Microsoft Stops Supporting Win98 Early

Christopher_G_Lewis writes "Today Microsoft announced that it is 'not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer on Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME) to eliminate the vulnerability' to fix Security Bulletin MS06-15. Granted, the vulnerability is easily prevented by basic firewalling, but this basically is the first time Microsoft has admitted that Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet."

Comments

Huh?

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Win98 is broken? That's crazy talk, I've been using it for years, and I've never had any prob#$*(*^^(*&!@ NO CARRIER

Re:Huh?

[staticsage]

I think the Windows Genuine Advantage (98) finally caught up with him...

Re:Huh?

[Xyrus]

So...all you guys are still running the linux kernal from near 8 or 9 years ago, right?

And I suppose the latest version of firefox/KDE/gnome runs just fine on that kernel as well, along with all your other favorite programs?

I'm as pro-linux as the next person, but this is little more than a bash M$ troll.

Can we a get a mod for -1 pointless?

~X~

Re:Huh?

[Jo Owen]

I run linux version 2.2 which is from 1999, and I still get updates.

I must be drinking...

[Mr. No Skills]

this basically is the first time Microsoft has admitted that Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet."

It's like an alternate universe, where Microsoft is trying to sell Windows 2000 Professional to home users...

:O

[joe 155]

well, I'll get modded down but...

MS got it wrong... "Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet" For some reason this contains a "98" which came out of nowhere. It should read

"Windows is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet"

Re::O

[Kesch]

Where did the words "on today's Internet" come from?

Re::O

[Southpaw018]

No, I'll get modded down, but... ;)

Look, the truth is that Win XP and to a lesser but still significant extent Win 2k are real, solid OSs. They're targets because of their omnipresence, and moreso because they're 'competitors' to Linux, which is so endeared unto a community like this one.
So we hear the most about the Windows vulnerabilities, yet I just updated some of the software on my Linux box to fix a few security holes, too. And in all honesty...like any other piece of software, if you keep up with the updates and are conscious of the risks and pitfalls of everyday use, it's a safe, fast, and secure OS. If you tossed a version of your favorite Linux distro released circa 1998 onto a computer you would have some VERY serious problems running it smoothly and/or securely.

Re::O

[joe 155]

well, I know that I made the joke but I'm not really an anti-MS zealot. I do use linux far more than windows that remains really just because my girlfriend likes it... :S.

I don't think that linux is just less of a target because it has less users; it is more secure because you hardly ever run as super-user.
For me on my system windows is over 30 seconds slower to load up
The safety cannot be said to be good just because the only reason that it is insecure is because it is visable (although I disagree) the safety is bound up with all aspects that affect it and cannot be deviod from that

I know that it is possible to use windows in a secure way and be safe (I've only ever had one virus since I moved from 98 to XP) but for me Linux is just better in this area

Re::O

[smittyoneeach]

A fair and balanced comment, but missing a couple of important dimensions.

a) What was your outlay, in currency, for these "like any other piece of software" operating systems?

b) Were you coerced^Wvery strongly encouraged towards hardware upgrades to boot the OS?

c) Were you given reasonable source-code level opportunity to deal with those little situation that arise for "any other piece of software"

I do agree with your basic premise, that later Redmond releases are quite stable. The one or two BSODs I've ever seen on XP had to do with crappy older hardware and bad drivers. Beyond the "credit where due" department, though, the relentless onslaught of GNU/Linux will one day bury Soviet Redmond, at least up to the neck. Because markets are just a beach like that, you know.

Re::O

[Ethan Allison]

As is Vista (beta 2). Despite all the speculation of craptacularness, it runs great (faster than XP, around the speed of Ubuntu+XGL) on my 3-year-old computer (2.4GHz/512mb/80gb/FX5200).

Re::O

[Southpaw018]

a) Not as cheap as a freely available distro, but cheaper than some distros that are sold as services (an OEM copy of Win XP goes for $90 on sale.)

b) Um, no? There's no reason why I would be, and I didn't need it. I won't need to upgrade for Vista, either.

c) Were I to have source code access, I couldn't do anything with it anyway. Unless it was PHP, my specialty language, or perhaps Perl. Same goes for 99.5% of users worldwide. So your question really doesn't make that much of a difference except to the computer elite who can hack source code.

Re::O

[RickBauls]

Maybe the internet is broke too.

Re::O

[colinrichardday]

But even a distro sold as a service can be installed on multiple machines, though only one qualifies for service. Can you legally install a copy of Microsoft Windows XP on multiple machines?

Re::O

[Anonymous Coward]

Youu could always try Debian stable. Software released in '98 is still too new to be included.

Re::O

[Chowser]

Al Gore, who invented it.

Re::O

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you tossed a version of your favorite Linux distro released circa 1998 onto a computer you would have some VERY serious problems running it smoothly and/or securely."

Google's systems and search appliances are based on RedHat 6.2 (Zoot), still using a lot of older software and kernels.

Re::O

[kerrle]

Funny, I've been running it all day, and my experience is just the opposite (on an Athlon64 3200+, Geforce 7600/w 256MB, 1GB ram).

The interface isn't as fast as I'd want (or as fast as XP), and seems to have about as many performance glitches as XGL (though of course, XGL does have some additional hurdles, too, with lack of hardware support for the extensions it uses).

It looks promising, and improved quite a bit from the build I looked at in December, but I would still put it at much more than 6 months off from really being ready.

Also, the security model has really been a major annoyance. Much more than in Dapper Drake, for instance. It sure does love you to confirm every little thing.

Re::O

[fireboy1919]

...that Win XP and to a lesser but still significant extent Win 2k are real, solid OSs.

I disagree. I would say that Win2k and to a lesser, but still significant extent WinXP are running on solid OS kernels.

Too bad that the layers of code on top of the kernel aren't so good.

Why is it fair to compare Linux from 1998 to Windows 2000? You don't think that Windows 2000 came out in 1998, do you?

The problem with security and Windows is that it can only come from Microsoft, updates are few and far between, and in order to get them you have to accept Microsoft Genuine Spyware(TM).

Re::O

[Rosyna]

Or maybe... oh wait, I'm sorry. You're just trolling.

No.. someone can't take a joke..

Re::O

[bigmauler]

In total truth my old linux/unix teacher has been running a slackware 7.0 web/telnet server on the internet for the class. Slackware 7 came out in 99...and it still is running today.

Re::O

[Tim C]

I don't think that linux is just less of a target because it has less users; it is more secure because you hardly ever run as super-user.

That's a choice, though. You can choose to run XP as a normal user account too. Some third party software developers make this hard, it's true, but it can be done. Where I work, we have 2 dozen locked-down laptops in a secure room running XP to which users do not get admin access. So far, after a few initial teething problems, it's been fine. There has been talk of extending the "no local admin" rule across the entire company (which wouldn't go down well, but that's another matter).

Similarly, you can choose to run Linux as root all the time. I suspect that a lot of people may well end up doing just that, should the masses ever start migrating. Either that, or they'll become conditioned to entering the root password whenever prompted.

Re::O

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats on repeating a thoroughly debunked meme promogulated by one Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing smear machine. Gore never said that he "created" the internet, and what he DID say was accurate. You should be embarassed for repeating obvious lies like that, even for the sake of a lame and tired joke.

Re::O

[Tony Hoyle]

Even on the MS support boards the common response to authentication questions is 'switch it off'.

I keep it on because I need to test my software with it on (works, except the control panel - you can't run control panels with administrator privileges any more... that's gonna break a *lot* of stuff).

Re::O

[thopkins]

Gnome and KDE eat memory like crazy too! I like linux and am no MS lover but the OSS desktops are memory hogs.

Re::O

[Tony Hoyle]

Hmm.. KDE - fine in 64mb.. works (slowly!) in 32mb.

Vista - *minimum* install 512mb. Won't install in less than that.

Re::O

[ad0gg]

You mean that my 5 year old version of openssl's sshd isn't secure? Well I guess i'll have to use my 5 year old version of telnetd instead.

Re::O

[freakmn]

I don't know which is funnier, that I read that as that only exists one copy of XP in the world, or that you said genuine copy. The second one sounds like someone trying to sell a sorny or a magnetbox.

Re::O

[megrims]

Whoosh!

Re::O

[rapidweather]

With more attention drawn to Windows 98 problems, the solution is to run XP, which requires a "new" computer. Who would just buy a copy of XP, and try and place it on the box that came with '98.
I have several older computers and laptops that came with 98 when new, and no, I do not run 98 when on the 'net anymore on them. I do run my Rapidweather Remaster of Knoppix Linux (2.4 kernel), see the screenshots below. I find that the newer livecd linux distros with the 2.6 kernel do not run on these older boxes well, if at all.
Katonix Linux, for example, will not boot on this very machine, a dual Pentium Pro 200 mmx box, with 256 mb of ram. My remaster does run perfectly, however.
So, there is an alternative to just "trading in the old '98 box", or "giving it away". One machine I have is a HP Pavilion 6330, with 128 mb of ram. The remaster runs perfectly in every way. Great for listening to internet radio, using dial-up, believe it or not. (Not much selection, but some does exist.)

Re::O

[1u3hr]

I do not run 98 when on the 'net anymore on them.

I was running Win98 using the Net daily till a couple of months ago. I used a firewall, hardly ever used IE; never had any security problems. But it was getting flaky (after 3 years since a clean install) and newer software didn't run on it, so I upgraded to Win2000, which is rather more stable. However, with care Win98 is a quite serviceable system; especially if you tweak it, e.g. using 98Lite (now LitePC).

Re::O

[debiansid]

Then use XFCE. I just installed the 4.4 beta version and that thing looks awesome without the memory hog of Gnome :)

Re::O

[tommy_traceroute]

ooops! Sorry dude, my bad. Seriously.

Now, back to drinking heavily....

Quick Question

[ndansmith]

How many people still actually run Windows 98?

Re:Quick Question

[Valthan]

Personally I know of quite a few people running 98SE and ME. It actually makes me laugh.

I also have a friend running MAC OS9.x so I guess anything is possible...

Re:Quick Question

[NetDanzr]

I do, for my office work. With AVG and an older version of ZoneAlarm, I see no reason to upgrade.

Re:Quick Question

[griffjon]

If you need the "Windows" environment (for legacy apps?), then 98SE is a perfectly good operating system for computers over 5 years old. It runs almost everything (that the hardware could handle, at least), and is a whole lot lighter than XP.

I mean, if you're not wedded to applications, you can get almost any Linux install to run, better, on a machine that can handle 98SE, but some people aren't down for that :|

Re:Quick Question

[mmalove]

Speaking from the standpoint of software technical support, a metric fuckton.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=met ric+fuckton

For a fun blast from the past, try mapping network drives in 98. Now try telling a 60 year old man how to do it.

I don't say this office, but THANK YOU MICROSOFT!!

