Unofficial Windows98SE Patch

The eternal question: by Tirel · 2004-05-02 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:The eternal question: by crackshoe · 2004-05-02 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd go for the stereotypical response "But Can You Trust Redmond?!?!?!?!?"... but at least they're accountable for their actions.

--
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
Re:The eternal question: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 03:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd go for the stereotypical response "But Can You Trust Redmond?!?!?!?!?"... but at least they're accountable for their actions.

I'm curious. Other than shareholders, to whom are they accountable?
Re:The eternal question: by Methuseus · 2004-05-02 03:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

They are? I think that the suit against MS and the resulting decision prove your statement false....

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Re:The eternal question: by sambira · 2004-05-02 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't know if you can trust this Service Pack but can you trust one from MS? Who knows, this Service Pack might actually fix something instead of breaking things.
Re:The eternal question: by theLOUDroom · 2004-05-02 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can you trust him?

Can you trust Microsoft?

After all, they resfue to take on ANY legal liability for the security of your systems. If they intentionally shipped you broken software, what recourse do you think you have?

If this guy publishes real, verifiable contact information, I'd trust him, and I expect he does.

Of course, to me, asking if you can trust this guy is like asking if you can trust someone with the key to those shitty luggage locks they put on suitcases. If you gave a shit about security, you'd be using something else anyways.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:The eternal question: by Ayaress · 2004-05-02 04:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:The eternal question: by sadomikeyism · 2004-05-02 04:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Is this a joke? What happened to your Open Source Religion? If just anybody can offer a patch for linux, and you trust THEM, why won't you trust someone else offering a patch for Windoze? A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Re:The eternal question: by silentrob · 2004-05-02 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

...their customers...

Microsoft doesn't support it's customers, but instead only supports their customers who have paid for Microsoft's product AND who have also let Microsoft gouge them over support costs to have thier paid-for product supported.

John Q. Consumer doesn't have enough money to warrent Microsoft's attention.

If MS release a patch that hoses systems or installs a rootkit...

Similar things have happened before (unintentional, I'm sure). Microsoft fixed the problems at it's leisure, never apologizing and never being held truly accountable. ...many people will be clamouring for their blood.

Sure, whatever. People have never really clamoured for blood when yet another virus broke out or yet another security hole was found. As far as I am aware, Microsoft has never paid for damages due to the problems with thier software. There are parts of their EULA that makes them immune to accountability, just for these reasons. Consumers just sit back and tolorate the problem until Microsoft get's around to fixing it.

I ask you this: Specifically, in what capacity is Microsoft accountable to it's customers?

Granted, they are accountable to the US DoJ and the EU Commission, but only because of the weight each carry and the fines they can impose.

In the end, I can see where you're coming from, and you have a decent point, but I think you're not really looking at the real Microsoft, but instead you're looking at the public image of Microsoft.
Re:The eternal question: by sumdumass · 2004-05-02 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Patches in linux or opensource usually have the souce code availible. While i can't read the source, What I do trust from them is the fact that if there ever was somethign shady about the patch, a google search should show were someone else has found it and tried to expose it.

One the other hand, I have no problems installing this unofficial patch either. The worst that can happen is I have to wipe and reload. I have already placed it on another computer and I'm getting ready to start playing around with it.

If i would have any doubts about it, the difference would be because the source is availible for inspection and at least someone would have encountered something strange by the time i normally use other opensource programs. open source or linux using system admin tend to have alot of stricked network monitoring toold running and can tell when somethign isn't working right or is doing stuff it shouldn't. (of course i nkow i'm still gambling but the odds or good enough that i'm ready to play with them.)
Re:The eternal question: by zangdesign · 2004-05-02 06:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

After all, they resfue to take on ANY legal liability for the security of your systems. If they intentionally shipped you broken software, what recourse do you think you have?

Of course, one could say the same about Open Source.

*ducks*

--
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.

just repackaged by NoDoZ · 2004-05-02 03:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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'

Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

tell that to the companies and schools that still use NT4, if there isn't a reason to upgrade, dont upgrade. plus when a computer I have can't support 2k or XP, I fall back on win98

Re:Microsoft's stance by Koguma · 2004-05-02 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

How can there be a conflict when all he did was repacke M$'s own patches. No conflicts there. Not like he actually wrote any patches. This whole thing sounds way overblown. Here, let me release SP1.5 for XP. I'll pack up all the current hotfixes with an installer (pick one) and viola! I'm written up in all the second rate news sites that are dying for stories.

(apologies for strange misspellings.. I'm typing on a broken mac keyboard with no light).

Re:What's so special?? by John_Steed · 2004-05-02 03:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Don't install this on non-english MS Windows by log0n · 2004-05-02 03:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you're going to be picky about it, technically usrid0 plagiarized. Slashdot only quotes what's stated by the poster - in this case, usrid0 copied the body text.

