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

Fredledingue · Post by **Fredledingue** » 2009 Apr 13, 00:36

Well, I don't know what to say. I don't have a link for every word I'm typing. I only supposed that you were aware of this stat.
Anyway, it's a secret to no one that XP is terrible about security. Mostly because most of poeple use it under administrator account, I agree, and it's not difficult to make XP relatively safe (with Safe XP etc).
But I can also say that while there isn't the same protection mecanism in w98, there isn't the same infection mecanism neither.

It's also not true that the last w98 patch is many years old: There has been 15 updates for w98 in the last 12 months, thought not all security-related and obviousely non-officials but patches nonetheless.
It's also incredibly easy to recover a broken w98: back up all the files to a dvd and when you need to restore your system, copy them back to the HD, apply a registry back up and voila.
If the system is not responding, you can do it in DOS. Hehehe.

Cosmo · Post by **Cosmo** » 2009 Apr 13, 11:38

Fredledingue wrote:Well, I don't know what to say. I don't have a link for every word I'm typing.

That would be really unreadable. Just for your wrong / misunderstood deceptive statements would be enough. But obviously you do not do that even after my demand.

Fredledingue wrote:Anyway, it's a secret to no one that XP is terrible about security.

It is your very own secret. In fact this is wrong.

Fredledingue wrote: Mostly because most of poeple use it under administrator account, I agree, and it's not difficult to make XP relatively safe (with Safe XP etc).
But I can also say that while there isn't the same protection mecanism in w98, there isn't the same infection mecanism neither.

You did not even notice, that you contradicted with this last statement your own allegations. I spoke about the security of architecture, not about insecurity because of wrong usage. But you described it with your own words:

Fredledingue wrote:Well, I don't know what to say.

Fredledingue wrote:It's also not true that the last w98 patch is many years old: There has been 15 updates for w98 in the last 12 months, thought not all security-related and obviousely non-officials but patches nonetheless.

Wrong again. Windows is no open source. No one can patch Windows except MS or (theoretically) somebody, who got the source code by them. What you named are hacks!

Fredledingue wrote:If the system is not responding, you can do it in DOS. Hehehe.

Ever heard about the recovery console?

Post by **nikos** » 2009 Apr 13, 11:58

ok guys, try to keep a cool head!

johngalt · Post by **johngalt** » 2009 Apr 14, 06:43

I thought I did well to keep a cool, level head and yet make my points...

And I am saying this not b/c I think Nikos was talking to me, but b/c I have known to be hot headed before - I'm actually proud of myself this time!

Fredledingue · Post by **Fredledingue** » 2009 Apr 15, 22:23

Cosmo, XP is horrible for security (even now) by Microsoft's own admission and everybody knows that. That's why tey created UAC and included an antivirus in Vista.

The unofficial updates for w98 (and even w95!) since they dropped support, are mostly taken from updates for other versions of windows (2000 or XP).
They are no hack.

johngalt · Post by **johngalt** » 2009 Apr 18, 02:18

Actually, they created UAC b/c they knew that the user needs to have admin level privileges to install everything. and that creating a non-admin level user with no easy way to elevate to install applications and perform other admin level tasks was not only going to be nearly impossible, but would raise an outcry louder than most ever heard....