Merits(?) of Win98 - split from "[Poll] ... lose win 95/98?"

[dunno]

anyone running win9x is doing themselves a huge disservice, from a security and support aspect.

[rumsfeld]

The demise of Win 98 is greatly exaggerated.

The Windows 98 community is alive and well.  See e.g. http://www.msfn.org/board/Windows-95-98-98SE-ME-f8.html

For a very large community, Win 98 has in fact proven itself stable, secure, speedy, and  reliable with low maintenance costs in spite of theoretical advantages of XP and Vista.  It doesn't waste cycles every time an electron passes over the bus to make sure you aren't looking at or watching something Bill Gates or Jack Valenti don't want you to see or hear.  The practical problems with both have undermined and limited their theoretical advantages.

Many are like me, they have been intending to upgrade to Linux for several years now.  A month ago, I was finally ready to put out $30 for the Slackware Linux book.  Then I discovered a new edition is coming out this year.  I have a new excuse for doing nothing at the moment.

Shortly after XP came out, I figured upgrading would cost me around $1,200 in upgrade fees.  I wasn't sure it was worth it.  I decided to stay where I was.  Since then, I have watched XP users contend with patches upgrades, and worry about what the latest patch will break.  I am glad I have not wasted any portion of my life with such nonsense, other than watching from the side lines. I am glad I kept my $1,200.

The first question is what would be gained.  Lots of functions in Xplorer2 now only work with some versions of Windows.  If some function requires something unique to later Windows, what is wrong continuing the past pattern?

[wasker]

If some function requires something unique to later Windows, what is wrong continuing the past pattern?

The fact that some time has to be spent on figuring out whether this or that function will work on the platform which is not supported by its vendor is a major drawback of the past pattern. See, to support a bunch of cheapskates (and this is a very small bunch, BTW!), you suggest the rest of us wait until x2 will catch up with Vista and W7? I would say, you guys, as you decided to sit and wait with $1200 in your pocket, may sit and wait with the old version of x2 as well.

[Cosmo]

There could be much said about this argumentation. I doubt about the $1200 upgrade fees, but it may be true in rare cases.

I also do not see an argument for continuing developent with 9x in mind, if you argue, that you will sooner or later switch to Linux.

But this one can not be stand alone:

Since then, I have watched XP users contend with patches upgrades, and worry about what the latest patch will break.  I am glad I have not wasted any portion of my life with such nonsense

In other words: You say, that you prefer to stay with an old, in it's main architecture far more insecure OS, because you do not have to worry about security patches, because there are no since some years.

In the contrary, the insecurity of 9x-platforms is a main argument, to not giving the wrong fealing, that they are actual OS's. They are not. With the same argumentation one could request for a continued development of a Norton Commander for MS-DOS clone. Quite undoubtly there is no security patch for this OS that will bother you.

Taken only the closed security holes in Internet Explorer, which persist in 9x systems, makes clear, how many of them are open in your OS (even if you do not activly use IE). And before I hear Firefox: The actual FF3 does also not support 9x, the last updates for FF2 are from the end of the last year and there will be no updates for this version.

Regarding OS patches break applications. Yes, this may happen. But in 95%+ this occurs because of non-patched Windows', not because of patched ones. In other cases it happens because of mis-configured Windows-system. But it sounds logical, that you do not know this, because you said yourself, that you do not use this and consequently have no own experience. You only believe that, what other's write and you are not able to decide, what complain comes from which reason. There are hundreds of millions XP+ systems worldwide, but you may have read from some ten or mostly some hundred. What about the other hundreds of millions XP+ users, where the system works? No, your argument is the nonsense, that you liked to name keeping an OS up-to-date. Non-patched OS's are a main source for zombie systems, which catapult malware of all kinds all over the World-Wide-Network (aka Internet). Your argumentation leads me to vote for dropping 9x support (in contrast to my previous post in this thread).

[nikos]

windows 98 is possibly more secure because it is so old that no new viruses are written for it anymore

just to give you an idea, i have an old laptop with windows 98 just to test xplorer2 and after i run xplorer2 the start button crashes along with windows explorer  :shock:

[Cosmo]

windows 98 is possibly more secure because it is so old that no new viruses are written for it anymore

Believe it or not. I never found such confirmation confirmed by the known security companies. BTW: Old malware is still active.

