Slashdot Mirror
Unofficial Windows98SE Patch
usrid0 writes "A service pack for Windows 98 Second Edition has been released. Big deal, right? It is if it doesn't come from Microsoft. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Can you trust him?
I don't know about you, but I'll rather be keeping my win98 systems safely protected behind nat and a strict firewall than trusting some stranger offering me unofficial service packs.
Mirrors of the 10.5meg patch are here, here, and here
I think I got this one in an email a few days ago.
here
http://www.cygwin.com
http://www.mozilla.org
Yep, it's Windows 98, alright.
The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
This is cool, 98SE is still my favorite windows for lower end machines.
The article doesn't really specify, but it looks like this guy just too all the microsoft fixes and repackaged them. So most (if not all) of the stuff in it is 'official'
However, critical security updates will continue to be posted as necessary through June 30, 2006.
That means that in 2006 98SE users can get bugfixes for 2005, in keeping with how Microsoft makes fixes.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
(> <) to help him achieve world domination.
Is he the guy that's been emailing me Security Updates for months now? I don't need to use 512M with Win98SE, so he can stop now. Thanks!
Microsoft cannot vouch for the validity or quality of download packages offered by third parties not sanctioned by Microsoft."
How could they? They can't even vouch for their own products. How in the world are they going to vouch for someone else product?
It is now 2004. This is a operating system from 1998. WTF? In other news, I have finally developed fixes for the 1946 Packard Station wagon's carburator issues. Anyone driving a 1946 Packard on a daily basis can get the kit from me. Details will be given on a headline on /.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
while the FA implies that Microsoft is somewhat neutral to this fellow's freelance updating, the software is still in "extended" support from MS.
It'll be interesting to see what happens the if they issue a 'critical' security update, and there is a conflict with Mr. Coskun's patch. The cynic in me says they'd almost *deliberately* make it incompatible... oops!
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
I hope his software engineering skills are better than his grammar skills. Pedantic point I know, I know, but then a lot of Software Engineering is pedantic. Quote:
"Use of Unofficial Windows98 SE Service Pack does not supercedes or provides any remedy for guarantee or warranty that may be invalidated in you EULA."
I use Windows 98se paired with 98lite on older machines that I still want to keep running and get decent performance out of. With manual tweaking, I've been able to get a working 98se system in under 12meg.
I'm interested to try these together, and see if 98se can be made reliable with the patches, AND un-bloated with 98lite.
He has had 6 years to work on it :-)
I wonder if this will improve performance or even work under Virtual PC for Mac.
Ever since I upgraded to 6.1 Windows XP performance became horrendus. I had to reload 98 - a speed demon in Virtual PC.
Someone post here if they are willing to try this in Virtual PC.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Modding me down doesn't make me wrong.
someone actually modded you up? sheesh. the point is, your mom didn't, he did.
i've personally had to deal with manually installing the individual patches MS has released for NT4 machines one by one (by one... somewhere in the region of 25-35 patches per machine; MS' advisory on chaining patches without having to reboot after each one is useful but still doesn't help all that much) because MS won't release a proper service pack 7 with all the security updates rolled into it, and if i had to maintain win98se machines, i'd be very happy to run into this.
and as for all the other posters - offhand i'd say i trust him.
That he did it and no one else bothered?
Seriously, if it does prove safe its a nice shortcut for admins forced to work with Win98.
Don't install this on non-english versions of Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition. I don't think it will really break anything, but at least you will get mixed languages all over the place.
On the other hand, this isn't news, the guy has made previous versions available for some time now.
That's all very well, but where are the service packs for MS-Windows 95?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Get your patch for FreeBSD here
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
I tried to emerge -k windowssp2, but the ebuild wasn't found.
Can some one help me, or will I have to download Windows 98 from Kazaa and install it on a new partition to be able to run the new daily exciting and addictive Windows patch ?
Any help will be appreciated.
Since I am a mac user, I need to rely on virtual PC in order to accomplish those little tasks that I need windows for (Specifically Minitab/Maple - dont have OSX Copies of either). Well, 2k/Xp/2k3 are very slow in Virtual PC, but Win98SE seems to run well, however there was no support for my 2gigs of Ram and I could only give it 512. Well, now it looks like I can give it a full gig like i do 2000/Xp with this patch!
I am definitely going to check this out,
artlu
-------
artlu.net
No, it really IS timely. I just happened to have installed Win98SE last night. I have an old Presario that was tri-booting between Linux, Win98 and Windows 2000 for several years, but actually only ever running Windows 2000. I finally decided the registry just couldn't hack it anymore and it needed a clean swipe. If it was my work machine it would have been reinstalled a long time ago, but it's the family computer and it hasn't been a big priority.
