Big Swappout?

Post by DemoDisk
K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
WD 20GB HDD
Radeon 8500 video card
1 GB Crucial RAM
Win98SE
IE 6.00.2800.1106
OE 6.00.2800.1123
I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
then reboot.
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
with it.
Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
on a 40GB hdd.
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
Thanks,
Jm

No problem.
Partition the 20gig in two. Move all wanted file programs to the 2nd
partition leaving only the OS. Then scrap the OS entirely. Then you can
install the 2nd drive into the dell.

OR

You can just transfer the wanted files to the dell via lan cable, or even
SD cards/flash drives, and then wipe the 20gig drive clean and use it in
the dell.

richard

2010-04-12 20:00:51 UTC

Just curious, have you tried clearing the temp files cache?

DemoDisk

2010-04-12 22:14:17 UTC

Post by richard

Post by DemoDisk
K8N Neo2 Platinum motherboard (MS-7025)
AMD Athlon64 3000+ w Intel MMX Technology
Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
WD 20GB HDD
Radeon 8500 video card
1 GB Crucial RAM
Win98SE
IE 6.00.2800.1106
OE 6.00.2800.1123
I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
loong time. Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
then reboot.
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
with it.
Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
on a 40GB hdd.
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move œ a ton of files over?)
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
Thanks,
Jm

Just curious, have you tried clearing the temp files cache?

Every time the rig crashes, I boot into safe mode, click IE Properties
and clear the temp files and cookies. No effect, AFAICT.

Then I use Scandisk/manual error correction to see what it found.
Sometimes an error, sometimes none.

When Scandisk finds errors, they're usually about the boot area, the
cleanup.log, lost file fragments. I don't know which of them would cause
IE to lock up, but I SAVED THE ERROR MESSAGES.
Y'know...in case anyone wants to see em.

BTW, I also have Spyware Blaster, Spybot S&D, and SuperAntiSpyware and
keep them updated. No indications of viruses.

Thanks for listening.

wisdomkiller & pain

2010-04-12 21:51:05 UTC

Win98 was nice for dos applications, when there were.
Now we use dosbox or dosemu in linux for these old games.

Post by DemoDisk
Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
on a 40GB hdd.
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move � a ton of files over?)

Win98 may even boot in safe mode, with the dell, and detect the new
hardware (though hard to find drivers). But it will get cluttered and
messed up even more so. I certainly doubt it will run more stable.

Post by DemoDisk
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)

So install win98 on the Dell. A fresh one.
Or, try out linux.

Post by DemoDisk
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?

Why win7 on the worn-out underpowered dell? Stay with XP.
A upgrade without full reinstall would not cure anything and is not
supported from xp to '7.
There may be a recovery partition on the Dell HD but it will install the
old norton as well, most certainly.
Or try to get a recovery xp cd from Dell.
Don't try another one with the productkey on the sticker, it's a oem
locked version.
Oh, and forget to move the xp from a dell (intel?) to a amd. It won't
work.

98 Guy

2010-04-13 00:15:10 UTC

I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made Firefox
2.0.0.20 their default browser.

Firefox should have been your default browser for the past 3 years.

It's no secret that IE6 is a terrible browser for *any* OS, including
win-2k and XP. Regardless if it's fully patched and operational.

It's just a bad browser, and it's the bane of web designers.

And why are you running a win-98 machine with 1 gb of ram? Do you know
the problems that can cause without making certain win-98 system
modifications?

§nühw0£f

2010-04-13 01:22:23 UTC

I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made Firefox
2.0.0.20 their default browser.
Firefox should have been your default browser for the past 3 years.

OffByOne is a better browser for just reading text heavy websites or
where java isnt necessary.

Post by 98 Guy
It's no secret that IE6 is a terrible browser for *any* OS, including
win-2k and XP. Regardless if it's fully patched and operational.
It's just a bad browser, and it's the bane of web designers.
And why are you running a win-98 machine with 1 gb of ram? Do you know
the problems that can cause without making certain win-98 system
modifications?

Heh...turn off virtual memory.

--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \***@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

chuckcar

2010-04-13 17:01:12 UTC

You don't *want* IE6 sp2 for 98. It doesn't work properly. You want the
original release. They both cover the period when MS dropped support for
98. The SP's showed it. Their last one for 98 just screwed up windows.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

Some Guy

2010-04-14 12:53:48 UTC

I need to watch more for numnuts that set followup-to: groups, like this

Post by DemoDisk
I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
for a long time.

I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made
Firefox 2.0.0.20 their default browser.

You don't *want* IE6 sp2 for 98. It doesn't work properly.

I don't know what drugs you're on, but IE6-sp2 can't be installed on
win-98, nor win-2k for that matter.

Only XP and higher.

chuckcar

2010-04-14 23:16:11 UTC

Post by Some Guy
I need to watch more for numnuts that set followup-to: groups, like this

Post by DemoDisk
I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable
for a long time.

I'm curious as to why there are win-98 users that haven't made
Firefox 2.0.0.20 their default browser.

You don't *want* IE6 sp2 for 98. It doesn't work properly.

I don't know what drugs you're on, but IE6-sp2 can't be installed on
win-98, nor win-2k for that matter.
Only XP and higher.

Having troubles with your nicks are you Aardvark?

And you're wrong anways. It says *specifically* under Overview that it's
for people who have an *earlier* version of windows than XP. As well
it actually lists below the versions of windows it's meant for.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=1E1550CB-5E5D-48F5-B02B-20B602228DE6&displaylang=en#Requirements

It's actually IE 6 SP1, not SP2, but there *is* no IE 6 SP2 anyways.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

98 Guy

2010-04-15 04:19:32 UTC

Post by Some Guy
I need to watch more for numnuts that set followup-to: groups,

Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution - numb nuts?

Post by chuckcar
And you're wrong anways. It says *specifically* under Overview
that it's for people who have an *earlier* version of windows
than XP.

Yes. XP originally came with IE6-SP1. Then MicroShaft came out with
something it called "IE6 - Security Version 1" (or SV1) as part of
XP-SP2. But most people simply called it "IE6-SP2".

IE6-SP2 can only be installed on XP and higher (perhaps only on XP-SP1
and higher).

Post by chuckcar
It's actually IE 6 SP1, not SP2, but there *is* no IE 6 SP2
anyways.

Wrong.

Technically, Microsoft called it SV1, but most people call it SP2.

chuckcar

2010-04-15 22:31:01 UTC

Post by Some Guy
I need to watch more for numnuts that set followup-to: groups,

Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution

Don't know how to use usenet? I use *only* this group, so I naturally
set the followup to this group so I don't get replies to a shitload of
groups I never read messages in. Ditch the attitude until you know what
you're talking about.

Post by chuckcar
And you're wrong anways. It says *specifically* under Overview
that it's for people who have an *earlier* version of windows
than XP.

