Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !?

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
March 3, 2005 12:59:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer supports Win98
after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like me? Are we
going to be abandoned?

I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully for my
high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real shame if it
suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates' pen. My
preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually died,
especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps from one
level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I won't ever need
or use if I live to be 150.

Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other user-community
strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely on Win98 for
safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out there who
could please "set me straight" on this issue?
--
Tx ... Murphil
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 4:57:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Extended support for Win9x (Win98, Win98SE and WinME) ends 30 June-2006, not
2005.

FYI:

Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Support
Extended:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean1

Also:

<quote>
Paid incident support is now available through 30-Jun-2006. Extended hotfix
support for Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition ended on 30-Jun-2003.
Extended hotfix support for Windows Millennium ended on 31-Dec-2003. Online
self-help support will continue to be available until at least 30-Jun-2007.
For additional information on the type and length of support provided,
review the Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium
Support Extended Announcement Web site. Critical security updates will be
provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006. Microsoft will
not publicly release non-critical security hotfixes for Windows 98, Windows
98 Second Edition, or Windows Millennium Edition. However, customers may
request a non-critical security hotfix through On-Demand Security Hotfix
support, which is offered for these products through June 30, 2006. When a
request is received, Microsoft will investigate the issue and try to provide
an appropriate response to the customer.
</quote>
Source: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin
(Footnote 17)
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (Shell, IE/OE) & Security


Murphil wrote:
> What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer supports
> Win98 after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like
> me? Are we going to be abandoned?
>
> I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully for my
> high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real shame
> if it suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates'
> pen. My preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually
> died, especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps
> from one level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I
> won't ever need or use if I live to be 150.
>
> Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other user-community
> strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely on Win98
> for safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out
> there who could please "set me straight" on this issue?
March 3, 2005 4:58:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In news:F654C1C2-0436-4775-A413-07BC076D8804@microsoft.com,
Murphil <Murphil@discussions.microsoft.com> had this to say:


> What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer
> supports Win98 after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual
> users like me? Are we going to be abandoned?

Support is extended until June 30, 2006 which is over a year away. It does
mean that Microsoft will be abandoning you in those words but there will be
plenty of online communities which you'll be able to visit and they'll
surely have work arounds for the latest security threats and will continue
to help people. There's a lot of online computer forums and message boards
that you can find through a search engine. You have over a year to prepare
for this so you have time to look in a search engine to find the ones that
meet your requirements.

Windows 98, like all good things, must come to an end and make way for new
and improved things. Just like you can't buy very many OEM parts for a 1971
Dodge Dart you'll no longer be able to get support for 98 just as you can't
get support for 95 or 3.1 today. Mind you the Dart was an excellent
automobile just like 98 is a great operating system but newer systems run
better, faster, and are more secure (well, that's what they tell us anyhow -
there's a number of people who will argue with that and I expect that they
may have valid points but I'm just repeating what I've read and trying to
justify it for you) operating systems.

Eventually, during your life, you had to buy a new car when your old one
became too old. Did you wait until it broke down and then walk to the
nearest dealership or did you buy a new one when you found out that the old
one was aging to the point where there was going to be a problem in the near
future? If you waited then please skip that analogy :)  But, I hope, that you
get my point.

However, the flip side of the coin is that you'll most certainly be able to
continue using 98. There just won't be any updates for it from Microsoft as
far as I know. Just as you could keep your old car running but it required a
bit of extra work and attention you'll be able to keep 98 running but you'll
want to pay attention to the different forums and to the latest security
threats. The price of computers has dropped quite a bit over the past few
years and a new computer (you can use your old monitor and keyboard and
other devices more than likely) will cost you probably less than 1/3 of what
you paid for your current system. Computers, like anything else, eventually
need to be laid to rest and new ones purchased if you wish to remain
current. Otherwise, you'll still be able to use 98 on your system - it's not
going to suddenly fail on you after this whole time - you're just not going
to get updates from Microsoft for it.

Galen
--

"My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me
the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am
in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial
stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for
mental exaltation." -- Sherlock Holmes
Related resources
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Murphil wrote:
> What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer supports
> Win98 after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like
me? Are
> we going to be abandoned?

Yeah. We're all going to die.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Actually, you get better support here that you would at MS.

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eLzsq5DIFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Murphil wrote:
>> What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer supports
>> Win98 after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like
> me? Are
>> we going to be abandoned?
>
> Yeah. We're all going to die.
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 8:28:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

All Win98 users will outlive all XP users who already have begun to fry
in the radiation of it. Resolve to live long enough for Longhorn, is
all! That's what me 'n Colorado are doing!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Murphil" <Murphil@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F654C1C2-0436-4775-A413-07BC076D8804@microsoft.com...
| What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer
supports Win98
| after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like me?
Are we
| going to be abandoned?
|
| I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully for
my
| high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real
shame if it
| suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates' pen.
My
| preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually died,
| especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps from
one
| level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I won't
ever need
| or use if I live to be 150.
|
| Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other user-community
| strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely on
Win98 for
| safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out
there who
| could please "set me straight" on this issue?
| --
| Tx ... Murphil
March 3, 2005 10:15:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions. You all make me feel much
better now.

I get what you mean regarding the car analogies. Like everyone else, I too
"trade up" when I think it's time. However, my personal philosophy in recent
years has been to keep my cars longer than most (until trade-in value is
virually zero), which probably explains my approach to my computer. I know
I'll eventually have to ugrade, but maybe I'll just wait for "the son of P4"
and "the son of XP". In fact, I'll probably wait even a little longer after
that for the break-in period to end, after the initial bugs have been ironed
out.

Regarding the suggestion that I replace Win98 with XP, I recently explored
this with the tech guys at Future Shop. They advised against it, saying I
wouldn't be happy with the performance because my IBM Aptiva is only a PII. I
think maybe they were just trying to sell me a new P4. I'm glad that I didn't
take the bait, at least not yet anyway; because, you've all convinced me that
this discussion group is likely to be around for a long time to continue
helping souls like me who insist on hanging on to their Win98s.