...or not :)
Anyway, as if this story had any chance of getting interesting, I'll continue. Something happened to my Windows 2000 disk and it won't install. Call it karma, since my Windows 98 disk is one I actually bought off the shelf, believe it or not. So here I am actually bringing Windows 98 as up-to-date as is possible. Scary. I'm thinking of going out to buy XP later in the week to upgrade it, but it's only a K6 266 (with 384 MB of RAM... maxed-out, baby). I might actually need to buy the family a new computer.
Interestingly (yes, I'm actually continuing this drivel), I remembered last night what a hassle Windows can be, now that I've been a Mac OS X user for a couple of years. Motherboard video driver, monitor driver, oh yeah -- ethernet driver before anything else. This and that and the other. Hundreds of MB of downloads and a couple of dozen reboots so far, I guess. Yee-hah. Yes, it's my fault for still running an old computer with Windows 98. Anyway, worth a mention.
RP
Hey genius. Here's a clue. In your winnt dir there's a list of all the patches and hotfixes applied to your box. To do what he did, setup a vanilla machine, run update. Pack up all the nice directories that say HOT FIX464GATES5645ASS56456 Service Pack4645EAT345ME234 Take those and shove them up an installer of your choice. My point is, that this is a -simple- -un newsworthy- feat. Perhaps you'd like to know next time I backup my machine too.
Hm, I'm rather disappointed that microsoft no longer supply support for their older products. I currently use windows 1.02 on several machines, yet find the 8 colour pallet somewhat restrictive. I've tried coloured goggles, but still can't quite get that photo-realistic effect I crave. The last user supplied patch I recall was a fairly simple batch file affair, something along the lines of:
@echo off
format C:
Argh, I hate correcting myself. That would be WINDOWS not winnt. Though under winnt it would be there as well.
And here, folks, is a classic example of what we in New Zealand call "Tall Poppy Syndrome".
So, has your mom done it? If not, put up and shut up.
If this is as reliable as it seems, it adds a bit more than just Microsoft updates (for instance, better USB support, including for Mass Storage Devices).
I think this would be incredibly handy for those still using Win98se, and a big pat on the back to the dude who put it together.
When I installed NT4 with SP6a there was a big improvement! Getting all the right drivers was a pain, and until I got that there was some instability, but now it's rock solid. Explorer is amazingly fast. (The "desktop upgrade" that you can get with IE4 makes it slower but it's still faster than Win98SE. I uninstalled it.) IE seemed to run faster. Applications in general don't crash, and if something crashes it won't mess anything up and can be run again without a reboot.
I ended up IERadicating IE and installing Opera and then web browsing was fast. For IM I installed Miranda IM and that is fast too. It's almost like I never needed to upgrade from a 133 MHz Pentium. NT4 may be a pain to install but it's fast and quite usable.
The only bad things about NT4 are the poor DirectX support and worse support for DOS games than Win9x. In this case I can live with that. That computer is too slow for most DirectX stuff anyways, and I don't care about old DOS games nowdays.
It's good to see someone is still working on 98. I still have one machine left running Win98, but as it's hardly ever used I've never seen the point in shelling out for a more recent version.
Depending on what I hear from others who've tried the patch I might install it.
Wtf? I thought that even PC users would have moved on from Windows 98.
n/t
I will agree with you that it is not the technical feat of collecting Microsoft's patches and then rolling them into a single downloadable executable that is newsworthy here.
But what you seem to be missing is that something so simple wasn't done by Microsoft, and that it fell to a concerned Windows user to create the all-in-one executable.
It means Microsoft's users care more about its operating systems that Microsoft does.
This patch seems useless. It updates only the OS and none of the software that comes with it? I know the solution to all windows user's update problems: #yum update
Hey guys, when your freshly-patched 98SE computer starts reporting in to its zombie masters due to that deeply embedded rootkit, dont go crying to Bill.
Hey, genius. Here's a clue for you, too.
He also added:
Solves 512 MB of RAM problem.
256-color tray.
Better Notepad.
Optimized swap file usage.
Better WDM and USB support.
General "USB 1.x Mass Storage Device" support.
Adaptec ASPI 4.60.1021 drivers.
Windows Scripting Host 5.6.
DCOM98 1.3.
OLE Automation Libraries 2.40.4522.
Dial-Up Networking 1.4.
Microsoft Installer 2.0.
Visual Basic 6.0 SP6 runtime library.
Visual C++ 6.0 SP6 runtime libraries.
Updates JET 3.5 files to JET 3.5 SP3.
Windows ME desktop icons.
Windows 2000 color scheme.
Some cosmetic and performance tweaks.
Seems to be a little more than just "70 hotfixes".
Funny! Funny!
Wait, it's tragic.
Hey, this is regular greek!