Yes. XP originally came with IE6-SP1. Then MicroShaft came out with
something it called "IE6 - Security Version 1" (or SV1) as part of
XP-SP2. But most people simply called it "IE6-SP2".
IE6-SP2 can only be installed on XP and higher (perhaps only on XP-SP1
and higher).

Post by chuckcar
It's actually IE 6 SP1, not SP2, but there *is* no IE 6 SP2
anyways.

Wrong.

Not the version *I* was talking about. What you're talking about doesn't
matter a shit as we're dealing with a 98SE computer here.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

98 Guy

2010-04-15 23:22:14 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution

Don't know how to use usenet?

I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I think I
know how to use usenet.

Post by chuckcar
I use *only* this group,

That's nice. Which group is that?

This thread was posted to 3 groups by the OP as far as I know.

Only the OP can rightfully set a follow-up group if he wants. Normally,
others that participate in a thread do not set a follow-up group in
their reply unless they fundamentally change the nature of the thread.

Post by chuckcar
so I naturally set the followup to this group so I don't get
replies to a shitload of groups I never read messages in.

Strange way to look at it. You are NOT getting replies from all the
groups that you don't normally read. Posts made to those other groups
stay right where they are - except for posts made to *this thread*.

Post by chuckcar
Ditch the attitude until you know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Post by chuckcar
Not the version *I* was talking about. What you're talking
about doesn't matter a shit as we're dealing with a 98SE
computer here.

To re-cap:

Win-98 runs the same version of IE6 as Win-2K does, which is IE6-SP1.

Microsoft has been supporting IE6-SP1 continuously, even since the end
of their official support for win-98 (July 2006). The patches that
Microsoft has been making for IE6-SP1 are compatible with and can be
installed on win-98. These can be obtained by downloading the IE6
rollup patches that Microsoft makes for win-2k.

Microsoft has also been supporting IE6-SP2, but that version can't be
installed on win-2k or win-98.

Later this year, Microsoft will end support for win-2k, and presumably
this will also mean the end of patches for IE6-SP1. If so, it will also
mean that, practically speaking, there will be no more new exploits
being discovered and used against IE6-SP1.

chuckcar

2010-04-16 00:20:51 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
Is there a reason you keep resetting the group distribution

Don't know how to use usenet?

I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I think I
know how to use usenet.

Nope. Not even close. And I *really* doubt your figure either.

Post by chuckcar
I use *only* this group,

That's nice. Which group is that?

The only group you got in my reply of course.

<big snip>

Well seeing as I see *absolutely* no effort on your part to fix the op's
problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you. Ever. Again.
bubye.

And in addition if you knew squat about the subject or this group, you'd
realize just how much of an uphill battle you have arguing with me on
this subject.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

98 Guy

2010-04-16 00:49:45 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I
think I know how to use usenet.

Nope. Not even close.

Sorry to hear that you haven't been posting to usenet as long as I
have.

Or as you put it - "not even close".

Post by chuckcar
Well seeing as I see *absolutely* no effort on your part to fix
the op's problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you.

I replied to the OP and gave him this advice:

1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
the system ram down to 512 mb.

2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.

The OP has shown no indication of reading or trying my proposed
solutions.

Post by chuckcar
Ever. Again.
bubye.

Thank you for waving the white flag of surrender.

I'll still be here when you post your next reply.

DemoDisk

2010-04-16 19:22:12 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
I've been posting to usenet since, oh, about 1988, so yes, I
think I know how to use usenet.

Nope. Not even close.

Sorry to hear that you haven't been posting to usenet as long as I
have.
Or as you put it - "not even close".

Post by chuckcar
Well seeing as I see *absolutely* no effort on your part to fix
the op's problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you.

1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
the system ram down to 512 mb.
2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.

IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
to go reread your post.

Post by 98 Guy
The OP has shown no indication of reading or trying my proposed
solutions.

Yeah, the OP is reading everything posted in this thread. I just can't
get back to everyone right away. Sorry.

Running Windows98 with 512MB RAM was getting worse as the web got more
complex. Plus, I'm on dialup (s---!). Mike Easter months ago advised
adding a string ("MaxFileCache=524288") to the System.ini file which
allowed me to install 1GB RAM.

The system seemed to like it better is all I can say, but the
instability issue has grown. Where I would get lockups on occasion
before, it has worsened such that nearly every session in which multiple
windows are open ends with the system locked up and un-responsive. The
only thing possible is to hit the Reset button.

Post by chuckcar
Ever. Again.
bubye.

Thank you for waving the white flag of surrender.
I'll still be here when you post your next reply.

A lot of people are jumping on chuckcar and richard more than they
offering answers to 24hs.hd requests.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2010-04-16 19:57:46 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
the system ram down to 512 mb.

I never heard that one.

Post by 98 Guy
2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.

IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
to go reread your post.

Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer

IE - any of 'em, really - are poor browsers, for a variety of reasons.
One is security; another is non-standard HTML-rendering. You could ask
in an HTML authoring group for lots of details.

Post by DemoDisk
A lot of people are jumping on chuckcar and richard more than they
offering answers to 24hs.hd requests.

But ... they deserve it!

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

98 Guy

2010-04-17 01:44:08 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
the system ram down to 512 mb.

I never heard that one.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/253912

Any win-98 system can handle 512 mb ram with no special settings or
changes (assuming the motherboard can handle that much ram).

Above 512 mb, and especially between 768 mb and 1024 mb there are
usually some things that must be done for stable operation (see above
link).

The changes involve settings in the system.ini file, such as:

[386Enh]
MaxPhysPage=30000

[VCache]
MinFileCache=51200
MaxFileCache=524000

Interference with the AGP video memory can also be a problem. The AGP
memory aperture setting in the BIOS will play a role here.

Post by DemoDisk
IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it?
I'll have to go reread your post.

Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.

I thought that Win 2K came with IE 5.5?

In any case, IE6 was released a few months before XP was launched, and
as such it was made available for win-98 and 2K at that time.

But Microsoft badly botched IE6 from the point of view of web
designers. It broke many web-coding rules, and it is hated by many web
designers because they have to impliment special code in order for their
pages to be properly rendered by IE6. Most web designers want IE6 to
die - they've wanted that for years. There are websites devoted to the
death of IE6.

Version 2.0.0.20 is the last version of Firefox that can be installed on
standard win-98 systems, and it does a much better job at rendering web
content. If you obtain KernelEx for win-98, you can run Firefox version
3 - and other programs that typically require win-2k or higher.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2010-04-17 02:14:07 UTC

Post by DemoDisk
IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it?
I'll have to go reread your post.

Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.

I thought that Win 2K came with IE 5.5?

No, it came with 5.0 .. well, 5.01 actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Internet_Explorer_5

Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

98 Guy

2010-04-17 02:46:18 UTC

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never been
used as the OS for home and soho use.

Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected it to the
internet to install updates and patches, that it almost always became
infected by something before you could patch it.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2010-04-17 11:32:11 UTC

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never been
used as the OS for home and soho use.

I started using NT with version 3.50. It was a lot better than the
DOS-based versions (95, 98, ME).

Post by 98 Guy
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected it to
the internet to install updates and patches, that it almost always
became infected by something before you could patch it.

Most of that started with XP. Google for: windows xp twenty minutes
But if you activated a firewall prior to accessing the 'net, none of
that ever happened.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

98 Guy

2010-04-17 13:12:08 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never
been used as the OS for home and soho use.

I started using NT with version 3.50. It was a lot better than the
DOS-based versions (95, 98, ME).

Not for home or soho users it wasn't.

Post by 98 Guy
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected
it to the internet to install updates and patches, that it
almost always became infected by something before you could
patch it.

Most of that started with XP.

Wrong.

The first version of XP had the same vulnerabilities that win-2k had.

XP was not ready for home / soho use until at least SP-2 in mid-2004.
From an internet-vulnerability POV, it was a horrible OS for the first 3
years of it's life. 2K did not get as much of a negative perception
because very few home and soho users ran it.

It was a national-security crime to foist XP upon the public in the fall
of 2001, and Microsoft should have been charged for treason because of
it.

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
But if you activated a firewall prior to accessing the 'net,
none of that ever happened.

Most home and soho DSL users back in 1999 - 2003 were running DSL modems
that didn't do NAT.

And XP didn't have it's own firewall until SP1.

For home and soho use, NT-based OS's were a complete joke, and they are
responsible for the huge explosion of spam that started in 2003 and
botnets soon after.

Win-98, on the other hand, was never vulnerable to *any* of the 5 or 6
network worms that have emerged over the past 10 years. You can take a
fresh installation of win-98, attach the PC to a non-firewalled internet
connection, and it will not be vulnerable to any exploitation. That's
true today, and has been true for the past 10 years.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2010-04-17 16:35:51 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never
been used as the OS for home and soho use.

I started using NT with version 3.50. It was a lot better than the
DOS-based versions (95, 98, ME).

Not for home or soho users it wasn't.

I was a home/soho Win2K user and I thought it was great, and far more
stable than any of the DOS-based Windows OSes.

I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I hope you remain
happy with your Win98.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

98 Guy

2010-04-17 21:26:11 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never
been used as the OS for home and soho use.

I started using NT with version 3.50. It was a lot better than the
DOS-based versions (95, 98, ME).

Not for home or soho users it wasn't.

I was a home/soho Win2K user and I thought it was great, and far more
stable than any of the DOS-based Windows OSes.

The adoption rate of win-2K for home or non-institutional "tech" user
was initially not very high, owing to cost of the OS and it's
significantly higher hardware requirements compared to 98/ME.

Also, various hardware drivers were slow to come to 2K - most notably
for sound cards.

Many tech and IT people got the impression that 2K was more stable than
98, but if they tried running 2K on the same hardware, with the same
paltry amount of ram and buggy video AGP drivers that was common in 1999
/ 2000, then they'd have a different impression.

Win 9x was severely handicapped by the cost of RAM and bad hardware
drivers when it was introduced, and tech / IT people quickly stepped
over it on their way to 2K and XP, never to revisit it and install / run
it on more capable hardware.

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I hope you
remain happy with your Win98.

I have access to tons of Microsoft software products via MSDN and
technet subscriptions that I have access to, and have had this access
since around 1999. I would not tolerate an OS that was flaky or would
not allow me to perform various tasks on my PC. I stayed with 98
because I did not believe the Microsoft marketing hype about XP, and I
watched as XP suffered one security catastrophe after another over the
years.

The combination of win-98 and Office 2K continues to be a competent and
capable platform for the vast majority of home and soho and office
situations even today. I know this because I manage the IT
infrastructure of a small sci-tech company with a mixed computer
infrastructure, and the win-98 systems do their job and they do it well,
be it in admin, accounting, sales and production roles.

kony

2010-04-18 12:42:12 UTC

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never been
used as the OS for home and soho use.
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected it to the
internet to install updates and patches, that it almost always became
infected by something before you could patch it.

Complete nonsense.

98 Guy

2010-04-18 13:40:02 UTC

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never
been used as the OS for home and soho use.
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected
it to the internet to install updates and patches, that it
almost always became infected by something before you could
patch it.

Complete nonsense.

My, aren't we eager to show how ignorant we are?

Windows 2K and XP were vulnerable to system intrusion / infection simply
by being connected to the internet via these vectors:

- default ADMIN$ share object
- TCP / netbios ports 445, 139
- SMB over TCP vs. SMB over NBT
- SMB (Server Message Block) used for file sharing
- In Windows NT it ran on top of NBT (NetBIOS over TCP/IP)
which used the famous ports 137, 138 (UDP) and 139 (TCP).
In Windows 2000, Microsoft added the possibility to run
SMB directly over TCP/IP, without the extra layer of NBT.
- port 445 - Lioten, Randex, Deloader
- LSASS vulnerablity (ms04-011) -> Sdbot, Sasser
- Remote procedure call (RPC) service (Blaster, Welchia)

These are not exploits that arrive via e-mail or as a result of
web-surfing.

It was a fact that unless you had a network firewall or NAT-enabled
internet connection, that during 2003 - 2004 (possibly earlier) that if
you installed win-2K on a system and connected it to the internet to
download various service packs and patches from Microsoft, that your
system would become infected by various network worms before your
service packs and patches were downloaded and installed.

The same was probably true for XP (pre-sp1). And as we know, during
2005 through 2009 there have been new network worms that could perform
the same infection, except for the fact that NAT-enabled broadband
modems and software firewalls were by then more common.

See also:

CVE-2003-352 Buffer overflow in a certain DCOM interface for RPC
CVE-2003-528 Heap-based buffer overflow in the RPCSS DCOM interface
CVE-2003-533 Stack-based buffer overflow Active Directory functions
CVE-2003-717 The Messenger Service for Windows NT through Server 2003
CVE-2003-812 Buffer overflow in a logging function for WKSSVC.DLL

kony

2010-05-02 17:13:34 UTC

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

The NT family of OS's was a complete joke. It should have never
been used as the OS for home and soho use.
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected
it to the internet to install updates and patches, that it
almost always became infected by something before you could
patch it.

Complete nonsense.

My, aren't we eager to show how ignorant we are?

Not we, just you.

Citing a list of vulnerabilities does not prove it would
become infected. It would be like saying if I leave my back
door unlocked when I go for a walk I will definitely be
robbed... hasn't happened.

Fact is, there is no 100% secure desktop PC OS, so a list of
bugs is foolish as if you pretend there is one with no
bugs... it only takes ONE bug, that's the bug the intruder
purposefully targets per which OS it is.

