• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
colemancb

Why run 98?

332 posts in this topic

Hey all, I had a lot of troubles with XP being slow and clunky on my sub-par hardware, so I moved to Windows 2000 Professional and it runs like a dream!

My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000? It's got only a slight requirement difference to my knowledge and it's compatible with all new software and games. I understand the security issue but anyone that is relativly smart can avoid these problems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B) why run 98? because its great 4 old dos games theres a million apps around 4 it its far more compatabile with older hardware.etc etc.And as far as 2000 being up 2 date with software .Wrong msn messenger 7.5 wont install etc most proggie are designed for xp only or else their all os platforms.im not saying 2000 sucks hell no it aint that bad at all in fact the 2000 community is alive and well in msfn check out usp 5.With 98se u have alot of room to tweak with a nt based os you have beffer support with new drivers but alot of 98se users will run 3rd party apps or just create them themselves sp 2 98seto me etc.98se has less bloat less retrictions etc yet it has less secruity but most viruses are designed for nt oses 2000/xp so its a crapshoot oh did i forget activation oh joy.lol.2 each his own im sure your read why one os is better than another but remember the little os that could 98se forever baby.

Edited by timeless
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be wondering how Win98 !

How old is 98se ? Almost a decade ?

It was ahead of its time for sure. It also dosent suck up video mem or icon cache for "eye candy"

Xp does handle text files like no tomorrow but thankfully i dont have to use my computer as a work unit.

Nor do I share files......or manage a remote computer or want anyone else managing my s**t.

2000 and XP can be riped apart to run i'm sure but its a smogger and thats that. I'm actually debating win95 on my system may be fun.......

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why 98SE? Well, for starters, the only real problem I've ever had with 98se is stability. XP was perfectly stable, but it had other issues that bothered the hell out of me; (there's so many of em, I don't feel like listing them, but I think I did write em all out a couple weeks ago in the XP forum.) 2000... meh, I would use it but last time I ran the OS it crashed beyond repair after installing SP4. All of the XP-ers ask why we still use Win98, saying that it's old, so we should upgrade. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's bad or obsolete.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use whatever you want, but here's the obvious drawbacks to it:

Multiprocessor support is nonexistent. Say goodbye to dual core or dual CPU.

Support for large amounts of memory is nonexistent, and due to the way the 98/ME memory management works, most memory over 512MB is wasted when not running one large, memory intensive process. (tech. details: pagecache does not efficiently track used pages over 512MB)

In fact, memory management in 95/98(SE)/ME is terrible in general.

Support for modern hardware is nonexistent. Examples:

ACPI (controls fans, cpu throttling, battery, screen controls, sound controls, multiprocessor tables, IRQ routing, and many other things in modern machines.)

PCI-Express (not sure how well 98(SE)/ME functions on PCI express machines. curious. any reports?)

Bluetooth (there are third party stacks available, I'm sure, though.)

Deployment options are limited. Ghost, ghost, and more ghost.

Coopeative multitasking is unsafe. (95/98(SE)/ME marketing incorrectly stated that it had Preemptive Multitasking, which is mostly untrue. 90% of what I've seen XP users call crashes or freezes are just the individual program locking up, and not the whole machine.)

Complete lack of security updates and bugfixes. (I know that a lot of MSFN users have gotten around this but again, your choice, hey, all the more power to you to go your own way I spose)

Large hard drive support is nonexistant. Windows 98 Cannot Create a FAT32 Partition Larger than 127.53GB.

Viruses and spyware. many viruses and spyware apps have been indeed designed for windows xp, but a great deal of them rely only on functions that existed in 98(SE), for example, the windows script host, etc. The only two features I can think of that these 'applications' make use of that are not existent in 98(SE)/ME are file streams (NTFS feature) and NT services. What's worse, if you get a virus or spyware on XP and you are running as a limited user, as you should be, it will not be able to infect the entire machine.