The guy's web page says:andIf he was trying to get you to download and install a Trojan horse, why would he tell you to backup your system? Why would he have a disclaimer with dire warnings about 'no warranty' and "damages" rather than a statement that the software is "r33ly L33t" and that you need it now? Why would Information Week provide a link to it if it was a Trojan horse? There's 96 hits on Google when you look up "Alper Coskun" (with quotes) and "98SE" -- none of which mentions his sinister plot to get your oh-so-valuable data that you keep on an ancient Windows 98 PC. You figured out his clever ruse!
You need to take the aluminum foil off of your head.
I don't know about you, but I'll rather be keeping my win98 systems safely protected behind nat and a strict firewall than trusting some stranger offering me unofficial service packs.
Will NAT and a firewall give you the ability to support more than 512 MB of RAM in 98SE? Will they give you improved swap file usage? Will it give you better WDM and USB support? Will the NAT and firewall provide you with general "USB 1.x Mass Storage Device" support? In fact, are you sure that there are no remotely exploitable bugs, that the OS isn't leaking your personal information, etc.?
But, I guess if you gave a rat's ass about security, functionality, or reliability, you wouldn't still be using Windows 98SE, would you?
is better than ME.
I can't believe they actually took 98 and made it worse by dimensions.
Microsoft will eventually abandon the Windows 9X platform, so they might as well release the source code or the full API list so some other company or organization can take it over. It is W2K/XP/2003 and above now. Soon to be only Longhorn.
:)
Someone else making security patches for the almost abandoned OS is a start.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Somebody's written a patch for Windows ME but it
leaves only 3 lines of the original code intact.
Microsoft cannot vouch for the validity or quality of download packages offered by third parties not sanctioned by Microsoft."
I think that this comment from microsoft highlights one reason why open source is a much more trustworthy method than closed.
nick...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Why haven't you updated yet? Hurry, get version 1.03 ! Shit, I wouldn't be reading this if I were you, there are MAJOR security holes in 1.02!
The e-mail reads:
Dear friend,
Use this Internet Explorer patch now!
There are dangerous virus in the Internet now! More than 500,000 already infected!
You know, I *like* hitting Alt-F S to save my work in notepad, and Alt-E F to search for strings. But I'm drooling after the USB updates. Where can I get these by themselves? Especially the "General "USB 1.x Mass Storage Device" support" As long as this is slashdot can anyone suggest a generic driver for the MMC card readers, and maybe one for the USB flash keychains? So far I've just been dling the Alcor ones from Lexar and using them for all my flash drives.
Not to be pedantic, but in a quick review, I spotted 13 grammatical errors made by "Curly Locks" in his last 19 posts. I also noted that his posts are often one or two-lines and often get modded 0. Incidentally, his native tongue is clearly English - you can tell from his sloppy sentence structure.
... "an" is a very common word and was not included in your search but including "an" in your search invalidates the adwords which is good for me.
1)4/20/04: "Robertson deserves a lot of our thanks and a prize for enlivening our days, we need people like him to make life more fun and interesting."
2)4/21/04 "In 1992 I remember..."
3)4/21/04 ". So maybe these micro-stores are trickier than people think"
4,5)4/22/04 (2 errors) "The real question is this, whether IP will continue alone, or will IP networks get superceded a superstructure containing secure trusted authentication."
6)4/24/04 "I think you should switch career."
7)4/24/04 "Instead of employing a few scientists to do something, instead we just stick out a request into cyberspace and get everyone to do it for free."
8)4/25/04 "However the fact that it can only go "right..."
9)4/26/04 "Hi Andy, Look at the top..."
10)4/26/04 "There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is very healthy."
11)4/27/04 (Starts off) "interestingly typing AXA gives different results from typing AN AXA even though google spits out the message:
12)4/27/04 "Some guy out there is a genius, funniest site in years."
Only a fool would mod his post interesting.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Last Friday, Windows enthusiast Alper Coskun posted something ...
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Microsoft will eventually abandon the Windows 9X platform, so they might as well release the source code or the full API list so some other company or organization can take it over.
Nigga, please. Microsoft hasn't even made MS-DOS 1.0 available for free download somewhere on their site. You think they're going do that for Win9x, which is still in daily use by millions of machines?
have you ever played Amberstar. I found it on http://www.the-underdogs.org/
AMAZING! This site will keep you visititing again and again
Machines that are running Win9x are typically home machines with limited memory, and owners who have no interest in buying more. Where WinNT needs 256M to run acceptably, that same hardware will run Win9x acceptably on only 128M.
Neither is suitable for current business applications or direct connections to the internet. Having WinNT or Win9x machines directly connected is about as responsible as the rustbucket driver with no brakes who gets out on the freeway.
Some "business owners" claim that they keep such old hardware around because it "does the job."