98 Guy

2010-05-02 19:31:06 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected
it to the internet to install updates and patches, that it
almost always became infected by something before you could
patch it.

Complete nonsense.

Post by 98 Guy
My, aren't we eager to show how ignorant we are?

Not we, just you.

Sez you.

Post by kony
Citing a list of vulnerabilities does not prove it would
become infected.

When was the last time you looked at the logs of your broadband
NAT-modem or router?

If or when you do, you'll see constant attempts to connect to your PC's
netbios ports. Those are coming from infected systems on the net,
trying to spread themselves to other systems.

It's a fact that if you perform a fresh install of win-2K or XP-Gold or
XP-SP1, and give that machine a non-firewalled or non-NAT'd internet
connection, it will become infected with something before your first
Windows Update session is completed.

Post by kony
It would be like saying if I leave my back door unlocked
when I go for a walk I will definitely be robbed... hasn't
happened.

Your analogy needs one more element: There are zombies constantly
roving your neighborhood and checking to see if your door is locked.
You walk away from your house for 20 minutes, with your door unlocked,
and it *will* get entered by a zombie.

Post by kony
Fact is, there is no 100% secure desktop PC OS

That wasn't the point of what I wrote. I never made such a claim.

What I did claim is that under similar circumstances (initial
installation) that Win-98 is *invulnerable* to infiltration and
infection by internet "zombies" (worms) that infect systems that simply
have a live, non-firewalled, non-nat'd internet connection. Windows 2K
and XP-SP0 and SP1 are vulnerable.

Post by kony
so a list of bugs is foolish

I was posting hard, solid evidence to back up my claim above.

Post by kony
as if you pretend there is one with no bugs...

Windows 98 is not, and has never been vulnerable to any of the 6
different varieties or families of network worms that have been
discovered over the past 10 years. There is no pretending involved in
that statement.

Why are you being so dense in the head about this?

If I go beyond considering network worms, it's also a fact that windows
98 is, in general, less vulnerable to a whole host of malware (viruses,
trojans, root kits) compared to NT-bases OS's.

Post by kony
it only takes ONE bug, that's the bug the intruder
purposefully targets per which OS it is.

I'm not sure exactly when OS targeting started to be used during the
exposure and exploitation phase of malware installation, but I would bet
that by the time that started to happen, that windows 98 was not on the
list of targeted OS's.

Andrew Smallshaw

2010-05-03 18:35:30 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
It's a fact that if you perform a fresh install of win-2K or XP-Gold or
XP-SP1, and give that machine a non-firewalled or non-NAT'd internet
connection, it will become infected with something before your first
Windows Update session is completed.

Pure FUD. I have a Win2k development machine here that gets periodic
reinstalls so to be honest it doesn't tend to get patched and
protected as well as it should. It's probably at least six months
since it was last isntalled, but when I ran its first virus scan
a few weeeks ago it was clean. That is a _fact_, not groundless
speculation based on personal prejudice. If your experience is
any different that is more to do with what sites you visit or not
being naturally cautious as to what you click on or download.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
***@sdf.lonestar.org

98 Guy

2010-05-04 01:43:05 UTC

Post by Andrew Smallshaw

Post by 98 Guy
It's a fact that if you perform a fresh install of win-2K or
XP-Gold or XP-SP1, and give that machine a non-firewalled or
non-NAT'd internet connection, it will become infected with
something before your first Windows Update session is completed.

Pure FUD.

I will prove you are an idiot and an ignorant dolt.

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
I have a Win2k development machine here that gets periodic
reinstalls so to be honest it doesn't tend to get patched
and protected as well as it should.

Read carefully what I wrote above.

Note the phrase "non-firewalled" and "non-nat'd".

Do you know what those phrases mean?

Do you know what a nat-router is?

Do you know what sort of broadband internet connection most home users
*didn't* have back during 1999 - 2004?

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
That is a _fact_, not groundless speculation based on personal
prejudice.

You are a child aren't you?

How old were you back in 2001 - 2004?

Were you still in diapers?

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
If your experience is any different that is more to do with
what sites you visit

Do you know what a network worm is?

Do you know that a network worm can get into your system without you
doing any web-surfing?

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
or not being naturally cautious as to what you click on or
download.

Or downloading?

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
Andrew Smallshaw

Come back here after you take a few courses on computer networking
sonny.

And in the mean time, read this:

http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4721

Or do a google search on "internet survival time". Then come back here
and tell me that I'm "prejudiced" against win 2k/XP/etc.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

It hurts to know that win-98 was a more secure OS compared to 2K and XP.

It disturbs you to know that 2K and XP were fully vulnerable to external
intrusion and remote control until August 2004, doesn't it? While
win-98 users were laughing at all you klowns that were being
mind-controlled by Microsoft marketing bullshit.

kony

2010-05-04 06:39:11 UTC

Post by Andrew Smallshaw

Post by 98 Guy
It's a fact that if you perform a fresh install of win-2K or
XP-Gold or XP-SP1, and give that machine a non-firewalled or
non-NAT'd internet connection, it will become infected with
something before your first Windows Update session is completed.

Pure FUD.

I will prove you are an idiot and an ignorant dolt.

Ok, let us know when you finally manage to do so.

Andrew Smallshaw

2010-05-04 11:51:35 UTC

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
Pure FUD.

I will prove you are an idiot and an ignorant dolt.

I'm seeing a pattern emerge here. Make outlandish claims, fail to
back them up but then assert them as fact all the same. When
challenged again fail to back them up and resort to ad hominem
insults. It's nice to see that your argument is so solidly reasoned
that it stands up so well to scrutiny.

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
I have a Win2k development machine here that gets periodic
reinstalls so to be honest it doesn't tend to get patched
and protected as well as it should.

Read carefully what I wrote above.
Note the phrase "non-firewalled" and "non-nat'd".
Do you know what those phrases mean?

I would hope so or those Cisco qualifications I have don't mean
much. That's right - _qualifications_, as in, I've actually studied
this stuff and been shown to be competent, instead of making stuff
up on the spot. Your defence of your claims still does not hold
water - no NAT at all here and it is not behind the firewall on
that network - do you know what "protected" means?

Post by 98 Guy
Do you know what a network worm is?

Do you? It sure doesn't sound like it. The attack vector doesn't
come out of nowhere you know - it has to leverage an existing
service running on the machine...

Post by 98 Guy
Do you know that a network worm can get into your system without you
doing any web-surfing?

...and on Windows 2000 the potentially vulnerable services are
disabled in default trim.

Post by 98 Guy
Come back here after you take a few courses on computer networking
sonny.

See above. Although I might suggest a few course on elementary
comprehension first since most of this post was raising points I
already addressed.