At least all vulnerabilities for IE (I did already mention them above) are fully valid for 9x, but are and will not be patched since about 5 years.

(Of course, a testing machine, probably not connected with the Internet, is secure, but rumsfeld stated, that he at now only uses W98 for daily work and the post shows, also for Internet.)

[rumsfeld]

Cosmo wrote:

>There could be much said about this argumentation. I doubt about the $1200 upgrade fees, but it may be true in rare cases.

You are assuming that upgrading requires only one license.  For three seats, $400 per machine is not a high figure at all.  I don't consider multiple computers a "rare case."

Cosmo wrote:

>I also do not see an argument for continuing development with 9x in mind, if you argue, that you will sooner or later switch to Linux.

You missed the point that sooner or later began five years ago for me and may be five years from now at the rate I am going.

Cosmo wrote:

>But this one can not be stand alone:

>rumsfeld wrote:

>>Since then, I have watched XP users contend with patches upgrades, and worry about what the latest patch will break.  I am glad I have not wasted any portion of my life with such nonsense


>In other words: You say, that you prefer to stay with an old, in it's main architecture far more insecure OS, because you do not have to worry about security patches, because there are no[ne] since some years.

That's correct.  I have more valuable things to do with my time becoming than a patch update expert to make sure  the next one doesn't hose me.  There's more to life than computers.

This is also a widespread sentiment within the Mac community, where people pay premium prices for Apple hardware to avoid PC problems.

>In the contrary, the insecurity of 9x-platforms is a main argument, to not giving the wrong fealing, that they are actual OS's. They are not.

I couldn't care less whether Win 98 qualifies as an "actual operating system."

>With the same argumentation one could request for a continued development of a Norton Commander for MS-DOS clone.

No continuing MS-DOS clone community exists.  The Win 98 community remains very much alive.  They have even developed a Win 98 upgrade in which you upgrade the 98 base with Win ME dll's without covering up DOS.  An Open Source 98 remains a possibility.


Cosmo wrote:

>Taken only the closed security holes in Internet Explorer, which persist in 9x systems, makes clear, how many of them are open in your OS (even if you do not activly use IE). And before I hear Firefox: The actual FF3 does also not support 9x, the last updates for FF2 are from the end of the last year and there will be no updates for this version.

I use Opera, which continues to support Win 98.  I never go near ActiveX.  I also never look at html email.


Cosmo wrote:

>Regarding OS patches break applications. Yes, this may happen. But in 95%+ this occurs because of non-patched Windows', not because of patched ones. In other cases it happens because of mis-configured Windows-system. But it sounds logical, that you do not know this, because you said yourself, that you do not use this and consequently have no own experience.

I fear M$ screwups just as much as I do anything else.

Let's look at part of the record of M$ screwups:

http://windowssecrets.com/2008/02/28/06 ... or-Windows

http://windowssecrets.com/2008/05/15/07 ... -based-PCs

All of my computers are AMD.

http://windowssecrets.com/2008/06/05/04 ... prime-time

http://windowssecrets.com/2009/02/14/02 ... Basic-apps

I have some of those.

http://windowssecrets.com/2009/03/12/07 ... 03-patches

http://windowssecrets.com/2009/04/09/02 ... indows-Pcs


Cosmo wrote:

>Non-patched OS's are a main source for zombie systems, which catapult malware of all kinds all over the World-Wide-Network (aka Internet).

In the Win 98 community, this isn't a cry often heard.

Among people still using 98, they consistently say they do so because it is secure, reliable, and stable.  That has become an established, empirical fact not refuted by abstract contentions from of the M$ propaganda machine.

No one has disputed 98's lower operating system overhead.

[Cosmo]

I think, this is the by far worst to read long posting I have seen since long time. I do not bother to go into details. But some things are really unmasking:

We hear now, that those $1200 are for multiple machines. Hm, I wonder, how anybody could expect this if originally it was said:

I decided to stay where I was.
I am glad I kept my $1,200.

This means, even the most simple description of the situation was misleading! What do we hav to expect, if it gets more in details?

But this does mean now, that there seems to be small network (probably for commercial use) in the stone-age of W98. Oh boy. And the owner / admin (?) tells here, that he has "more valuable" things to do than keeping the system up-to-date. So he stays with an old, not-patchable OS. And that as an argumentation for that OS!!! Oh boy.