Poor network and TCP stack. A fast enough stream of packets can completely bog down the 98(SE)/ME TCP stack with handling the received data, even when doing so to a second or third hard drive. XP's multitasking and improved networking subsystem shows a clear lead in this regard.

Caching. XP is much more efficient at utilizing memory to cache disk and network data. Free RAM is wasted RAM.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000?

Interesting question - one I've pondered before. Comparing 2K SP 4 w/ USP 5 SR 1 vs. 98 SE w/ USP 2.02...

-2K isn't compatible with old DOS programs. This is the primary reason for sticking with 98 SE. FYI, most DOS emulation programs are unacceptably slow.

-2K isn't as well supported by an enthusiast community

-2K's NTFS format is complex, meaning worse data recovery options

-2K has higher memory usage, though nLite can mitigate this

-2K seems to have worse USB support

-Stability is about the same - for example, alt-tabbing out of full screen games in 2K can easily screw things up.

-I can't prove it, but I suspect 2K has worse security. 2K is a ticking time bomb with MS killing off SP5 and new security fixes drying out. 98 SE is a simpler OS to begin with and simply has fewer attack points for hackers to exploit.

BTW, I don't understand why the previous poster goes on and on about XP. This thread is regarding 98 and 2K. Please don't pollute this thread.

Edited by azagahl
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More disadvantages than advantages. Just use nLite on XP Pro SP2 and RyanVM Pack and XPize, hardware firewall, small software firewall to notify of outgoing, use Opera or Firefox, use small freeware alternatives to the huge commercial programs, don't have loads in Start-Up, disable Services... enjoy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just use nLite on XP Pro SP2

I don't recommend this. First of all, nLite only exists as release candidate form. Look at the nLite page and you will see all the bugs people are having trying to pull pieces out from under this bloated OS. Furthermore, with XP you are playing Russian Roulette because you are installing self-destruct mechanism (WPA) that could be triggered by Microsoft or viruses at any time in the future. XP means you are installing spyware that transmits your CD key over the Internet for hackers to intercept and steal, plus baggage such as Genuine Checks. Maybe you'll stoop to anything, but I refuse to phone Microsoft and type a 50-digit numbers in like a monkey just because I changed some hardware around. This is a difficult task for the hearing impaired and Microsoft should be sued for discriminating against disabled people.

Edited by azagahl
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:hello: when people ask why do u run 98se its so old i think they believe were using it on a new mothrboard dualcore etc.i think most people who run it run it at home generally older hardware and not on a network or as a office tool.its easy to argue that it has short comming with new hardware then again what os doesnt have issue with some program game etc.it is simply a compact os thats been disected and made with proper tweaks sps etc to be pretty **** stable.if u have a new machine it comes with xp no doubt and thats great because alot of the newer stuff is geared to xp not 98se and sometimes not even 2000.i think people try 2000 because its a nt based os yet like less bloat than xp and like the fact its alot like 98se in design.if you are a general home user who surfs emails pogo games a few older dos games etc maybe u dont need to upgrade to 2000/xp someday u will but your probably be buying a new pc with vista on it by then.i believe when they made 98se not perfect no os is they basically got it right and everything since is a addon.you can talk about memory management or 512mb restrictions but i bet if i did a poll the majoraity or 9x users dont require more than 256mb to run everything they got and im sure they dont expect to complete with newer systems or not 2 concerned.EG.i have a friend of 20 years he runs 98se always has always will i offer him xp he said someday but i got my pc setup nice and everything works why change.Is is behind the times?is he against change?No he payed for his stuff it works enuff say.the debate will never end .even now mdgx hugs his old 216 longing for the days of 3.1 2 each his own party on garth.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use whatever you want, but here's the obvious drawbacks to it:

Multiprocessor support is nonexistent. Say goodbye to dual core or dual CPU.

But on the other hand, it's fast enough with just one CPU, even if

its only a Pentium 133...