I've only been using this discussion group about a week now, but already I'm
sensing a real "brotherhood" here. You are all very upbeat and reassuring. I
look forward to continued contact with this group.

Tx ... Murphil



"PCR" wrote:

> All Win98 users will outlive all XP users who already have begun to fry
> in the radiation of it. Resolve to live long enough for Longhorn, is
> all! That's what me 'n Colorado are doing!
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "Murphil" <Murphil@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F654C1C2-0436-4775-A413-07BC076D8804@microsoft.com...
> | What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer
> supports Win98
> | after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like me?
> Are we
> | going to be abandoned?
> |
> | I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully for
> my
> | high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real
> shame if it
> | suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates' pen.
> My
> | preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually died,
> | especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps from
> one
> | level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I won't
> ever need
> | or use if I live to be 150.
> |
> | Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other user-community
> | strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely on
> Win98 for
> | safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out
> there who
> | could please "set me straight" on this issue?
> | --
> | Tx ... Murphil
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:46:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Murphil wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions. You all make me feel
> much better now.
>
> I get what you mean regarding the car analogies. Like everyone else, I too
> "trade up" when I think it's time. However, my personal philosophy in
recent
> years has been to keep my cars longer than most (until trade-in value is
> virually zero), which probably explains my approach to my computer.

My car is a 1988 Nissan. Which works great. The old stuff is still
good! (including Win98SE).

I like to recall FDR, and "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
I, for one, ain't worried about the waning 98SE support.

> I know
> I'll eventually have to ugrade, but maybe I'll just wait for "the son of
P4"
> and "the son of XP". In fact, I'll probably wait even a little longer
after
> that for the break-in period to end, after the initial bugs have been
ironed
> out.
>
> Regarding the suggestion that I replace Win98 with XP, I recently explored
> this with the tech guys at Future Shop. They advised against it, saying I
> wouldn't be happy with the performance because my IBM Aptiva is only a
PII. I
> think maybe they were just trying to sell me a new P4. I'm glad that I
didn't
> take the bait, at least not yet anyway; because, you've all convinced me
that
> this discussion group is likely to be around for a long time to continue
> helping souls like me who insist on hanging on to their Win98s.

Unless you have a newer machine, that's probably damn good advice. Stick
with Win98SE (or if you must, buy a new computer with XP already on it).
But why?

5 or 10 years from now - that may be a different story. :-)

> I've only been using this discussion group about a week now, but already
I'm
> sensing a real "brotherhood" here. You are all very upbeat and reassuring.
I
> look forward to continued contact with this group.
>
> Tx ... Murphil
>
>
>
> "PCR" wrote:
>
>> All Win98 users will outlive all XP users who already have begun to fry
>> in the radiation of it. Resolve to live long enough for Longhorn, is
>> all! That's what me 'n Colorado are doing!
>>
>> --
>> Thanks or Good Luck,
>> There may be humor in this post, and,
>> Naturally, you will not sue,
>> should things get worse after this,
>> PCR
>> pcrrcp@netzero.net
>> "Murphil" <Murphil@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:F654C1C2-0436-4775-A413-07BC076D8804@microsoft.com...
>>> What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer
>> supports Win98
>>> after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like me?
>> Are we
>>> going to be abandoned?
>>>
>>> I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully for
my
>>> high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real
>> shame if it
>>> suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates' pen.
My
>>> preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually died,
>>> especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps from
one
>>> level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I won't
>> ever need
>>> or use if I live to be 150.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other user-community
>>> strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely on
Win98
>>> for safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out
>> there who
>>> could please "set me straight" on this issue?
>>> --
>>> Tx ... Murphil
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:54:20 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Murphil wrote:
> What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer supports Win98
> after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like me? Are we
> going to be abandoned?
>
> I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully for my
> high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real shame if it
> suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates' pen. My
> preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually died,
> especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps from one
> level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I won't ever need
> or use if I live to be 150.
>
> Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other user-community
> strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely on Win98 for
> safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out there who
> could please "set me straight" on this issue?
> --
> Tx ... Murphil

"Don't worry, be happy!"
If, as you say, you are "pensioner" just take a slow look around your
room and notice the plethora of objects, serving you beautifuly, whose
manufacturers are "no more with us".
And BTW how much of the manufacturers "crutches" you use in everyday
usage of the "tool".
I use Win98 for "donkeys ears" and never had to relay on direct support
of Redmont.
So till 150, don't worry, this and other groups like it are still active
so "help is on the way".

All the best

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 1:21:15 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well, it is their forum on their server, but the replies are certainly not from
MS....I know I am not getting a paycheck! ;-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:emD8fNGIFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> This *is* MS, <sg>.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Richard Goh" <me@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:%233BIaBEIFHA.276@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Actually, you get better support here that you would at MS.
> >
>
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 2:37:42 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

