[dencorso]

@galahs:

These linkis appeared in other threads, but I feel they should be included here also.

ONGD - FREE - DOCS2RTF MS Word 2007 .DOCX and OpenOffice .SXW and .ODT converter to RTF: http://www.nativewinds.montana.com/softwar...f.html#download

And, thanks to SlugFiller:

LAST - FREE - VIA SATA DRIVER (viasraid, the last that works): http://downloads.viaarena.com/drivers/RAID...alATA_V220E.zip

[herbalist]

Quote

but at the FoxitReader website, Win 98SE is no longer included in the list.

The latest version works fine on both versions of 98.

Quote

Why not try it yourself? I've seen too many sites that stopped mentioning any version of Windows below 2000 (even though some are manufacturer sites and are supposed to offer support - drivers - for their products for all OS versions) and still the software listed - in most cases - does work on Win9x.

As if someone - we know who - would have grabbed them by the balls and forced them to not even whisper 'Win9x'...

It definitely seems that way. It's bad enough when a software, driver or hardware vendor doesn't mention that their product works with 98, but I've actually found instances where the products box or manual makes it a point to say the product does not work with 98, only to find it works just fine. We've also seen several instances of apps that don't work with 98 because of version checking in the installer. When the version check is fixed, the apps work fine.

I can accept not mentioning 98 because of its unsupported status. When vendors resort to creating false incompatibility with the installers or giving the users false compatibility information, I have to believe that there's other reasons besides Microsoft dropping support and vendor profits. If a vendor sells a hardware or software product that works with 98, how does it benefit them to lose those customers by making their product incompatible? It does seem like someone has a problem with 98, someone with enough money and/or power to get vendors to do those things. Care to bet that DOS and the access/control it gives the user over Windows is the reason?
Rick

[Drugwash]

We have no power... Too many things involved here... too much money... And we're off-topic already.

[thydreamwalker]

Anyone ever try "Open Office"with Windows98SE .....It helps since we cannot add Newer versions of MSOffice without another OS;"OpenOffice just released new version and should work with Kex0.3.3e..too?*Testin' now ...so far noooo problems.... www.OpenOffice.org/3.0Beta ?????If this is okay to post?..thankyou,thydreamwalker

[herbalist]

I haven't tried the beta versions but the stable releases of Open Office work fine with 98FE and SE.
Rick

[winxpi]

Just found out that on this site: http://www.firewallg...om/software.htm
You still find few amount of FW-Software suppport Windows 98.
For example:
Look 'n' Stop Firewall 2.06 (http://www.looknstop.com/En/index2.htm)

Well so it doesn't look so bad anymore with security on Windows 98, did it ever?

[Multibooter]

galahs, on Oct 15 2007, 04:22 AM, said:

Firewalls
LAST - FREE - Tiny Personal Firewall 2.0.15A --- http://www.oldversio...hp?n=tpfirewall
LAST - FREE - Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.5 (last freeware version) --- http://www.freeware-...l/firewall.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiny Personal Firewall v2.0.15 may be something special, I would NOT put it on my list of recommendable last versions.

"die TINY 2.15 hat einen derben Nachteil/Fehler, der aber in der vorherigen Version von TINY 2.14 (!) nicht ist. Als ich damals die TINY 2.15 genutzt habe, bin ich aus diesem Grund *erstmal* zurück zur TINY 2.14 gegangen. Hier der Grund: Die TINY 2.15 sendet munter (ab und zu) an einen Server in Polen, auch bei "Alles blocken" kann diese Verbindung durch die FW [=firewall] hergestellt werden."
Dr Octagon on Feb.26, 2006 in http://board.protecus.de/t22085.htm (Weren't there secret vacation places in Poland?)

