 |
|
|
|
Next: upgrade probs
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Mar 06, 2005
Posts: 145
|
(Msg. 31) Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:35 am
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: microsoft>public>win98>gen_discussion (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:44:36 -0600, "Brian A."
> Out of the Box wasn't even a thought
"As shipped is forever":
- most folks leave as duhfault
- most folks don't patch
- any "just re-install" falls back to as-shipped patch levels
- any "just wipe and reinstall" falls back to duhfault settings
To this day, there is such a large resourvoir of unpatched PCs
infected with Lovesan etc. and Sasser etc. that an unpatched XP system
with no firewall is attacked within minutes of connecting to the 'net.
>and Dan mentioned hackers, not viruses.
Many drive-by consumer hacks start with a RAT that's arrived
accidentally. A hacker may then search for RATs he can use, find the
RAT's tail on your infected PC, then settle down to chew on it.
If OTOH you are likely to attract the specific attention of hackers,
then you'd more likely to be up to speed with pro-grade security and
have the infrastructure (e.g. solid backups) to match. In which case,
the security potential of XP is likely to bear fruit.
>Are you saying that a hacker has a better chance of compromising
>an XP machine? An if so would that be based on code or brute force?
Assessment as above.
> Even though the Sasser couldn't infect a 9x system, it could be run on and
>used to infect the intended systems.
I'm not sure on that - do you have a URL there? AFAIK, the only
cross-over were things like SDBot.RPC, i.e. malware that added use of
the exploit to other methods of spread. IOW, a Win9x PC could "catch"
the malware via some other means, spread it via other means, and when
this was spread to NT systems, from there it would spread using the
exploit again. So yes, in such cases, Win9x PCs add to the pool.
> Wasn't the purpose of binding NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP on a LAN to help
>protect systems which many most likely didn't do?
Yes, and that can work very well. It was SOP where the LAN did not
require Internet access, as was common in a DUN world.
Just as XP hasa built-in firewall that you have to turn on, so it is
with protocol air-gap in Win9x; it's there, but not by duhfault.
By duhfault, Win9x binds everything to everything. So your LAN
adapter has all 3 network protocols bound to it, your DUN has all
three protocols bound to it, and both have File and Print Sharing
(F&PS) bound to them if F&PS is enabled at all.
You'd fix that by setting DUN to use only TCP/IP and no F&PS, and LAN
to use only IPX and/or NetBEUI with F&PS in place.
When you add XP to such a LAN, problems arise, because (in my
experience) XP cannot do anything other than TCP/IP in such cases.
I've tried IPX, and the hidden-away "unsupported" NetBEUI; no joy.
I've heard that retro-fitting Win2000's NetBEUI may work better, but
the thought of version soup problems puts me off trying that.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jul 28, 2004
Posts: 476
|
(Msg. 32) Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:35 am
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
This discussion reminds me of a person who is a carrier of a disease but for
whatever reason this person has antibodies in their body that prevents them
from becoming infected. Likewise in this sense it seems that 9x can be a
carrier of Sasser but has so called antibodies that prevents it from becoming
infected. Perhaps the underlying maintenance operating system of DOS
prevents this or maybe the lack of extra services that XPPRO has and it seems
to me these services are usually uneeded and unused especially by the home
user which brings me to the point again about this so-called demise of the 9x
line. Why does Microsoft want to get rid of it. Sure it can be about money,
time and effort but I will fight to keep 9x as long as it is practical. I
await responses to this post and I accept mistakes that I may have made due
to being tired and still learning about the issues from people such as Chris
Cquirke who knows a great deal more than I do.
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews.RemoveThis@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:qhon21pkkv84n6lvi339871op00e7g4u13@4ax.com...
: On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:44:36 -0600, "Brian A."
:
: > Out of the Box wasn't even a thought
:
: "As shipped is forever":
: - most folks leave as duhfault
: - most folks don't patch
: - any "just re-install" falls back to as-shipped patch levels
: - any "just wipe and reinstall" falls back to duhfault settings
:
: To this day, there is such a large resourvoir of unpatched PCs
: infected with Lovesan etc. and Sasser etc. that an unpatched XP system
: with no firewall is attacked within minutes of connecting to the 'net.
:
: >and Dan mentioned hackers, not viruses.
:
: Many drive-by consumer hacks start with a RAT that's arrived
: accidentally. A hacker may then search for RATs he can use, find the
: RAT's tail on your infected PC, then settle down to chew on it.
:
: If OTOH you are likely to attract the specific attention of hackers,
: then you'd more likely to be up to speed with pro-grade security and
: have the infrastructure (e.g. solid backups) to match. In which case,
: the security potential of XP is likely to bear fruit.