That's right! NOW, some participants here may actually be computer
repairmen/salesmen in disguise & hoping your machine will crumble to
dust under your fingers. But generally it's like what you said! Welcome!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Murphil" <Murphil@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6BC60CB4-17C1-4C8F-91DF-55C3FE496B60@microsoft.com...
| Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions. You all make me feel
much
| better now.
|
| I get what you mean regarding the car analogies. Like everyone else, I
too
| "trade up" when I think it's time. However, my personal philosophy in
recent
| years has been to keep my cars longer than most (until trade-in value
is
| virually zero), which probably explains my approach to my computer. I
know
| I'll eventually have to ugrade, but maybe I'll just wait for "the son
of P4"
| and "the son of XP". In fact, I'll probably wait even a little longer
after
| that for the break-in period to end, after the initial bugs have been
ironed
| out.
|
| Regarding the suggestion that I replace Win98 with XP, I recently
explored
| this with the tech guys at Future Shop. They advised against it,
saying I
| wouldn't be happy with the performance because my IBM Aptiva is only a
PII. I
| think maybe they were just trying to sell me a new P4. I'm glad that I
didn't
| take the bait, at least not yet anyway; because, you've all convinced
me that
| this discussion group is likely to be around for a long time to
continue
| helping souls like me who insist on hanging on to their Win98s.
|
| I've only been using this discussion group about a week now, but
already I'm
| sensing a real "brotherhood" here. You are all very upbeat and
reassuring. I
| look forward to continued contact with this group.
|
| Tx ... Murphil
|
|
|
| "PCR" wrote:
|
| > All Win98 users will outlive all XP users who already have begun to
fry
| > in the radiation of it. Resolve to live long enough for Longhorn, is
| > all! That's what me 'n Colorado are doing!
| >
| > --
| > Thanks or Good Luck,
| > There may be humor in this post, and,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "Murphil" <Murphil@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| > news:F654C1C2-0436-4775-A413-07BC076D8804@microsoft.com...
| > | What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer
| > supports Win98
| > | after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like
me?
| > Are we
| > | going to be abandoned?
| > |
| > | I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully
for
| > my
| > | high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real
| > shame if it
| > | suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates'
pen.
| > My
| > | preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually
died,
| > | especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps
from
| > one
| > | level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I
won't
| > ever need
| > | or use if I live to be 150.
| > |
| > | Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other
user-community
| > | strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely
on
| > Win98 for
| > | safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out
| > there who
| > | could please "set me straight" on this issue?
| > | --
| > | Tx ... Murphil
| >
| >
| >
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:03:11 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 3/3/05 11:29 PM India Time, _Murphil_ wrote:

> What's going to happen to Win98 users when Microsoft no longer supports Win98
> after this June!? What exactly will it mean to casual users like me? Are we
> going to be abandoned?
>
> I have Win98 on a PII machine, and it continues to run beautifully for my
> high speed Internet and multimedia work. To me it would be a real shame if it
> suddenly became obsolete through the simple stroke of Bill Gates' pen. My
> preference would be to continue using Win98 until my PC actually died,
> especially since I'm a pensioner who can't afford frequent jumps from one
> level of technology to the next "flavour of the month" that I won't ever need
> or use if I live to be 150.
>
> Does anyone know of any possible work-arounds or other user-community
> strategies so that some of us may continue in the future to rely on Win98 for
> safe and secure Internet and multimedia work? Is there anyone out there who
> could please "set me straight" on this issue?
> --
> Tx ... Murphil

Dear Murphil Sir,

Rest assured, win98 on your pc will keep on working till
eternity.

Only microsoft will not provide any support, any security
patches, any updates, any info on win98.

Rest of the world will provide you support.

just curious. After you bought win98 CD, what support did
you recieve from microsoft? did you download any software,
any patches, any updates from microsoft? did you ever
contact microsoft call centre or customer care or tech support?

My answer is no for everything above. I installed win98SE
and used it only with non-ms support.

If your answer also is no, and you continued using win98,
that is the way it will remain.

For example, I think they should continue this newsgroup on
their server even after official expiring win98. They are
only providing server space and traffic facilities,
otherwise it is only individual helpers who are contributing
to this ng, they are not ms employees.

So there, such people will continue to provide support here,
or even if it is closed, to some other ng or other mailing list.

Have no worry, sir. You will not be affected the slightest.

And everybody agrees that win98 is the most reliable and
most stable of os that microsoft has ever produced. so it
will have least problems.

---
Just a clarification:

You have apprehensions, sir, that switching to a different
os (say, xp) might mean changing your pc.

My guess is (I request veterans to confirm or clarify) if
you switch to some other operating system (say, xp) you will
not need to change anything at all on your current pc. You
can install that o.s. on your current pc, and at worst, it
will run a bit slower.

So, have no worry, dear sir, that you will be made to spend
huge amount to upgrage or change your pc. You can continue
using that for ever.

Still, I would recommend that you get and install xp on it.
Just the software won't cost much, and it has its benefit of
making things easier for you. It will take a day or two to
learn some differences, but things will be faster, and
easier then onwards.

When Mr Gates has visualised and presented win98 that you
love so much, rely on his further offerrings to make the
world a better place for you only, sir.

--
Rawat
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:03:12 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

V S Rawat wrote:
> On 3/3/05 11:29 PM India Time, _Murphil_ wrote:
>

>
> For example, I think they should continue this newsgroup on
> their server even after official expiring win98. They are
> only providing server space and traffic facilities,
> otherwise it is only individual helpers who are contributing
> to this ng, they are not ms employees.
>
>

If Microsoft won't pay for the servers Linux will.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 3/4/05 8:45 AM India Time, _Murphil_ wrote:

> Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions. You all make me feel much
> better now.
>
> I get what you mean regarding the car analogies. Like everyone else, I too
> "trade up" when I think it's time. However, my personal philosophy in recent
> years has been to keep my cars longer than most (until trade-in value is
> virually zero), which probably explains my approach to my computer. I know
> I'll eventually have to ugrade, but maybe I'll just wait for "the son of P4"
> and "the son of XP". In fact, I'll probably wait even a little longer after
> that for the break-in period to end, after the initial bugs have been ironed
> out.
>
> Regarding the suggestion that I replace Win98 with XP, I recently explored
> this with the tech guys at Future Shop. They advised against it, saying I
> wouldn't be happy with the performance because my IBM Aptiva is only a PII. I
> think maybe they were just trying to sell me a new P4. I'm glad that I didn't
> take the bait, at least not yet anyway; because, you've all convinced me that
> this discussion group is likely to be around for a long time to continue
> helping souls like me who insist on hanging on to their Win98s.
>
> I've only been using this discussion group about a week now, but already I'm
> sensing a real "brotherhood" here.

I apologise to Jane on behalf of Murphil Sir.

> You are all very upbeat and reassuring. I
> look forward to continued contact with this group.
>
> Tx ... Murphil

How could you ignore her? :) 

--
Rawat
March 5, 2005 12:32:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> And everybody agrees that win98 is the most reliable and
> most stable of os that microsoft has ever produced. so it
> will have least problems.
>
> ---
I would say by experience that XP is the better operating system, followed
closely by 98se.
=Pete
March 5, 2005 11:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry points by
hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else operating
system.

"Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8u4Wd.9932$Lr3.1810@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
:
: > And everybody agrees that win98 is the most reliable and
: > most stable of os that microsoft has ever produced. so it
: > will have least problems.
: >
: > ---
: I would say by experience that XP is the better operating system, followed
: closely by 98se.
: =Pete
:
:
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 1:44:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:%23YK5OqfIFHA.2428@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry points
> by
> hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else
> operating

Where do you get your info from? XP Pro is much more secure than 98 in any
flavor, period, end of story!

> system.
>
> "Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:8u4Wd.9932$Lr3.1810@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> :
> : > And everybody agrees that win98 is the most reliable and
> : > most stable of os that microsoft has ever produced. so it
> : > will have least problems.
> : >
> : > ---
> : I would say by experience that XP is the better operating system,
> followed
> : closely by 98se.
> : =Pete
> :
> :
>
>
March 6, 2005 2:21:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Okay, Brian you are right and I am wrong.

"Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message
news:%23yzBrcgIFHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: news:%23YK5OqfIFHA.2428@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: > Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry points
: > by
: > hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else
: > operating
:
: Where do you get your info from? XP Pro is much more secure than 98 in any
: flavor, period, end of story!
:
: > system.
: >
: > "Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in message
: > news:8u4Wd.9932$Lr3.1810@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
: > :
: > : > And everybody agrees that win98 is the most reliable and
: > : > most stable of os that microsoft has ever produced. so it
: > : > will have least problems.
: > : >
: > : > ---
: > : I would say by experience that XP is the better operating system,
: > followed
: > : closely by 98se.
: > : =Pete
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 2:41:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:44:32 -0600, "Brian A."
>"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message

>> Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry points
>> by hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else
>> operating

I'd clarify that into two points:

1) XP (both Home and Pro) have more entry points, thus risk: True
2) XP does not have an underlying DOS: True, but that's good :-)

I'd re-phrase (2) as:

2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad

http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm refers on maintenance OS

> Where do you get your info from?

School of hard knocks? Can you say: Lovesan? Sasser?

Win9x does not have a single direct worm network attack, unless you
bind F&PS to Internet (Opaserv etc.) or run an SQL server (Slammer).

Any version of XP older than SP2 will be attacked within minutes if it
is installed as shipped and is connected to the Internet.

That's a very material difference in safety, which concerns most home
users more than security.


XP is NT, which was built from the ground up as a new post-DOS OS, and
is designed to be a network client. Unfortunately, it treats the
Internet as just another big network, and offers various services to
it that can be exploited. That's why it is "more secure"; it *has* to
be, given that by design, it takes greater risks.

Win98xx is Win9x, which was also built from the ground up as a new
post-DOS OS, but with a higher degree of backwards compatibility - in
fact, it still includes an updated DOS that can be booted instead of
Windows (though WinME removed this ability).

Unlike NT, Win9x was not designed first and foremost as a securable
network client. It was designed as a stand-alone OS that included
networking ability, but (unlike NT) there was no attempt to lock it
securely into this role. So yes; it's less secure, in that it cannot
be subjugated entirely to the will of a remote administrator. The
upside is, it doesn't allow entities on the 'net to remotely control
it by persuading the OS that they are the "administrator",

>XP Pro is much more secure than 98 in any flavor, period, end of story!

False.

Or should I say, out of the box, XP is a considerably more exploitable
OS, and this does translate directly into real-world mileage.

Don't confuse improved sysadmin control with consumer safety.



>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
ideal for experimentation!
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 2:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:44:32 -0600, "Brian A."
>> "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
>
>>> Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry points
>>> by hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else
>>> operating
>
> I'd clarify that into two points:
>
> 1) XP (both Home and Pro) have more entry points, thus risk: True
> 2) XP does not have an underlying DOS: True, but that's good :-)
>
> I'd re-phrase (2) as:
>
> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad

Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time. I've
had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
"fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda bothers
me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)

But then again, I'm quite content with Win98SE, so no problemo (for me - at
least for a good while).

> http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm refers on maintenance OS
March 6, 2005 2:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Wow, thanks for bringing the truth to this discussion, Chris. You continue
to amaze me. You and Gary S. Terhune as well as Hugh Candlin make quite a
force to be reckoned with in the world of computers. Could you elaborate on
this one point for me a little more so I can understand it better. Thanks in
advance.

"Win9x does not have a single direct worm network attack, unless you
bind F&PS to Internet (Opaserv etc.) or run an SQL server (Slammer)."

I understood the rest of your points.

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:1bjl21t8310ll4c293lhuppntf7tg5fif4@4ax.com...
: On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:44:32 -0600, "Brian A."
: >"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
:
: >> Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry points
: >> by hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else
: >> operating
:
: I'd clarify that into two points:
:
: 1) XP (both Home and Pro) have more entry points, thus risk: True
: 2) XP does not have an underlying DOS: True, but that's good :-)
:
: I'd re-phrase (2) as:
:
: 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
:
: http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm refers on maintenance OS
:
: > Where do you get your info from?
:
: School of hard knocks? Can you say: Lovesan? Sasser?
:
: Win9x does not have a single direct worm network attack, unless you
: bind F&PS to Internet (Opaserv etc.) or run an SQL server (Slammer).
:
: Any version of XP older than SP2 will be attacked within minutes if it
: is installed as shipped and is connected to the Internet.
:
: That's a very material difference in safety, which concerns most home
: users more than security.
:
:
: XP is NT, which was built from the ground up as a new post-DOS OS, and
: is designed to be a network client. Unfortunately, it treats the
: Internet as just another big network, and offers various services to
: it that can be exploited. That's why it is "more secure"; it *has* to
: be, given that by design, it takes greater risks.
:
: Win98xx is Win9x, which was also built from the ground up as a new
: post-DOS OS, but with a higher degree of backwards compatibility - in
: fact, it still includes an updated DOS that can be booted instead of
: Windows (though WinME removed this ability).
:
: Unlike NT, Win9x was not designed first and foremost as a securable
: network client. It was designed as a stand-alone OS that included
: networking ability, but (unlike NT) there was no attempt to lock it
: securely into this role. So yes; it's less secure, in that it cannot
: be subjugated entirely to the will of a remote administrator. The
: upside is, it doesn't allow entities on the 'net to remotely control
: it by persuading the OS that they are the "administrator",
:
: >XP Pro is much more secure than 98 in any flavor, period, end of story!
:
: False.
:
: Or should I say, out of the box, XP is a considerably more exploitable
: OS, and this does translate directly into real-world mileage.
:
: Don't confuse improved sysadmin control with consumer safety.
:
:
:
: >---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
: Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
: ideal for experimentation!
: >---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
March 6, 2005 2:41:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I agree with you, Bill. I also have had to go into MS-DOS to fix things that
I could not within the GUI (Graphical User Interface) of Windows even in safe
mode I have been unable to fix everything at different points in time.
Thanks Chris and Bill because I was at a lose for words to explain my
theories to Brian A.

