual-screen 1600 x 1200. That's a long way from the hardware available
back in 1999.
And they're stable as a rock.
98 Guy
> > Running win-98 today does not mean that I'm also running
> > hardware circa 1999.
>
> It means that you are using old hardware and running old software.
Why do you think I'm running old hardware?
What exactly is "old" to you?
> Whatever... This group is mainly for solving personal
> computer problems. Upgrading to Windows XP tends to
> solve many PC problems, as it did for the original poster.
For office and small business use, there is nothing that XP does that a
win-98 system can't do.
That includes accounting, inventory management, sales, document
preparation, graphic design, etc.
Now if you're a child and you want to cry that you can't play your
favorite video game on win-98, well sorry I can't relate to that
use-case other than to look down on it.
> knows that Windows XP is far superior to Windows 98 for
> modern personal computer users.
Yea, XP was so superior that it took 4 years to get it stable enough so
that you could finally connect it to the internet without it being
hacked within 20 minutes.
And why do you include quote the full-header?
In 20+ years of reading and posting to usenet, I've never seen anyone do
such a stupid-ass useless thing like that.
Can't you figure out how to operate a news client properly?
Toolpackinmama
> Toolpackinmama wrote:
>
>> Look, the computer that first went to the moon was little better
>> than a primitive pocket calculator. It was good enough for them,
>> why don't we just stick with that?
>
> Your logic is cracked.
Oh, well, at least you didn't screech hysterically at me that I fuck
crack-smoking donkeys, or something. :)
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:
>> > Running win-98 today does not mean that I'm also running
>> > hardware circa 1999.
>>
>> It means that you are using old hardware and running old
>> software.
>
> Why do you think I'm running old hardware?
>
> What exactly is "old" to you?
>
>> Whatever... This group is mainly for solving personal computer
>> problems. Upgrading to Windows XP tends to solve many PC
>> problems, as it did for the original poster.
>
> For office and small business use, there is nothing that XP does
> that a win-98 system can't do.
But seriously... Most current office applications (CAD, graphics
design, office software, etc) require Windows XP or higher. The
reason is because of Windows 98/ME (and prior) shitty memory
management. You do not have to believe it or admit it, but that is
the way it is. Any intelligent reader can go to an online store
and see for himself (or herself), it is not a mystery to any
regular in this group.
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> >> Win-98 was not vulnerable to any exploit
>>
>> And then there is the (need for stability)
>
> Ah, the stability myth.
You are a clueless fuckwit.
--
>
> The truth is that most people experienced win-98 on very pathetic
> hardware. Machines with maybe 32 or 64 mb of memory. With buggy
> motherboard, AGP and video card drivers. By 2000 or 2001, most techie
> people had abandoned win-9x and started running win-2K (as long as there
> were enough video-card and SOUND CARD drivers so they could play their
> infantile games on win-2k).
>
> But by 2002 the drivers were getting better for win-98.
>
> I run win-98 all day on my office and home PC's. PC's with 2.5 ghz
> P-4's with 512 mb ram and Nvidia 6600 cards with 128 or 256 mb ram and
> 80, 250 and even 500 gb hard drives and giga-bit ethernet cards and even
> dual-screen 1600 x 1200. That's a long way from the hardware available
> back in 1999.
>
> And they're stable as a rock.
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!weretis.net!feeder2.news.weretis.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:19:08 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 24
> Message-ID: <4B42BDBC.BC015A5F Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net> <00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B417102.A6457CB2 Guy.com> <00bd5d90$0$23806$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B41F791.E54D9544 Guy.com> <hht6sc$8ha$1 news.eternal-september.org> <00a064c2$0$16793$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:LqJYLwazr3/gN82tqAUO+dIOkmg=
>
Toolpackinmama
> You are a clueless fuckwit.
Hey John, you need to change up your approach sometimes. Keep doing the
same thing and people become inured to it. Put some variety in your act.