Re:Slashdot plagiarizes again by morgajel · 2004-05-02 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Slashdot didn't plagerize, the submitter did. It's been said time and time again that editors don't read the articles- how are they supposed to know that the submitter plagerized it?

--
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.

Re:guarantees... by LostCluster · 2004-05-02 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he got into some kind of trouble for doing this.

Microsoft licenses its patches to allow redistribution, so long as they in the end get run on duly authorized installations of Windows. This package just wraps a bundle of patches up to each run in sequence... which is exactly what a Service Pack does, or a network admin does when he's pushing bunches of patches on his network...

Do you trust Windows 98? by fmaxwell · 2004-05-02 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can you trust him?

The guy's web page says:

I highly recommend that you should backup your system before installing the pack.

and

This software is provided "as-is," without any express or implied warranty. In no event shall the provider be held liable for any damages arising from the use of this software.

If 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?

Re:Do you trust Windows 98? by tsg · 2004-05-02 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

If he was trying to get you to download and install a Trojan horse, why would he tell you to backup your system?

To lend an air of legitimacy to his claims knowing no one will really backup their system. Or the trojan could be delayed by so long that by the time it activates the backups will be useless anyway.

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?

Well, literally, the disclaimer is saying he doesn't guarantee it not to screw up your system. It's reverse-reverse psychology: If I say it will definately work, no one will believe me, so I'll say it may not work and then they will think it will.

I'm not claiming it is or isn't malware, but the evidence you've provided is hardly compelling that it isn't.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:Do you trust Windows 98? by fmaxwell · 2004-05-02 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

In order to attempt to appear legitimate. I've seen simlar "no warranty" warnings in no-cd cracks and the like.

I just knew that argument would come. Do the "no-CD" cracks install malware? No. If they do, they get pulled. The guys hosting those files get paid for click-through ads, so they pull anything which is discovered to be spyware, malware, etc.

Because they don't realise that it is, and believe that it's legitimate.

So you don't think that Information Week: Security Pipeline has the technical expertise and/or journalistic integrity to check out the file before writing an article about it?

Now you're just being silly - he's hardly likely to put up a webpage about it, and a lack of others doing so just means that no-one has figured it out yet.

You're being silly. You actually believe that, with all of the people running ZoneAlarm, BlackIce, Ethereal, etc., that NONE of them would have found anything (assuming that there is something to be found)?

Now, I don't suppose that there is anything sinister about this, but really - to the best of my knowledge, he's just some random guy on the internet. Why should I trust him?

Why should you trust Microsoft? They can track your CD and DVD listening/viewing habits thanks to "upgrades" to Windows Media Player. Why should you trust Real Networks? Realplayer has spyware in it. Microsoft and many other commercial entities have all released software which has security holes and which surreptitiously sends your personal information across the Internet. You need to consider motivation: Commercial entities can make money with spyware. Record companies love statistics on how popular their CDs are, for example. Information about what sites you visit is valuable to a marketing person. Some "random guy on the Internet" doesn't really stand to profit from the installation of spyware on the small percentage of machines which still run Windows 98SE.
Re:Do you trust Windows 98? by fmaxwell · 2004-05-02 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

To lend an air of legitimacy to his claims knowing no one will really backup their system. Or the trojan could be delayed by so long that by the time it activates the backups will be useless anyway.{snip} Well, literally, the disclaimer is saying he doesn't guarantee it not to screw up your system. It's reverse-reverse psychology: If I say it will definately work, no one will believe me, so I'll say it may not work and then they will think it will.

Then you must be scared shitless when you read the reverse-reverse psychology on Microsoft's licenses and web site. With all of the disclaimers and warnings about backing up your system that you find there, they must be installing something that will make you go blind, cause cancer, and post your Social Security number on the big screen in Times Square.

I'm not claiming it is or isn't malware, but the evidence you've provided is hardly compelling that it isn't.

So all you want me to do is prove a negative? Gee, that sounds really reasonable.

Trustworthy? by polyp2000 · 2004-05-02 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Trustworthy? by Magic5Ball · 2004-05-02 04:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

>> "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.

Any entity that would blanket vouch for another's products without inspection or a solid track-record has suspect judgement, open source or not. Microsoft, not having expended resources regression-testing this unofficial service pack, did the right thing by not making any claims about it, just as Red Hat would do if I released patches for a six year old version for their distribution. There is no business reason to make such claims (and several compelling legal reasons not to).

Would you claim that $open_source_package is bug-free? malware free? regression tested? without first doing a through QC?

--
There are 1.1... kinds of people.

Re:Wonder how this will work with 98lite by RoundSparrow · 2004-05-02 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll chime in for th3e parent...

Older RAM can be expensive... and many motherboards choke if you mix brands/models (slight speed differences). Let alone the fact that many boards are maxed out with low-density DIMM's and you would have to re-purchase the amount you have...