Post by 98 Guy
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4721

Do you want to try that link a second time? Because the one you
posted is not what you claim it to be.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
***@sdf.lonestar.org

Steven Saunderson

2010-05-04 06:38:06 UTC

On Mon, 3 May 2010 18:35:30 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw

Post by Andrew Smallshaw
Pure FUD. I have a Win2k development machine here that gets periodic
reinstalls so to be honest it doesn't tend to get patched and
protected as well as it should.

Hi Andrew,

The story is (was) true. I had some W2k installations trashed when I
went online before installing SP4. After I read about the problem I did
five tests and all installations got trashed within 20 minutes. This
was via dialup so I didn't have the protection afforded by a NAT router.
From memory I think it was the messenger service that received the
corrupting message. I was amazed that anybody would fire off these
messages to all IP addresses continually.

Cheers,

--
Steven

kony

2010-05-04 06:38:20 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
Win2K was so bad that when you installed it and then connected
it to the internet to install updates and patches, that it
almost always became infected by something before you could
patch it.

Complete nonsense.

Post by 98 Guy
My, aren't we eager to show how ignorant we are?

Not we, just you.

Sez you.

Post by kony
Citing a list of vulnerabilities does not prove it would
become infected.

When was the last time you looked at the logs of your broadband
NAT-modem or router?

If one has a NAT modem or router, the entirety of your
argument is gone. Insecurity, holes only exist where you
let them. I ran Win2k 100% secure, if you didn't I can only
suggest you made excuses why you'd rather not do so.

Post by 98 Guy
If or when you do, you'll see constant attempts to connect to your PC's
netbios ports. Those are coming from infected systems on the net,
trying to spread themselves to other systems.

Yes, "attempts". Attempt != success. Unlike some, I do
not rely on an operating system for security, rather
disabling all as a default and only enabling what I consider
secure. In that context, pretty much every OS is quite
secure.

<yawn>

So you claim, but reality is contradicting you. Yes
haphazardly leaving a box on the internet is risky, but that
does not translate into an inherant definite danger if one
is security minded as you imply they should be.

Post by kony
It would be like saying if I leave my back door unlocked
when I go for a walk I will definitely be robbed... hasn't
happened.

Perhaps you should lay off the caffeine. I know what a
zombie looks like and will shoot it on sight.

Post by kony
Fact is, there is no 100% secure desktop PC OS

That wasn't the point of what I wrote. I never made such a claim.
What I did claim is that under similar circumstances (initial
installation) that Win-98 is *invulnerable* to infiltration and
infection by internet "zombies" (worms) that infect systems that simply
have a live, non-firewalled, non-nat'd internet connection. Windows 2K
and XP-SP0 and SP1 are vulnerable.

You overlook one fundamental aspect of security. Nothing is
100% secure, but what is most insecure is that which is
targeted. Win2k is not a popular target anymore, so to
claim its bugs matter more than the bugs of OS that are
targeted, is entirely missing the point and an extreme
confusion about what security is and how to handle it.

Post by kony
so a list of bugs is foolish

I was posting hard, solid evidence to back up my claim above.

Yeah, but not in context.

Post by kony
as if you pretend there is one with no bugs...

Why are you insisting that others who don't have the
problems you pretend "Must be", need to be more concerned
about what you write than what works ok for them?

Post by 98 Guy
If I go beyond considering network worms, it's also a fact that windows
98 is, in general, less vulnerable to a whole host of malware (viruses,
trojans, root kits) compared to NT-bases OS's.

Win98 can't even run for many days at a time despite its
many other weaknessess, I assure you that if someone is
capaable to identify the OS, and seeks to target it, Win98
is owned too, to think of it as some kind of security is
laughable... when the fact is, 99.9% of insecurity is user
choice, browser or email client flaws. Win98 can't even
support the more modern versions of browser or email client
that patch flaws in previous versions.

Post by kony
it only takes ONE bug, that's the bug the intruder
purposefully targets per which OS it is.

Personally, I have no problem securing win98 boxes, win2k,
or thereafter. I find your implied problems more a sign of
being unable to do basic security steps more than anything,
or just a mental block then excuses to follow...

DemoDisk

2010-04-17 05:13:11 UTC

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote...

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

That include the new Windows 7?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2010-04-17 11:33:11 UTC

Post by DemoDisk
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote...

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Win2K was the last good OS from Microsoft.

That include the new Windows 7?

In my opinion, yes. :-)

And is why W2K was my last Microsoft OS. I moved to Linux four years
ago.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul

DemoDisk

2010-04-17 05:10:50 UTC

Post by 98 Guy
1) Running win-98 with 1 gb of RAM will cause problems. Bring
the system ram down to 512 mb.

I never heard that one.

Post by 98 Guy
2) Running IE6 is lame, and has been for the past 3 years at least.
On a win-98 box, run Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead.

IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
to go reread your post.

Win98 came with IE5. So did Windows 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer

I don't recall updating IE; it would have been so long ago. Sad to think
it was actually a downgrade.

Post by Beauregard T. Shagnasty
IE - any of 'em, really - are poor browsers, for a variety of reasons.
One is security; another is non-standard HTML-rendering. You could ask
in an HTML authoring group for lots of details.

Post by DemoDisk
A lot of people are jumping on chuckcar and richard more than they
offering answers to 24hs.hd requests.

But ... they deserve it!

It gets really, really old... Better that those who can offer help focus
on that instead.

chuckcar

2010-04-16 21:06:20 UTC

Post by DemoDisk
IE6 came with Win98, didn't it -- why is it lame to run it? I'll have
to go reread your post.

No, IE 5 came with 98SE. 6 came with Millenium I think.

Post by 98 Guy
The OP has shown no indication of reading or trying my proposed
solutions.

Yeah, the OP is reading everything posted in this thread. I just can't
get back to everyone right away. Sorry.
Running Windows98 with 512MB RAM was getting worse as the web got more
complex. Plus, I'm on dialup (s---!). Mike Easter months ago advised
adding a string ("MaxFileCache=524288") to the System.ini file which
allowed me to install 1GB RAM.
The system seemed to like it better is all I can say, but the
instability issue has grown. Where I would get lockups on occasion
before, it has worsened such that nearly every session in which
multiple windows are open ends with the system locked up and
un-responsive. The only thing possible is to hit the Reset button.

When was the last time you reinstalled windows? With 98 and 98SE
installing it once a year on a wiped drive is pretty well required. If you
no longer have disks for some drivers, you can run setup within windows by
copying the win98 directory over to it's own directory. When you do it
that way, you don't need to know the product key. That's called setup from
the cabs if you want to look it up.

BTW another reason why I use followups is that my new server's admins are
somewhat touchy about people who *don't*. I've gotten obvious error
messages typed by them personally in the past for not doing it.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

Evan Platt

2010-04-16 21:25:47 UTC

Post by chuckcar
When was the last time you reinstalled windows? With 98 and 98SE
installing it once a year on a wiped drive is pretty well required.

