Big Swappout?
in [Windows 98]
|
Prev: Install on 4MB RAM?
Next: Windows 98 - A Decade Later
From: kony on 18 Apr 2010 08:58 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 01:40:15 -0500, "DemoDisk" <packrat(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> 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 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. I was referring to things running within IE, plugins, toolbars, BHOs, etc. If all else fails reinstall IE. >> 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 �GB of ram, then Mike Easter told me how >to safely install 1GB. .... but did you check? > > >> >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?) >> >> 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. >> 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. :) >> >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? 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. >> 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. > >> 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. > >> 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. > > >> 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)? By clean installation I was referring to formatting the drive partition first which wipes out everything. You'd have to back up all those files and settings first. However someone mentioned Firefox, you might install it and see how much it can import... you don't actually need to fix IE in order to switch over to using Firefox, although since IE is integrated into the OS a fault in it could effect other uses of the system too... but you didn't mention any so it may not matter.
From: 98 Guy on 18 Apr 2010 09:40 kony wrote: > > > 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
From: kony on 2 May 2010 13:13 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 09:40:02 -0400, 98 Guy <98(a)Guy.com> wrote: >kony wrote: > >> > > 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.
From: 98 Guy on 2 May 2010 15:31 kony wrote: > > 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. Sez you. > 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. > 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. > 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. > so a list of bugs is foolish I was posting hard, solid evidence to back up my claim above. > 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. > 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.
From: Andrew Smallshaw on 3 May 2010 14:35
On 2010-05-02, 98 Guy <98(a)Guy.com> wrote: > > 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 andrews(a)sdf.lonestar.org |