Support for large amounts of memory is nonexistent, and due to the way the 98/ME memory management works, most memory over 512MB is wasted when not running one large, memory intensive process. (tech. details: pagecache does not efficiently track used pages over 512MB)

In fact, memory management in 95/98(SE)/ME is terrible in general.

The original Win95 was designed to run in 4 MB, and with 8 MB it performed well.

98 SE runs fine with 32 MB, and pretty much perfectly with 64... That compares

well to FreeBSD and Linux, let alone XP.

Sure, all else being equal, the flexibility of putting such breathtaking amounts

of memory as 1 GB to better use would be a bonus, but the capability of doing

more with less is a lot more important than the capability of consuming more.

Support for modern hardware is nonexistent. Examples:

ACPI (controls fans, cpu throttling, battery, screen controls, sound controls, multiprocessor tables, IRQ routing, and many other things in modern machines.)

PCI-Express (not sure how well 98(SE)/ME functions on PCI express machines. curious. any reports?)

Bluetooth (there are third party stacks available, I'm sure, though.)

That is a more valid point, and of course inevitable in the long run,

considering that it's no longer maintained.

Deployment options are limited. Ghost, ghost, and more ghost.
For mass-installation, it can't get much easier, can it? And

it takes less time to ghost a more compact system than a more

bloated one.

Coopeative multitasking is unsafe. (95/98(SE)/ME marketing incorrectly stated that it had Preemptive Multitasking, which is mostly untrue.

DOS VMs have been pre-emptively multi-tasked since Windows/386,

first released in the the late 80s. Win95 introduced threads and another

category of pre-emptively multitasked applications - Win32 - a feature that

essentially worked well.

90% of what I've seen XP users call crashes or freezes are just the

individual program locking up, and not the whole machine.)

Most "crashes" that Win9x users experience is probably the result of

exhausting the so-called "resources" of the Win16 subsystem, and that

rarely brings down the whole machine. Usually the kernel and interrupts

are still operable, and more often than not, the DOS VMs as well.

That said, the NT-based Windows series probably *is* more stable,

and it ought to be, if only for the simple reason that stability and

security have had far greater priority in its design and development.

It was also designed more or less from scratch, with few constraints.

The 3.x and 9x series, however, had to be marketable, and thus

had to run on affordable hardware with acceptable perforance and

maintain compatibility with existing (DOS and later Win16) applications.

It's certainly no co-incidence that it was far more successful than NT

until Microsoft pulled the plugs on it, after hardware price and

power finally caught up with their pet project. It took tireless

and skilled marketing efforts and clever introduction of

technologies such as Win32 and the WDM (Windows Driver Model)

on Win9x to prepare the ground, funded by the cash-flow from

DOS, Win3.x and 9x. That's why NT made it and OS/2 failed,

although the latter had a head start and many other advantages.

Complete lack of security updates and bugfixes. (I know that a lot of MSFN users have gotten around this but again, your choice, hey, all the more power to you to go your own way I spose)

Security updates are not an issue. However, updates in terms

of hardware support and various kinds of functionality would

be desirable, and in some cases essential.

Large hard drive support is nonexistant. Windows 98 Cannot Create

FAT32 Partition Larger than 127.53GB.

You would not want to create a FAT32 partition that large. In fact,

anything over 4 GB or so comes with an unreasonably large cluster

size. This is an example of where updates are essential, ideally

XFS (Linux/SGI Irix) or ReiserFS (Linux only).

Viruses and spyware. many viruses and spyware apps have been indeed designed for windows xp, but a great deal of them rely only on functions that existed in 98(SE), for example, the windows script host, etc. The only two features I can think of that these 'applications' make use of that are not existent in 98(SE)/ME are file streams (NTFS feature) and NT services. What's worse, if you get a virus or spyware on XP and you are running as a limited user, as you should be, it will not be able to infect the entire machine.