:
: >Are you saying that a hacker has a better chance of compromising
: >an XP machine? An if so would that be based on code or brute force?
:
: Assessment as above.
:
: > Even though the Sasser couldn't infect a 9x system, it could be run on
and
: >used to infect the intended systems.
:
: I'm not sure on that - do you have a URL there? AFAIK, the only
: cross-over were things like SDBot.RPC, i.e. malware that added use of
: the exploit to other methods of spread. IOW, a Win9x PC could "catch"
: the malware via some other means, spread it via other means, and when
: this was spread to NT systems, from there it would spread using the
: exploit again. So yes, in such cases, Win9x PCs add to the pool.
:
: > Wasn't the purpose of binding NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP on a LAN to help
: >protect systems which many most likely didn't do?
:
: Yes, and that can work very well. It was SOP where the LAN did not
: require Internet access, as was common in a DUN world.
:
: Just as XP hasa built-in firewall that you have to turn on, so it is
: with protocol air-gap in Win9x; it's there, but not by duhfault.
:
: By duhfault, Win9x binds everything to everything. So your LAN
: adapter has all 3 network protocols bound to it, your DUN has all
: three protocols bound to it, and both have File and Print Sharing
: (F&PS) bound to them if F&PS is enabled at all.
:
: You'd fix that by setting DUN to use only TCP/IP and no F&PS, and LAN
: to use only IPX and/or NetBEUI with F&PS in place.
:
: When you add XP to such a LAN, problems arise, because (in my
: experience) XP cannot do anything other than TCP/IP in such cases.
: I've tried IPX, and the hidden-away "unsupported" NetBEUI; no joy.
: I've heard that retro-fitting Win2000's NetBEUI may work better, but
: the thought of version soup problems puts me off trying that.
:
:
: >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
: Never turn your back on an installer program
: >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 15, 2004
Posts: 676
|
(Msg. 33) Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews RemoveThis @nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:qhon21pkkv84n6lvi339871op00e7g4u13@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 13:44:36 -0600, "Brian A."
>
>> Out of the Box wasn't even a thought
>
> "As shipped is forever":
> - most folks leave as duhfault
> - most folks don't patch
> - any "just re-install" falls back to as-shipped patch levels
> - any "just wipe and reinstall" falls back to duhfault settings
>
> To this day, there is such a large resourvoir of unpatched PCs
> infected with Lovesan etc. and Sasser etc. that an unpatched XP system
> with no firewall is attacked within minutes of connecting to the 'net.
I won't disagree with that.
>>and Dan mentioned hackers, not viruses.
>
> Many drive-by consumer hacks start with a RAT that's arrived
> accidentally. A hacker may then search for RATs he can use, find the
> RAT's tail on your infected PC, then settle down to chew on it.
I don't know if I'd call it accidental rather than lack of knowledge and/or
habits. Many hackers use automatic pingers/tracers to identify open ports
worldwide which they put very little effort into. Once notified of an port
and IP, game on.
> If OTOH you are likely to attract the specific attention of hackers,
> then you'd more likely to be up to speed with pro-grade security and
> have the infrastructure (e.g. solid backups) to match. In which case,
> the security potential of XP is likely to bear fruit.
In which case it would take a brute force entry if possible.
>>Are you saying that a hacker has a better chance of compromising
>>an XP machine? An if so would that be based on code or brute force?
>
> Assessment as above.
>
>> Even though the Sasser couldn't infect a 9x system, it could be run on
>> and
>>used to infect the intended systems.
>
> I'm not sure on that - do you have a URL there? AFAIK, the only
> cross-over were things like SDBot.RPC, i.e. malware that added use of
> the exploit to other methods of spread. IOW, a Win9x PC could "catch"
> the malware via some other means, spread it via other means, and when
> this was spread to NT systems, from there it would spread using the
> exploit again. So yes, in such cases, Win9x PCs add to the pool.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sasser.b.worm.html" target="_blank">http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sasser.b.worm.html</a>
>> Wasn't the purpose of binding NetBEUI instead of TCP/IP on a LAN to help
>>protect systems which many most likely didn't do?
>
> Yes, and that can work very well. It was SOP where the LAN did not
> require Internet access, as was common in a DUN world.
>
> Just as XP hasa built-in firewall that you have to turn on, so it is
> with protocol air-gap in Win9x; it's there, but not by duhfault.
Kind of falls into your assessment of "As shipped is forever".
> By duhfault, Win9x binds everything to everything. So your LAN
> adapter has all 3 network protocols bound to it, your DUN has all
> three protocols bound to it, and both have File and Print Sharing
> (F&PS) bound to them if F&PS is enabled at all.