Oh crap, here we go again.

So the office I worked in where we ran 98 on all our machines well
over 3 years.. That must have been the exception to the rule, right?

--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

98 Guy

2010-04-17 02:01:01 UTC

Post by chuckcar
When was the last time you reinstalled windows? With 98 and
98SE installing it once a year on a wiped drive is pretty
well required.

Oh crap, here we go again.
So the office I worked in where we ran 98 on all our machines
well over 3 years.. That must have been the exception to the
rule, right?

The last time we installed win-98 on our general-purpose office systems
was in 2006. Those systems have i845 based motherboards with 512 mb
ram, 64 mb nvidia AGP cards and 80 gb hard drives. That's about a dozen
systems. A few have been changed to XP, but we have about 8 still
running based on the initial 2006 setup.

Win-98 got a bad reputation primarily because hard drives were more
error-prone and just plain poor reliability back during the time-frame
1999 - 2003. Hard drives between 1 and 10 gb capacity were the worst.
When a hard drive develops bad sectors and critical system files are
pooched, that's what forces people to re-install win-98.

That fact that people were running 98 on systems with pathetically low
amounts of system ram (and therefore the swap files were helping to kill
those flaky drives) didn't help.

98 Guy

2010-04-17 01:49:55 UTC

Post by DemoDisk
Running Windows98 with 512MB RAM was getting worse as the web got
more complex. Plus, I'm on dialup (s---!).

Win-98 with 512 mb ram is not your problem. That's plenty of ram.

The system I'm typing this on right now has a 2.5 ghz P4 with 512 mb ram
- and I've got a 5 mb adsl internet connection.

Post by DemoDisk
Mike Easter months ago advised adding a string
("MaxFileCache=524288") to the System.ini file which allowed
me to install 1GB RAM.

That was a waste of time. Surfing the net, especially on dialup, on a
win-98 system, does not require 1 gb of ram. 512 mb was plenty.

Post by DemoDisk
The system seemed to like it better is all I can say, but the
instability issue has grown.

Naturally. You need to do way more research when you're running 1gb ram
on a win-98 system. For casual web-surfing and e-mail reading, there
is absolutely ZERO need for that much ram.

Evan Platt

2010-04-16 01:39:39 UTC

Post by chuckcar
Well seeing as I see *absolutely* no effort on your part to fix the op's
problem, I see no reason to continue replying to you. Ever. Again.
bubye.

Yeah, you say that to everyone, and it never lasts.

Post by chuckcar
And in addition if you knew squat about the subject or this group, you'd
realize just how much of an uphill battle you have arguing with me on
this subject.

You know nothing about any subject, chucktard, so yes, arguing with
you is pointless. It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed
person.

--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

chuckcar

2010-04-13 03:56:43 UTC

Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?

Post by DemoDisk
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window
app with it.

So run *nothing* but your firewall, AV software and what you start
yourself.

Post by DemoDisk
Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP
installed on a 40GB hdd.

That drive's going to die. *real* soon. You can't even buy 80 gig drives
new anymore.

Post by DemoDisk
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move œ a ton of files over?)
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I
get it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?

Just shutdown startup and see if you still get these errore. If you
don't, you know it was in the startup and it's not now running.
*Nothing* needs to be running in startup for windows (any version) to
work period.

start->run "msconfig" <enter> uncheck "Load Startup Group Items" click
apply then ok and reboot.

I noticed you are posting to related alt. groups. You'd have better luck
with comp.* IMHO.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

Evan Platt

2010-04-13 04:34:14 UTC

Post by chuckcar
Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?

Have you ever seen a BSOD, chucktard? Quite a few of them display for
all of one second.

Post by chuckcar
That drive's going to die. *real* soon.

Yes. All drives die in 5 years. We get it.

Post by chuckcar
You can't even buy 80 gig drives new anymore.

Really?

http://www.serversdirect.com/product.asp?pf_id=HD3101

http://www.macmall.com/p/Seagate-Hard-Drives/product~dpno~7182909~pdp.eadegcg

Do I need to go on?

Post by chuckcar
I noticed you are posting to related alt. groups. You'd have better luck
with comp.* IMHO.

And you'd have better luck ignoring any advice from chucktard.

--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious and .invalid from my e-mail address.

DemoDisk

2010-04-13 05:57:11 UTC

Post by chuckcar
Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?

Have you ever seen a BSOD, chucktard? Quite a few of them display for
all of one second.

True, and frustrating. But I actually have copied *by hand* a variety of
error messages that didn't vanish. Some of them seem to point at memory
management problems. I say 'seems' bcz, hell, I don't know, which is why
I'm asking here and other ng's.

Post by chuckcar
That drive's going to die. *real* soon.

Yes. All drives die in 5 years. We get it.

Is that something chuckcar repeats? I lurk here a bunch and I didn't
know that.

Post by chuckcar
You can't even buy 80 gig drives new anymore.

Really?
http://www.serversdirect.com/product.asp?pf_id=HD3101

http://www.macmall.com/p/Seagate-Hard-Drives/product~dpno~7182909~pdp.eadegcg

Post by Evan Platt
Do I need to go on?

*aHem* *cough* Well..um.. Hmm,hm-hmm, hmm-hm-hm

Post by chuckcar
I noticed you are posting to related alt. groups. You'd have better luck
with comp.* IMHO.

And you'd have better luck ignoring any advice from chucktard.

Then please send some my way, Evan. Much obliged.

chuckcar

2010-04-13 17:00:41 UTC

Post by chuckcar
Even after a clean install? And the BSOD text was?

Have you ever seen a BSOD, chucktard? Quite a few of them display for
all of one second.

True, and frustrating. But I actually have copied *by hand* a variety
of error messages that didn't vanish. Some of them seem to point at
memory management problems. I say 'seems' bcz, hell, I don't know,
which is why I'm asking here and other ng's.

Post by chuckcar
That drive's going to die. *real* soon.

Yes. All drives die in 5 years. We get it.

Is that something chuckcar repeats? I lurk here a bunch and I didn't
know that.

Take a look at how many posters here talk about getting bad sectors.
Evan is nothing but a useless troll here. About time someone told you
that. Aside from *one* useful wireless networking post I saw here this
week.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

unknown

2010-04-14 08:01:09 UTC

Post by DemoDisk
I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
loong time.

Indeed. It still is.

Post by DemoDisk
Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
then reboot.
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
with it.
Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
on a 40GB hdd.
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
Thanks,
Jm

Both machines need to be thrown in the landfill. Sorry.

Either that or install Linux.

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

DemoDisk

2010-04-14 22:58:03 UTC

Post by unknown

Post by DemoDisk
I'm Still using Windows 98SE. Internet Explorer has been unstable for a
loong time.