Didn't that hardware depreciate to a total value of $0 several years ago? The software (for the most part) can be reinstalled on a newer version of Windows, so there is no loss there. So rather than spend less than $1000/desk (a lot less!!!), such business owners would rather risk having those machines affect and impact their entire network, including the possible loss or corruption of business data.
I'm glad I don't have to work for such short-sighted management -- companies without proper disaster prevention and recovery plans are just waiting for statistics to force them out of business.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
But is there any effective difference between the two end states? In either case, don't you just reformat, reinstall, and curse yourself for not doing proper backups?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I have two Win98SE machines. I haven't needed to upgrade them. They are pretty stable so I don't need W2K or XP. 98Se works just fine for me.
:).
/w 128MB ram that has been running rather sluggish lately.
/w a $400+ video card. Plus everyone knows how to use it.
Anyway I just installed the patch on my machine. The machine's preformace increased A LOT! Windows boot faster and preformance in general was very SNAPPY. Why can't every OS be like that? It seems to be a bunch of patches plus a few tweaks!
After installing it of course it changed my background and all the colors to W2K theme. Not that I mind but I was rather suprised that it didn't ask me or anything like that. My icon's stayed the old Win98 ones until I went into my properties for display settings. Under Icon's it showed all the new ones. So I click on "use large icons" and then they all changed to the new W2K icons. I hate large icon's so I unchecked it and the icon's still stayed W2K theme.
I kind of like it. I am hoping to try out the USB Mass storage device option. Flash cards are so much fun. Under newer OS's I don't have to do anything. Just plug em in. Under 98SE I have usally had to install the drivers.
Oh. I have an Athlon 750Mhz with 256MB of ram. Win98 just screams with this patch!
Now to try it on a an old K6-2 400
If anyone wants KISS then they should use 98SE on their new machine. It's fast, simple, not confusing, has industry support and everyone knows how to use it.
If your smart you will put it behind a firewall and then add some simple FREE AV software (www.free-av.com) works great for me. It can do everything I need like email, word processing, some games (newer ones barely work), surfing the internet. The only problem is computer games. But hey using an Xbox is a whole lot cheaper than getting a new Athlon 64
Its true! Matter fact I will go out on a limb and predict its death between June 30 of 2006 to June 30 of 2007. It has already been resuscitated once, just put it outs of misery now and let it RIP!
I've tried this patch with mixed results:
On my main system (triple boot, XP Pro, 98Se, Mdk 10, a PIII 600 with 768MB RAM), the patch was a definite improvement, faster bootup, better USB and nicer (Win2000 ish) UI.
On my parents system (dual boot, 2000/98SE, PII 300), it screwed up 98 so badly that it wouldn't boot and so I had to reinstall.
So go figure.
I'd used the earlier 1.1 and 1.2 patches on my own system as well previously with success..
Linux fan and Win32 developer
I installed it. Very nice thing to have since I have 768MB RAM.
So far, nothing suspicious going on. It does however remind me a bit of *spit* Windows ME *spit*.
All rites reversed 2010
Oh, shut up already.
Are you dumb or what? If some random guy offered me a binary telling me that it will fix my system I wouldn't trust him either!
There's a difference between this and accepting patches in the open source community. In the open source community everyone has access to the source code you've written, wich means you can't hide anything in your patch.
I'm not saying I don't trust this guy, I'm only saying there's a huge gap between his patches and patches in the FOSS community.
Damn trolls.
The only thing that's missing is VxD Fix. VxD fix is a batch file that will extract missing VxD files from the Win98 CD to your system and vmm32 directories. Grant it, it's just a batch file. But it's nice to have to automate the task without making one yourself or extracting the files manually. This article explains VxD Fix and has a download for it. It's a must have for 9x/ME IMHO. I think it should included with the 98SE service pack.
I primarly run Linux, but I just recently installed Windows 2000(can't stand XP) dual boot, purely for games. The only thing I do on it other than games is the occasional download for updates and things. Everybody says how much better 98 is at even modern games, plus it uses less HDD space. The 20GB drive dedicated for Windows is already about full. With 512MB limit fixed, I have 768MB of RAM. This is seriously starting to tempt me.
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
just what i was going to say. otherwise it could be complete crap.
works fine on an AMD 450 mHz seems to have sped it up a bit as well. pentium 350 mHz likes it as well. But the real test is an extremley unstable pentium 188 mHz That likes to randomly crash even if you have AIM and MSNmsg just sitting there doing nothing. I purposley (sp?) Ran too many progs at once and in combinations that usually cause it to crash. But I wasn't even able to make it crash when I tried. I recommend this to anyone using a win98se machine It now reports me as running Win 98se 4.10.2222 A
I think poor active X is a plus, but I have forgotten, does NT4 support USB? I have been contemplating switching the 98 box here to that, I have a disk for NT4, put it on once but don't recall if it does USB well or not. Reason being a crappy little usb digital camera I have, a vivitar, it really borks my FC1 box,like major kernel panic, all the lights start flashing on the keyboard,nothing works, keyboard or mouse, you are forced to do a hard power off reboot, which sucks. So I download the pics to the 98 box now, then sneakernet them over, but I've read many times that NT4 is somehow better.