That has more to do with self-control than OS features. Strictly speaking, you

should never run untrusted software with sufficient privilege to do damage, but

that tends to be impractical except with the help of a PC emulator/virtual machine.

After all, most software comes in binary form only and/or is so bloated that no-one

has the time to check it for privacy/security violations.

Poor network and TCP stack. A fast enough stream of packets can completely bog down the 98(SE)/ME TCP stack with handling the received data, even when doing so to a second or third hard drive.

I haven't noticed, with a single drive and a mere Celeron 400. That is a bit

surprising, considering that both the NIC and SCSI driver are so-called "NT

miniport" drivers, as opposed to proper VxDs. A perfect demontration of

the flexibility of the Win9x architecture - we have yet to see VxDs on XP!

At the same time, it's a great example of how MS have been preparing the

ground for NT/XP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Poor network and TCP stack.

Actually, there are in fact cases where 9x networking is vastly superior to 2K and XP.

For example, I always install a HOSTS file; my current HOSTS blocks 110,000+ malware, spyware, advertising, and porn sites. In 98 SE and Linux, this HOSTS file incurs no noticable burden; but on a fully patched 2K and XP, the unbelievably inefficient DNS service (hardly an optional service) consumes 100% CPU resources for over 10 minutes (on a 3+ GHz processor) to process this HOSTS file. The processing occurs invariably occurs at boot time (preventing log on for 10 minutes) as well as whenever the HOSTS file changes (interrrupting network access and consuming CPU resources) or when the DNS service is restarted.

Also, in many core XP executables such as SVCHOST.EXE frequently and inexplicably "phone home". I believe that XP meets the definitions of spyware and malware (capable of self-destructing your PC). This certainly makes firewall configuration trickier. IMHO the incessant security center complaints and inherent vulnerability of having such a bloated OS make networking an unpleasant experience.

A further advantage to 9x networking is that you can access the Internet and download files from text mode (real mode DOS 7.1), without loading the GUI, using a number of free software programs such as LSPPP and Arachne. I am not aware of anything similar in 2K or XP.

Edited by azagahl
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not that many people would want to anymore, but I used to access a dialup PPP account from DOS up until 1999 on a 386 (CGA monitor hehe) - course my provider Sprint told me it was not possible, and I nearly had to beat out of the tech support the various server names (DNS, etc).

Once connected you could run NCSA Telnet, or even dos POP3 mail programs, ftp etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use whatever you want, but here's the obvious drawbacks to it:

Multiprocessor support is nonexistent. Say goodbye to dual core or dual CPU.

Support for large amounts of memory is nonexistent, and due to the way the 98/ME memory management works, most memory over 512MB is wasted when not running one large, memory intensive process. (tech. details: pagecache does not efficiently track used pages over 512MB)

In fact, memory management in 95/98(SE)/ME is terrible in general.

Support for modern hardware is nonexistent. Examples:

ACPI (controls fans, cpu throttling, battery, screen controls, sound controls, multiprocessor tables, IRQ routing, and many other things in modern machines.)

PCI-Express (not sure how well 98(SE)/ME functions on PCI express machines. curious. any reports?)

Bluetooth (there are third party stacks available, I'm sure, though.)

Deployment options are limited. Ghost, ghost, and more ghost.

Coopeative multitasking is unsafe. (95/98(SE)/ME marketing incorrectly stated that it had Preemptive Multitasking, which is mostly untrue. 90% of what I've seen XP users call crashes or freezes are just the individual program locking up, and not the whole machine.)

Complete lack of security updates and bugfixes. (I know that a lot of MSFN users have gotten around this but again, your choice, hey, all the more power to you to go your own way I spose)

Wrong. Windows 98 does support ACPI. And there are security updates. Probably just another troll promoting Windows XP. :realmad:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering the topic/question is "Why Use it?" Not "Reasons to not use it" - his whole post is moot and garbage.