Next we see, that there seems to be no knowledge about the system ("I use FF.") and at the end we get some links for paid articles!!! (I only checked the first.) Oh boy. (Note: FF 2 does also get no patches any more, so insecurity in consequence.)

Then the closing invoice: "W98 is secure, reliable and stable" (as I understand this, this is meant in opposite to XP+). Much fun.

[Fredledingue]

W98 users like myself are very few, but we are all happy to run. We are sort of a small community.
We do it by choice (we hate XP with a passion ) and many of our computers are modern ones, with more than 1Gb of memory, 400 Gb drives, and other stuffs you would never imagine it was possible to run with W98.

Now if you need to drop support for w98 for whatever reason, we will understand that. Everybody does it one day or another anyway.

Just please keep a last w9x compatible version available on your website. That would be very cool.
Even if it's a lite version.

Also please don't block the installation process on w98 because w98 is an OS in constant evolution and new versions may still work on it in the future.

Best Regards

[Fredledingue]

windows 98 is possibly more secure because it is so old that no new viruses are written for it anymore  

Maybe. Nobody said it was difficult to create a virus for w98 (after all viruses started during the w98 era) but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.
Anyway for some reason, I'v never seen a virus on my w98 machine for ages.

just to give you an idea, i have an old laptop with windows 98 just to test xplorer2 and after i run xplorer2 the start button crashes along with windows explorer

A reinstall followed by applying uSP3 or MDCU (see here) and the up to date patches will solve the problem.

[Cosmo]

after all viruses started during the w98 era

technically and historically wrong

but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.

Pure nonsense. In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems. (What else shall one expect from someone, who says, that he hates XP. Everybody is free to love and hate what he wants, but this not suitable to tell anything about vulnerability or any other technical aspects.)

Anyway for some reason, I'v never seen a virus on my w98 machine for ages.

No virus, worm or any other malware here on a couple of XP-machines. If this kind of "argumentation" would be of any worth, there would exist no virus at all. There is surely at least one machine to be found in the world with every OS, that not got infected.

[Fredledingue]

In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems.

Yeah, very effective protection indeed. With 1068 infected computers per 1000 (more than one virus per PC), according to Microsoft's own datas. ROTFLMAO! :D

[johngalt]

but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.

Pure nonsense. In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems. (What else shall one expect from someone, who says, that he hates XP. Everybody is free to love and hate what he wants, but this not suitable to tell anything about vulnerability or any other technical aspects.)

Although all the NT-based OSs have the *ability* to self-protect, you're forgetting one *major* aspect - that the XP installer still, to this day, installs and makes you an administrator, with free, unreserved access to any and all parts of the system.  Most users do not understand that this is a bad thing in terms of PC security as it allows all processes, both benign *and* malignant, to operate freely on their systems.  Furthermore, many applications that were developed to run on XP were done so with the attitude that they *needed* admin rights to run.  More often than not, things like driver updates, applications that make use of writing data to the Program Files folder (and there are tons in this category) and applications that make use of System data will require administrative privileges - however, if you run your account as a LUA you're locked out of being able to perform those actions.  While I rightly agree, this is a necessary thing, most users do not see it that way - ergo, the massive outcry against the Vista UAC method meant to *automatically* protect the user from himself or herself.

Furthermore, it has become trivial to turn off UAC in both Vista and Windows 7 - I personally do not, b/c I prefer the security rather that the bullheaded approach that so many users take, that this is *their* machine and they should be allowed unbridled access to anything and everything on their system.

Because of the methodology used to install and setup XP, and because the average user was used to a non-multi-user-environment with the previous Win9X series, XP ran afoul of people like me - who see it as the bane of my existence *not* because it is inferior to previous OSs, but because it was poorly designed by M$ and released to an unsuspecting public who had, for the most part, no friggin clue on how to protect themselves.

Anyway for some reason, I'v never seen a virus on my w98 machine for ages.

No virus, worm or any other malware here on a couple of XP-machines. If this kind of "argumentation" would be of any worth, there would exist no virus at all. There is surely at least one machine to be found in the world with every OS, that not got infected.[/quote]

And I have friends who run Vista who have never been infected*and* do not use AV software or AM software on their machines at all.

You're right - this sort of argument is irrelevant.

In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems.