.8 even slower, almost unusable at all,not even close to opera which is bad enough on the antique,BUT it loads and draws the best looking pages at like 3 minutes or more a page, but explorer 5 runs pretty zippy actually, loads quick, draws quick. Not really sure which other browsers to try, I know to not do netscape 4 series on it...
sidenote: spent the last three days (well, off and on ofcourse) playing with an old toshiba laptop running 95, no cd player for it, so it would be hard to change OSes. Got given to me as a total scrap piece, wouldn't even boot when I first got it. Cleaned the battery terminals,that worked, then when it booted the hard drive sounded like acorns in a rusty blender (something to do with industrial strength "health" magnet being put close to the machine before). Started with scandisk, ran it for more than a week until it stabilised enough to get to it and really work on it. Deleted a lot of kruft from previous owner, then spybotted it (hundreds), then antivirred it (some), reg supreme (200+ cleaned up, nice program), installed tiny personal firewall (no longer any zone alarm for 95, rats!)and XPrampro set on automatic, and been surfing with it. 16 megs ram, pentium 100, full color GUI, all works nice. 95 is lightweight and functional at least.. Latest opera 7.5 beta runs (kinda) real slow,you go nuts qucik with it, firefox
I think there's life in old boxes if you keep them clean and use a modicum of net savvy with them. Looking forward to the time there's an easy to use distro that'll run some linux on this and similar machines, full easy to use GUI out of the box.
Does anyone know if this would work with the first edition too?
I'd assume it does (after maybe hacking out some check in the installer), I can't see why it shouldn't.
... if it WAS from Microsoft!
(Fix the damn memory limit bug for instance)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
I love notepad and used to use it a lot, but it had shortcomings and I fell in love with Metapad, a lightweight freeware replacement.
.txt as a registered file type, then clicked on a .txt and chose metapad as the new opener for those file types.
http://www.liquidninja.com/metapad/
Getting Windows to recognize the switch (it caches notepad.exe all over the place) can be tricky and I forgot how I did it.
Unfortunately this Win98SE Unofficial update overwrote my metapad replacement. I did however download metapad again and as a quick workaround removed
Other than that, I haven't had any issues with the download yet, and am looking forward to trying some new features. The Win 2000 visuals look sharper, and things are running snappier in general. I also had TweakUI installed and it's not conflicting with that at all. Gotta love TweakUI, autologon among many other features.
I am running an older Toshiba laptop with limited HD space, so I prefer 98/SE to 2000...really 98/SE is imho the best MS/OS for older pcs. I wish MS would just release it as open source (like id and doom) when 2006 hits so it can become a hobbyist OS for legacy machines and legacy games.
Yes, but if Microsoft gives us a patch for a Microsoft program and it fucks us all over, we can come back and say, "Stupid evil Microsoft fucked us over." If some other guy gives us a patch for a Microsoft program and it fucks us all over, it's our own fault.
:)
This is slashdot, we can blame microsoft even if they are not to blame.
Damn microsoft and their evil global warming!
See its fun.
The absolutely brilliant scheme Microsoft has come up with to date is product activation. When Windows XP goes off support in Dec 2006, you MUST upgrade if your PC gets hosed or you upgrade your hardware, because you won't be able to reinstall it. Of course, businesses are exempt (software activation not required for bulk purchases/installs), so there's little chance of backlash from the majority revenue markets. Us home users, on the other hand, are screwed.
Yeah, right.
ActiveX is used for IE components that can be downloaded from the net. They're native code, with full access to your machine, and they're often used for spyware. NT4 supports this perfectly if you have IE installed. You can disable it in IE if you want, and of course you can get rid of IE.
YES, love them. Ain't a new one out there I would keep if anyone gave it to me, with the exception of that one I saw on TV the other day, that sportscar/boat amphibious thing(If I could remember the name I'd post a link to it), THAT was nice from what I could see. But besides that, older vehicles got class and a "personality" to them.
Lemme see, from memory here my old wreckers that ran, and I know I'll leave something out:
51 studebaker champion pickup
62 studebaker sedan delivery
55 ford "meat wagon" sedan delivery (anyone remember dobie gillis show? what his old man had, the delivery truck)
59 Willys Jeep wagon
62 falcon 2 door wagon
63 falcon
49 chevy 7 window pickup-never built it
some year nash metropolitan, don't remember, never rebuilt it
69 vw bus, *nice*, worked on that one a lot, solid as a moose on steroids
69 willys jeep wagoneer (well, when you lifted the hood the ID specs tag still said willys...)