TINY v2.0.15 and v2.0.15A have been removed from the web archive http://web.archive.org/web/20011217155449/...zyklon/tpf.html but NOT v2.0.14 which can still be downloaded there. This web archive page is listed in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....i/Tiny_Software as footnote 7

TINY v2.0.14 is "pre"-software (June 5,2001) while v2.0.15/A is "post"-software (Oct.12 and 22,2001). Tiny's software developers "would continue to work on the software under the Kerio brand... Kerio Technologies Inc was incorporated on 11 September 2001." http://en.wikipedia....io_Technologies

I wouldn't trust Kerio v2.1.5 either. Old Tiny Personal Firewall v2.0.14 ("pre"-software) is still highly recommended.

[Multibooter]

winxpi, on May 18 2008, 04:00 AM, said:

Well so it doesn't look so bad anymore with security on Windows 98, did it ever?

Windows 98 is a much safer system than WinXP: no vulnerability to root kits, for example. How much of the new malware is Windows98 compatible?

The only infection on my Win98 system during the last 10 years was with the trojan spooner.c 4 years ago, quickly detected - because the printer wouldn't work anymore i.e. not enough testing by the malware authors with legacy software and legacy operating systems.

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Windows 98 is a much safer system than WinXP: no vulnerability to root kits, for example.

I used to think this as well, but it's not true. You can hide rootkits with FAT32 from the kernel as well.

[Haverman]

Hi All,
I"m new here. Does anyone use Satori Photo XL ? I downloaded it a LONG time ago and it's a nice piece of imaging software.
I'm not sure if it's available anymore though. It was freeware at the time.

[RetroOS]

Haverman, on May 24 2008, 09:02 AM, said:

...Does anyone use Satori Photo XL ? I downloaded it a LONG time ago and it's a nice piece of imaging software.
I'm not sure if it's available anymore though. It was freeware at the time.

Hi Haverman,
A big welcome to MSFN

You can download the freeware version of Satori PhotoXL 2.29 from these sites:
http://tucows.comuni...6897_52181.html
http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?4216 (WinSite incorrectly lists it as Shareware, but says Freeware in the description)

EDIT: Found these free add-on Brush Libraries from the Satori site that are compatible with freeware 2.29:
http://www.satoripai...s/BrushVol1.zip
http://www.satoripai...s/BrushVol2.zip
http://www.satoripai...s/BrushVol3.zip

Instructions: Copy brushes into the brushes folder under Satori. You can access these brushes from the drop-down list in the brush set-up box.

I've never heard of it, but being a much talked about award winning image editor for the last eight years, I think I'll check it out!
It even works in Windows 95!

This post has been edited by RetroOS: 24 May 2008 - 01:06 AM

[Multibooter]

BenoitRen, on May 23 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

Quote

Windows 98 is a much safer system than WinXP: no vulnerability to root kits, for example.

I used to think this as well, but it's not true. You can hide rootkits with FAT32 from the kernel as well.

Which root kits work Ok under Win98?

The Kaspersky on-demand scanner detects about 3-10 virii per day in my downloads under Win98, and after having read your posting I was hoping to have caught a rootkit under Win98 With the method indicated in "Detecting Rootkits in Windows 98/ME" http://abuibrahim.castlecops.com/archives/...in_windows.html I checked my HDD (leaving out the /b parameter in the dir statement, because Beyond Compare isn't good at comparing/aligning long & short file names).

Great disappointment, no rootkit detected. Did ANYBODY in the Forum ever catch a rootkit under Win98?

"Windows 98 rootkits are rare since malware writers like to spend their time coding for OS that will get them the most bang for their buck. Because the Windows 98 design is very different from Windows NT based operating systems, rootkits that run on Windows NT cannot be successfully ported to Windows 98. That ensures some type of protection."
http://www.castlecop...66220-0-15.html posted on Apr 23, 2007