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ebggqGjIFHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
: > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:44:32 -0600, "Brian A."
: >> "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: >
: >>> Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry
points
: >>> by hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else
: >>> operating
: >
: > I'd clarify that into two points:
: >
: > 1) XP (both Home and Pro) have more entry points, thus risk: True
: > 2) XP does not have an underlying DOS: True, but that's good :-)
: >
: > I'd re-phrase (2) as:
: >
: > 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
:
: Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time. I've
: had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
: "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda bothers
: me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
:
: But then again, I'm quite content with Win98SE, so no problemo (for me - at
: least for a good while).
:
: > http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm refers on maintenance OS
:
:
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:44:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Out of the Box wasn't even a thought and Dan mentioned hackers, not
viruses. Are you saying that a hacker has a better chance of compromising
an XP machine? An if so would that be based on code or brute force?

Even though the Sasser couldn't infect a 9x system, it could be run on and
used to infect the intended systems. I may very well look at it differently
and not as in depth as yourself, but in my eyes if it can run on and be used
as a portal I consider that as an indirect infection.

Wasn't the purpose of binding NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP on a LAN to help
protect systems which many most likely didn't do?



--

Brian A.

Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message
news:1bjl21t8310ll4c293lhuppntf7tg5fif4@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:44:32 -0600, "Brian A."
>>"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
>
>>> Well to each his own but remember that XPPRO does have more entry points
>>> by hackers and does not have a true underlying MSDOS or anything else
>>> operating
>
> I'd clarify that into two points:
>
> 1) XP (both Home and Pro) have more entry points, thus risk: True
> 2) XP does not have an underlying DOS: True, but that's good :-)
>
> I'd re-phrase (2) as:
>
> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm refers on maintenance OS
>
>> Where do you get your info from?
>
> School of hard knocks? Can you say: Lovesan? Sasser?
>
> Win9x does not have a single direct worm network attack, unless you
> bind F&PS to Internet (Opaserv etc.) or run an SQL server (Slammer).
>
> Any version of XP older than SP2 will be attacked within minutes if it
> is installed as shipped and is connected to the Internet.
>
> That's a very material difference in safety, which concerns most home
> users more than security.
>
>
> XP is NT, which was built from the ground up as a new post-DOS OS, and
> is designed to be a network client. Unfortunately, it treats the
> Internet as just another big network, and offers various services to
> it that can be exploited. That's why it is "more secure"; it *has* to
> be, given that by design, it takes greater risks.
>
> Win98xx is Win9x, which was also built from the ground up as a new
> post-DOS OS, but with a higher degree of backwards compatibility - in
> fact, it still includes an updated DOS that can be booted instead of
> Windows (though WinME removed this ability).
>
> Unlike NT, Win9x was not designed first and foremost as a securable
> network client. It was designed as a stand-alone OS that included
> networking ability, but (unlike NT) there was no attempt to lock it
> securely into this role. So yes; it's less secure, in that it cannot
> be subjugated entirely to the will of a remote administrator. The
> upside is, it doesn't allow entities on the 'net to remotely control
> it by persuading the OS that they are the "administrator",
>
>>XP Pro is much more secure than 98 in any flavor, period, end of story!
>
> False.
>
> Or should I say, out of the box, XP is a considerably more exploitable
> OS, and this does translate directly into real-world mileage.
>
> Don't confuse improved sysadmin control with consumer safety.
>
>
>
>>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Cats have 9 lives, which makes them
> ideal for experimentation!
>>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:09:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:

>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad

>Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time. I've
>had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
>"fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda bothers
>me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)

You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP. Tips:

1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G

This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
size for best virtual memory performance.

There are other goodnesses to a small C:
- keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
- faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
- most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
- as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption

2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD

Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.

3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker

I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.

4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account

FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
huge duhfault TIF size. Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
system! Note that TIF is repeated for each user profile.

5) Locate shell folders off C:

Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
"My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.

6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool

XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.

7) Know the limitations of FATxx!

Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
system up as NTFS in the first place. Also, remember that NTFS is
required if you want single files to exceed 2G in size.


If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
as a pointer to what may have infected the system.

You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
choose NTFS for your data set as well.

There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.


>-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
"Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
>----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 10:09:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>
>>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
>
>> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
I've
>> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
>> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
bothers
>> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
>
> You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
> of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.

Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32,
you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me,
sometimes).

Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
(Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there,
admitedly).

>>Tips:
>
> 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
>
> This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
> size for best virtual memory performance.
>
> There are other goodnesses to a small C:
> - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
> - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
> - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
> - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
>
> 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
>
> Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
> XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
> as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
>
> 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
>
> I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
> because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
> for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
> does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
> stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
>
> 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
>
> FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
> entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
> huge default TIF size.

I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".

> Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
> get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
> system!

Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
just because I like to).

But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.