Re:Quick Question

[chimpo13]

Forced to use it at my new job. I can't believe they use it. What's wrong with a multi-national corporation where they use Win98? I begged for something better and spent a day cleaning virii when I started and downloaded ZoneAlarm.

Then I pounded my head on the wall for a day and said, "oh, screw this". That way when I get spam, I can think "Hey, maybe I sent this to myself".

Re:Quick Question

[xusr]

Mac OS 9.x was WAY better than Win98. Remember driver location in Win98? I cringe at the thought. Sadly, there are still several people that are convinced that "as long as it still works (i.e. boots) then it's fine."

Re:Quick Question

[c_forq]

I still use Windows 98se on my laptop. But only because 98se and Damn Small Linux are the only graphical OSes I can get to run on the thing (I'm hoping when Hiaku finally gets makes a release I can switch to that), and would use only DSL if it wasn't for not working with my wireless card.

Re:Quick Question

[wordsnyc]

My sister runs windows 95. I think she does it to annoy me. She claims it's super-secure because it's so old none of the viruses and malware are designed for it. She has a Mac mini in a box, brand new, that her husband got from his job. She "hasn't had the time" to set it up.

Re:Quick Question

[MarkGriz]

"How many people still actually run Windows 98?"

I have 3 PCs in my office. My main one is Windows XP, but the others are Windows 98 and Windows 95 machines.
These are all software development platforms, and it is not practical to upgrade the OS on them since they are older
machines with limited horsepower and memory. It also isn't practical to move the software development tools to
the new PC because of compatibility issues. The Win95 machines gets used occasionally, but the Win98 is used almost daily
(I connect to it with UltraVNC).

I'm not concerned about the lack of Microsoft support. I don't use it to surf the net or read email and
I never install anything on it.

Re:Quick Question

[Valthan]

This is offtopic, but the reason I mentioned it was becasue of the horrible update system it used and how when I did update it, it broke a ton of other, working, things...

Re:Quick Question

[gkhan1]

You know, if you just use it to run a vpn, there is this cool new and totally free OS called Linux that you might want to check out. Really, it's quite neat.

Re:Quick Question

[timholman]

How many people still actually run Windows 98?

Windows 98/98 SE are still perfectly good operating systems for an inexpensive computer used as a web broswer / word processor. There are lots of people who salvage surplused computers (5+ years old) from companies and universities, clean them up, reformat their drives, install Linux, and donate them to people who couldn't afford a computer otherwise. Windows 98/98 SE works just fine on such machines.

Personally, I wish Microsoft would make Windows 98 SE free for download after this July, just as Apple has done with its older operating systems. It would be good PR for Microsoft and cost them absolutely nothing except a little bandwidth.

Re:Quick Question

[Just Some Guy]

I do. I never could get Reader Rabbit or Jumpstart Preschool running under Win2K, and I didn't want to buy (or pirate) XP when 98 runs my kids' games without problems.

Re:Quick Question

[snuf23]

As someone who still has to support Mac OS 9 - I'd have to say it's a piece of crap. Application failures that take down the whole system are more common than on Windows 98. I just had to fix a machine that was rendered unbootable by an application crash the other day. Nothing like that informative blinking question mark on bootup.
Anyway, both of these older operating systems are crap so I suppose comparisons are pointless.

Re:Quick Question

[kalirion]

I do, on a P3-800. I even play games on it, though older ones. Current favorite - Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic. Runs mostly flawlessly, though tends to slow down in the end game for the largest scenarios.

Re:Quick Question

[Wiseleo]

Same as I do today ;-)

Start -> Run [OK]
net use * \\server\share (Sir, Backslash is not on the same key as the ? is)

Note the new drive letter.

Oh, you meant the GUI way that changes with each release? ;-)

Re:Quick Question

[lazarusdishwasher]

Although I am not the anonymous coward, I too have computers running slackware. Can you tell me the steps I need to take to upgrade to this cool new and totally free OS called Linux that you talk about.

Re:Quick Question

[fartymenams]

Well, lots of places that sell used laptops sell OEM copies of Win98 installed on them, presumably because the licensing fees are cheaper. I bought a used Latitude C600 a couple of days ago and it had Win98 as the installed OS (which I promptly replaced with Win2K.) Other people who are in the market for a cheap laptop aren't going to turn up their noses at it, they're just happy they don't have to buy an OS to go with it.

The same store, of course, had free Ubuntu CD's at the cash register, so who knows what actually happens.

Re:Quick Question

[shawngarringer]

The only versions of MacOS that are free for download stop at (IIRC) 7.1.

I know it doesn't extend into OS 8...

So, it'd be more like Microsoft offering DOS for free...

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Same experience. We had a mixed PC/Mac environment with Mac OS 9. Far more PCs than Macs, but we had external Mac support people constantly on site trying to deal with all the Mac problems. People seem to have forgotten, but Apple has a very bumpy, if not dirty, road behind it towards OS X (including the Copland disaster, Apple's Longhorn).

Re:Quick Question

[wjsroot]

people have souls
no one with a soul would run '98
using the transitive property, not a single person uses '98.

Re:Quick Question

[NutscrapeSucks]

Right-click on the network icon doesn't work for Win98?

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need the "Windows" environment (for legacy apps?), then 98SE is a perfectly good operating system for computers over 5 years old. It runs almost everything (that the hardware could handle, at least), and is a whole lot lighter than XP.

Funny you say that. My lab has an expensive scientific instrument (bought way back), and it is controlled by a computer that must run windows 3.1. Not 3.11, not windows for workgroups, not win 95, not win 98 (we've tried them all). The instrument still works fine, and replacing it would cost over $100,000, so we're keeping it. It is networked, because copying everything to/from floppy is a pain. We do have it firewalled off though.

Re:Quick Question

[Elminst]

I work phone support for local broadband provider...
I'd say on an average day the people who call me for internet help and are using win98 is about 20% or less.
I get 1 every couple days that's using winME, and maybe a few more running win2K. All the rest are using winXP.

Re:Quick Question

[Horatio_Hellpop]

with your apparent lack of math skills, I doubt yer stats ...

Re:Quick Question

[RayMarron]

According to my website's logs, just shy of 8% of the visitors running Windows are using 9x/ME.

Re:Quick Question

[colinrichardday]

Upgrade from IE 6 to what? Firefox (IE 7 is still beta)? Or did you mean upgrade to IE 6?

Re:Quick Question

[Mad_Rain]

I did, because it still ran Half-Life 2 and various mods for it. That was about the only reason I would dual-boot.

Re:Quick Question

[barawn]

I mean, if you're not wedded to applications, you can get almost any Linux install to run, better, on a machine that can handle 98SE, but some people aren't down for that

That's not entirely true - Linux support for a few devices from that era is worse than Win98's, and Win2K/WinXP support is often nonexistent. If those devices are the core logic chipset, the machine can easily run bog-slow under Linux, but perfectly snappy under Windows.

I'm mainly thinking of the experiences I've had with a SiS 530-based motherboard, which is painfully slow under Linux, and still pretty slow under Win2K, but really very snappy under Win98.

If the devices are niche enough (i.e. no one gives enough of a crap to try to reverse engineer them, and the documents are likely missing), then Win98 might be the only available option, just for speed reasons.

Re:Quick Question

[Noalear]

I work at a tech center for 2wire. I get cu's (customers) calling in ALL the time with 98 or ME. Its probaby a 1 in 20 call. But 9/10 of these calls are OLD people. They just use it to send forwards. Seriously, thats all they do.

I would still rather deal with 98 than ME. ME is 98, but WAYYY more broke.

Re:Quick Question

[Richard Steiner]

Probably quite a few. As I noted a few days ago in another discussion here, I even use Win95 OSR2 on a fairly regular basis.

Why? It's legal, it works, and I've locked it down to the point where it's stable. Oh yeah, and I have it living behind a firewall so it doesn't accidentally get burned. :-)

Re:Quick Question

[Locutus]

Not to mention Win98's system overhead, compared to the 'newer' MS Windows releases, are much lower and easier on the host in a virtual machine configuration.

LoB

Re:Quick Question

[Frodo420024]

Easy: Too many!

I have asked my boss several times if we could skip testing on Win98, and due to our polls, his reply is still 'No'. It's still something like 5-10% of our readership, which means 5000 -> 10.000 people. That's an awful lot of unhappy people to handle on the phone...

Re:Quick Question

[JonathanBoyd]

To be slightly pedantic, it would be more like offering Windows 95 for free, which is only one generation behind 98.

Re:Quick Question

[MBuhrow]

I don't have a soul, and I can prove it; I run ME.

Re:Quick Question

[CCFreak2K]

When I was in high school last year, EVERY computer except for servers, staff computers, Macs and one computer lab ran Windows 98

Re:Quick Question

[Crayon Kid]

How many people still actually run Windows 98?

I'm considering installing it as dual-boot on my personal computer, which currently runs Linux. Every once in a while I get a craving for a game that won't run under any kind of emulation (such as Re-Volt) and when that happens I go to my brother's computer.

But recently I came across this dusty old Windows 98 install CD, I remembered I own it, legally, so what the hell. Most games probably still run on it, Re-Volt definitely does. I'm behind NAT and I don't plan on running Explorer so I should be fairly safe even with a buck naked install. And even if something should happen I can reinstall without a worry (format and untar a copy of the clean install, actually).

Yeah, OK, granted: I should probably get myself a console. :) But it's cheaper like this, and I already payed for quite a few pieces of hardware and games.

Re:Quick Question

[colinrichardday]

IE 6 doesn't run on Win98.

Not according to this:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/

Re:Quick Question

[chimpo13]

Try managing a bunch of smart people getting paid minimum wage who have access to the Win98 POS.

Re:Quick Question

[Jugalator]

Enough to whine about Firefox not going to support it in the future. :-p

Yes, despite all the security problems.

And here I thought Firefox users were generally security aware.

Re:Quick Question

[KanSer]

Haha. Funny you should ask. I've been running a Win98SE install that's over 6 years old now. I have used it daily for those 6 years, and use it to type this message.

It sucked for a while. I didn't know what I was doing, but luckily I knew some people that did. It's possible to reinstall from the options/cabs file, and I've done that a few times to fix catastrophes. (I've been told this is only possible if you configure it this way at original install. This pc is from a canadian manufacturer that no longer exists.)

I've never run full-time anti-virus, I just run scans when it's acting funny. I also use a 3rd party task manager to pwn and quarantine evil unwanted processes. That one program threw all my anti virus and ad-scanning software under a truck.

I also use Hare 1.5.1 to keep my RAM clear. If I am disciplined and don't do anything stupid, I can have unlimited uptime.

However, I do stupid things often enough to have a semi-normal experience.