Indeed. It still is.

Post by DemoDisk
Becomes unresponsive, finally results in BSOD error msgs,
then reboot.
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
with it.
Possible cure: I just got a donated DELL minitower with WinXP installed
on a 40GB hdd.
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move œ a ton of files over?)
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?
Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
Thanks,
Jm

Both machines need to be thrown in the landfill. Sorry.
Either that or install Linux.

Ya think that maybe it's the damn OS that needs tossing instead?

unknown

2010-04-15 07:39:41 UTC

Post by unknown
Both machines need to be thrown in the landfill. Sorry.
Either that or install Linux.

Ya think that maybe it's the damn OS that needs tossing instead?

Absolutely. Hence the suggestion to install Linux. Don't worry about
the trolls like Even Platt and Peter Foldes BTW, there's jokers in every
group.

--
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

DemoDisk

2010-04-16 06:17:24 UTC

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
Both machines need to be thrown in the landfill. Sorry.
Either that or install Linux.

Ya think that maybe it's the damn OS that needs tossing instead?

Absolutely. Hence the suggestion to install Linux. Don't worry about
the trolls like Even Platt and Peter Foldes BTW, there's jokers in every
group.

I mostly lurk here, but yeah I was getting a little bent out of shape.
Thanks

kony

2010-04-15 21:35:39 UTC

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:16:21 -0500, "DemoDisk"

What do you mean "then reboot"? Do you mean you choose to
reboot or the machine does it by itself?

If you mean the machine does it by itself you do not have an
IE problem, you have hardware instability and might as well
ignore IE until the hardware is stable. Two tests I would
run are Prime 95's Torture Test (large in-place FFTs
setting) for at least a couple hours, and a memtest86+ boot
disc/floppy overnight. Any errors reported would need be
resolved before focusing on the OS or apps like IE.

Post by DemoDisk
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
with it.

Scan the system with popular malware/adware/anti-virus
scanners, in particular looking for BHOs, browser helper
objects many of which are buggy. Remove any you find, even
if it is something you wanted to have installed... until you
find the root cause of the instability but as mentioned
above if machine reboots itself it is probably not IE to
blame by itself.

You might check the motherboard and PSU for failed
capacitors, or of course the other typical things like
failed fans, dust cloggage, etc.

What do you mean "Just swap"? It would help if you
clarified your intentions.

No you cannot just throw an XP installation from another
system into that one and expect it to boot. There ARE ways
to make it work but they are outside the scope of one usenet
post. Briefly if that is your intention, Google search for
(migrate existing XP installation new) and you should get a
few valid results that mention you can add some registry
entries and drivers to the existing XP installation while it
is on its original system /then/ pull the drive and boot XP
in the other system far enough to plug-n-play hardware
differences.

Post by DemoDisk
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK

If the old Norton AV has no new virus definitions it serves
little if any purpose. It might respond faster if you
disable some OS eyecandy and/or have more than 512MB of
memory installed.

Post by DemoDisk
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)

That's not a problem, the license is tied to the system
through that sticker. All you need is to find an
(unmolested) XP installation disc ISO online, for the same
version of windows (for example XP Home SP1, XP Pro, etc).
You will know you have the right version if the product key
is accepted when you enter it during installation...
although you may still need to call MS to activate it if the
bios isn't close enough.

Best bet is checking the popular bittorrent 'sites for a
Dell OEM XP disc of the same version (home or pro).

Post by DemoDisk
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?

It is generally a bad idea to upgrade any, but especially an
old, OS installation to a newer one. However, the old XP
system is certianly underpowered to run Win7 well, even if
you upgrade it to 2GB of system memory it will be less
desirable than keeping XP on it, including if you have to
install XP from scratch.

Post by DemoDisk
Your helpful comments/ideas welcome.
Thanks,
Jm

You have not written much of anything about the PURPOSE
behind all this work. What is the system going to be used
for, I mean the most demanding or esoteric functions? Will
any unique hardware be added that has drivers for only
certain OS? Do you have apps you need to add which aren't
forward or backwards (OS) compatible?

Generally speaking for systems of that age you are best off
with WinXP, and as another person mentioned getting away
from IE 6 in general enough though as mentioned above it is
not likely to be IE in itself that is causing your
instability, rather than other browsers have enough benefits
over IE that salvaging IE6 may not be the best long term
plan... but if you must, you /could/ always do a clean 98
install with IE6 to see if the system is still instable.

DemoDisk

2010-04-17 06:40:15 UTC

Post by kony
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:16:21 -0500, "DemoDisk"

What do you mean "then reboot"? Do you mean you choose to
reboot or the machine does it by itself?

I do it, hitting the Reset button, because by this time the operating
system is completely unresponsive and there's nothing else left to do.

Post by kony
If you mean the machine does it by itself you do not have an
IE problem, you have hardware instability and might as well
ignore IE until the hardware is stable. Two tests I would
run are Prime 95's Torture Test (large in-place FFTs
setting) for at least a couple hours, and a memtest86+ boot
disc/floppy overnight. Any errors reported would need be
resolved before focusing on the OS or apps like IE.

Post by DemoDisk
Every OL session ends that way -- IE gets jammed up waiting for Close
Program dialog box to appear. It takes down every other open window app
with it.

I used to run AdAware, AVG Free, Spybot S&D, and Spyware Blaster,
updated them regularly. For Win98SE there isn't an AdAware or AVG any
more, so I added SuperAntiSpyware. I removed it from the Startup list,
but I still update it and run it occasionally. None of the scans reveal
anything wrong. AVG used to report an error with (I think) KERNEL32.DLL.
I did nothing bcz there was no ill effect.

Post by kony
You might check the motherboard and PSU for failed
capacitors, or of course the other typical things like
failed fans, dust cloggage, etc.

I don't think there are any bad capacitors on this mobo but it's nearly
5 years old. I had run it with œGB of ram, then Mike Easter told me how
to safely install 1GB.

Post by DemoDisk
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP on
it? (and move œ a ton of files over?)

What do you mean "Just swap"? It would help if you
clarified your intentions.

Just like I said; slap er in there and see if it boots. I admit I wasn't
thinking: an Intel installation won't work with an AMD processor, right?

Post by kony
No you cannot just throw an XP installation from another
system into that one and expect it to boot. There ARE ways
to make it work but they are outside the scope of one usenet
post. Briefly if that is your intention, Google search for
(migrate existing XP installation new) and you should get a
few valid results that mention you can add some registry
entries and drivers to the existing XP installation while it
is on its original system /then/ pull the drive and boot XP
in the other system far enough to plug-n-play hardware
differences.

Post by DemoDisk
The XP tower boots and responds slowly, maybe bcz it has old Norton
antivirus installed. There may be other problems, but it works OK

If the old Norton AV has no new virus definitions it serves
little if any purpose. It might respond faster if you
disable some OS eyecandy and/or have more than 512MB of
memory installed.