> 5) Locate shell folders off C:
>
> Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
> want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
> "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
> Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
> repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
> will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
>
> 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
>
> XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
> size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
> convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
> clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
> don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
>
> 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
>
> Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
> tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
> security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
> NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
> NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
> system up as NTFS in the first place.

I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.

> Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G
in size.

Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.

> If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
> measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
> of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
> material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
> as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
>
> You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
> as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
> security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
> may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
> data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
> choose NTFS for your data set as well.
>
> There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
> for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
> Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
> Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
> of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
>
>
>> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
> "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
> ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
>> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:08:16 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:42:34 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

>> You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
>> of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.

>Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32,
>you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me).

Yep. There are some very dumb knee-jerks out there; you just have to
clear your head of noise, look at the reality, and steer accordingly.

When I grew up, the consensus in my community ws that our current
social regime was fair and just. That consensus was wrong. I learnt.

>Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
>(Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones).

What's your main threat; humans accessing your data, or data loss from
malware or natural corruption?

How good are your backups?

Do you use the Home (as in, a physical location where safety should be
assumed) or Pro (identity-based permissions) security model?

Do you need to host OSs in C: that can't read NTFS?

Do you need to save files larger than 2G?

For me, the answers are; the latter, not so great I'll never need data
recovery, Home, yes, and no. So I avoid using NTFS.

>>>Tips:

>> 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
>> 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
>> 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
>> 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
>>
>> FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
>> entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
>> huge default TIF size.
>
>I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".

By duhfault, IE sizes TIF as a % of volume space, so it's easy to get
a 1G TIF on "one big doomed C:" or 255M on even a "small" C: - and if
you multiply that across 5 user accounts, it's worse. I use 20-40M.

When a new temp file in TIF has to be created, the name has to be
unique - so a poutative name has to be checked against all that exist
to ensure there's no clash. In NTFS, that's reasonably fast because
the directory structure is indexed (downside: expect raw sector-level
repair to be tougher). In FATxx, that's slow because the serach is
linear, from start to end of the dir.

When a temp file in TIF is created, the critical period during which
the dir is open for writes is longer, in the case of FATxx. A dir
with, say, 20 000 entries that has grown slowly over time is going to
be scattered in several cluster fragments across the volume, so the
critical period will be longer due to the extra head travel.

On a good day, it just works. Not all days are good days.

>> Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
>> get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
>> system!

>Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
>results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
>just because I like to).

Defrag will take a long time if there are more files on one huge
volume, than fewer files on a smaller volume.

>But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
>difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
>the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.

With a small and lean C:, the head travel impact of fragmentation is
small, because even in worst-case scenarios, you have no more than
under a tenth of the head travel (7.9G C: of a 120G HD).

>> 5) Locate shell folders off C:
>> 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
>> 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
>>
>> Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
>> tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
>> security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
>> NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
>> NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
>> system up as NTFS in the first place.
>
>I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.

Yes. Safety is always an issue, but there are better ways to fight
that battle than NTFS security band-aids, which can work against you
in a post-penetration scenario. Malware can and do use unique
features of NTFS, e.g. ADS, permissions lock-out, etc.

>> Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G
>in size.

>Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
>files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.

It comes down to signed or unsigned indexing within the file, and
that's why I prefer the conservative 2G to best-case/YMMV 4G


To paraphrase some dialogue late in "3 Days of the Condor"...

"Let me tell you how it will be. You will start your PC as you
usually do, but it will take longer to POST than usual. It may fail
to start Windows, and when you try to read the HD, the HD LED will
stay on and you may hear cyclical clanking sounds while the PC appears
to be locked up." (Von Sydow passes Redford the gun) "For that day."

The "gun" I'd like to have, for the day that I have to recover data
from a corrupted or dying HD, is a small volume with large clusters
that is as unfragmented as possible.

And a file system I can approach with raw tools such as DiskEdit.



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:08:17 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:42:34 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>
>>> You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
>>> of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
>
>> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use
FAT32,
>> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to
me).
>
> Yep. There are some very dumb knee-jerks out there; you just have to
> clear your head of noise, look at the reality, and steer accordingly.

I guess so! I don't think I've ever seen anyone in here advocate using
FAT32, however. (Well, anyone except maybe you, with those provisos.
:-)

> When I grew up, the consensus in my community ws that our current
> social regime was fair and just. That consensus was wrong. I learnt.

Yeah, don't get me started on what I think has happened to society over the
last few decades. You don't want to "go there" with me. :-)

>> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
>> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones).
>
> What's your main threat; humans accessing your data, or data loss from
> malware or natural corruption?

The latter. The former is nearly non existent.

> How good are your backups?

Fair. Periodically I'll backup most of my critical stuff to a DVD.
(that's about 4.3 GB max, when all is said and done)

> Do you use the Home (as in, a physical location where safety should be
> assumed) or Pro (identity-based permissions) security model?

Home.

> Do you need to host OSs in C: that can't read NTFS?

At this point this is probably N/A for me.

> Do you need to save files larger than 2G?

Not really. Although it can simply some things in video work. But it
seems that most good video apps have an option to break down the DVD .vob
files into relatively small segments, like 1 GB, instead of one large
whopper.

> For me, the answers are; the latter, not so great I'll never need data
> recovery, Home, yes, and no. So I avoid using NTFS.
>
>>>> Tips:
>
>>> 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
>>> 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
>>> 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
>>> 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
>>>
>>> FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
>>> entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
>>> huge default TIF size.
>>
>> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
>
> By default, IE sizes TIF as a % of volume space, so it's easy to get
> a 1G TIF on "one big doomed C:" or 255M on even a "small" C: - and if
> you multiply that across 5 user accounts, it's worse. I use 20-40M.
>
> When a new temp file in TIF has to be created, the name has to be
> unique - so a poutative name has to be checked against all that exist
> to ensure there's no clash. In NTFS, that's reasonably fast because
> the directory structure is indexed (downside: expect raw sector-level
> repair to be tougher). In FATxx, that's slow because the serach is
> linear, from start to end of the dir.
>
> When a temp file in TIF is created, the critical period during which
> the dir is open for writes is longer, in the case of FATxx. A dir
> with, say, 20 000 entries that has grown slowly over time is going to
> be scattered in several cluster fragments across the volume, so the
> critical period will be longer due to the extra head travel.