GEO
>"GEO" Me home.here wrote:
>> edfair <edfair.447hu2 no.email.invalid> wrote:
>>>This is kinda a replay of the 95/3.1 arguement I had with a buddy. He
>>>insisted that 95 was the greatest thing since sliced bread until I
>>>pointed out that the 3.1 would boot, work for what I needed, and shut
>>>down before the 95 was finished booting.
<snip>
>> Well said.
>Please elaborate.
>Are you stuck using Windows 98?
If you look at my headers you will see that I am using Windows 3.1.
:)
It all depends on what you want/need to do with your computer. For
most things it does what I need.
Geo
GEO
Ah, but that is where 'taste' comes in. I actually enjoy fussing with
older equipment. (It helps that I don't spend any money doing this)
Geo
Toolpackinmama
Well, enjoy doing that, and bless you.
John Doe
> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> Please elaborate. Are you stuck using Windows 98?
>
> If you look at my headers you will see that I am using Windows
> 3.1. :)
>
> It all depends on what you want/need to do with your computer.
Yes, like use it with modern hardware and applications. Are you
using a homebuilt computer running Windows 3.1? I seem to recall
that there are USENET groups for antiquated/obsolete hardware.
--
98 Guy
> > For office and small business use, there is nothing that XP does
> > that a win-98 system can't do.
>
> But seriously... Most current office applications (CAD, graphics
> design, office software, etc) require Windows XP or higher. The
> reason is because of Windows 98/ME (and prior) shitty memory
> management.
No - it's not shitty memory management.
The number-1 reason why any given piece of software won't run on win-98
are API-related DLL incompatibilities and unsatisfied dependencies.
That can be remedied to some extent by the use of KernelEx:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex/
http://www.msfn.org/board/kernelex-4-0-final-2-t130936.html
> You do not have to believe it or admit it, but that is
> the way it is. Any intelligent reader can go to an online
> store and see for himself (or herself), it is not a mystery
> to any regular in this group.
You can believe your faulty information and knowledge all you want, but
your simplistic understanding is wrong.
There are 4 fundamental areas where win-9x differed from NT-based OS's
that have direct results on system stability and capability:
1) Ring-0 kernel mode / user mode operation: Win-9x runs all processes
in i86 ring-0. NT-based OS's only runs the Kernel and some drivers in
Ring-0, and all user-applications in less privledged rings.
Consequence: An app that misbehaves in win-9x can crash the entire
system, but in NT it will (usually) only crash itself.
2) Size of various data heaps. Win-9x has several data heaps that are
(by design or intention) limited to 64kb in size, while the counterparts
in NT are much larger. This can limit the number of installed fonts, or
the number of file handles or open applications on 9x.
3) Win-9x/me can operate and have access to about 1 gb of memory, and
there are some third-party hacks that claim to extend that to close to 4
gb. This is about 1/3 of the 3 gb that the 32-bit versions of, say, XP
can utilize.
4) Multiprocessor symetric multitasking (the ability to make use of more
than 1 installed CPU)
All other differences are window dressing (including NTFS capability).
The security and user-rights schemes in the NT-based OS's are largely a
hindrence to home and soho users who don't have their PC's on managed
corporate or institutional lans.
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> 98 Guy <98 Guy.com> wrote:
>> > For office and small business use, there is nothing that XP
>> > does that a win-98 system can't do.
>>
>> But seriously... Most current office applications (CAD,
>> graphics design, office software, etc) require Windows XP or
>> higher. The reason is because of Windows 98/ME (and prior)
>> shitty memory management. You do not have to believe it or
>> admit it, but that is the way it is. Any intelligent reader can
>> go to an online store and see for himself (or herself), it is
>> not a mystery to any regular in this group.
>
> You can believe your faulty information and knowledge all you
> want, but your simplistic understanding is wrong.
In other words... If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance,
baffle them with bullshit.