"Mit einem Rootkit kann man u.a. Prozesse verstecken.
Das sind dann Prozesse von der Art, wie sie in WinNT/2k/XP benutzt werden.
Win98 arbeitet anders. Man muss da nichts verstecken, weil es gar keine solche Prozesse gibt. Außerdem gibt es in Win98 nur den Benutzer Admin und Software hat auch alle Rechte. Win98 hacken ist unter der Würde der meisten Hacker, weil es sich nicht wirksam schützen lässt, sozusagern ist es keine Herausforderung dort einzubrechen."
http://www.pcwelt.de/forum/sicherheit-vire...tkit-win98.html posted on 22.12.2005

[herbalist]

I didn't think rootkits were possible on 9X either, until I tested a couple of malware files sent to me by another member. When running, the files, process, and registry entries are all hidden to windows and most every app/utility I tried. They're not quite up there with NT rootkits but they get close. Unlike NT rootkits, the files and registry entries are visible in safe mode and can be seen in DOS, but during normal operation it hides very well.

9X systems are safer in that they're not being targeted as much. That said, 9X and NT systems still have many components in common. Attacks that target these are effective against both. Modern malware often targets specific applications instead of the OS itself, and not just Internet Explorer. 9X systems can be just as affected as NT systems by these. Some of the recent vulnerabilities found in Adobe Acrobat reader worked on 9X just as well as on XP. With malware kits like MPack, it's much easier to make malicious pages that detect what OS you're using and automatically adjust the attack to match. 98/ME may not be attacked as much as XP and may not be vulnerable to some of the newer XP exploits, but it is still attacked and is vulnerable to some of what's circulating at any given moment.

9X systems have the advantage of being easier to defend from internet attacks. It can be made just as secure as any XP unit or more so, and at no cost. It's disadvantage is that it's more vulnerable to local attack. From outside, there's far less attack surface. The few ports opened by a default install are easily closed. IMO, its biggest advantage is DOS. Just about anything that can be done to 9X can be undone in DOS. If a user is inclined to do so, this can be automated with batch files that can perform various amounts of system restore at bootup.

Some of the best security-ware for 9X systems is free and still available. I see that you don't recommend Kerio 2.1.5. Why? I've used it for years and have installed it on many of my clients PCs, including several XP units. I can't read what you've posted in those 2 quotes, could you translate? From everything I've seen and tested, the problems with Kerio 2.1.5 are minor and easily dealt with if the user understands its limitations. The most controversial one is that it's supposedly vulnerable to fragmented packets. I'm not aware of any examples of this being used successfully. Too much emphasis is placed on vendor support of software, especially security apps. Vendor support is necessary for apps that need regular updating like AVs or apps that are still being developed (buggy). Stable, finished apps don't need supporting. Kerio 2.1.5 is such an app. For 9X systems, it's the best, IMO.
Rick

[Multibooter]

herbalist, on May 25 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

I didn't think rootkits were possible on 9X either, until I tested a couple of malware files sent to me by another member. When running, the files, process, and registry entries are all hidden to windows and most every app/utility I tried. They're not quite up there with NT rootkits but they get close. Unlike NT rootkits, the files and registry entries are visible in safe mode and can be seen in DOS, but during normal operation it hides very well.

Very interesting. Under what names are these malware files known?

herbalist, on May 25 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

IMO, its [of Win98 ]biggest advantage is DOS. Just about anything that can be done to 9X can be undone in DOS.

Yes. For this reason I was not convinced of WinME.

herbalist, on May 25 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

I see that you don't recommend Kerio 2.1.5. Why? I've used it for years and have installed it on many of my clients PCs, including several XP units. I can't read what you've posted in those 2 quotes, could you translate?

Kerio 2.1.5 was released after 12 Sept 2001 ("post"-software) and is based on Tiny v2.0.15. Here the translation of the German text quoted in my previous post: "Tiny 2.15 transmits intermittently to a server in Poland" compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantle...nce_controversy The only malware infection during the last 9 years on one of my Win98 machines was 4 years ago with the trojan spooner.c, then described by Kaspersky with the short comment "9/11", currently no more description by Kaspersky. SWIFT, for example, representing the 2500 largest banks worldwide, has decided to move by the end of 2009 the data processing of their international transactions away from the US to neutral Switzerland http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/zuerich/ein_...e_1.695602.html

I like the easy settings for peer-to-peer networks by Tiny 2.0.15 and Kerio 2.1.5, but they are "post"-software.