Re:Quick Question

[innocent_white_lamb]

I do "in-home Internet setup" for a cable ISP in my area. Most of the time this involves plugging in the modem, installing the occasional network card, and setting up MS LookOut to check their email.
 
While Winodows XP is indeed the most common by a large margin, I would say that about one in four or five setups that I do are on old computers running Windows 98, and maybe one in fifteen or so are on Windows 95.

Re:Quick Question

[Tony Hoyle]

Why would a 60year old even have a network let alone be mapping drives on it?

Re:Quick Question

[sparkster812]

It actually stops at 7.5.5! Download 7.5.3, then update freely to 7.5.5 - I rememeber downloading and installing it many times during college. :]

http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/ Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Maci ntosh/System/Older_System/

Re:Quick Question

[misleb]

That makes me want to cry. Does she have any idea what she is missing?

Re:Quick Question

[fubarific]

My high school runs on it. Every single student computer is Windows 98 as are the teachers computers. Needless to say, now I have the material needed to heckle the main office into giving the whole school an upgrade :D

Re:Quick Question

[spacebird]

Exactly. When I saw they'd be ceasing support for 98 and ME I rejoiced, because I can't think of a way that even our managers will be able to come up with a justification to support software the VENDOR won't even touch.

Re:Quick Question

[makomk]

I used to run IE6 on Windows 98SE (well, I used Firefox for any actual websurfing, but it was installed). It's not that difficult to upgrade to either; as soon as you run Windows Update, it tries to get you to install it. (At least, it did when I last reinstalled a Win98SE system a couple of months ago...)

Re:Quick Question

[confused one]

I'm responsible for just under 50 production (as in manufacturing) machines that run Win98. Why? Because we're using legacy apps that WILL NOT RUN under Windows XP. I've had to prove to two different IT people that this code won't run in Windows XP, when they say "Windows XP has a Windows 95 emulation." Some people just don't get it...

Anyway, all of this code is scheduled for upgrade; but, it's going to be 2008 before the project is complete. Until then, there will be Win98 machines on my network.

Re:Quick Question

[JimmehAH]

Perhaps this could help you.
How To Enable Application Compatibility-Mode Technology in Windows 2000 SP2 and SP3

Re:Quick Question

[mmalove]

On a side note, I can't hold back a laugh when I look at something called "Millenium Edition" that expires 6 years later, lasting no longer than the 98 it was intended to replace.

It only took them....

[demongeek]

It only took them 8 years to realize Windows 98 was broken.... Not bad.

I jest I jest *ducks*

Well, it *is* old

[Corbets]

Maybe I'm crazy, but that OS is, what, 8 years old? How many OSes from that time would be safe to run on today's 'net? Mac OS... what? 8, maybe 9? Solaris 7/8? HP-UX 10?

Ok, Sol8 I could see I guess, but for all that I'm a Mac bigot these days, I can't really blame MS for being unable to support software that old. Sure, it was broken as hell when it came out, but at this point, I'd really rather they try to keep XP or (/sigh) maybe Vista reasonably up-to-date.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[cnettel]

It's actually more like Solaris 2.6/7.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[outriding9800]

How about OpenBSD?

Re:Well, it *is* old

[leitec]

There are a surprising amount of SunOS 4.1.4 servers still running on the Internet. I have an account on one such system and its kernel is from around 1994. I don't recall it having been exploited the past few years I've had the account. Good administrators, perhaps?

Re:Well, it *is* old

[catch23]

but those are multiuser systems. win98 was strictly a desktop-single-user system. I think maybe only MacOS 7 could be a comparable 1998 single-user system. And MacOS 7 has it's own share of viruses as well...

Re:Well, it *is* old

[poopie]

Solaris 2.6 remains relatively rock solid. Solaris 8 - rock solid, HPUX 10.X - solid

A representative Linux of that day would be Redhat 5.2... Not quite solid

Heck, I still have some Solaris 2.4 servers running that I have few reasons to touch.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[0racle]

It may run reliably, but you would really have to be stupid to attach them to the net directly.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[kfg]

Ok, Sol8 I could see I guess, but for all that I'm a Mac bigot these days, I can't really blame MS for being unable to support software that old.

Well, they may not find it "feasable" to patch the hole, but I managed it in all of about five minutes.

I installed Firefox. Can't they handle that?

KFG

Re:Well, it *is* old

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Well, I'm sure that OS/2 and Amiga would be perfectly safe to run on the internet. :-)
(Not because those systems are secure by any stretch (OS/2 was essentiall IBM's version of Windows (similar design), so it's likely filled with security flaws), but because the userbase is too small for the baddies to target.)

Re:Well, it *is* old

[NutscrapeSucks]

I had an account on a box like that until about 2002. Got hacked and never came back.

> Good administrators, perhaps?

More likely good users , because they aren't digging up ancient local root holes.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[zdzichu]

Solaris is bad example ;) It's properly supported OS. I will cite Alan Hargreaves:

  Solaris 2.6 was released in February 1997. Last ship was July 2001. It drops off support in July this year. That makes for nine years of support, the first six of which were complete with rfe and cosmetic bugs being fixed.

How about Solaris 8? Solaris 8 was released in March 2000. We have still not done that last ship for it, so this means that there will be phase one suport for at least until mid 2008, and phase 2 support until at least mid 2011. Folks, that's 11 years and still may be more depending on when we have the last ship of Solaris 8.


Old age don't exclude OS from getting proper support. Microsoft is just beeing lazy and greedy. They want to force upgrades on people. Too bad Win98 was good enough OS for many, many people. They don't need anything above (ME, XP, Vista). Now MS is playing dirty tricks.
It's funny how MS is saying ,,our Operating System suck''. Similar to their ,,Office dinosaurs'' campaign (discrediting their own office suite!).

Re:Well, it *is* old

[Kancept]

My Os/2 Warp 3, 4 and eCom systems are all on the net. Warp 3 is what, from '94 and Warp 4 from '96. I'd throw them on the net any day of the week over any MS product!

Re:Well, it *is* old

[dilvish_the_damned]

Windows ME is not eight years old. Wasnt it released after win2k?

Re:Well, it *is* old

[Richard Steiner]

OS/2 is safe, mainly (as you say) because it's relatively obscure, but also partially because it uses a TCP/IP stack derived from BSD and partially because it doesn't have any stupid infection vectors like ActiveX. :-)

FWIW, OS/2 from 2.0 isn't all that similar to Windows. Different kernel design, different filesystems, different scripting language (REXX), etc. The PM (Presentation Manager) API is similar to Windows in some respects, but the WPS desktop is based on SOM which is very different from anything Microsoft.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[jc42]

Note that we just had a story about firefox dropping support for Windows 9*.

Is it sheer coincidence that both mozilla.org and Microsoft announced the end of such support in their browsers only a day apart?

Sounds to me like they're both just being sensible. OTOH, a bunch of dedicated W98 users can always grab the firefox source and do their own back-port of new releases. This is hardly feasible with IE.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Old age don't exclude OS from getting proper support.

No, but being a steaming pile of garbage should. 98 should never have been released. USB support and a few other features don't make it a better OS than 95, which is 11 years old at this point. 98 has no real users, no file permissions, shoddy memory protection, an awful TCP/IP stack (you can't even change your IP without rebooting), and horrible stability.

98 should have died long ago. Microsoft has had a better alternative for 6 years (Windows 2000), more if you count Windows NT. Most businesses have moved on. Those who haven't should.

Windows 2000 is getting a full 10 years of support, as is XP Pro.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[stoove]

Maybe I'm crazy, but that OS is, what, 8 years old? How many OSes from that time would be safe to run on today's 'net?

Well, openBSD would be my best bet. With "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years." it is a pretty close one.

Re:Well, it *is* old

[SEE]

How many OSes from that time would be safe to run on today's 'net?

Hard to say. Linux 2.0, now at version 2.0.40 (originally released 1996, last updated 2004), might be safe enough, assuming the other parts of the system have been patched as updates came out.

Missed business opportunity?

[955301]

I think Microsoft is missing a serious opportunity here. It's called branching.

If they are forced to fix vulnerabilities for an old piece of software without getting paid I can see how that doesn't make sense. But I cannot imagine that there is NOBODY who will pay for vulnerability fixes to their old line instead of upgrading.

Why? Because some software runs on 98 and not on 2000 or XP. Some software will probably run on XP and not Vista in the future. If they dealt with the branch constructively, this could represent another revenue stream for them.

I don't believe it's cannabilistic because the people who would stay on a branch have to because of other software, not because they are cheap. Eventually, they will spend the same amount of money on security updates that it takes to purchase XP but won't have to upgrade their custom software for the new environment.

Is there some reason this wouldn't work?

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Vellmont]

But I cannot imagine that there is NOBODY who will pay for vulnerability fixes to their old line instead of upgrading.

If you were talking about Windows NT4, I might agree with you. NT4 had significant server deployment, and I'd imagine there's still a few corps that might have some machines running it. But Windows 98/ME was a user OS, so I find it very unlikely that anyone that has the cash to poney up for supporting it didn't move their installed base over to Windows 2000 or above long ago. I think the only significant Windows 98 installations you'll see are embedded machines running a POS system (for instance). Since those kind of embedded systems are never used for web browsing this vulnerability has pretty minimal impact on those systems.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[EspeciallyOnMyPancak]

WindowsXP allows you to run any program as if XP were an earlier MS OS...it works for me, though probably not everything.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[drinkypoo]

Is there some reason this wouldn't work?

If old operating systems run programs then they don't sell new operating systems without making them deliberately less compatible, which takes work.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the only significant Windows 98 installations you'll see are embedded machines running a POS system

Aren't all installations of Windows 98 pieces of shit?

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Urusai]

Rather than expecting Microsoft to blow money on an unattractive niche, how about WINE? WINE seems to be dead set on emulating Windows circa 1996...maybe you could consider it a fork of Win95.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[bheer]

> I think Microsoft is missing a serious opportunity here. It's called branching.

I run into this misconception a lot. The reality is, a very small fraction of total users want to stick with their 8-year-old operating systems/computers and yet want new stuff for it. Out of that, the fraction that'll actually pay for support of their old software, or backports to their old OS, is small. So your 'opportunity' hinges on a fraction of a fraction. Microsoft is in the business of selling mass-market software and it's just not economical for them to do it.*

A good analogy would be like ready-to-wear clothes. Microsoft's like Tommy Hilfiger. Linux (the kernel devs), Gnu and the MoFo are like wholesalers who sell cloth by the yard. Some OSS vendors use them to create their own-brand shirts (Redhat, SuSE) and sell it for cheaper than Microsoft (although Red Hat Enterprise Linux is pricey, yow). And the shop that's supporting old versions of Linux/Firefox/etc is like a tailor who makes a custom-made suit for you -- he does good business but Hilfiger makes lots more $$$ than he does.