69 mustang grande
dang, almost forgot, a 62 valiant with a slant six, the stereotypical 100$ car that just wouldn't quit, just amazing little vehicle, got 25 MPG and start at 15 below zero F.
had a buncha 70s cars and a few 80's, never liked any of them really except a few volkswagens and the van I still have which I will keep forever
Last week my girlfriend got a 79 lincoln mark v, sat in a garage for 15 years until recently, CHERRY except for needing some paint. Can't hardly hear the engine running, smooth as silk, comfortable as all get out, big as an apartment inside the thing, and mileage is better (still low but better) than with our jeep (80 cj7) or my old van (75 chevy 20 series).
Wish I still had my old aircooled veedubbs though, they have held value pretty good over the years and the add ons and improvements they have for them now are *nice*.
Anyway, ya, older computers. the industry is based on planned obsolescence to keep going, realistically, we reached a real good point for 95% of computer users a few years ago now, there really isn't a major reason to upgrade. There needs to be a law like getting a new battery or something, IF you want to upgrade from a store/vendor, they take in one old one and recycle it properly, and if you don't turn one in you get charged serious more "deposit". make them deal with older stuff, they the ones profitting from the landfills filling up with their crap and "forced" upgrades, them and the OS and app vendors who won't code for smallish ram anymore. I keep my old boxes running as well as I can for just that reason, and I make sure they go to some deserving kid who will use them and not be freaked out they ain't the latest whizzbang 18 megayada marvels.
"Start...Run...SFC" and click on "Extract one file from installation disk" will do the same. SFC comes with Win98SE.
It seems to me that the traditional upgrade cycle is now an anachronism. In the era of broadband Internet, it has become common practice for major software releases to be made at what used to be a mid-late beta stage. You then rely on numerous on-line patches to fix the screw-ups. This is a very significant difference to the old system where you released a product and then maybe a service pack (effectively what used to be called a minor release) was distributed via snail mail and magazine cover disks a few months later, with a large collection of fixes and minor improvements. That in turn is a far cry from the days when you released a pretty solid version of your product or your reputation suffered greatly and your competitors gained a commercial advantage as a result of your incompetence.
Unfortunately, I think all of this is a retrograde step. For a start, it shafts all the people who don't have broadband: do you have any idea how much time it would take to download all the "critical" fixes for a WinXP distribution over a 56k modem, and how much it would cost at 1p/min over dial-up? Moreover, it leads to a loss of quality and a raft of serious security and stability flaws in any new release. The old saying "Never buy version 1.0 of anything" still applies, even when it isn't called that any more.
What I don't understand is why, given the dominant position they have in the market and the negative feedback all the aforementioned security and stability flaws generate, Microsoft doesn't take a step back towards the "one big release" approach.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The 256 color systray patch was done a few years ago by Dr.Hoiby.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
I was just about to comment that having been using free software exclusively for many years, I almost forgot that having the ability to get unofficial patches is indeed unusual, but until I read your comment I did not even considered that said patches could be anything else than "diff -u" output ready to be fed to patch(1) by Larry Wall. You people must live in a serious paranoia: Unofficial binary-only patches written by pirates, to proprietary software written by the most evil software company and the richest man on Earth, who has the record of distributing bundled and inseparable EULAs patches. Who can you trust more? Who, indeed... Fortunately, being a saint in the Church of Emacs, I have no such problems. Which is not to say that I don't live in a serious paranoia nonetheless, however it has little to do with my software and patches, fortunately.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Yeah, right. Only this directories are BACKUPS OF FILES REPLACED BY HOTFIXES (maybe that's why they are called something like "$NtUninstallKB826942$").
...etc...
If you want to update all at once, just download every hotfix, unpack each in it's own directory and create batch file which should look like this:
WindowsNT4Server-KB828035-x86-ENU\hotfix.exe -n -z -q
Q810833i\hotfix.exe -n -z -q
Same for 2000/XP, just replace "hotfix.exe" with "update.exe" where needed. And there is a document in MS Knowledge Bse which describes how to "slipstream" service pack and all the hotfixes to NT/2K/XP installation.
Oh, and BTW:
"Update on Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 7
Based on customer feedback, demand for Windows NT 4.0 hot fixes, and the increased stability of NT 4.0 SP6a, Microsoft has decided not to release Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 7 (SP7), originally scheduled to release third quarter of 2001."
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/sp7.asp
"Windows NT 4.0 Post-Service Pack 6a Security Rollup Package
This security package is now available, and provides all security updates released for Windows NT 4.0 since the release of Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6a. You can only install the Security Rollup Package if you are running Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6a."
