[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Hello forum i'm trying to get a list of unsupported features
that Win98/SE/ME don't have without a 3rd party app.

1.Ntfs
2.Long file Names/LFN
3.USB 2.0- drivers supported but only for specific motherboards therefore it doesn't have all around support

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 18 December 2006 - 03:37 PM

[LLXX]

1. http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=39573

2. WTF?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

There are lots of functions that are missing thats not included
i only listed the ones i could think of

I thought windows 98 had a problem with LFNs i could be wrong though.
I don't want links to fixes i want a list of broken functions that not included in Win98/SE/ME
such as the one i listed above.like Ntfs for example is not supported in Win9X without a 3rd party tool
thats not what i'm looking for.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 18 December 2006 - 03:32 PM

[noguru]

Good unicode support.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Thanks for understanding my ?

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 18 December 2006 - 03:39 PM

[jimmsta]

Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support
Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)

That's basically all we need to build into Win98SE... Lots and lots of work to do anything like that, but if accomplished, we'd be closer to a Dos-based NT than anything else.

[bristols]

- Better GDI resources (e.g., 32- rather than 16-bit - I think; there's an interesting thread somewhere here on the forum that explains the issue).
- The ability to support the Cairo graphics library (a GDI replacement, used by Firefox 3 that, amongst other things, provides far better font-rendering in web pages).
- Cleartype, or some such advanced font-rendering technology.
- IE7 - it will never happen, I know this (I much prefer Firefox and Opera, but IE7 on Windows 9x would be handy to me).
- Better Unicode support (seconding noguru's suggestion above).
- Better security regarding file permissions (seconding jimmsta's suggestion above), although I can't see this happening at all.

This post has been edited by bristols: 22 December 2006 - 01:52 AM

[BenoitRen]

Quote

Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support

I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.

Quote

Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)

Quote

Better security regarding file permissions

No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity.

[Fredledingue]

One thing I can think of is (instead of administrtorship) having a "reboot in administrative mode" and "reboot in user mode" options.
"User Mode" Totaly forbidding adding or modifying files in (part of) system and program folders and writing in (part of) the registery until you restart in "administrative mode".

---
2.Long file Names/LFN ? I don't understand, I have no problem with LFN? Do you?
Maybe Unicode file name...

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Fredledingue, on Dec 22 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

2.Long file Names/LFN ? I don't understand, I have no problem with LFN? Do you?
Maybe Unicode file name...

I wasn't for sure about this so don't quote me on it i might be wrong if i
am please correct me on it

[bristols]

BenoitRen, on Dec 22 2006, 07:49 PM, said:

Quote

Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support

I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.

Quote

Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)

Quote

Better security regarding file permissions

No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity.

I hear you, BenoitRen, and I kind of agree. Moreoever, I guess, it would be to make 9x something that it's just not.

Retreating back from that (sort of), some better password protection at boot time would be good (although again, I'm really not sure how this could be achieved, since such measures are always easily bypassed through DOS). Windows 9x remains totally insecure at the (physical) point of access. I don't think I'd ever run 9x on a laptop, for example.

This post has been edited by bristols: 22 December 2006 - 05:56 PM

[awergh]

i sort of secured 98 with a domain and somehow at one stage i forced the policy on safe mode but you would still have to stop access through to dos

[oscardog]

bristols, on Dec 22 2006, 11:55 PM, said:

BenoitRen, on Dec 22 2006, 07:49 PM, said:

Quote

Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking support

I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application.

Quote

Security Access Managers (NT/2000/2003)

Quote

Better security regarding file permissions

No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity.

I hear you, BenoitRen, and I kind of agree. Moreoever, I guess, it would be to make 9x something that it's just not.

Retreating back from that (sort of), some better password protection at boot time would be good (although again, I'm really not sure how this could be achieved, since such measures are always easily bypassed through DOS). Windows 9x remains totally insecure at the (physical) point of access. I don't think I'd ever run 9x on a laptop, for example.

Dos can also be your friend in securing Win9x, a multiitude of apps exist to encrypt your system files before your system can start (just type your password at system start,takes a couple of seconds),installing the os to a non standard folder prevents safe mode attacks. Using the freeware pgp disk prevents anybody accessing your program folders/important files. Putting untrusted user accounts into ram or onto a bootable cd prevents them infecting theirs or your own system.
Using the above with even a basic 128bit encryption would be far harder to break into, than to rename/bruteforce sids on xp, even on a laptop

[Fredledingue]

There must be a way to totaly denying writing on some sectors of the HD.

Once you can do that, and find on which sectors crucial files are, you are safe.

[Marius '95]

There are a lot of programs and boot managers that offer good protection before windows starts. Some boot managers move partition table from it's normal location. Without the password you see no partitions on that disk. A smart person (one that knows what a partition table is) may be able to find the partitions and rewrite the partition table, but such knoledge is rare today.
BTW, did you know that ATA disks have a hardware security feature? Take a look at this: http://www.fitzenrei...ata/ata_eng.htm You can insert a small program into your MB BIOS and it will ask for password *before* POST is complete! No password - no HDD access.

[Fredledingue]

What I mean is disabling any change in system and program files while you are, for exmaple, on the internet.
I don't think the virus makers need to know the partition tables. Howver protecting the software can be made at this level thought I don't think it should go as far as to hide the partition table.

[cyberformer]

This is my first posting though I've been a member for a tad. I looked about for this subject, so if it is not in the right place feel free to move it where it belongs.
First, I thank every member of this site who has labored so hard to keep the world's best OS alive and viable.

Now, what about the IPv6 compatability? I've heard 98 does not support it. There is supposed to be a program (you have to pay for it) that solves this problem; but I think it is dangerous to put all ones eggs in such a basket. BUt if there is no support for IPv6, should not that be of prime concern? Is anyone working on this? It would be a great loss not to have internet access.
Once again, if this has been addressed elseware, please forgive.

[glocK_94]

Hi cyberformer!

You're talking about Trumpet Winsock v5.0. However, IMHO, I don't see how in the near future, IPv6 could deny internet access to Win9x users.
Indeed, IPv4 support will remain for years because switching totally to this new standard would require changing every servers, routers, modems etc... to new ones without backward compatibility.
But sure, on a long term basis, it could be nice to have this kind of feature. Maybe we should deal lots of RAM issues and hardware compatibility first...