[herbalist]

Here's links to VirusTotal results for those 2 files.
http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/c9df38a...be66ff7642fe9ac
http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/c4edcd5...c961e732a09596e

I understand your concerns about 9/11 and the effect of the resulting paranoia on software. I share it. I don't doubt that it did affect certain types of software, especially encryption software and the OSs themselves, but I doubt that it would have led to the weakening or compromising of firewalls, at least not in 2003. Today, it might be another story. I don't doubt that 9/11 is one of the factors in the push to make 9X systems obsolete. Both big money and the powers that be don't like the user having that much control and the final say over the OS.

If I were equipping a PC based solely on suspicions about the aftermath of 9/11, my primary concern would be the OS itself and the dates of the patches/updates. This is one of several reasons I stay with 98. I'd completely avoid security apps/suites made by the big US companies and choose single purpose programs from small vendors and individuals, from overseas whenever possible. I'd heavily favor Open Source. Even if one assumes that the powers that be want a backdoor into every PC, I wouldn't expect them to target security apps or user software. It would involve too many apps and too many people, resulting in a much greater risk of it being discovered. Such a backdoor would be put in the OS itself.

IMO, restricting your choices to pre-9/11 software takes away too many good choices and would leave you with a system that's not very useful. How would you open the newer document formats or the newer types of media? I wouldn't want to browse the internet with a pre-9/11 browser either. I understand where you're coming from, but there's only so much you can do. You can monitor the traffic in and out of your system. You can monitor all the changes an app makes to your system. You can regularly check the integrity of your system. You can implement a security policy that won't let anything happen without your approval. You can attack your system with every piece of malware you can find and visit every malicious page on the net. Eventually, you have to trust the software you use and the security package you've set up. With Kerio for instance, I've tested it every way I know how. I've monitored it as much as my old equipment will allow. It has never done anything I'd consider suspicious. Yes, it has some limitations and some weaknesses. Show me a firewall or security app that doesn't. I trust it, but not to the point of expecting it to stand alone. It's part of my security package, a package I trust.

The security arguments against using 98 don't hold up. Contrary to what MS and the big security software vendors would have you believe, 98 can be made just as secure as XP or more so, and at little or no cost. Everything needed to secure a 9X system is freely available. The older firewalls are ideal for 9X systems. Out of the newer ones that will run on 9X systems, most are too heavy and contain "features" that are useless on 9X systems. Other security apps that work very well on 98 are Proxomitron and the free version of System Safety Monitor. Proxomitron is the web content filter around. In the hands of a user with knowledge of web content, it's very powerful. System Safety Monitor allows the user to decide what processes are allowed and what each is allowed to do. It's the most powerful whitelisting tool available for 98 that I know of. When combined with a rule based firewall like Kerio, these 3 make an almost bulletproof package. They're all very light. If they have a disadvantage, it's that they require the user to have a fair amount of knowledge to configure them well. While most of the members here are more than knowledgeable enough to handle them, they're generally too much for the typical user. For me, computer security is almost an obsession. Those 3 apps, combined with batch files give me the control I want without slowing down my system or using up my resources.

Rick

[Multibooter]

herbalist, on May 26 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

If I were equipping a PC based solely on suspicions about the aftermath of 9/11, my primary concern would be the OS itself and the dates of the patches/updates. This is one of several reasons I stay with 98. I'd completely avoid security apps/suites made by the big US companies and choose single purpose programs from small vendors and individuals, from overseas whenever possible. I'd heavily favor Open Source. Even if one assumes that the powers that be want a backdoor into every PC... Such a backdoor would be put in the OS itself.