I had to remove SystemWorks from this PC very soon after buying it.
Disabling a useless Norton AV was my first thought to improving the
donated Dell.

Post by DemoDisk
I have the Win98SE key and installation disk, but only the product key
for WinXP (there's a sticker on the case)

That's not a problem, the license is tied to the system
through that sticker. All you need is to find an
(unmolested) XP installation disc ISO online, for the same
version of windows (for example XP Home SP1, XP Pro, etc).
You will know you have the right version if the product key
is accepted when you enter it during installation...
although you may still need to call MS to activate it if the
bios isn't close enough.
Best bet is checking the popular bittorrent 'sites for a
Dell OEM XP disc of the same version (home or pro).

Dialup. Recently measured a whole 44K d/l speed. Woohoo...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to try, but an unstable IE is just one of
my computing issues : \

Post by DemoDisk
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I get
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?

It is generally a bad idea to upgrade any, but especially an
old, OS installation to a newer one.

What??? Am I understanding you correctly, that you shouldn't install
upgrades? Why? And what *shouId* you do?

Btw, I discovered that the u/g path for Windows 7 stops at XP. I can't
upgrade to 7 from 98SE.

Post by kony
However, the old XP
system is certianly underpowered to run Win7 well, even if
you upgrade it to 2GB of system memory it will be less
desirable than keeping XP on it, including if you have to
install XP from scratch.
You have not written much of anything about the PURPOSE
behind all this work. What is the system going to be used
for, I mean the most demanding or esoteric functions?

I'm just trying to achieve a stable system that can use more ram,
allowing me to access video and audio online -- once I get my poor self
off dialup and onto broadband of some sort. If I can do that, I'll have
a system flexible enough to experiment with other things I haven't even
imagined yet.

Right now my main issues are IE's annoying, frequent lockups, dialup
speed (my ISP's ending service April 30), and some matters of
functionality from using such an outdated OS. I could be mistaken about
the last, but not about the first 2.

Post by kony
Will any unique hardware be added that has drivers for only
certain OS?

AT&T have said that their DSL modems require XP. That's about the only
thing right now.

Post by kony
Do you have apps you need to add which aren't forward or
backwards (OS) compatible?

Well, I have an unused CorelDRAW 10 I'd like to try.

Post by kony
Generally speaking for systems of that age you are best off
with WinXP, and as another person mentioned, getting away
from IE 6 in general enough though, as mentioned above, it is
not likely to be IE in itself that is causing your
instability, rather than other browsers have enough benefits
over IE that salvaging IE6 may not be the best long term
plan... but if you must, you /could/ always do a clean 98
install with IE6 to see if the system is still instable.

Is that possible without losing all of my present configuration
(preferences, bookmarks, and such)?

I apologize for taking so long to respond, kony. Thanks for your effort.
Jm

kony

2010-04-18 12:58:37 UTC

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:40:15 -0500, "DemoDisk"

Post by kony
Scan the system with popular malware/adware/anti-virus
scanners, in particular looking for BHOs, browser helper
objects many of which are buggy. Remove any you find, even
if it is something you wanted to have installed... until you
find the root cause of the instability but as mentioned
above if machine reboots itself it is probably not IE to
blame by itself.

I was referring to things running within IE, plugins,
toolbars, BHOs, etc. If all else fails reinstall IE.

Post by kony
You might check the motherboard and PSU for failed
capacitors, or of course the other typical things like
failed fans, dust cloggage, etc.

I don't think there are any bad capacitors on this mobo but it's nearly
5 years old. I had run it with ½GB of ram, then Mike Easter told me how
to safely install 1GB.

... but did you check?

Post by DemoDisk
If I can't diagnose or solve the instability problem with IE under
Windows 98, could I just swap my old 20GB drive for the one with XP

Post by DemoDisk
it? (and move ½ a ton of files over?)

What do you mean "Just swap"? It would help if you
clarified your intentions.

Just like I said; slap er in there and see if it boots. I admit I wasn't
thinking: an Intel installation won't work with an AMD processor, right?

Which processor it is doesn't matter, it is a matter of XP
being able to finish booting which requires it to identify
and have a driver (supplied or built in) for the hard drive
controller, because at a point in the boot process it
switches over to identifying where it is installed, what
device (drive/partition) on which controller.

Post by kony
Best bet is checking the popular bittorrent 'sites for a
Dell OEM XP disc of the same version (home or pro).

Dialup. Recently measured a whole 44K d/l speed. Woohoo...

I would consider that a bigger problem than IE crashing. :)

Post by DemoDisk
I can't upgrade from 98SE to Windows7. Could I u/g from XP to 7 if I

get

Post by DemoDisk
it running?
Is it advisable to post this in the ms.public.windows NGs?

It is generally a bad idea to upgrade any, but especially an
old, OS installation to a newer one.

What??? Am I understanding you correctly, that you shouldn't install
upgrades? Why? And what *shouId* you do?

A different OS is not an upgrade really, yes you should
patch an OS as you deem necessary but to switch OS versions
it is best to format the partition and install the OS
fresh/clean. Otherwise you may end up with a lot of
clutter, with the same problems persisting, and some things
that formerly worked like apps and drivers may not any
longer.

Post by kony
You have not written much of anything about the PURPOSE
behind all this work. What is the system going to be used
for, I mean the most demanding or esoteric functions?

I'm just trying to achieve a stable system that can use more ram,
allowing me to access video and audio online -- once I get my poor self
off dialup and onto broadband of some sort. If I can do that, I'll have
a system flexible enough to experiment with other things I haven't even
imagined yet.
Right now my main issues are IE's annoying, frequent lockups, dialup
speed (my ISP's ending service April 30), and some matters of
functionality from using such an outdated OS. I could be mistaken about
the last, but not about the first 2.

Win2k/SP3 or XP w/SP1 or later should suffice. As others
have mentioned, moving away from IE6 or older would help,
BUT I still have an old system around here somewhere that
runs IE6 and it isn't quite as much of a problem as others
suggest... it doesn't crash, isn't particularly prone to
being infected (though I seldom use it, with more use the
opportunity for infection goes up) in the grand scheme of
things though as always where you surf determines a lot of
what you are exposed to online.

Post by kony
Will any unique hardware be added that has drivers for only
certain OS?

AT&T have said that their DSL modems require XP. That's about the only
thing right now.

DSL modems don't require a driver AFAIK. They'll tell you
the software that comes in the box needs something but they
may only be referring to a USB driver if that is how you
intend or need to connect it.

Post by kony
Do you have apps you need to add which aren't forward or
backwards (OS) compatible?

Well, I have an unused CorelDRAW 10 I'd like to try.

I've no idea what the OS requirement is for that.