Yeah, very effective protection indeed. With 1068 infected computers per 1000 (more than one virus per PC), according to Microsoft's own datas. ROTFLMAO! :D

You're also not considering the massive proliferation of computers in the household that also occurred during this exact same time that XP was out and about, as well as the rise of broadband connections.

In the 90s, not everyone had a computer.  Heck, even today not everyone has a computer.  Those of us with computers were using dialup.  Heck, in 1997, I was still only able to get a 26400 baud connection even though I had a 56K modem b/c of the analog to digital and digital to analog converters in the line between my house and the POP....Back then it was a lot harder to get a virus simply b/c it took too dang long to DL the things.  

However, in this past decade broadband availability has increased tremendously - in 2001 I was with RoadRunner, on a 3 Mbps connection, and now I am on Cox, with an advertised 15 MBps connection (giving me between 22 and 31 MBps in actual speeds)....

Also, the world got a lot more connected b/c of broadband - and thus even more computers were sold - "Get one for grandma so she can use her web cam and email and IM and stay in touch with the family...." and "The laptop that plays when you want to play and works when you want to work - wherever you go." are slogans that were being used repeatedly, (perhaps not in verbatim, but still, close enough) throughout this decade.

Add to that the that availability of computers thanks to companies like HP, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, Acer, Toshiba, etc., and even names that are now defunct, like Packard-Bell, NEC, IBM, etc. - and you have a massive proliferation of both computers and broadband to users who have either never used a computer before, or at the very least, never owned a computer - and all of this by word of mouth ("You know, I just click here and run this and presto!  I can share my pics with my mother in St. Louis!  It's that easy!"

You cannot just point to the fact that XP is the most infected OS out there.  You also have to take into account the relevant facts associated with the proliferation of malware.  It stopped being a scriptkiddie game of trying to one up your best friend and turned into an *enterprise* of identity theft and bot net generation.  More and more criminals are cashing in on the OS< and yet more and more people are *screaming* that we can pry XP from their "cold, lifeless fingers."

Smart people.

[Cosmo]

but XP was so easy to attack that hackers exploited its specific loopholes indeed.

Pure nonsense. In the contrary, NT-based OS - especially W2k+ - have mechanism for self-protection by privilege-management, which do not exist on DOS-based systems. (What else shall one expect from someone, who says, that he hates XP. Everybody is free to love and hate what he wants, but this not suitable to tell anything about vulnerability or any other technical aspects.)

Although all the NT-based OSs have the *ability* to self-protect, you're forgetting one *major* aspect - that the XP installer still, to this day, installs and makes you an administrator, with free, unreserved access to any and all parts of the system. ....

John, you are perfectly right with this. The design of the ending phase of the XP-installation process is evidence of incapacity in this respect.

(BTW: Not the fact, that the first account is an admin; this is out of technically reasons mandatory. But the fact, that the XP-installer allows to create up to 5 admin-accounts and that there is no warning for the user (e.g. a balloon tip like the idiotic balloon for the "XP-tour") to use this account only for administrative purposes.)

But this was not the point here. Fredledingue tried to portray W98 as superior in aspect of safety, and that is pure nonsense, because W98 does not even have the said mechanism. (Even if the user in XP+ does not use them, both would be nearer to each other, but W98 never superior.)

I have my XP-systems set up to be used in limited accounts (LUA) from the very beginning and it works. There are definitly poorly written programs, but there are also solutions for that problem. SuRun is one of those solutions and very effective. There are other solutions too. The most important thing is, that the shell of the systems keeps limited in privileges.

BTW: If someone tries to write about OS's security, than he has to know about the problem and the solutions, that you mentioned, otherwise he obviously writes about a matter, he has no knowledge about. (This is not about you, but some other posters here.)

[Cosmo]

Yeah, very effective protection indeed. With 1068 infected computers per 1000 (more than one virus per PC), according to Microsoft's own datas. ROTFLMAO! :D

It is usual practice to tell the source (link) for such a statement. Otherwise nobody is able to tell, what you have misunderstood (in the positive case) or faked (in the negative case).

BTW: You missed to tell, that the very majority of infected machines are those, who did not got properly updated! And with this we are back at the starting point: There does not exist patches for 9x-systems since years. They are not patched because patches do not exist. Current example: Conficker. There do exist patches to prevent infection, but for XP and above only. And only for users, who have this patch installed (manually or by AU).