* That said, I understand that Vista Home Basic and Vista Starter are designed to run well on low-end PCs (no Aero, etc). So people reluctant to upgrade their hardware will have a software upgrade path.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

a POS system (for instance). Since those kind of embedded systems are never used for web browsing this vulnerability has pretty minimal impact on those systems.

They aren't "never" used for web browsing. I'm part of a chain of retail shipping stores, and a number of stores use POS and manifest systems that still run Windows 98. Said systems are often used for web browsing, either internally (using MSIE components in apps or intranet sites), or for accessing resources on the net like USPS zip code lookup, tracking, etc.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

The media (and slashdot) would rip Microsoft to shreds if they charged to fix OS flaws in a *supported* OS.

(And before anyone flames me, charging for anti-virus software is completely different from charging to fix genuine OS flaws, so save it. ;-))

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Salsaman]

It's a simple equation for Microsoft:

if (revenue_from_supporting_OS - cost_to_support_OS - revenue_from_OS_upgrades > 0) {
    support_OS;
}
else {
      drop_OS;
}

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[tomhudson]

Even if they're not used for web browsing, they're still networked ... and probably connected to the net for data exchange.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[955301]

If they charged by the individual security flaw then yes, they would deserve to be slandered.
If they charged for security flaws in their current top of line OS (i.e., WinXP for now) then again, they would deserve it.

However, if they are distributing security patches for old software, that is a service offering that could not be reasonably expected for free.

Even if they shopped it out to smaller partner that did bug fixes for older OS's I think they would be on to something.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Mysticalfruit]

Programs can be fooled to think their connected to a 9x OS, but not devices.

Case in point, my mothers shitty old scanner. It worked fine under Win98se, but there aren't any drivers for XP...

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Vellmont]

That's true, but the vulnerability (according to Microsoft) requires the end user to go to an infected website. Simply being networked for data exchange isn't enough.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Indras]

If you were talking about Windows NT4, I might agree with you. NT4 had significant server deployment, and I'd imagine there's still a few corps that might have some machines running it. But Windows 98/ME was a user OS, so I find it very unlikely that anyone that has the cash to poney up for supporting it didn't move their installed base over to Windows 2000 or above long ago. I think the only significant Windows 98 installations you'll see are embedded machines running a POS system (for instance). Since those kind of embedded systems are never used for web browsing this vulnerability has pretty minimal impact on those systems.

Excellent point. I used to work as an operator in a factory a couple years back. We had assembly robots and vision systems that ran on Windows 98 and Windows NT4. FYI, vision systems are just a machine with a whole bunch of cameras, you pop the part in, it takes pictures and compares them to the "master" and verifies that the part is within spec.

Three years later, I'm now responsible for repairing these systems. While many of them have been retired with their respective product lines and replaced with newer versions, we still have two of the Win98-operated robots running. Fortunately, they only use wireless networking to communicate on the LAN in the building (with label printers and barcode scanners, etc), with no internet connection.

I'm sure there are plenty of these little systems running around the world. Some of them may never be replaced, simply because of the engineering costs to redesign the machine and/or rewrite the software.

Re:Missed business opportunity?

[Zerbey]

No, not a few, there's literally thousands of them. I support companies running NT every day. Big ones. It doesn't mean it shouldn't still be allowed to die quietly, though.

Liability?

[Ophion]

How are Microsoft's commitments to its operating systems structured? Are they a vague "promise" or contractual? If they are the latter, then I sincerely hope that someone will make this a legal issue. After all, does Microsoft offer a laissez-faire response if the other party is the one breaking the terms of a contract?

Re:Liability?

[rob1980]

I don't think there's a contract that says they will continue releasing software patches for the product for 8 years. Checked around on the net and the only thing I saw in the EULA I found was a 30 day warranty against specific defects.

Re:Liability?

[ender30043]

The standard lifetime is 5 years last I knew; Microsoft happened to extend the support for Windows 98 past that time.

not considerably early

[Coneasfast]

paid incident support ends on July 11, 2006. only a month away. mainstream support ended in 2002. this isn't a big deal.

Re:not considerably early

[D.A. Zollinger]

This is what the problem entails. Microsoft just stated that fulfilling their contractual obligations is too expensive. We all know this to be bullshit. We all know they have enough resources to fix the problem. Microsoft's issue is that they would not be making enough of a margin on their contracts if they used their resources to fix this problem. If I had a contract for paid incident support for Windows 98, and Microsoft backed out at the last month, I would be calling my attorneys right now.

Re:not considerably early

[devjj]

If it's not a big deal, why did Microsoft make an announcement at all? They could have let the date pass without saying anything.

Re:not considerably early

[amliebsch]

I would be calling my attorneys right now.

And what would you hope to accomplish? Specific performance for 30 days of an opportunity to buy support? It's not like you are going to get punitive damages, or awards for emotional distress or anything.

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERYONE

not feasible?

[wfberg]

not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary.. easily prevented by basic fire-walling

What? Microsoft can't write a simple packetfilter for windows98? I'm quite sure others have.
Oh well, better upgrade, then.

Understandable

[Anonymous Coward]

Support lifecycle ends on July 11, 2006, so it hardly seems worth the effort to patch for Microsoft. Besides, a pc still running Win98 on the internet without a firewall is probably already compromised, so this patch won't help anything.

Re:Understandable

[misterhypno]

"Hardly seems worthwhile" and "fulfilling the letter of the contract" are mutually exclusive in this instance, it seems. There is a major flaw, if not several. There are users out there who are having problems, otherwise, Microsoft would not have said anything about this issue and just let it lay and let the service date expire, unnoticed.

But they are making an announcement that they are seemingly terminating support early, in violation of their own contract and, frankly, the users should take legal action.

It's what Microsoft would do, were the situations reversed.

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Chicago, IL

Re:Understandable

[jrumney]

Support lifecycle ends on July 11, 2006, so it hardly seems worth the effort to patch for Microsoft.

Thats basically the same logic I use every Friday morning - "It's the weekend tomorrow, so it hardly seems with the effort to go to work today."

Re:Understandable

[pilkul]

Uh, actually, the reason the vulnerability was announced was because it affects most Windows versions up to and including XP. I don't think anyone running win98 cares; with almost no exceptions, they're either already owned or not directly exposed to the net. Why burn money on lawyers for no benefit?

Re:Understandable

[maxume]

Microsoft wouldn't sue for this. They are too good of a business. Anybody that sues Microsoft over this is going to have to show actual damages, which is going to be really hard to do, because it is essentially negligent to have not migrated away from '98 as of right now if you require support. Doing the migration on July 2nd is easily explainable as 'insane'.

Interesting...

[jhjmonnee]

I know a couple people in my area who still run Win98se and most of them are content with it simply because their machines are patched up and the most they do whilst online is check emails, use their IM service of choice and browse web pages (With Firefox of course). Hopefully, Mozilla won't just abandon these people who really don't need to upgrade to another OS.

Re:Interesting...

[fred ugly]

Hopefully, Mozilla won't just abandon these people who really don't need to upgrade to another OS.

looks like they already did.

Re:Interesting...

[Buran]

Who's forcing you to upgrade Firefox to a version that doesn't work on Windows 98?

Re:Interesting...

[Digz]

Why wouldn't they? They abandoned the Mac Classic users a long while ago, and that would be the same generation of software (which kinda sucks, because MacOS 9 flies on a Wallstreet but OS X sucks).

Re:Interesting...

[Salsaman]

Well, they can always upgrade to Linux. Last I checked, you could still get Ubuntu for free, and installation was as easy as putting a CD in the CD ROM drive.

I guess people without CDROM drives are SOL though.

Re:Interesting...

[stokkie]

Except if you happen to run an Ati X800-series card :P

Re:Interesting...

[assassinator42]

Does Opera support Windows 98?

Re:Interesting...

[Richard Steiner]

Opera 8.53 works fine on Windows 95 OSR2. I assume it would also work on Windows 98, but I've not personally moved to such a modern platform at home. :-)

Re:Interesting...

[Ebirah]

Does Opera support Windows 98?

Runs very happily in 98SE.

This excuse of insecurity that's being used by MS to dump their support for W98 just doesn't ring true. (Of course Microsoft already tried to ditch 98 support a while back.)

While I typically find peoples XP systems infested by (literally) hundreds of instances of malware, I rarely get any at all. Despite internet habits that really ought to expose me to a lot of bad stuff, W98+firewall+anti-virus+non-MS browser+non-MS email seems to provide pretty solid protection, that I can't expect XP or Vista matching without a lot of work (and quite possibly not even then).

In fact, 98SE is as close as Microsoft have ever come to making a functional OS. Until they can do better, and while I have to use Windows-based applications (well...games, mostly), I'll stick with it.

(I did have to install Linux as well though, now that my HDD is too big for W98 to access it all...)

Hmmm

[Procrastin8er]

but this basically is the first time Microsoft has admitted that Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet.
I am not so sure they actually said that, did they? Or did you put words in their mouth?

Re:Hmmm

[drinkypoo]

Specifically, after extensive investigation, we've found that it's not feasible to make the extensive changes necessary to Windows Explorer on these older versions of Windows to eliminate the vulnerability.

They might not be saying THAT, but they are saying something equally embarrassing: Windows 98 is so broken, it can't be fixed.

Re:Hmmm

[consonant]

On /.?! Never!

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[Poltras]

ME really was bad, but 98 was not much better.

no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[KalvinB]

You can pick up a nice cheap perfectly sufficient router with NAT for around $30. I wouldn't trust any computer directly on the wire without a router. I don't care what OS it's running.

I'd like to be able to run internal services on my systems without having to mess around with restricting IPs at the app level. It's a lot easier to just open ports at the router level if I want outside people to connect to my service.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[Anonymous Coward]

Err... what if the router is running the same OS the computer is running? Would you trust the computer then?

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[Zak3056]

I wouldn't trust any computer directly on the wire without a router. I don't care what OS it's running.

Hmm. So much for linux based routers then, huh?

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[dpilot]

Actually, I don't. A few years back, just before the summer of Code Red and friends, I stopped running my own router and bought an appliance.

I know I COULD run a router live and on the net, but I choose not to. I feel that to do it correctly would take more due diligence than I wish to spend. I still keep my systems patched and up-to-date, but these days I'm not sure it's sufficient to merely keep up with your distributor's updates, and certainly waiting a day or 2 until it's convenient is not acceptable. If it were my job that would be one thing, but since it's just my home lan, that's another thing entirely.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[Phleg]

More like any router at all.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[Vorondil28]

I suppose it all depends on your definition of "computer." Computers have processor(s), RAM, a boot ROM, and some sort of non-volitile storage, right? So does my Cisco 871W. =D

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[tepples]

So much for linux based routers then, huh?

A few years back, just before the summer of Code Red and friends, I stopped running my own router and bought an appliance.