PS. Timeless - You really need to put some spaces at the end of sentences. And some capitalization - or even Paragraphs/Hard-enter wouldn't hurt either heh. I couldn't even finish reading your post it just hurt my brain.

Edited by Crash&Burn
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. Windows 98 does support ACPI. And there are security updates. Probably just another troll promoting Windows XP. :realmad:

WIndows 98's support for ACPI is very limited, and security updates will be up soon as Microsoft only publishes them for two years after entering the extended support phase.

> Poor network and TCP stack.

Actually, there are in fact cases where 9x networking is vastly superior to 2K and XP.

For example, I always install a HOSTS file; my current HOSTS blocks 110,000+ malware, spyware, advertising, and porn sites. In 98 SE and Linux, this HOSTS file incurs no noticable burden; but on a fully patched 2K and XP, the unbelievably inefficient DNS service (hardly an optional service) consumes 100% CPU resources for over 10 minutes (on a 3+ GHz processor) to process this HOSTS file. The processing occurs invariably occurs at boot time (preventing log on for 10 minutes) as well as whenever the HOSTS file changes (interrrupting network access and consuming CPU resources) or when the DNS service is restarted.

Also, in many core XP executables such as SVCHOST.EXE frequently and inexplicably "phone home". I believe that XP meets the definitions of spyware and malware (capable of self-destructing your PC). This certainly makes firewall configuration trickier. IMHO the incessant security center complaints and inherent vulnerability of having such a bloated OS make networking an unpleasant experience.

A further advantage to 9x networking is that you can access the Internet and download files from text mode (real mode DOS 7.1), without loading the GUI, using a number of free software programs such as LSPPP and Arachne. I am not aware of anything similar in 2K or XP.

The hosts file is not the correct place to block sites, your firewall should handle that. Regardless, the most likely reason for the delay is not parsing the large hosts file, but attempting to contact some of the sites you have null-routed.

As for the rest of the TCP suite, 98(SE)/ME handles incoming and outgoing data with far higher priority than is necessary, which is evident when transferring large files and attempting to, for example, move windows around..

I have yet to see anything other than the windows update service and root certificate update service attempt to contact microsoft or any other external site without explicitly telling it to do so.

As for accessing the internet from DOS, you could install bartpe on your hard drive, it takes much less time to boot for me (when you have all the drivers integrated correctly, otherwise it can hang for a few moments during device detection) than xp does.

Edited by mjc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You really need to put some spaces at the end of sentences. And some capitalization - or even Paragraphs/Hard-enter wouldn't hurt either, heh. I couldn't even finish reading your post, it just hurt my brain.

Cain't spel, cain't punktuize and cain't paragraff. :whistle:

These people would have never passed my 7th grade English class.

(maybe they've not gotten up to 7th grade yet...if so I appologize)

Crash,,,,,I'm with you.....it hurts my brain too, not to mention my eyes.

But they do have a computer. Too bad spell checking doesn't work in these forums.

I'm sure not the world's best speller but I do edit every post at least three times.

If a mistake misses my scrutiny, it ain't cuz I didn't try. ;)

OH Yes,,,,Why use 98?

Well, because the computer it came on was specificly designed around it. NOT for W2k or XP.

Now if you've just built your own version of the HAL 9000, go for a more up to date OS.

I do love 98/SE and still install it on older systems. It does however have a max ram and max HD upper limit. XP does not. Even just to FDISK a large HD, I need to break out the Windows ME boot disk.

Even though I've been forced to put XP on my main PC, I kept what I thought was the best part of Win 98/SE. That is....the FAT-32 file structure on my HD.

I'm kind of a Control Freak and being able to boot my system from a DOS floppy or CD just gives me 100% control over every file on my HD. There's absolutely NO such thing as a virus, spyware or other bogus file that I can't get rid of.