>
> You'd fix that by setting DUN to use only TCP/IP and no F&PS, and LAN
> to use only IPX and/or NetBEUI with F&PS in place.
>
> When you add XP to such a LAN, problems arise, because (in my
> experience) XP cannot do anything other than TCP/IP in such cases.
> I've tried IPX, and the hidden-away "unsupported" NetBEUI; no joy.
> I've heard that retro-fitting Win2000's NetBEUI may work better, but
> the thought of version soup problems puts me off trying that.
I thought XP used NetBIOS over TCP/IP? I can't say it's odd that IPX/SPX or
NetBEUI didn't work out although many say to use em.
--
Brian A.
Conflicts start where information lacks.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 25, 2008
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 34) Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:07 am
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I wish they'd send us XP or something to replace it. This PC came out with XP
when XP was new and had all the bugs. I couldn't do a thing with it so I went
back too 98se. Well seeing as how the system didn't come with an XP CD. there
was no way to ever upgrade or re-install it. Kind of like a recall on a
vehichle. Shouldn't thier be a replacement ?
"Bill in Co." wrote:
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
> >
> >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
> >
> >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
> I've
> >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
> >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
> bothers
> >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
> >
> > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
> > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
>
> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32,
> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me,
> sometimes).
>
> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there,
> admitedly).
>
> >>Tips:
> >
> > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
> >
> > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
> > size for best virtual memory performance.
> >
> > There are other goodnesses to a small C:
> > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
> > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
> > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
> > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
> >
> > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
> >
> > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
> > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
> > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
> >
> > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
> >
> > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
> > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
> > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
> > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
> > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
> >
> > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
> >
> > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
> > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
> > huge default TIF size.
>
> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
>
> > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
> > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
> > system!
>
> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
> just because I like to).
>
> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
>
> > 5) Locate shell folders off C:
> >
> > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
> > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
> > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
> > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
> > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
> > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
> >
> > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
> >
> > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
> > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
> > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
> > clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
> > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
> >
> > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
> >
> > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
> > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
> > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
> > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
> > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
> > system up as NTFS in the first place.
>
> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
>
> > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G
> in size.
>
> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
>
> > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
> > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
> > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
> > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
> > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
> >
> > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
> > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
> > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
> > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
> > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
> > choose NTFS for your data set as well.
> >
> > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
> > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
> > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
> > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
> > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
> >
> >
> >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
> > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
> > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
> >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>
> >> Stay informed about: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 25, 2008
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 35) Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:10 am
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are
ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support.
Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP very
first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on
here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no
way to ever re-add it later.
"Bill in Co." wrote:
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
> >
> >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
> >
> >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
> I've
> >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or
> >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
> bothers
> >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
> >
> > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
> > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
>
> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32,
> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me,
> sometimes).
>
> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there,
> admitedly).
>
> >>Tips:
> >
> > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
> >
> > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
> > size for best virtual memory performance.
> >
> > There are other goodnesses to a small C:
> > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
> > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
> > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
> > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
> >
> > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
> >
> > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
> > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
> > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
> >
> > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
> >
> > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
> > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
> > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
> > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
> > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
> >
> > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
> >
> > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
> > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
> > huge default TIF size.
>
> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
>
> > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
> > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
> > system!
>
> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
> just because I like to).
>
> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
>
> > 5) Locate shell folders off C:
> >
> > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
> > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
> > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
> > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
> > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
> > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
> >
> > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
> >
> > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
> > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
> > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
> > clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
> > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
> >
> > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
> >
> > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
> > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
> > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
> > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
> > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
> > system up as NTFS in the first place.
>
> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
>
> > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G
> in size.
>
> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
>
> > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
> > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
> > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
> > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
> > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
> >
> > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
> > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
> > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
> > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
> > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
> > choose NTFS for your data set as well.
> >
> > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
> > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
> > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
> > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
> > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
> >
> >
> >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
> > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
> > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
> >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>
> >> Stay informed about: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 23, 2007
Posts: 386
|
(Msg. 36) Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
What make/model is your machine? If no reinstallation CDs were provided,
then there's probably a hidden partition on your HD that is used to restore
the system. The actual procedures vary, so that's why I ask the make &
model.
Unless you wiped out the Restore partition when you installed 98. Even then,
the vendor will may provide a replacement.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com
"Horns" <Horns DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03CAD96A-7DDB-4838-9BE3-9BE19398081E@microsoft.com...
>I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are
> ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support.
> Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP
> very
> first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on
> here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no
> way to ever re-add it later.