What if the appliance runs an operating system based on a Linux® kernel? Specifically, the Linksys WRT54GL is a very popular router appliance that runs Linux.

these days I'm not sure it's sufficient to merely keep up with your distributor's updates, and certainly waiting a day or 2 until it's convenient is not acceptable.

Does "distributor" in your sentence include appliance manufacturers?

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[KiloByte]

Eh? Now, this is pretty much a troll, I'm afraid.

Show me a security infrastructure for any "consumer-grade" router; especially one that can notify you instead of waiting for you to check for new issues by hand. For home/small office stuff, the company which produced them stops giving a damn the moment you pay for your appliance.

Check for example the recent NetGear and D-Link DoS attacks against NTP servers. I'm pointing these out because they are more visible than just remote security holes -- if an appliance gets pwned, people hardly ever notice; at most, they just replace it if it appears to have stopped working.

The situation is hardly any better for the more expensive gear. Being a bit paranoid^Wreasonable, I don't trust Cisco pieces of crap enough to let them be addressable from either the outside world or the company network. Hiding a router is actually possible: note that point-to-point links don't require the endpoints to have a valid address; fooling the Cisco router into thinking it's in control is a matter of a few iptables rules, and then you can do the actual routing using software that hasn't been produced by a company well-known for sweeping bugs under the carpet.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[barawn]

I suppose it all depends on your definition of "computer." Computers have processor(s), RAM, a boot ROM, and some sort of non-volitile storage, right? So does my Cisco 871W. =D

So does my remote, by that definition.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[KalvinB]

Why would I send a lot of money on a Linux router when I can spend $30 on a hardware router that does everything I want with minimal space and energy usuage?

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[boa13]

Your $30 hardware router probably runs Linux and can be targetted by attackers (all the more easy because they have access to the firmware and can study the flaws).

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[Vorondil28]

Sure, but that's the point. The GP said he wouldn't put a "computer" directly on the Internet, but "computer" is a pretty vague word (as we both have demonstrated). And by no means am I saying CPU+RAM+ROM+storage=computer is the correct definition. That is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[jc42]

Now, this is pretty much a troll, I'm afraid.

My reaction exactly.

With a commercial (i.e., proprietary) router, if there's a security hole, there's nothing I can do about it. I probably won't even learn that it exists unless I can spot the symptoms of an intruder myself. And I certainly can't fix the problem; I have to beg and plead with the vendor who probably doesn't care about my problems.

OTOH, with my linux router/firewall, there's a long history of rapid reporting and fixing of security holes, typically before an exploit appears in the wild. I can take matters into my own hands if I like, by downloading the code and fixing it myself. And in case you're interested, yes, I have.

If your reaction is "There's no way I could do that", well, you could always hire me (or someone like me) to do the job. That would probably be faster and more effective than asking the vendor, unless you're a huge corporation with a lot of clout.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[dpilot]

There are several aspects to this.

First, it's not the mentioned Linksys. It's quite a bit older model that's still on the market and still gets firmware updates - usually for features, etc. (Those I mostly skip.)

Second, and this sort-of holds for the Linksys as well. The appliances have practically NO capabilities beyond what they were designed for. Obviously people have done a LOT with the Linksys, with OpenWRT and the like. But that's a far cry from what the old computer recycled as a firewall can do. In this case, less is better. By the way, I also have a Linksys WRT54G, but it's not my out-front firewall, and it does have the update for the "universal admin access" hole.

Third, when dedicating the old system to be a firewall, it's tempting to do a bit more or get more sophisticated, and that can be the road to trouble. Again, in this case less is more. I used to have a few open ports, but at the moment have none, though it would be good to get at my IMAP server from work, again.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[dpilot]

No, not a troll.

I'm just saying that if you're going to put a box out there as a firewall, make SURE you keep it properly cared for. If you're not willing to spend the time and effort, don't do it. I've done it, and when I was, I spent the time and effort. But at this point in life, I don't have the time.

Nor did I just go buy the first/cheapest firewall appliance I came across - I spent a fair amount of research on it, bought a model that was not new to the market then, had an excellent security track record and pedigree, is still available now, and still gets firmware updates. (Mostly for features, which I don't generally bother with.)

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[freeweed]

I wouldn't trust any computer directly on the wire without a router. I don't care what OS it's running.

I would, if it's an OS that doesn't NEEDLESSLY OPEN NETWORK PORTS.

I'd love to see someone hack into a machine that isn't running network-aware services. Have fun comprmmising a TCP/IP stack, bucko.

Why do people still think that remote exploitation of a computer is some black magic that you can't avoid? For that matter, why do people think a router is any sort of defence just do to its being labelled a "router"? (Hint: many modern routers are basically mini-PCs running Linux) Is the general knowledge of network security, even on a place like Slashdot, that poor?

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[evilviper]

You can pick up a nice cheap perfectly sufficient router with NAT for around $30.

NAT provides NO security at all. It's trivially easy to work around a NAT, and directly contact the boxes on the private IPs inside the network. In fact, I imagine the automatic tools to do that are in most of the script kiddies' arsenels by now, considering how popular low-end routers are.

It's the firewall part that keeps your systems safe, not the NAT. You can have hundreds of Win98 boxes with public IP addresses behind a stateful firewall, and nobody from the outside will have any chance of connecting to any one of them.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[KiloByte]

Ah, I withdraw my criticism for that part then.

I meant that knowing how to set up and care for a firewall is trivial, but I forgot that not everyone deals with firewalls on a professional or skilled-amateur level. And even more, it is not a shame -- just like I spent a lot of time today researching basic cooking concepts, something completely trivial for any cook or a housewife.

If you already care for a number of boxes, adding a yet another one has a really negligible cost. If it's the only box, you need to invest the time and effort, something that could be better spent doing other things. Just as long as your prepackaged appliance is good enough.

That "good enough" can make professionals wince, but I guess a good gardener would say the same if he saw your plants in a pot.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[bogd]

OK, you made me curious. How exactly is it possible to contact a machine behind a NAT, as long as that machine does not initiate the connection?

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[dpilot]

I would also consider things to be different for a home lan vs any sort of business network, especially any network with external access. This is just a home lan, though many parts of it are practically business-grade. At the moment, life is just too busy to keep it as maintained as I'd like. I'm careful to keep on top of Gentoo security releases, and try to not get too far behind, but don't feel that I have time to be properly aggressive about it.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[julesh]

Because you might want your router to do something that that $30 hardware router (and where do you get one that cheap, BTW?) can't.

For example, mine currently:

* Has a store & forward SMTP daemon that scans my incoming mail for viruses and junk before forwarding it to my main SMTP server.
* Runs a web request sanitiser that forwards requests to my internal web server if they look OK (URL within reasonable size limits, doesn't have any strange characters, no weird headers, that kind of thing).
* Logs my current IP address to a remote server with a fixed IP address whenever it changes, so that that server can forward SMTP and/or web connections to it whenever it receives them.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[misleb]

The nature of PAT (port/address translation) is that it is stateful. Thus, PAT (the most common form of NAT) DOES provide security and it is NOT trivailly easy to work around. If there is no existing outbound connection from a machine behind a PAT gateway, there is no way to communicate with it from the internet because the router doesn't know who to send your uberhacker packets to. And even when there is an existing outbound connection for a machine, it is only for a partocular address and port combination. It wouldnt' do a hacker any good.

-matthew

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[evilviper]

If there is no existing outbound connection from a machine behind a PAT gateway, there is no way to communicate with it from the internet because the router doesn't know who to send your uberhacker packets to.

Completely untrue, but you managed to trick a mod into giving you points for it... Your NAT (or NAPT or PAT) box still acts as a router, and will send packets to boxes inside the private network. All you have to do is address it by the private IP.

There are MANY ways to accomplish this, most of which are rather complex. The simplest way would be to ping 10.255.255.255, specifying a source route of the NAT's public IP address. Of course source-routed packets are commonly blocked (and ICMP packets are being blocked more and more often these days), but that's just one way to do it.

Getting access to ANOTHER machine on the same network as the NAT box, and setting the NAT (NAPT/PAT/PT/etc) box as your default gateway, will also allow you to just directly ping the private addresses. I do this all the time at work. It is much quicker and easier than setting up a new port-forwarding rule every time I need to access any machines behind a NAT box.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[misleb]

There are MANY ways to accomplish this, most of which are rather complex.

Same with firewalls.

The simplest way would be to ping 10.255.255.255, specifying a source route of the NAT's public IP address. Of course source-routed packets are commonly blocked (and ICMP packets are being blocked more and more often these days), but that's just one way to do it.

You're right, the source routed method won't work because it woudl be blocked. Now describe a method that would work in the real world.

Getting access to ANOTHER machine on the same network as the NAT box, and setting the NAT (NAPT/PAT/PT/etc) box as your default gateway, will also allow you to just directly ping the private addresses. I do this all the time at work. It is much quicker and easier than setting up a new port-forwarding rule every time I need to access any machines behind a NAT box.

We're talking about getting access to a machien behind a PAT router from the internet. Now please, Mr. Uberhacker, describe a method besides sourced base routing for doing that. The fact that you are having such a hard time suggest that PAT really does provide some level of security. I'm not saying PAT is perfectly secure and that one shoudl just not use a firewall. I'm just saying that given the choice between using PAT-only and putting a group of computers (Windows in particular) directly on the internet, I'd go with PAT. The fact is that simple address translation will protect your average Windows box from many of the most common threats. And I'm sick of people like you you who think they know some theory say otherwise.

-matthew

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[dodobh]

I wouldn't trust any computer directly on the wire without a router. I don't care what OS it's running.

No no no. So much for those IOS based routers, or JunOS based routers. Both of which are BSD derivatives. Linux ios pretty small in that segment of the market.

Hell, IOS includes a TCL interpreter. Cisco boxes are computers, only specialised ones.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[evilviper]

Same with firewalls.

No, it's not true at all with firewalls, unless they have some stupid bug in their code. If you have a stateful firewall, no ammount of forging of packets will get you access inside the network. If you have a non-stateful firewall, no ammount of forging of packets will get you access to the blocked ports (typically 0-1023).

NAT however, just requires a few forged packets, and you have very easy access. As I said in my first post: "I imagine the automatic tools to do that are in most of the script kiddies' arsenels by now"

We're talking about getting access to a machien behind a PAT router from the internet.

Yes, and that would still work perfectly. My DSL provider has me on a /32 network. Getting access to any one of those 253 machines would get you easy access through my NAT box, if I didn't have stateful packet filtering.

Now please, Mr. Uberhacker, describe a method besides sourced base routing for doing that.

I did. I already explained I'm not going to type up a paper on circumventing NATs here, just to prove to every anonymous, loud mouthed, networking-ignorant person on /. that says it can't be done. You can do your own research, I'm not getting paid to teach you.