Well yeah, theoretically. But in practice I don't see it as much of a
problem (for me at home). But then again, I've limited my TIF to 100 MB.

> On a good day, it just works. Not all days are good days.
>
>>> Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
>>> get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
>>> system!
>
>> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
>> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
>> just because I like to).
>
> Defrag will take a long time if there are more files on one huge
> volume, than fewer files on a smaller volume.
>
>> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
>> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
>> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
>
> With a small and lean C:, the head travel impact of fragmentation is
> small, because even in worst-case scenarios, you have no more than
> under a tenth of the head travel (7.9G C: of a 120G HD).
>
>>> 5) Locate shell folders off C:
>>> 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
>>> 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
>>>
>>> Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
>>> tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
>>> security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
>>> NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
>>> NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
>>> system up as NTFS in the first place.
>>
>> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
>
> Yes. Safety is always an issue, but there are better ways to fight
> that battle than NTFS security band-aids, which can work against you
> in a post-penetration scenario. Malware can and do use unique
> features of NTFS, e.g. ADS, permissions lock-out, etc.
>
>>> Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed
2G
>>> in size.
>
>> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
>> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
>
> It comes down to signed or unsigned indexing within the file, and
> that's why I prefer the conservative 2G to best-case/YMMV 4G

Yes, 2 GB is safer to say, especially when you consider that 2 GB copy/move
limitation of Windows Explorer. (It's just that I have had some video
capture programs write files that approached 4 GB, on a few occasions). I
just have to "be on top of it", that's all. But since I don't do this
video stuff all that often, it's not a biggie for me.

For someone heavily into video and DVD work, it might make a lot more sense
to use NTFS.

> To paraphrase some dialogue late in "3 Days of the Condor"...
>
> "Let me tell you how it will be. You will start your PC as you
> usually do, but it will take longer to POST than usual. It may fail
> to start Windows, and when you try to read the HD, the HD LED will
> stay on and you may hear cyclical clanking sounds while the PC appears
> to be locked up." (Von Sydow passes Redford the gun) "For that day."
>
> The "gun" I'd like to have, for the day that I have to recover data
> from a corrupted or dying HD, is a small volume with large clusters
> that is as unfragmented as possible.
>
> And a file system I can approach with raw tools such as DiskEdit.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:25:26 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:44:36 -0600, "Brian A."

> Out of the Box wasn't even a thought

"As shipped is forever":
- most folks leave as duhfault
- most folks don't patch
- any "just re-install" falls back to as-shipped patch levels
- any "just wipe and reinstall" falls back to duhfault settings

To this day, there is such a large resourvoir of unpatched PCs
infected with Lovesan etc. and Sasser etc. that an unpatched XP system
with no firewall is attacked within minutes of connecting to the 'net.

>and Dan mentioned hackers, not viruses.

Many drive-by consumer hacks start with a RAT that's arrived
accidentally. A hacker may then search for RATs he can use, find the
RAT's tail on your infected PC, then settle down to chew on it.

If OTOH you are likely to attract the specific attention of hackers,
then you'd more likely to be up to speed with pro-grade security and
have the infrastructure (e.g. solid backups) to match. In which case,
the security potential of XP is likely to bear fruit.

>Are you saying that a hacker has a better chance of compromising
>an XP machine? An if so would that be based on code or brute force?

Assessment as above.

> Even though the Sasser couldn't infect a 9x system, it could be run on and
>used to infect the intended systems.

I'm not sure on that - do you have a URL there? AFAIK, the only
cross-over were things like SDBot.RPC, i.e. malware that added use of
the exploit to other methods of spread. IOW, a Win9x PC could "catch"
the malware via some other means, spread it via other means, and when
this was spread to NT systems, from there it would spread using the
exploit again. So yes, in such cases, Win9x PCs add to the pool.

> Wasn't the purpose of binding NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP on a LAN to help
>protect systems which many most likely didn't do?

Yes, and that can work very well. It was SOP where the LAN did not
require Internet access, as was common in a DUN world.

Just as XP hasa built-in firewall that you have to turn on, so it is
with protocol air-gap in Win9x; it's there, but not by duhfault.

By duhfault, Win9x binds everything to everything. So your LAN
adapter has all 3 network protocols bound to it, your DUN has all
three protocols bound to it, and both have File and Print Sharing
(F&PS) bound to them if F&PS is enabled at all.

You'd fix that by setting DUN to use only TCP/IP and no F&PS, and LAN
to use only IPX and/or NetBEUI with F&PS in place.

When you add XP to such a LAN, problems arise, because (in my
experience) XP cannot do anything other than TCP/IP in such cases.
I've tried IPX, and the hidden-away "unsupported" NetBEUI; no joy.
I've heard that retro-fitting Win2000's NetBEUI may work better, but
the thought of version soup problems puts me off trying that.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
March 7, 2005 10:25:27 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

This discussion reminds me of a person who is a carrier of a disease but for
whatever reason this person has antibodies in their body that prevents them
from becoming infected. Likewise in this sense it seems that 9x can be a
carrier of Sasser but has so called antibodies that prevents it from becoming
infected. Perhaps the underlying maintenance operating system of DOS
prevents this or maybe the lack of extra services that XPPRO has and it seems
to me these services are usually uneeded and unused especially by the home
user which brings me to the point again about this so-called demise of the 9x
line. Why does Microsoft want to get rid of it. Sure it can be about money,
time and effort but I will fight to keep 9x as long as it is practical. I
await responses to this post and I accept mistakes that I may have made due
to being tired and still learning about the issues from people such as Chris
Cquirke who knows a great deal more than I do.