>
> "Bill in Co." wrote:
>
>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>> >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
>> >
>> >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
>> >
>> >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
>> I've
>> >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling
>> >> and/or
>> >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
>> bothers
>> >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
>> >
>> > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
>> > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
>>
>> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use
>> FAT32,
>> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me,
>> sometimes).
>>
>> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
>> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones
>> there,
>> admitedly).
>>
>> >>Tips:
>> >
>> > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
>> >
>> > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
>> > size for best virtual memory performance.
>> >
>> > There are other goodnesses to a small C:
>> > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
>> > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
>> > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
>> > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
>> >
>> > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
>> >
>> > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
>> > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
>> > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
>> >
>> > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
>> >
>> > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
>> > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
>> > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
>> > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
>> > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
>> >
>> > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
>> >
>> > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
>> > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
>> > huge default TIF size.
>>
>> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
>>
>> > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
>> > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
>> > system!
>>
>> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
>> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway,
>> just because I like to).
>>
>> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
>> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to
>> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
>>
>> > 5) Locate shell folders off C:
>> >
>> > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
>> > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
>> > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
>> > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
>> > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
>> > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
>> >
>> > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
>> >
>> > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
>> > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
>> > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
>> > clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
>> > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
>> >
>> > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
>> >
>> > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
>> > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
>> > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
>> > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
>> > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
>> > system up as NTFS in the first place.
>>
>> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
>>
>> > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed
>> > 2G
>> in size.
>>
>> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
>> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
>>
>> > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
>> > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
>> > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
>> > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
>> > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
>> >
>> > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
>> > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
>> > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
>> > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
>> > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
>> > choose NTFS for your data set as well.
>> >
>> > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
>> > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
>> > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
>> > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
>> > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
>> >
>> >
>> >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
>> > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
>> > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
>> >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
>>
>>
>> >> Stay informed about: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 15, 2007
Posts: 310
|
(Msg. 37) Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Horns" <Horns DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03CAD96A-7DDB-4838-9BE3-9BE19398081E@microsoft.com...
| I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are
| ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support.
| Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP
very
| first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on
| here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no
| way to ever re-add it later.
Your apparent On Topic issue is not related to XP [Microsoft] not supplying
the CDROM, its with the computer manufacturer. When you bought the PC you
likely had the ability to either burn a CDROM/DVD with the installation
files, OR the ability to contact the manufacturer for the CDROM. Blame the
manufacturer or more appropriately, yourself for failing to proceed in a
manner which ensured your ability to use XP sometime in the future.
There are or were several services from which you can/could buy the
manufacturer's computer specific installation CDROM(s) if they are no longer
offered or were never *publicly* offered.
I'll leave the XP supposed security and disk handling/file system aspects
discussion alone at this time. Seems strange that this is a "Phasing Out
Win98" discussion when end of life/support WAS 2006... posting into an old
2005 discussion is rather weird...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________
|
| "Bill in Co." wrote:
|
| > cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
| > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
| > >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
| > >
| > >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
| > >
| > >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
| > I've
| > >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling
and/or
| > >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
| > bothers
| > >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
| > >
| > > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
| > > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
| >
| > Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use
FAT32,
| > you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to
me,
| > sometimes).
| >
| > Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
| > (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones
there,
| > admitedly).
| >
| > >>Tips:
| > >
| > > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
| > >
| > > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
| > > size for best virtual memory performance.
| > >
| > > There are other goodnesses to a small C:
| > > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
| > > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
| > > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
| > > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
| > >
| > > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
| > >
| > > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
| > > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
| > > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
| > >
| > > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
| > >
| > > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
| > > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
| > > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
| > > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
| > > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
| > >
| > > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
| > >
| > > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
| > > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
| > > huge default TIF size.
| >
| > I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
| >
| > > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
| > > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
| > > system!
| >
| > Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
| > results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag
anyway,
| > just because I like to).
| >
| > But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
| > difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever),
to
| > the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
| >
| > > 5) Locate shell folders off C:
| > >
| > > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
| > > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
| > > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
| > > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
| > > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
| > > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
| > >
| > > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
| > >
| > > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
| > > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
| > > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
| > > clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
| > > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
| > >
| > > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
| > >
| > > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
| > > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
| > > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
| > > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
| > > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
| > > system up as NTFS in the first place.
| >
| > I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
| >
| > > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to
exceed 2G
| > in size.
| >
| > Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
| > files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
| >
| > > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
| > > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
| > > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
| > > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
| > > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
| > >
| > > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
| > > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
| > > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
| > > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
| > > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
| > > choose NTFS for your data set as well.
| > >
| > > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
| > > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
| > > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
| > > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
| > > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
| > >
| > >
| > >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
| > > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
| > > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
| > >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
| >
| >
| > >> Stay informed about: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 15, 2007
Posts: 310
|
(Msg. 38) Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Horns" <Horns DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03CAD96A-7DDB-4838-9BE3-9BE19398081E@microsoft.com...
| I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are
| ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support.
| Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP
very
| first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on
| here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no
| way to ever re-add it later.