The fact that you are having such a hard time suggest that PAT really does provide some level of security.

No, it provides a trivially small hurdle. Better know as "obscurity". It provides no real security, and the commonality of them surely makes them a rip target for available attacks.

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[misleb]

NAT however, just requires a few forged packets, and you have very easy access. As I said in my first post: "I imagine the automatic tools to do that are in most of the script kiddies' arsenels by now"

Just a few forged packets, eh? Care to describe these packets? Most ISPs block source routed packets and, really, any packet destined for a private address. How exactly who you forge the packets?

Yes, and that would still work perfectly. My DSL provider has me on a /32 network. Getting access to any one of those 253 machines would get you easy access through my NAT box, if I didn't have stateful packet filtering.

I think you mean a /24 network. And it sounds like you do one-to-one NAT. In this case, i admit that it is trivial to access the machines behind NAT. But most people don't have this. Most people have their home computers behind port/address translation which is not trivial to bypass from the internet.

I did. I already explained I'm not going to type up a paper on circumventing NATs here, just to prove to every anonymous, loud mouthed, networking-ignorant person on /. that says it can't be done. You can do your own research, I'm not getting paid to teach you.

You didn't explain anything. You made a claim about source routed packets and we both agreed that it wouldn't really work because source routed packets are commonly blocked. And if source routed packets aren't blocked, packets desgined/sourced with non-routable IPs more definitly are. You're the loud mouth making claims. Either support them or quit responding.

No, it provides a trivially small hurdle.

Trivial or not, it is still a hurdle. All of security is just hurdles that a wannabe hacker has to find some way around or over. Nothing is perfectly secure. Even with a super-duper-stateful-firewalls, there are still ways of getting accesses to machines behind it. Get a user to download a trojan, perhaps. Or maybe do a little social engineering. Both of which would probably be EASIER than to trying to get past even a PAT router.

Better know as "obscurity".

Wrong. Security through obscurity is when you merely keep details about your systems secret or use some obscure software in hopes that nobody knows how to hack it. Puting your computers behind a router which statefully translates packets is not "obscurity." While not as good as a full fledged firewall, it is indeed security and it is better than nothing.

It provides no real security, and the commonality of them surely makes them a rip target for available attacks.

What is "real" security, Mr. Uberhacker?

-matthew

Re:no computer with any OS should be on the wire

[evilviper]

I think you mean a /24 network.

Err... yes. Sorry.

And it sounds like you do one-to-one NAT.

No, no no. I keep repeating this, and it doesn't seem to be getting through. I'm not talking about 1:1 NAT, full-cone NAT, etc., etc. I'm talking about modern, private address, stateful NAT. Specifically, OpenBSD's PF.

Go read my posts a few more times...

Cost Benefit Analysis

[PineHall]

In other words it costs too much manpower (money) to close the hole in Win98, so they are saying we will not do it. This is a poor design decision coming back to bite them.

Re:Cost Benefit Analysis

[richdun]

Bite them? You honestly think this hurts MS sales in the least bit? At the minimum, it should help them - now if you want support, you have to get 2000/XP/2003/Vista.

Kind of like an old car ..

[guzzirider]

You can still register and operate a Ford model T on public roads.
However, 'round here in Dallas I would strongly recommend to keep it off I-635
(ya' might get shot!)

Re:Kind of like an old car ..

[WarlockD]

(ya' might get shot!)

Or run over by a Hummer 2:P

Re:Kind of like an old car ..

[lubricated]

reason enough to avoid texas.

Re:Kind of like an old car ..

[Sponge Bath]

A model T would be perfect for I-35 in Austin,
or maybe even *too* fast for that stretch of interstate parking.

It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[Spy der Mann]

Since Windows 95, their whole design was based on extending their products (including Internet Explorer) with insecure features. MS-Word viruses, ActiveX viruses, javascript viruses, and now we even have DRM viruses.

It's not that Windows 9x was old, but that it was awfully designed. Linux is older than Windows 9x, and they got the privileges and file permissions right since the beginning.

Most security updates in Open Source software like Firefox or Linux are due to implementation flaws (i.e. buffer overflows), but the problem we're dealing with here, is a DESIGN FLAW.

Very different, indeed.

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[Jorkapp]

Win9x itself was a mistake. The GUI was an extension of the 16-bit GUI presented in Win3.x. The Operating system core was built on DOS, an 8-bit non-multitasking operating system. One can only begin to fathom how many software engineers vomit at the thought of committing such an atrosity.

The WinNT line on the other hand was done right from day one. 32-bit from the ground up, with 16-bit Windows and 8-bit DOS functions performed by emulation, not extension. I've been using the WinNT kernel since Windows 2000, and have yet to be disappointed.

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[Siberwulf]

Not that its a valid defense, but Windows was the first real *mainstream* OS that was exposed to the internet as we know it. It is much easier to say "This is whats out there now, how can we do it better" than "Uh, lets build from the ground up and see what happens".

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[Peaker]

I would say the whole user-based security model, attaching a user/group ID to every object, and "permission lists" is a design flaw as well. It is inefficient, complex, and impossible to implement correctly and securely.
Though this design flaw is shared by both Linux and Windows (And all mainstream OS's), until Capability-based security models become mainstream.

Though the Win9x complete lack of any security model is a more severe one, ofcourse.

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[Richard Steiner]

Not really. OS/2 Warp 3 came out with dial-up networking out of the box in 1994, and it had a fairly large chunk of the hobbyist market in 1994/1995. I would guess 10% at least (and I've seen higher guestimates).

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[Tim C]

Do you have any links for the Javascript and DRM viruses? I'm aware of an exploit whereby the browser scrollbar was overlaid with a draggable image, use of which triggered a drag/drop download, but that's not a virus. I'm also aware of the Sony rootkit fiasco, but that's neither a virus nor truly MS's fault...

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

The Operating system core was built on DOS

Not quite correct. Windows 95 isn't really "based on" DOS so much as it uses DOS as a bootloader and "recovery" console.

Of course, it still sucked.

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[YGingras]

Most security updates in Open Source software like Firefox or Linux are due to implementation flaws (i.e. buffer overflows), but the problem we're dealing with here, is a DESIGN FLAW.

A long time ago when someone was crazy enough to let me lead a small team I had every one sing "no bug in unfixable, only bad design is!" three times in choir every morning. No I don't lead a team anymore but I'm sure my old team is still doing buggy implementations of bullet proof designs.

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[misleb]

Win9x itself was a mistake. The GUI was an extension of the 16-bit GUI presented in Win3.x.

Win32 API in general is just an extension to Win16.

The Operating system core was built on DOS, an 8-bit non-multitasking operating system.

Windows 95 was a 32 bit extension to a 16 bit shell for an 8 bit operating system designed for a 4 bit CPU by a 2 bit company. ;-)

-matthew

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[freeweed]

The WinNT line on the other hand was done right from day one.

Agreed, with the exception of the plethora of open network ports. I think they finally figured this one out in 2004 with XP SP2, 8 years after NT4 was released.

Sadly, Win9x was and is far more secure than any other IP-aware Windows product. Even XP with SP2 still runs these bloody services, but hides behind a potentially leaky firewall.

My naive hope was that Vista would actually come in a home version (hell, the corp should too, that's what admins and group policies are for) with NO ports listening. None. Not UPNP, not Netbios, nothing. Lately, I'm thinking I should have put money against my hope, because I'll likely win.

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[hawk]

Also, DOS was 16 bit, not 8. The data bus in the original IBM PC, the IBM XT, and the XT clones was 8 bit, but the instruction set was 16 bit.

Dos was a knock-off (and alleged theft) of CP/M, which was the most popular 8 bit operating systems.

hawk

Re:It's no excuse. The design was WRONG.

[miro f]

Windows 95 was a 32 bit extension to a 16 bit shell for an 8 bit operating system designed for a 4 bit CPU by a 2 bit company. ;-)

without one bit of common sense...

Whew!

[edmicman]

At least Win95 is safe!

R.I.P. Windows 98

[suv4x4]

I'll miss you, I'll especially miss the times a full-blown OS was in the range of 50MB.
Vista is gonna be around 8GB (11GB with debug files in the Beta2).

Of course, I'm left with managing over 14 machines here (and it's pro bono) for a few kids centers here, and Win98 is about the only thing that runs decently on these machines.

They have a firewall and Firefox instead of IE. Firefox also drops Win98 support in the next release.

In our eternal quest for cooler and newer and neater, we're burning dollars like crazy throwing our perfectly working machines and software. When will we learn...

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[fred fleenblat]

try a linux distro on those older machines before you throw them out.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[alohatiger]

You might try Edubuntu. The default installation includes LTSP and is designed for small computer labs. You only have to admin one machine and the clients will run on old boxes. You can also reduce noise/power consumption removing the drives from the clients.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[mick129]

> Firefox also drops Win98 support in the next release.

Win98 support will be in Firefox's next release. It's the 3.0 release due in late 2007 that won't have support.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[hlh_nospam]

I'm left with managing over 14 machines here (and it's pro bono) for a few kids centers here, and Win98 is about the only thing that runs decently on these machines.

You read (and post on) Slashdot, and you don't know about Linux?

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[suv4x4]

try a linux distro on those older machines before you throw them out.

I'm afraid our educational software doesn't run well under Wine.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[suv4x4]

Pretty interesting, thanks. I hope localization is not hard :).

But I'll definitely check it out.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[ryanov]

Firefox does not drop support in the next release, it drops it in the release after that. 2.0 will run on Win98.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[hausmaus]

In our eternal quest for cooler and newer and neater, we're burning dollars like crazy throwing our perfectly working machines and software. When will we learn...

Hear, hear. The machine I use everyday is over six years old now. My BBS machine is well over eight years old and my laptop is about seven years old. All work just fine and do exactly what I need. As in another thread I posted in, I'll state that people are swept up in "featuritis" - the need to have the latest and greatest, even if you don't need it.

I also see that most people can't see that there's other operating systems beyond Linux, Windows and the occasional Mac reference. I have OS/2 Warp 4.52, which has the AIX OS firewall built in, and it is about seven years old. I run it barefoot, with the firewall up, with no problems. I have for about five years now.

I refuse to buy a new computer unless I see an absolute compelling need for it. My wife bought herself a new 64-bit Athelon-powered system (we call it the "Belchfire 4000"), but she plays a lot of games and does a lot of heavy graphic-based websurfing (reading blogs, digital photography, et al.). I'm glad she bought herself a new machine...that's how I got the one I'm on!

Any OS can/is insecure unless you take steps to harden it. Even people's beloved *nix can have as many holes as a strainer if you don't lock everything up. Common sense isn't so common these days.