--
>
> There are 4 fundamental areas where win-9x differed from NT-based OS's
> that have direct results on system stability and capability:
>
> 1) Ring-0 kernel mode / user mode operation: Win-9x runs all processes
> in i86 ring-0. NT-based OS's only runs the Kernel and some drivers in
> Ring-0, and all user-applications in less privledged rings.
> Consequence: An app that misbehaves in win-9x can crash the entire
> system, but in NT it will (usually) only crash itself.
>
> 2) Size of various data heaps. Win-9x has several data heaps that are
> (by design or intention) limited to 64kb in size, while the counterparts
> in NT are much larger. This can limit the number of installed fonts, or
> the number of file handles or open applications on 9x.
>
> 3) Win-9x/me can operate and have access to about 1 gb of memory, and
> there are some third-party hacks that claim to extend that to close to 4
> gb. This is about 1/3 of the 3 gb that the 32-bit versions of, say, XP
> can utilize.
>
> 4) Multiprocessor symetric multitasking (the ability to make use of more
> than 1 installed CPU)
>
> All other differences are window dressing (including NTFS capability).
> The security and user-rights schemes in the NT-based OS's are largely a
> hindrence to home and soho users who don't have their PC's on managed
> corporate or institutional lans.
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!weretis.net!feeder2.news.weretis.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:28 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 55
> Message-ID: <4B43FCCC.C5E28A29 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <s_-dnYKNApRQOKPWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d supernews.com> <4B4171F4.57E7054B Guy.com> <00bd6049$0$23464$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B41F936.34074F6F Guy.com> <hht75v$a9q$1 news.eternal-september.org> <4B42B444.2D64DD86 Guy.com> <017b067e$0$11375$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B42BFEA.40AC6054 Guy.com> <00b42e40$0$8086$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:z8OfOmorAr9yVuEtFltrNR1dno4=
>
DevilsPGD
to have wrote:
>Meanwhile, you can hang a win-98 system directly on the net, no firewall
>or nat-router, and nothing can penetrate it. And that's win-98se right
>out of the box - no updates or patches.
Sure, 98 is protected by the same thing that protects OSX and Linux:
Relative obscurity.
DevilsPGD
claimed to have wrote:
>What a pointless response. You have no idea what software may be
>affected. In the case I quote the software is DOS based and has not
>been upgraded since issue. The main feature of the package is a DOS
>database of several million names and dates which have not been made
>available for public use since the discs were first released a number
>of years ago.
This seems like a perfect candidate for virtualization.
98 Guy
> > You can believe your faulty information and knowledge all you
> > want, but your simplistic understanding is wrong.
>
> In other words... If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance,
> baffle them with bullshit.
I'm the one stating specific details, and you're the one who is always
coming back with bullshit.
Just what kind of jack-ass are you?
98 Guy
> > Meanwhile, you can hang a win-98 system directly on the net,
> > no firewall or nat-router, and nothing can penetrate it. And
> > that's win-98se right out of the box - no updates or patches.
>
> Sure, 98 is protected by the same thing that protects OSX and
> Linux: Relative obscurity.
Another common misconception.
Up until (and even during) 2004, windows 98 was not an obscure OS, yet
it was during that time frame (2000 - 2004) that we saw the most
dammaging worms and exploits being directed at win-2K and XP. Why?
Because the NT-based OS's were poorly written and configured (especially
for for home use) - and they were exploitable. Win-98/me was not.
John Doe
You make many silly claims that desperately lack authoritative
citations. You validate the expression "you get what you pay for".
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:08:05 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 16
> Message-ID: <4B4525E5.D3459C71 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net> <00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B417102.A6457CB2 Guy.com> <dcv6k5dr696bq41n2sh3me2dbkerpc1tuh 4ax.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:v8YDVfjAXPqK0/LSrat7lM9FF5s=
>
John Doe
> Top-Poaster and full-assinine-quoter John Doe wrote:
>
>> > You can believe your faulty information and knowledge all you
>> > want, but your simplistic understanding is wrong.