Laptop / portable systems... often very difficult to upgrade and they often don't have much RAM capacity in the first place.

Old hardware tricks are about making do. A $80 upgrade for a $30 system may not make sense to someone doing it for a special project.

Microsoft patch vs some other guy patch by dpilot · 2004-05-02 05:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Microsoft patch vs some other guy patch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-02 07:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

If one downloads software from MS they can be reasonably sure that it doesn't contain a spam relay or a IRC DDOS bot. There's other bad outcomes besides "format and reinstall".

Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE by sumdumass · 2004-05-02 05:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

How much is it going for? I was looking for somethign like that just the other day.

seriously i have a 1960 chevy pickup that runn fine, a 69 chevell that rund fine as well as a 74 ford grand torino that runs fine. I also have a few newer cars that work good (arount 2000 models) but Nothing is functionally wrong with my older cars and I do drive them quite regularly. One still uses a lead substitue in the gas because i havn't rebuilt the motor yet.

I don't see any difference with a computer operating system. If it works as well as you need it too then why rush to spend more money and upgrade? On a side note I had a consultant try and sell me a dell dual xenon proccessor server with a large raid storage just to run a microsoft exchange server that would replace my postfix/ldap service (only 45 users) I already have in place on an over powered amd 2000+ with 120gig drive and 512 megs ram. I just didn't understand the point. Evidently some people seem to think you need the newest bigest stuff in order to run a computer efectivly.

Re:Free Windows 9X, Microsoft take a hint! by /dev/trash · 2004-05-02 05:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

You assume that none of the Win98 code made it into the W2K/XP/2003 codebase.

Re:Microsoft's stance by sumdumass · 2004-05-02 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

It apears that he did some leg work in packaging some updates not normally offered by windows updates too. Like the usb mass storage update, I had to hunt around for about 2 hours one night to get it and install it. Usuly these updates like this are only installed when someone is having a problem and trying to get a new device or program to work properly.

I really like that aspect of this patch. If I was to reload my computer today with windows 98se it would take around 6 hours finding all the trivial stuff to get my things working again. This is outside the 2 hours for windows update and all the reboots needed. I have one word for this guy, "thanks"

Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE by SomeGuyFromCA · 2004-05-02 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

> It is now 2004. This is a operating system from 1998. WTF?

I can tell you what the fuck, by ssh'ing over into my Lin/Win98 dual boot machine, cd /mnt/win/games, ls.

Duke3d, Fox Ranger, Freddy Pharkas Frontier Pharmacist, God of Thunder, GTA 1, Keen 1-6, Keen Dreams, Kilrathi Saga, King's Quest 6, Loom, Master of Magic, Monkey Island 1-3, Night Raid, Raptor, SimCity, SimCity 2000, Solar Winds 1 & 2, Space Quest 5, Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, Star Trek: Judgement Rites, Tyrian, Wing Commander: Kilrathi Saga, Wing Commander IV, Wing Commander: Prophecy, Wing Commander: Armada, Wing Commander: Academy, Wing Commander: Privateer, Wolf3d, Wolf3d: Spear of Destiny, and X-Wing Alliance.

All great games. All bought and paid for. And none of which I want to stop playing just because I've changed main machine OSes in the meantime.

--
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright

Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE by dcollins · 2004-05-02 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Here's an article that includes an estimation that 26.7% of all home PCs ran Windows 98 at the end of 2003, here .

There's a gigantic danger for tech-heads who upgrade multiple times per year to be seriously out of touch with the consumer base at large.

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes

Re:Why not? by Uber+Banker · 2004-05-02 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Re:Pouring soda over your keyboard by Arker · 2004-05-02 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

For the purposes I use my Windows box for, 98SE is definately the best version around.

First off, it's easy to easy to disinfect IE from it, which seems to greatly reduce the stability problems, in addition to taking care of the most commonly exploited security holes. Second, it supports a lot more games than 2000. You can also use 98lite to install the old '95 explorer.exe, which is a HUGE gain in usability over the later more annoying explorers. Unlike XP, it doesn't call home. And it's hellaciously fast on my fairly modern equipment, where XP would be just slow enough to make me want to waste a bunch of money on new components.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.

Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE by griffjon · 2004-05-02 11:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Exactly -- maybe I should install Windows ME, for something at least in this century? Or, on a P1 with 32MB of RAM, 2000 or XP might work better?

If the person who's using the computer is not into using Linux, or the computer won't support a modern Linux GUI, Win98SE is a surprisingly decent OS. It doesn't need much memory, lots of hardware and software support, easy to use...

And, if you care to bother, it has a fully functional NAT inside it (ICS, if you care to use ICS-Configurator or play in the registry), and can function alright for most people.

And, when it eventually craps out, at least Fat32 drives are easily mountable ;)

But I have to agree with the immediate parent, Win98 is one of the better OSes that MS has released.

--
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer

35 of 417 comments (clear)