Newer is not necessarily better. The problem is that most people these days have no clue that older can work just fine.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[Salsaman]

Take a look at Skolelinux as well:

http://www.skolelinux.org/portal/

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[MrCode]

In our eternal quest for cooler and newer and neater, we're burning dollars like crazy throwing our perfectly working machines and software. When will we learn...

I think there is and will continue to be a good "market" (in the sense of need, not necessarily dollars) for lightweight, modern operating systems that can run on these older boxes. I'm thinking things like a kitchen web-browsing/email box, or maybe a lightweight media center PC, or even just something for little Billy to use instead of Daddy's computer. Heck for most people a 1.2 GHz box with 256 megs of RAM and a 40 GB hard-drive from 4 years ago is plenty, as long as the OS is not a beast.

There are already plenty of options here, like a lightweight Linux distro, any of the BSDs, or in my taste BeOS and it's successor, the open source Haiku.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[fred fleenblat]

sorry to hear that.
a couple viruses down the road and the machines may well be toast, especially in a contagious environment like a school computer lab.

on the bright side...
* as the installed base of w98 declines, many of the donated computers that schools get in the future should be w2k capable
* java-based educational software is starting to trickle out which at least trades microsoft's vendor lock-in for sun's vendor lock-in

anyway, good luck to you my friend

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[Crayon Kid]

I'll miss you, I'll especially miss the times a full-blown OS was in the range of 50MB.

I think you mean a full-blown desktop. You can have a full-blown OS taking much less space.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I like Linux and I support it... but please get some common sense here.

The type of people they're talking about is newbies who will have trouble typing. They'll never learn 2 OS and the most common and basic OS is Windows. While you may find it easy to learn multipule OSes, these guys need to learn just 1 and stick to it.

Linux is always an option but it's like teaching a guy to fly a plane in a place where you can only drive cars. They're similar but not the same.

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[suv4x4]

I think you mean a full-blown desktop. You can have a full-blown OS taking much less space.

To be honest I kinda meant a full-blown Windows OS... :)

Re:R.I.P. Windows 98

[Script_God]

As far as I can tell, Opera still supports all the way back to Windows 95, and has no intention of dropping said support anytime soon. Once Firefox drops Windows 98 support, you should try Opera for those boxes.

Re:Free upgrades?

[presarioD]

If Microsoft published a defective software, the least they should do is to offer FREE UPGRADES to Windows XP-SP2 for Windows 98 users. Or otherwise, give the users their money back.

Son, there is something fundamental you don't understand about software companies... ... it's time for the disgruntled Win98 users to find a... pir^H^H^H version of WinXP and consider it an automatic "money-back" upgrade...

Oh well...

[Kid Zero]

In Five years of running it, the only time Win98SE misbehaved on me was for buggy programs, which were far and few between. It worked fine. I didn't have problems with it. The only reason I upgraded was because my wife's laptop looks good running win2kpro.

Now, I'd run linux. The problem being, I'd either need a new computer to run it or seriously hack apart Linux to get it to run on my machine. Win2kPro doesn't have problems. I recall way back when Linux was smaller and faster than Windows. Dare I say it's going the other way now?

Re:Oh well...

[shawngarringer]

Well if you compared Windows from 2000 versus Linux from 2000 it'd be a fair comparison. Comparing Windows from 2000 and Linux from 2006 is not really fair.

Linux can still be smaller if you compare Vista and Fedora 5 for instance... and those are both from the same generation.

Re:Oh well...

[quanticle]

/*I recall way back when Linux was smaller and faster than Windows. Dare I say it's going the other way now?*/

I don't think Linux is *more* bloated than Windows. After all, Knoppix manages to fit a kernel, X11, OpenOffice.org, several web browsers and several media players onto a single CD. Its like getting both Windows and Office on the same disk. Windows Vista alone exceeds the capacity of a single CD-ROM, and includes a far smaller selection of applications than comes with an elementary Linux distribution.

That said, I think most Linux distros have become more bloated with time. There are those that maintain "slim" distributions (Gentoo, Damn Small Linux, Feather Linux, etc.) but they are in the minority.

Re:Oh well...

[Dr Floppy]

"I recall way back when Linux was smaller and faster than Windows. Dare I say it's going the other way now?" That is probably the reason why Linus is calling for an extensive period of debugging and code cleanup. http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/08/14392 36/

Re:Free upgrades?

[NSIM]

> If Microsoft published a defective software, the least they should do is to offer > FREE UPGRADES to Windows XP-SP2 for Windows 98 users. Pointless, most of the people unfortunate enough to still be running Win98 are doing on hardware that is from that era and hopelessly inadequate for running XP on. > Or otherwise, give the users their money back. First, vast majority never bought it directly from MS, so exactly what money should they get back and from whom? Second, these Win98 users have had the best part of 9 years of use of the OS, so expecting to get money back seems a tad unreasonable at this point!

Well

[iknowcss]

This sure goes well with the posibility that Mozilla will be dropping Win98 support for Firefox. Why is the world so cruel?! Ah heck, this is a good excuse for people to upgrade to Win 2000 anyways. Or maybe possibly, is there an equivilent Linux distro that might keep our old boxes running until their poor components completely fry?

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[SphericalCrusher]

On the contrary, Windows 98 SE was a lot better than Windows ME. Mainly in the sake of program response, programmability, and overall computer usage. Also, it was less buggy in a sense of vulnerabilities. With ME being a newer operating system, it's sad that Windows 98 SE had a few hundred less vulnerabilities than it.

Bad thing? Maybe not...

[Ajehals]

I guess that must be fair since selling something that is inherently broken and then refusing to fix it is completely defensible. Now I wouldn't run 98 or God forbid ME (actually God forbid Windows - but thats not the point..). There will be quite a few people out there who bought a PC with 98 preloaded and have been chugging along quite happily (using their restore CD's regularly presumably..) now they are being dumped. Well is it acceptable? im not sure maybe it is, im not sure when MS Stopped selling 98 Boxed or as an option for OEM's so if we are talking 7 years since the last sale then maybe its acceptable. After all if there were problems with a VCR you bought 7 years ago (along the lines of certain Videos broke the player so it needed to be reset..) you'd probably buy a new one.

However leaving these machines un-patched may well be a poor choice, - many people who use it may not even be aware of the loss of support, others will not car. This means that there will be a base of potentially easily exploited PC's on the net. Ah well, Im sure a few will upgrade.

Just as a point how many 98 and ME users are out there? my website shows 33+ of visitors using Windows 98, (compared to 8% GNU/Linux and 44% Windows XP) is that about right?

Re:Free upgrades?

[RandoX]

All software projects of any size will have some bugs. Anyone who claims otherwise has obviously never worked on any projects bigger than "hello world". You're suggesting that any imperfect software should entitle the user to a free copy of the new version, which itself will be imperfect, entitling the user to a free copy... I'm not suggesting that Win98 is perfect, but apparently it's been good enough for these people to use for the better part of the last decade.

Re:Free upgrades?

[richdun]

I almost modded parent "Funny" but figured it would be more constructed to post.

I think we've established (courts, lawyers, society, whoever) that software companies aren't liable for "defective software" unless enough people get together and file suit (unless it's mission critical software, but most commercial software strikes that with their EULAs). And it would be ridiculous at this point if users tried to take MS to court over 8 year old software that hasn't been supported for 4 years (for free at least), when they were "supposed" to upgrade a long time ago. I know, I know, users shouldn't have to fork over the cash to upgrade from bad software, but if you buy a bad product, one that is commercially available, has been seen by others, etc., there's some responsibility you're taking for dealing with it.

If that weren't the case, not only would far fewer software companies be out there, and far fewer pieces of software out there, but everything would have to sit in testing until it worked perfectly...and that just ain't gonna happen.

I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgrading

[Zarhan]

I've had a single Win'98 installation since about 1999. Never needed to reinstall or anything. I still use it for my gaming - it has DirectX 9, so it runs World of Warcraft, Galciv2, GTA:SA, and so on. I have no need to upgrade to 2000 or XP. (For "real work" I use Linux).

One of the reasons why I have not upgraded is also that Win'98 is the last Windows that has full, native DOS easily accessible, so that older games work. In the recent years this argument has lost significance due to DosBox, though, but many DOS4GW games did not work properly only some time ago.

"You're crazy to run Win'98 in todays internet" is not exactly true. Win'98 has only one service that is being offered and that is the samba file/printer sharing. Turn that off and you have no open ports on a Win'98 machine - compared to Win2000 or XP where you have loads of ports active (think of all the RPC worms of the yesteryear). Yes, my Win'98 is behind a firewall, but even if it weren't I wouldn't be too concerned. I'm not using samba sharing (and yes, I've verified this with nmap).

The only attack that works would be against the TCP/IP stack itself (read: Winnuke), but that has been patched ages ago.

I'm going to keep running my Win'98 until games will require DirectX 10. Then I'll make a decision on whether I'll upgrade to Vista or check out how Cedega works at that point (Also, Dosbox probably runs everything by then). Why should I pay for intermediate versions (2k, XP, 2003 server) when Win'98 does everything that I want? Win'98 is light (compared to multimedia-laden XP) and secure enough for a single-user environment.

8 years old?

[scribblej]

Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME)

Okay, I don't really pay much attention to Microsoft product releases... but... isn't that more like 6?

Easy there mister submitter

[spyrochaete]

"this basically is the first time Microsoft has admitted that Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet."

What crappy journalism. This is like saying "trees are cut down so easily by chainsaws that we shouldn't bother planting them," or, "iPods hold so much music that it's crazy to buy a CD player." If you're going to post a story, be objective and let the readers draw their own conclusion.

Windows may be expensive, but at least purchasers of 98 got 8 years of free support. How many products, never mind software apps, promise that?

Re:Easy there mister submitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Your product installed by default on every PC sold during the PC boom?

How many software companies have been promised that?

Looking at it another way, they have taken 8 years to fix their shoddy release (and it still aint really right).

The internet and networks were well known in 1995, Bill chose to ignore it and choose marketing over quality. I think those decisions are biting now.

Re:Easy there mister submitter

[spyrochaete]

Or it took 8 years for someone to find that security flaw. If you know a way to future-proof software securely for 8 years I congratulate you on your soon-to-overflow bank account.

Re:Easy there mister submitter

[lubricated]

but at least purchasers of 98 got 8 years of free support.

yeah because everyone that had windows 98 bought it in 98. Besides have you ever tried calling microsoft for support? I think not.

How many products, never mind software apps, promise that?
How many products of any sort have that high of a margin.
There are plenty of products you can buy outside of software that promise 8 years of support and far more. Software is held to a lower standard than other industry products.

Re:Easy there mister submitter

[spyrochaete]

yeah because everyone that had windows 98 bought it in 98. Besides have you ever tried calling microsoft for support? I think not.