>>
>> In other words... If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance,
>> baffle them with bullshit.
>
> I'm the one stating specific details
You sound delusional and/or like a troll.
--
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:03:40 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: <4B4524DC.875A5514 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <s_-dnYKNApRQOKPWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d supernews.com> <4B4171F4.57E7054B Guy.com> <00bd6049$0$23464$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B41F936.34074F6F Guy.com> <hht75v$a9q$1 news.eternal-september.org> <4B42B444.2D64DD86 Guy.com> <017b067e$0$11375$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B42BFEA.40AC6054 Guy.com> <00b42e40$0$8086$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B43FCCC.C5E28A29 Guy.com> <00c026eb$0$26776$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:TOm11z1pvGfRBPJi+NnqiqO6cJo=
>
98 Guy
> > Up until (and even during) 2004, windows 98 was not an obscure
> > OS, yet it was during that time frame (2000 - 2004) that we saw
> > the most dammaging worms and exploits being directed at win-2K
> > and XP. Why? Because the NT-based OS's were poorly written and
> > configured (especially for for home use) - and they were
> > exploitable. Win-98/me was not.
>
> You make many silly claims that desperately lack authoritative
> citations. You validate the expression "you get what you pay for".
All you have to do is post ONE windows-98 vulnerability that results in
unintended code execution and remote control.
Post ONE example of such a vulnerability, and you've proved me wrong.
As for supporting citations, I will direct you here:
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13/?task=advisories
When you drill into the details of all the listed win-98 security issues
(all 32 of them) and separate out the ones pertaining only to the actual
OS, you'll see that none of them could actually result in a remote
take-over. Arguably, the one candidate that *could* have (ms06-026) was
never seen in the wild.
Now go through the list of Win-2k and XP vulnerabilities, and you'll
find at least 6 different network worms that required nothing more than
a connection to the internet and about 20 minutes of "survival time"
before a vulnerable system becomes trojanized - with no user
intervention required.
The term "Internet Survival Time" was coined as the average time that a
windows 2K or XP system could be exposed to the internet before it gets
subjected to exploit code and hacked into with no user intervention or
involvement required.
These are the Secunia advisories for Win-2K (all 224 of them):
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/1/?task=advisories
These are the Secuina advisories for Win-XP pro (all 267 of them):
98 Guy
> > I'm the one stating specific details
>
> You sound delusional and/or like a troll.
And with that statement, you've just proved yourself to be one.
Congratulations.
Toolpackinmama
How do you feel about Vista and Win 7?
John Doe
> John Doe wrote:
>> > Up until (and even during) 2004, windows 98 was not an
>> > obscure OS, yet it was during that time frame (2000 - 2004)
>> > that we saw the most dammaging worms and exploits being
>> > directed at win-2K and XP. Why? Because the NT-based OS's
>> > were poorly written and configured (especially for for home
>> > use) - and they were exploitable. Win-98/me was not.
>>
>> You make many silly claims that desperately lack authoritative
>> citations. You validate the expression "you get what you pay
>> for".
>
> All you have to do is post ONE windows-98 vulnerability that
> results in unintended code execution and remote control.
Try doing a search for "vulnerability in Windows 98". But that is
irrelevant since the original poster has abandoned his sinking
Windows 98 and joined the rest of the world.
You (ObsoleteGuy) remind me of another occasional poster here.
Reading your rants is a waste of time, but reading some of replies
can be informative and entertaining. I enjoyed being reminded of
Windows 98 crashing when Bill Gates demonstrated it, many years
ago. I noted that running Windows XP in administrator mode is less
safe, but I have always done so and have never run into anything
that was not easily fixed simply by copying important files to
removable media and restoring my most recent backup copy of
Windows XP. I enjoyed this quote too... "If you are so secure with
Windows 98, why are you constantly whining about Microsoft
dropping support for Windows 98?" And then there is your desperate
effort to apply Windows 2000 patches to Windows 98, this says much
about your inner confidence in Windows 98...