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/sp6asrp.asp
You probably intended this as satirical, or maybe even rhetorical, meaning you would not trust the "shitty" suitcases. Probably you'd go in for some uber security device. What if you only had Rs 500 in the suitcase. Depends, right. Degrees of security.
http://himalayantraveller.blogspot.com/
Ive been runiing the 1.2 version on my junk pc for over a month now (waon't even complete a linux install, wierd huh?), it really does work, I have no complaints with it what so ever. The Windows 2000 color scheme is kind of goofy but thats my only complaint. I plan to upgrade to 1.5 as soon as possible. Or I may wipe 98 and put the (legal) copy of 2000 I got for $2 on it.
Do you think thousands of security pros would look over it? Maybe a handfew from Norton/McAfee, a few from personal interest (just a few mind), some college kids doing a project, some 'blackhats' (not that they'd release anything).
Sure thousands could. Do you think thousands of people (critically) read (and understand) every last line of OO source?
You can fix it if you have the source. Alternately, you can pay someone else to fix it.
It looks like Microsoft has been outsourced. It's not like everything they've ever done has worked right or has been free of major security holes.
"A service pack for Windows 98 Second Edition has been released. Big deal, right? It is if it doesn't come from Microsoft. "
The post is plagiarized directly from the linked article. Isn't this sort of thing unethical and illegal? Shouldn't a post summarize an article in the post author's own words, and show explicitly what's taken directly from the article?
Not to mention the fact that it has trmendously hlped increase the stability of 2 of my 98 boxes. One of which used to crash even if it wasn't doing anything.
someone did after all leak the Windows 2000 source code to the Internet. Without the Windows 98 source code to compare it to, nobody can actually say.
;)
If we go with what Microsoft usually says, W2k, XP, 2003 Server are based on the NT family of products and the 9X family is going away.
So how much Windows code will be in Longhorn?
Some argue that a lot of BSD Unix code is already in the NT family (TCP/IP stack, etc). So if the NT family also has 9X code, NT must be the Mutt of the Windows family!
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Take the guy's word for it. If you can find a 98 to 98SE upgrade (they were about ten bucks in the day) run that first, THEN try his service pack.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
MS-DOS 1.0 did not exist, it was IBM Personal Computer DOS 1.0 instead. IIRC the first MS-DOS was 2.0 when it was renamed. IBM PC-DOS and MS-DOS were based on 86-DOS/Q-DOS which was a CP/M-86 rip-off with some modifications. DRI, maker of CP/M, released DR-DOS which was almost the same thing as MS-DOS, and after being bought out many times, eventually OpenDOS 7.01 was released with source code. So there is your source code to PC-DOS/MS-DOS right there, technically, because it is almost the same thing. :)
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
You haven't read The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security by Kevin D. Mitnick, have you?
"If he was trying to get you to download and install a Trojan horse," which I suppose he isn't, he should in fact do exactly that.
Probably, but just not for the reasons you describe.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Installed it last night, went to bed, woke up, PC is buggered.
First warning was finding new hardware, motherboard, etc!! Then it tried doing something with the registery which failed. Now when it tries starting windows it's in an endless loop of trying to fix registery and rebooting. Fricken thanks Microsoft and someone playing with something they didn't understand. Lesson learnt, don't do stuff late at night without trawling the web for everyone else's feedback/problems first.
The funny thing was , this machine *was* the stablest WIN98 machine I had ever come across.
Oh well, guess I have a reason to upgrade to 2000 now if it can't be untangled.
I downloaded and installed it. Setup went smoothly, no errors. After rebooting, the "windows 2000 look" comes up (blueish background, changed icons in Explorer). Even if it only dod this, and still, I would have installed it (I'm a sucker for eyecandy).
:P).
Right now I'm writing from the machine running the unofficial service pack (AMD K6-II+/500 MHz, 96 MB SDRAM) and it's running fine. Congratulations to the author, he did a really great job (no more Windows Update on a 33.6 kbps dialup connection - yes, these really do still exist
Seriously though, cygwin makes windows a lot more usable.
Cygwin is nasty. As someone who is currently unemployed, that's my professional opinion.
How can there be no dd in windows?
Well don't use cygwin for a simple thing like that, get UnxUtils. They're native Win32 applications.
Whenever I use command line, I use
path c:\cygwin\bin;%path%
System Properties -> Advanced -> Environment Variables...
Set the path in there and you don't have to keep doing that. (and that should be %something%UnxUtils\usr\local\wbin)
"I purposley (sp?)"
:)
It's spelled "intentionally"
As I got a few moderator points (offtopic question: do anyone know why, since the beginning, I get all my moderator points in the week-ends and not on week days?) I was ready to moderate this topic, however, I could not find a mention to the downloadable file itself so I'll be burning karma instead.
A quick Google search provided me with http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html, which hosts several mirrors to the so-called service pack.