Very well expressed. It was already revealed in 1999 that "special access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into Windows" http://www.heise.de/...l/5/5263/1.html People at the Moscow Institute of Technology in Dolgoprudny were saying in 1997 that the raison-d'être of PTS-DOS was that you "cannot have an American operating system in Russian tanks."

IE 6.0 was released on Aug.27, 2001. Microsoft was very vulnerable at that time, "The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty. On November 2, 2001, [52 days after 9/11] the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case." http://en.wikipedia....es_v._Microsoft

My suspicion is that the problem of the sluggish deletes covered in the forum under http://www.msfn.org/board/98-FE-98-SP1-98-...fix-t84451.html may have something to do with it, together with the Active Desktop introduced in IE 5.5 SP2.

herbalist, on May 26 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

IMO, restricting your choices to pre-9/11 software takes away too many good choices and would leave you with a system that's not very useful. How would you open the newer document formats or the newer types of media? I wouldn't want to browse the internet with a pre-9/11 browser either.

I am currently setting up a fresh Win98 system and have decided to install only IE 5.5 SP1, released on Nov.4, 2000, together with the latest Opera (preferred, from Norway) and FireFox.

IE 5.5 is sufficient for wireless cards with WPA encryption, even Adobe Flash Player ActiveX v9.0.115 can be installed with a trick (Adobe's last supported version for IE 5.5 is Flash Player 8). I came across a few rare nasties when using IE 5.5: Adobe's website crashes IE 5.5 when going to http://www.adobe.com...US-H-GET-FLASH; CSPAN at http://www.youtube.com/user/CSPAN doesn't show anything, possibly because of some server-side exclusion of IE 5.5, otherwise no major browsing problems with IE 5.5. De facto, however, I have decided to give up IE for the sake of a better working, and a hopefully more secure, Win98. In any case, my principal use of IE was only as one alternative for printing tricky-to-print web pages. And Opera and Firefox will hopefully improve their printing.

Thanks for your long and interesting posting. I'll continue with my reply tomorrow.

[vick1111]

THIS WAS POSTED BY MISTAKE UNDER THE WRONG TOPIC.
SOMEONE CAN DELETE THIS?

This post has been edited by vick1111: 27 May 2008 - 06:38 AM

[halohalo]

Virus and Spyware Scanners + Privacy and Security Tools
About Lavasoft Ad-Aware SE Personal 1.06r1, it seems that the def file is no longer compatible with Win9x since SE1R247 update.


Games
The US official server of PHANTASY STAR ONLINE Blue Burst (dx9.0b, OLG) was shut down since April, but the JP official server remains online.
http://psobb.jp/

This post has been edited by halohalo: 27 May 2008 - 04:50 PM

[Philco]

halohalo, on May 27 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

Virus and Spyware Scanners + Privacy and Security Tools
About Lavasoft Ad-Aware SE Personal 1.06r1, it seems that the def file is no longer compatible with Win9x since SE1R247 update.
...

Ad-Aware Professional 1.06r1 running properly only on winXP... stupid...


On win98 (i try copy last defs.ref) error. My last properly version SE1R246. Please, post for me (rapidshare.com, uloz.to or any) def SE1R247 (last compatible def files) - info: Forum Ad-Aware

Otherwise it's going to be Spybot SD and good bye to Lavasoft?

This post has been edited by Philco: 28 May 2008 - 02:02 PM

[halohalo]

Philco, on May 28 2008, 01:08 AM, said:

On win98 (i try copy last defs.ref) error. My last properly version SE1R246. Please, post for me (rapidshare.com, uloz.to or any) def SE1R247 (last compatible def files) - info: Forum Ad-Aware

Otherwise it's going to be Spybot SD and good bye to Lavasoft?

AFAIK, the last compatible def file for most users should be SE1R246, only few users claim SE1R247 works on Win9x/ME.
http://www.lavasofts...showtopic=18145

I found a backup of def SE1R246, but I don't have def SE1R247.