You wrote:
> *Windows Script Update 5.6
> *971961 - Unofficial JScript Security Update
> *944338 - Unofficial Windows Script Security Update
> *973354 - Unofficial Outloook Express Cumulative Security Update
> *976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update
> *905495 - Unofficial Security Update (MSIEFTP)
> *885258 - Security Update (PROCTEXE)
> *816362 - Security Update (MSHTA)
> *958869 - Unofficial Security Update (VGX)
> *906216 - Unofficial Security Update (DHTML+TRIEDIT)
> *920670 - Unofficial Security Update (HLINK)
> *918439 - Security Update (ART Image Rendering)
> *816093 - JVM 3810 Security Update
> *824220 - Unofficial Security Update (IMGUTIL)
> *886677 - Unofficial Security Update (MLANG)
> *896156 - Unofficial Security Update (MSHTMLED)
> *973525 - Unofficial ActiveX Kill Bits (AKB) Security Vulnerability Fix
--
>
> Post ONE example of such a vulnerability, and you've proved me wrong.
>
> As for supporting citations, I will direct you here:
>
> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13/?task=advisories
>
> When you drill into the details of all the listed win-98 security issues
> (all 32 of them) and separate out the ones pertaining only to the actual
> OS, you'll see that none of them could actually result in a remote
> take-over. Arguably, the one candidate that *could* have (ms06-026) was
> never seen in the wild.
>
> Now go through the list of Win-2k and XP vulnerabilities, and you'll
> find at least 6 different network worms that required nothing more than
> a connection to the internet and about 20 minutes of "survival time"
> before a vulnerable system becomes trojanized - with no user
> intervention required.
>
> The term "Internet Survival Time" was coined as the average time that a
> windows 2K or XP system could be exposed to the internet before it gets
> subjected to exploit code and hacked into with no user intervention or
> involvement required.
>
> These are the Secunia advisories for Win-2K (all 224 of them):
>
> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/1/?task=advisories
>
> These are the Secuina advisories for Win-XP pro (all 267 of them):
>
> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/?task=advisories
>
>
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!weretis.net!feeder2.news.weretis.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
> From: 98 Guy <98 Guy.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
> Subject: Re: Upgrading Windows 98
> Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:54:42 -0500
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Lines: 45
> Message-ID: <4B453EE2.763ABC50 Guy.com>
> References: <t5ikj55en0nhe0klsih84f3o06qqgjdpko 4ax.com> <00b679fd$0$12998$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q75mpFl3sU1 mid.individual.net> <00ec7df3$0$27968$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <7q799nF8n7U1 mid.individual.net> <00afd629$0$8059$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <4B417102.A6457CB2 Guy.com> <dcv6k5dr696bq41n2sh3me2dbkerpc1tuh 4ax.com> <4B4525E5.D3459C71 Guy.com> <00c0fd38$0$26772$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: /Rg06CALwARDXoIUo8hAwA.user.speranza.aioe.org
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Pa6P52fcfJCxsPQM/M2ZGRgwjo=
>
John Doe
> 98 Guy wrote:
>> ...
> How do you feel about Vista and Win 7?
lol
Toolpackinmama
> You (ObsoleteGuy) remind me of another occasional poster here.
> Reading your rants is a waste of time, but reading some of replies
> can be informative and entertaining. I enjoyed being reminded of
> Windows 98 crashing when Bill Gates demonstrated it, many years
> ago.
Oh LOL! Woot! I still remember that. What a bringdown!
Gates experienced similar humiliations while demonstrating PnP, and USB
(as I recall), LOL, poor guy.
Of course, my memory of those milestones might be flawed.
Toolpackinmama
LOL ::secret handshake::
Toolpackinmama
addition to staying up-to-date with Microsoft's offerings.