My advise to anyone who, for whatever reason, has to upgrade to XP is:

Use an XP-Pro Upgrade CD and if it asks you, tell it to keep your existing file structure.

Enjoy 98 while you can,

Andromeda43

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are going to keep their Windows 98, 98SE OS,,,,you might just as well get all the performance out of it that you can. Here's a couple of 'tweaks' I've been using for years with very good results.

*******************************************

Tweak Win 98,or '98/SE, to make it run more effeciently:

1: START---Settings---Control Panel

Double Click "System"

Click "Performance" tab

Click "File System" Button

Set, "Typical Role of this computer" to 'Network Server'

Click the Apply button

Then:

Click the "Floppy Disk" tab

Un-Check the little box in 'Settings' window

Click "Apply",,,,,,then click OK

Click OK again

(this change will become permanent after a Re-Boot

2: START---RUN--- type in Sysedit , and then press ENTER

Maximize the "System Configuration Editor" window

Maximize the "System.ini" window

Scroll down till you can see the entire [386Enh] grouping

Place your mouse cursor on the first blank line at the bottom of the group

Then, type in the following line....

ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

(type the line exactly as shown,,,with NO spaces and caps where I've put them)

Then press enter.

The above line will help Windows to use RAM more effectively.

Click "File" in the upper left corner of the Editor window. Then click "SAVE"

Close the Editor window and Re-Boot your computer.

After a re-start, windows will now operate at 15% to 30% faster and more efficient than it did before. :thumbup

Happy Computing,

Andromeda43 B)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who are going to keep their Windows 98, 98SE OS,,,,you might just as well get all the performance out of it that you can. Here's a couple of 'tweaks' I've been using for years with very good results.

*******************************************

Tweak Win 98,or '98/SE, to make it run more effeciently:

1: START---Settings---Control Panel

Double Click "System"

Click "Performance" tab

Click "File System" Button

Set, "Typical Role of this computer" to 'Network Server'

Click the Apply button

Then:

I do this copy and paste this on a new text document on your desktop. name this file tweak.reg and double click it and reboot, now you got tricked out options more than network server

-----Begin cut & paste here-----

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates]

@="Max Cache"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Super Cache]

@="Super Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:00,ff,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:ff,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Max Cache]

@="Max Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:00,18,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:c8,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Huge Cache]

@="Huge Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:80,13,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:90,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Large Cache]

@="Large Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:a0,0f,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:80,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Medium Cache]

@="Medium Cache"

"NameCache"=hex:20,0f,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:50,00,00,00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\control\FileSystem]

"NameCache"=hex:00,18,00,00

"PathCache"=hex:c8,00,00,00

------End cut & paste here------

and this is in View/Folder Options/View and look under Advanced Settings in windows explorer, reboot needed

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache]

"Text"="Icon Cache Size"

"Type"="group"

"Bitmap"="SHDOC401.DLL,6"

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Small]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="1024 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="1024"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Medium]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="2048 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="2048"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Large]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="4096 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="4096"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\Advanced\IconCache\Huge]

"RegPath"="Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Explorer"

"Text"="8192 Icons"

"Type"="radio"

"CheckedValue"="8192"

"ValueName"="Max Cached Icons"

"DefaultValue"="2048"

"HKeyRoot"=dword:80000002

"HelpID"="update.hlp#51140"

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer]

"Max Cached Icons"="2048"

Edited by kartel
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Poor network and TCP stack.

Actually, there are in fact cases where 9x networking is vastly superior to 2K and XP.

For example, I always install a HOSTS file; my current HOSTS blocks 110,000+ malware, spyware, advertising, and porn sites. In 98 SE and Linux, this HOSTS file incurs no noticable burden; but on a fully patched 2K and XP, the unbelievably inefficient DNS service (hardly an optional service) consumes 100% CPU resources for over 10 minutes (on a 3+ GHz processor) to process this HOSTS file. The processing occurs invariably occurs at boot time (preventing log on for 10 minutes) as well as whenever the HOSTS file changes (interrrupting network access and consuming CPU resources) or when the DNS service is restarted.