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:qhon21pkkv84n6lvi339871op00e7g4u13@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:44:36 -0600, "Brian A."
:
: > Out of the Box wasn't even a thought
:
: "As shipped is forever":
: - most folks leave as duhfault
: - most folks don't patch
: - any "just re-install" falls back to as-shipped patch levels
: - any "just wipe and reinstall" falls back to duhfault settings
:
: To this day, there is such a large resourvoir of unpatched PCs
: infected with Lovesan etc. and Sasser etc. that an unpatched XP system
: with no firewall is attacked within minutes of connecting to the 'net.
:
: >and Dan mentioned hackers, not viruses.
:
: Many drive-by consumer hacks start with a RAT that's arrived
: accidentally. A hacker may then search for RATs he can use, find the
: RAT's tail on your infected PC, then settle down to chew on it.
:
: If OTOH you are likely to attract the specific attention of hackers,
: then you'd more likely to be up to speed with pro-grade security and
: have the infrastructure (e.g. solid backups) to match. In which case,
: the security potential of XP is likely to bear fruit.
:
: >Are you saying that a hacker has a better chance of compromising
: >an XP machine? An if so would that be based on code or brute force?
:
: Assessment as above.
:
: > Even though the Sasser couldn't infect a 9x system, it could be run on
and
: >used to infect the intended systems.
:
: I'm not sure on that - do you have a URL there? AFAIK, the only
: cross-over were things like SDBot.RPC, i.e. malware that added use of
: the exploit to other methods of spread. IOW, a Win9x PC could "catch"
: the malware via some other means, spread it via other means, and when
: this was spread to NT systems, from there it would spread using the
: exploit again. So yes, in such cases, Win9x PCs add to the pool.
:
: > Wasn't the purpose of binding NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP on a LAN to help
: >protect systems which many most likely didn't do?
:
: Yes, and that can work very well. It was SOP where the LAN did not
: require Internet access, as was common in a DUN world.
:
: Just as XP hasa built-in firewall that you have to turn on, so it is
: with protocol air-gap in Win9x; it's there, but not by duhfault.
:
: By duhfault, Win9x binds everything to everything. So your LAN
: adapter has all 3 network protocols bound to it, your DUN has all
: three protocols bound to it, and both have File and Print Sharing
: (F&PS) bound to them if F&PS is enabled at all.
:
: You'd fix that by setting DUN to use only TCP/IP and no F&PS, and LAN
: to use only IPX and/or NetBEUI with F&PS in place.
:
: When you add XP to such a LAN, problems arise, because (in my
: experience) XP cannot do anything other than TCP/IP in such cases.
: I've tried IPX, and the hidden-away "unsupported" NetBEUI; no joy.
: I've heard that retro-fitting Win2000's NetBEUI may work better, but
: the thought of version soup problems puts me off trying that.
:
:
: >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
: Never turn your back on an installer program
: >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:qhon21pkkv84n6lvi339871op00e7g4u13@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:44:36 -0600, "Brian A."
>
>> Out of the Box wasn't even a thought
>
> "As shipped is forever":
> - most folks leave as duhfault
> - most folks don't patch
> - any "just re-install" falls back to as-shipped patch levels
> - any "just wipe and reinstall" falls back to duhfault settings
>
> To this day, there is such a large resourvoir of unpatched PCs
> infected with Lovesan etc. and Sasser etc. that an unpatched XP system
> with no firewall is attacked within minutes of connecting to the 'net.

I won't disagree with that.

>>and Dan mentioned hackers, not viruses.
>
> Many drive-by consumer hacks start with a RAT that's arrived
> accidentally. A hacker may then search for RATs he can use, find the
> RAT's tail on your infected PC, then settle down to chew on it.

I don't know if I'd call it accidental rather than lack of knowledge and/or
habits. Many hackers use automatic pingers/tracers to identify open ports
worldwide which they put very little effort into. Once notified of an port
and IP, game on.

> If OTOH you are likely to attract the specific attention of hackers,
> then you'd more likely to be up to speed with pro-grade security and
> have the infrastructure (e.g. solid backups) to match. In which case,
> the security potential of XP is likely to bear fruit.

In which case it would take a brute force entry if possible.

>>Are you saying that a hacker has a better chance of compromising
>>an XP machine? An if so would that be based on code or brute force?
>
> Assessment as above.
>
>> Even though the Sasser couldn't infect a 9x system, it could be run on
>> and
>>used to infect the intended systems.
>
> I'm not sure on that - do you have a URL there? AFAIK, the only
> cross-over were things like SDBot.RPC, i.e. malware that added use of
> the exploit to other methods of spread. IOW, a Win9x PC could "catch"
> the malware via some other means, spread it via other means, and when
> this was spread to NT systems, from there it would spread using the
> exploit again. So yes, in such cases, Win9x PCs add to the pool.

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data...

>> Wasn't the purpose of binding NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP on a LAN to help
>>protect systems which many most likely didn't do?
>
> Yes, and that can work very well. It was SOP where the LAN did not
> require Internet access, as was common in a DUN world.
>
> Just as XP hasa built-in firewall that you have to turn on, so it is
> with protocol air-gap in Win9x; it's there, but not by duhfault.

Kind of falls into your assessment of "As shipped is forever".

> By duhfault, Win9x binds everything to everything. So your LAN
> adapter has all 3 network protocols bound to it, your DUN has all
> three protocols bound to it, and both have File and Print Sharing
> (F&PS) bound to them if F&PS is enabled at all.
>
> You'd fix that by setting DUN to use only TCP/IP and no F&PS, and LAN
> to use only IPX and/or NetBEUI with F&PS in place.
>
> When you add XP to such a LAN, problems arise, because (in my
> experience) XP cannot do anything other than TCP/IP in such cases.
> I've tried IPX, and the hidden-away "unsupported" NetBEUI; no joy.
> I've heard that retro-fitting Win2000's NetBEUI may work better, but
> the thought of version soup problems puts me off trying that.

I thought XP used NetBIOS over TCP/IP? I can't say it's odd that IPX/SPX or
NetBEUI didn't work out although many say to use em.

--

Brian A.

Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
!