I service the general public, and the general public doesn't use Win 98
or Win ME anymore. They don't use any version or flavor of LINUX. At
this point, the general public uses XP or Vista, and many of them are
beginning to use Win 7.
I have to be familiar with all flavors of Windows to serve them
properly, and I am. But I haven't needed my Win 98 familiarity in a
very, very long time.
98 Guy
> Try doing a search for "vulnerability in Windows 98".
And you'll find that most of the results are bogus. Microsoft was
famous for including Windows-98 in security bulletins simply to mention
in the fine print that the bulletin did not really apply to windows 98.
> I enjoyed being reminded of Windows 98 crashing when Bill Gates
> demonstrated it, many years ago.
And you think that XP-gold ran smoothly during the first 6 months of
it's life?
Do you enjoy believing in double standards?
> I enjoyed this quote too... "If you are so secure with Windows 98,
> why are you constantly whining about Microsoft dropping support
> for Windows 98?"
Who says that?
The truth is that windows 98 doesn't need security support because it
simply doesn't have the same degree of botched coding and bloated,
vulnerable running services that the NT-based OS's have.
> And then there is your desperate effort to apply Windows
> 2000 patches to Windows 98, this says much about your
> inner confidence in Windows 98...
Apparently you are not able to understand the difference between Windows
and Internet Explorer.
The win-2k patches that can be applied to win-98 pertain to IE (they
both run the exact same version of IE6).
And it's not even clear that the IE vulnerabilities that are patched can
be exploited on win-98 anyways.
> You wrote:
No, I did not write the list that you got from here:
Again, you have a reading comprehension problem.
That is a list of IE updates and patches.
It is NOT a list of windows 98 vulnerabilities or exploits.
Nice try.
98 Guy
> How do you feel about Vista and Win 7?
They are the natural result of Microsoft's unofficial motto:
"If it works, it's not complicated enough."
Microsoft's business model is based on bringing out a new OS every 3 or
4 years, and getting suckers like you to believe that it's better than
the last one. With no real competition, all Microsoft needs to do is
change the desktop motif and it fools you into thinking it's a new OS.
And if Microsoft's new OS is version 6.1, why are they calling it
"Windows 7" ?
> How do you feel about Vista and Win 7?
How do you feel about Vista and Win 7 - compared to XP ?
DevilsPGD
to have wrote:
>And if Microsoft's new OS is version 6.1, why are they calling it
>"Windows 7" ?
Do you actually want to know, or are you just looking for another
non-sequitur ad hominem attempt at an insult?
Toolpackinmama
> How do you feel about Vista and Win 7 - compared to XP ?
I enjoyed using XP Pro for a long time and was reluctant to give it up.
I tried Vista and honestly hated it. I am now using Win 7 Pro 32 bit,
and I can honestly say that I like it. It's stable, user-friendly, and
pleasant to use. My newer games run better on Win 7 than they did on XP
or Vista.
98 Guy
> > And if Microsoft's new OS is version 6.1, why are they calling it
> > "Windows 7" ?
>
> Do you actually want to know, or are you just looking for another
> non-sequitur ad hominem attempt at an insult?
"Another" non-sequitur ad hominem attempt at an insult? Perhaps you'd
like to point out the previous one?
And yes - if you know of any Microsoft explanation, I would like to read
it.
John Doe
How do your games run better?
As I recall, Windows Explorer has gotten worse, one of the
problems started in Vista. In the folder view, using the down/up
arrow keys to select a folder no longer shows its contents in the
right-hand pane. In Windows XP, I regularly use the up/down arrow
keys to view the contents of several folders in a row. Also,
clicking on the folder name no longer expands the folder in the
right-hand pane, you have to aim for the small plus sign to the
left of the folder name. That would be no problem if Microsoft at
least provided options for those of us who make use of those
functions. Lastly, I like the idea of the new path bar, but the
folder view is still necessary for clicking and dragging files
around, so the path bar seems useless. If I wanted to move, I
would probably check to see if the old Windows Explorer works in
Windows 7.