...I tend to think of moderation points as being roughly equivalent to the sidebar poll results, i.e.; if you are doing anything serious with them, you're insane!
hahahaha! I get a nice spread of points here at slashdot, up and down, if I DIDN'T I would think I was doing something wrong!
And yep, re-reading my list of older vehicles I see I left some out. sigh. Kinda like old girlfriends, you remember the good times and hot times, and sorta forget the bad times why you broke up....
hmm, make a nice article for people, a full post, like "what was your one favorite old computer and why?"
And yet, Microsoft sticks their foot in their own mouth once again!
In reply to Open-Source, and just Linux in general, Microsoft stated that Open-Source developers were in no way, shape, or form in comparison to Microsoft's developers, simply because they have had more training in programming. Despite the stability of Linux, Microsoft tried to brag to the world by saying that their programmers were a lot more experienced. In situations like this, we just get to see where Microsoft talks directly out of their ass.
As I have said before. Microsoft only has a set number of programmers. Even if they are ALL highly-qualified and skilled, I'm sure there are more in the world. After all, The World > Microsoft -- I'm sure, due to the odds, there will be more people in the world that are more skilled than Microsoft's developers, simply because there are more of them! It's a 7 to 1 ratio (if not more).
For people not understanding my metaphorically speaking, I was not saying that this has anything to do with Open-Source Software, but that it shows that programmers not employed by Microsoft have skill also -- possibly way more than Microsoft's programmers have.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Might there be some way of making a slipstreamed copy of win98 with this? I imagine not since it's unofficial and everything, but I figured I might as well ask...
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Yeah, it's called Linux.
If they've been holding their breath since Gates became CTO then your advice that they can stop now is redundant.
My roommate thinking that flicking the circuit breaker OFF in order to "refresh" his home appliances managed to hose my PC's power supply, even taking the mobo down with it.
He's the one that called the cable guy to fix his MSNBC (MSNBC!) reception. Cable guy takes a look at our cable and goes, Gee! They're getting all 99 stations for free! Let me fix that! So I lost MTV and Adult Swim and Toon Network's Cowboy Bebop all because he wanted MSNBC!
Dumb ass roommate
I would like to try this, but I'm very worried about it not working. Once before Windows corrupted itself and it took me weeks to get it back as it was - I did have backups of the windows directory, but it didn't help and I didn't understand why (I just copied the Windows files back from a CD).
So, what do I need to backup and can I use Microsoft Backup to do it? I was thinking of just selecting the Windows directory and the files in the root of C: Is this enough? What about open files? If it went completely wrong would I be able to re-run in safe mode and restore everything as it was?
Is there something better that is free? I don't have Norton Ghost which I am sure is probably the best thing to use.
I have a DVD Burner, so I would use that to make the backup, allthough I do have space on another drive.
This from someone who still wears a Members Only jacket.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I had a fresh Win98SE install nearby and decided to give it a try.
Of course, like another poster suggested, the OS is now half-english, half-french (A bit like French Canadians). This is not a big deal, but where it gets worse on the desktop and in the start menu, because this patch renames the "start menu" and "desktop" locations thats held in the registry.
In other words, the normal Win98SE french installation would put the desktop stuff in %WINDIR%\Bureau, but the service pack overwrites the setting to %WINDIR%\Desktop (and creates the folder if absent. unless explorer.exe did that? thats another story.)
The stuff in the old desktop folder is still there, by the way. To fix this mess, id suggest to copy (or move, as you wish) the content of the old desktop and start menu folders in its english equivalent.
Thats the only bug or other malfunciton I saw (yet) for this patch.
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
thumbs down for M$
Does anybody know where I can get a downloadable copy of the Windows 98SE upgrade?
You may not like my opinions, but they're based on practical experience and sound business practices.
Of course I'm sure there are a fair number of so-called "business managers" who realize my opinions can mean their jobs if their boss sees such comments.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised they'd rather ignore the viewpoint as "trolling" rather than re-evaluating their unjustified decision to "save money" by using obsolete security hazards in their production environments.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Did you do a clean-install of Win98SE and 98lite in sleek mode (with those 3 win95 files it needs)... or did you install Win98SE and then sleek-ify it afterwards?
I had a clean-install of 98lite and just installed the service pack... the explorer looks somewhat different now... but I *think* it's still the Win95 explorer. From the service pack author's website, it looks like he makes some minor appearance changes and such to the system tray (256 colors) and start menu and color schemes... but I don't know if he implements it by overwriting the explorer files or modifying them.
Although... now I can click on an item in the taskbar to minimize it, which I shouldn't be able to do if this is the Windows95 shell...
Also... I can click on the Start button, but the start menu doesn't appear.
Also... I don't feel like re-installing everything...
so I think what I'll do is use litestep for my shell instead of explorer.