Your apparent On Topic issue is not related to XP [Microsoft] not supplying
the CDROM, its with the computer manufacturer. When you bought the PC you
likely had the ability to either burn a CDROM/DVD with the installation
files, OR the ability to contact the manufacturer for the CDROM. Blame the
manufacturer or more appropriately, yourself for failing to proceed in a
manner which ensured your ability to use XP sometime in the future.
There are or were several services from which you can/could buy the
manufacturer's computer specific installation CDROM(s) if they are no longer
offered or were never *publicly* offered.
I'll leave the XP supposed security and disk handling/file system aspects
discussion alone at this time. Seems strange that this is a "Phasing Out
Win98" discussion when end of life/support WAS 2006... posting into an old
2005 discussion is rather weird...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________
|
| "Bill in Co." wrote:
|
| > cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
| > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co."
| > >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
| > >
| > >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad
| > >
| > >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time.
| > I've
| > >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling
and/or
| > >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda
| > bothers
| > >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP)
| > >
| > > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability
| > > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP.
| >
| > Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use
FAT32,
| > you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to
me,
| > sometimes).
| >
| > Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user?
| > (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones
there,
| > admitedly).
| >
| > >>Tips:
| > >
| > > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G
| > >
| > > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page
| > > size for best virtual memory performance.
| > >
| > > There are other goodnesses to a small C:
| > > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance
| > > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C:
| > > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF)
| > > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption
| > >
| > > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD
| > >
| > > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing
| > > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode
| > > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative.
| > >
| > > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker
| > >
| > > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes,
| > > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check
| > > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it
| > > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror
| > > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance.
| > >
| > > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account
| > >
| > > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of
| > > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous
| > > huge default TIF size.
| >
| > I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems".
| >
| > > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF
| > > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file
| > > system!
| >
| > Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the
| > results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag
anyway,
| > just because I like to).
| >
| > But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable*
| > difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever),
to
| > the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen.
| >
| > > 5) Locate shell folders off C:
| > >
| > > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you
| > > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky
| > > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received
| > > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be
| > > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts
| > > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF.
| > >
| > > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool
| > >
| > > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in
| > > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do
| > > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte
| > > clusters. BING from www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you
| > > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions.
| > >
| > > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx!
| > >
| > > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a
| > > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file
| > > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to
| > > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate
| > > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the
| > > system up as NTFS in the first place.
| >
| > I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me.
| >
| > > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to
exceed 2G
| > in size.
| >
| > Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move
| > files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS.
| >
| > > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some
| > > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture
| > > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming
| > > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode
| > > as a pointer to what may have infected the system.
| > >
| > > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations,
| > > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in
| > > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you
| > > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover
| > > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might
| > > choose NTFS for your data set as well.
| > >
| > > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk)
| > > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and
| > > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both
| > > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time
| > > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly.
| > >
| > >
| > >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks:
| > > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
| > > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"
| > >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - -
| >
| >
| > >> Stay informed about: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Is Microsoft DEFRAG the best defragger? - Just to add my 2 cents to this aging thread:..
Microsoft releases VML fix for Windows 98 - Milkro$oft has made a fix available for the IE VML vulnerability. Now they won't come out and tell you this, but the new VGX.DLL file for Win-2k works just file on Win-98. Details: Secunia is showing a variety of MS links depending on your OS: ..
microsoft money errors - oaWhen I try to load microsoft money 2006 version I get an error stating mnymetal.dll files missing or corrupted reload file and try again. I have reloaded file but still does not work. What is mnymetal.dll file?, and how can I fix this problem. I can...
Have you heard about the hotfixes from Microsoft - Apparently, you can now request hotfixes from Microsoft from the Internet for older Windows systems without even having to call Microsoft. I have read about this but not actually experienced it so I cannot say if it is fully true and/or factual.
microsoft exchange 2003 - hi ,, i install windows 2003 server with configure domain,, and installed exchange server 2003.. 1.we have 1 server ( windows 2003 server with exchange server) 2. we have 30 client (windows xp pro + using microsoft office outlook 2003). now i am.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Win 2000/NT/98/ME