The hosts file is not the correct place to block sites, your firewall should handle that. Regardless, the most likely reason for the delay is not parsing the large hosts file, but attempting to contact some of the sites you have null-routed.

You should get an immediate "connection refused" or "network/host unreachable" error for such attempts, as on the other systems. Besides, why would waiting for a reply from unreachable

sites consume 100% CPU?

As for the rest of the TCP suite, 98(SE)/ME handles incoming and outgoing data with far higher priority than is necessary, which is evident when transferring large files and attempting to, for example, move windows around..
My tests don't seem to confirm that. However, there are numerous variables involved (the

hardware itself, the drivers, TCP/IP config. parameters, choice of application to perform the

transfer, etc.), so all in all, not much (if anything) is evident at all about Win9x network

transfer priorities or other details from such limited data.

Even though I've been forced to put XP on my main PC, I kept what I thought was the best part of Win 98/SE. That is....the FAT-32 file structure on my HD.

I'm kind of a Control Freak and being able to boot my system from a DOS floppy or CD just gives me 100% control over every file on my HD. There's absolutely NO such thing as a virus, spyware or other bogus file that I can't get rid of.

My advise to anyone who, for whatever reason, has to upgrade to XP is:

Use an XP-Pro Upgrade CD and if it asks you, tell it to keep your existing file structure.

On the other hand, if you must have XP, I think it would be a better idea

to put it on a separate partition (or disk) rather than overwriting your

Win9x install.

For those who are going to keep their Windows 98, 98SE OS,,,,you might just as well get all the performance out of it that you can. Here's a couple of 'tweaks' I've been using for years with very good results.

2: START---RUN--- type in Sysedit , and then press ENTER

Maximize the "System Configuration Editor" window

Maximize the "System.ini" window

Scroll down till you can see the entire [386Enh] grouping

Place your mouse cursor on the first blank line at the bottom of the group

Then, type in the following line....

ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

(type the line exactly as shown,,,with NO spaces and caps where I've put them)

Then press enter.

The above line will help Windows to use RAM more effectively.

It's a very good idea if have 128 MB or more, as it will drastically reduce unnecessary

swap usage. Basically, Win98 (not 95) tries to be smart and allocate swap space

ahead of time, during times of low system load, which may improve performance

on low-memory systems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is, why 98 ? Why not just move up to Windows 2000? It's got only a slight requirement difference to my knowledge and it's compatible with all new software and games. I understand the security issue but anyone that is relativly smart can avoid these problems.

What is a Rootkit?

The term rootkit is used to describe the mechanisms and techniques whereby malware, including viruses, spyware, and trojans, attempt to hide their presence from spyware blockers, antivirus, and system management utilities. There are several rootkit classifications depending on whether the malware survives reboot and whether it executes in user mode or kernel mode.

Persistent Rootkits

A persistent rootkit is one associated with malware that activates each time the system boots. Because such malware contain code that must be executed automatically each system start or when a user logs in, they must store code in a persistent store, such as the Registry or file system, and configure a method by which the code executes without user intervention.

Memory-Based Rootkits

Memory-based rootkits are malware that has no persistent code and therefore does not survive a reboot.

User-mode Rootkits

There are many methods by which rootkits attempt to evade detection. For example, a user-mode rootkit might intercept all calls to the Windows FindFirstFile/FindNextFile APIs, which are used by file system exploration utilities, including Explorer and the command prompt, to enumerate the contents of file system directories. When an application performs a directory listing that would otherwise return results that contain entries identifying the files associated with the rootkit, the rootkit intercepts and modifies the output to remove the entries.

The Windows native API serves as the interface between user-mode clients and kernel-mode services and more sophisticated user-mode rootkits intercept file system, Registry, and process enumeration functions of the Native API. This prevents their detection by scanners that compare the results of a Windows API enumeration with that returned by a native API enumeration.

Kernel-mode Rootkits

Kernel-mode rootkits can be even more powerful since, not only can they intercept the native API in kernel-mode, but they can also directly manipulate kernel-mode data structures. A common technique for hiding the presence of a malware process is to remove the process from the kernel's list of active processes. Since process management APIs rely on the contents of the list, the malware process will not display in process management tools like Task Manager or Process Explorer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a dual-boot system, running Win98SE SP2.02 and Win2k SP4.

I use Win98Se to run old games, plus my scanner doesn't have 2k drivers, so I am forced to run it under Win98SE to use it.

Win2k is great for running everything else, especially when I have several programs open at once while I'm manipulating large graphix. Win98SE would bog down and crash.

Best of both worlds on one computer. Works for me!

.H*P*D.

"When in doubt, I whip it out!"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why run 98? Because I don't actually run it... I mean, I use Virtual machines, and some old hardware from my collection, here and there... but I really don't use it, because I have better things to do with my time than fix problems with new hardware and old software...

I do, however, try to help out this community with Win98 compilations... I guess I help some people....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would there be even a minor security advantage to having a dual boot setup, using (a) an "out of date" 98se-FAT32 partition for browsing (which inherently, e.g. without modification, cannot anticipate let alone read or write on a NTFS partition), and (B) a w2k-NTFS partition for personal work?

the 98se-FAT partition would have only a browser installed, with no or deceptive personal information, and even if "uncle bill" grabs the "root" he is limited to the 98-FAT partition you voluntarily give up to him -- OTOH, when the w2k user logs on, he could see the FAT partition, so he or she could access any downloaded files etc (but not vice versa, absent hassles by an attacker)

then again, *if* a hacker figured out that there was a silent NTFS partition lurking behind the FAT, he might find it easier to attack a NTFS partition from the 98 platform, because the w2k system which would normally protect it, wouldn't be running ...

??

Edited by Molecule
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superlevel: My question is, why 98? Why not just move up to Windows 2000?
That "why not just" makes the "why 98" come across as a loaded question (like there's a need to upgrade from 98 that us ignorant technophobes haven't quite grasped yet) but the simple answer I have for you is that my Win98SE system currently does all I need it to, and any benefit Win2k might offer over Win98 would be marginal at best and certainly not worth the cost as far as I'm concerned.
mjc: Large hard drive support is nonexistant.
Native large hard drive support is nonexistant but third-party solutions do exist (like this one), and I can't envisage needing a single partition larger than 127.53GB. (Yeah that's right, I don't ever plan to install Vista. :*)
Jlo555: Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's bad or obsolete.
Amen to that.
Molecule: ...98se-FAT32 partition for browsing ... w2k-NTFS partition for personal work?
I actually considered the opposite for a while, though I intended using FAT-32 thoughout.
kartel: It [Win98] was ahead of its time for sure.
Bend over so I can thwack your ignorant butt with my dead Amiga keyboard. :P
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That "why not just" makes the "why 98" come across as a loaded question (like there's a need to upgrade from 98 that us ignorant technophobes haven't quite grasped yet) but the simple answer I have for you is that my Win98SE system currently does all I need it to, and any benefit Win2k might offer over Win98 would be marginal at best and certainly not worth the cost as far as I'm concerned.

Well I'd say that part of the issue lies with Microsoft's naming scheme...

'Windows 98SE' just sounds to be older than 'Windows 2000' despite the

fact that Win98SE was released near the end of 1999...(which is why I

suspect that we'll eventually see the return of year based releases at a

point in the near future.)

Now contrast that with 'Windows 4.10' versus 'Windows 5.0' and the gulf

doesn't seem as wide...especially for those of us running with one or more

of the unofficial service packs or third party system updates...it seems to

be largely at matter of perception.

--iWindoze

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.