Not personally, but my sister's friend did. She called them up because she was having trouble with viruses. It turned out her copy of XP was pirated, of which they informed her, but they said they'd help anyway just this once. They spent almost an hour on the phone with her since she's next to computer illiterate. I was very impressed with that.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[plague3106]

Without support for Windows 98, what will users with limited-capability computers (e.g., computers equipped with 300-MHz processors) do?

Release they got their money's worth out of an almost 10 year old computer, and plop down $300 for a newer one? Or they could install Linux, although they'd be able to do less than they do with their computers now.

Or, as the article points out, put the computer behind a firewall, which pretty much every home user should do regardless of OS.

It's a good start...

[bean123456789]

Now, it's time to kill Windows ME.

Re:It's a good start...

[McMoose]

Kill it?! Did it ever really live?

Re:It's a good start...

[evileyetmc]

IMHO, Windows ME support should have been dropped before Win 98. Why? Because most home users that used ME became so hopelessly frustrated and their computer repairmen so irritated that they forced them to switch to either 98 or XP (I know I recommended that). Plus the market share of ME compared to 98 and XP is trivial. Why support an operating system that the majority of your customers don't run (and paid less for, seeing how ME was common on entry-level computers)?

Re:It's a good start...

[bean123456789]

IMHO, Windows ME support should have been dropped before Win 98

I totally agree, as far as I'm concerned ME is malware.

Applies to Windows ME also

[iggymanz]

well, Windows ME came out in Sept 2000, less than six years old right now. Security updates for five years for an OS that costs money is probably OK for home use, but I could see some small businesses wanted a somewhat longer cycle.

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[CrazyJim1]

mod parent up, DOS rocks for programing custom applications, too bad its no longer supported.

Re:Free upgrades?

[Sigma 7]

If Microsoft published a defective software, the least they should do is to offer FREE UPGRADES to Windows XP-SP2 for Windows 98 users.

From the vulnerability description:

An attacker would need to convince a user to visit a Web site that could force a connection to a remote file server.

This is a browser vulnerability, which is resolved by upgrading your browser, locking down your browser, or getting a different browser. While Outlook is affected, they really contract HTML rendering to Internet Explorer.

Or otherwise, give the users their money back.

Sure, giving the money back for Internet Explorer is an acceptable option.

Consider your cheque for $0.00 to be in the mail.

In other news

[Twillerror]

Linus stops patching Linux v 1.4

Re:Free upgrades?

[jank1887]

They should get all of their money back... minus depreciation. Since the software was useless to start with, you now owe them money. Luckily they take Visa, MC, PayPal...

What does this mean for win98 patches?

[denis-The-menace]

Will M$ stop posting the win98 patches?
Will Windows update stop talking to Win98?

Better license agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Win 98 and ME have better license agreements too.

Those license agreements don't have the weird clauses about M$ being able to remotely disable your access to internet services at any time for any reason, or about your consent to have third-party DRM pushed to you over the internet automatically without your consent or knowledge (both of which are in the XP license agreement).

One word solution

[walt-sjc]

VMWare.

Ditch the extra power-sucking hardware.

Re:One word solution

[b0bby]

Yeah, that's the way to go. I have a W95 box that I keep around for all the Netware utilities that I have on it & rarely use. I copied it over to VMWare on my main workstation & now it boots faster than it did before, is easily backed up, and the box it was on can be reused or given away. It's really the way forward.

Re:One word solution

[MarkGriz]

Good suggestion. I might give that a shot with the Win98 box,
but unless VMWare can virtualize the ISA bus, I'm stuck with the Win95 box :-)

Industry support

[phorm]

While MS may have stopped supporting win98 in terms of patches etc, the industry stopped supporting it a long time ago. MS also stopped supporting it for much of their office products quite a while back. Even hardware such as printers have been not supporting the old OS in the last few years.

Basically win98 was good if you still need to run some legacy 9x apps, maybe some DOS stuff, and get on the internet for email or browsing. It seems now that it's day has passed even for browsing, as the forthcoming versions of both IE and firefox have stopped support, and now patch support has stopped as well.

However, what to do with all those businesses (especially low-profit government entities such as schools) with older machines, win98 licenses, and not a lot of money to spend on either hardware or operating systems? To me, it looks this is just another push for those entities towards a linux desktop, not based on any technical details, but due to just plain ol' dollars and cents.

Re:Industry support

[Zarhan]

While MS may have stopped supporting win98 in terms of patches etc, the industry stopped supporting it a long time ago. MS also stopped supporting it for much of their office products quite a while back. Even hardware such as printers have been not supporting the old OS in the last few years.

    Referring to the use as a gaming OS:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_81.98.html

    Granted, 2k/XP has a newer driver, but this one is still more recent than several years..

Re:Industry support

[phorm]

Great, it has driver support. Now show me all the new games that run on 9x... kinda like having a screwdriver and no screws, eh?

Re:Industry support

[hausmaus]

However, what to do with all those businesses (especially low-profit government entities such as schools) with older machines, win98 licenses, and not a lot of money to spend on either hardware or operating systems? To me, it looks this is just another push for those entities towards a linux desktop, not based on any technical details, but due to just plain ol' dollars and cents.

You neglected to mention that it will cost these entities money to learn Linux, as well as teach their clients, et al., to learn it. As someone who supports the above entities pro bono, I can tell you that many of them have zero money to do anything. Their mantra: "if it works, why fix it?" Many Slashdotters forget that not everyone has the technical grasp to use Linux, even if there is a nice GUI helping out. If it's all DOS stuff they're using, I am not going to spend my time trying to slap up DOSbox or DOSemu when what they have is working just fine.

Also, schools may not be allowed to use Linux. I know of several school districts where it's mandated that all computers will run Windows (any version), but nothing else. If it does, it has to be approved through the school district. That can be hellish on anyone, especially when the school board knows little or nothing about Linux save for "it's a hacker's operating system". I've been through that before and quite frankly, they don't care. They want dollars and cents proof that moving to Linux, from what they already have, would be worth it. Sadly enough, most times, the answer is "no" to Linux. I haven't seen any school districts where I've lived adopt Linux. I've seen 'em adopt Macs and XP, but not Linux.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Let whatever solution they've been using for years work. I know plenty of people who are still under DOS, multitasking, surfing the Web, doing email, everything they want with nary a problem.

It's the industry to blame for this constant upgrading for people who don't need it. It's the push to sell, sell, sell, money, money, money. Knowledge is true power and when you reveal to people that they don't need to use the latest thing to do what they need to do, it really can open eyes and make minds easier. Yes, I agree, running any operating system on today's Internet without a firewall is crazy.

I'm assuming that most of you out there haven't heard of a website called Old Version (http://www.oldversion.com/). They have a lot of great free software, normally older versions of Windows stuff. They have some good firewalls on there, such as Tiny Personal Firewall, ZoneAlarm and Sygate Personal Firewall. If the person can't afford a hardware firewall, a software firewall is still a good option. I use Tiny Personal Firewall on my laptop and Winamp 2.95 for myself.

Again, the latest ain't the greatest.

People just need to get that through their heads.

Re:Industry support

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

It seems now that it's day has passed even for browsing, as the forthcoming versions of both IE and firefox have stopped support, and now patch support has stopped as well.

The forthcoming release of Firefox will support Win98 -- unless this MS decision changes something.

Re:Industry support

[Zarhan]

I already mentioned WoW, Galciv2 and GTA:SA in another post. I can add Civilization IV too. Games require DirectX 9, Win'98 has DirectX 9. So yeah, everything pretty much works.

hurm...

[Churla]

A) I will concurr with the call of sub par journalism with a definite anti-MS slant.

B) More importantly, how many other OS's written that far back are still being actively supported? I'm not sure, is the Mac OS from that day still supported by Apple and being actively maintained?

The company I work at stop doing patches for software when it's more than 2 major releases old. Period. By that call 98 should have been phased out the minute XP was released (98... 2000... XP) I think MS has kept the patient alive too long as it is, let it die.

New is better

[XMilkProject]

I'd rather they spent time working on Vista than patching an 8 year old operating system. I doubt anyone on Win98 is connected via more than a dial up modem anyway, they don't exactly have huge targets painted on their backs.

Re:New is better

[Cheeze]

I couldn't find a link that had a good number for win98's marketshare, but you'd really be suprised how many 5-8 year old dell/hp/e-machines/gateway/etc. spyware-infested dust collectors there are still running.

Just ask anyone that does any kind of technical support for computers. At least with Windows ME, the operating system became so unusabe so fast, it's market share was self-limiting.

I wouldn't be suprised in 5 years to see people still running win98.

I bet there are win2k servers running in 20 years.

Every site I have been to has a few WinNT4.0 servers sitting in the corner running one stupid application.

Re:Free upgrades?

[pingveno]

Microsoft is a software company. They live on people buying Windows (and the other MS software). Okay, there are bugs in Windows. So what? Software will always have bugs and security holes. That doesn't mean software companies should provide free upgrades for people who won't upgrade their ancient OS.

Windows 98

[juicejar]

I find Windows 98 in one way more secure, in the sense that most companies and hackers have moved towards hitting xp,2000,2003 and vista. So maybe 98 isn't secure but how much really affects it compared to Newer windows version. But of course I run linux :) so I don't fight with the Windows security crap.

juicejar

Maybe It's Time to Open Source?

[belal1]

Maybe M$ should just release the source for this now. Even if its in a license that they made, aslong as the community could contribute and look at the source code and it could be distributed without charge. It would be a shame to throw away the compatibility that win98 had.

Re:Maybe It's Time to Open Source?

[evileyetmc]

Remember that MS has this tendancy to use old code in new OS's (See win2k leaked source). Doing this would likely result to more security holes being found in newer versions of Windows.

Re:Maybe It's Time to Open Source?

[belal1]

But if OS programmers could see the code, then more patches would be upstreamed back to M$ right? And that should help them fix the leaks in the other versions of windows that relied on Win98's codebase? (I am not a programmer so excuse my limited capacity on this matter)

The future starts tomorrow!

[xymog]

this basically is the first time Microsoft has admitted that Windows 98 is so broken that it's crazy to be running it on today's Internet.

Hell, I'm still trying to get yesterday's Internet (Web 1.0) running on today's hardware (AMD 2.4GHz) with tomorrow's software (Vista). Can we preemptively declare Vista broken, and move on to Vista++?

No users left? Hardly that.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the following page (look Slashdot - I'm citing my sources) 3.15% of users online are running Windows 98. That's hardly infinitesimial, certainly not ignorable. For comparison, this same page states Mac OS * at 4.19% and Linux at 0.40%. Dispute the accuracy - I certainly shall - it comes from statistic botherers on commercial websites. The 'mainstream web' we could call it.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid= 2

So Microsoft, running windows 98 connected to the net certainly isn't impossible in 2006, even if it *is* ridiculous. Maybe we should just block them from browsing, demanding the upgrade.

In other stories.. Debian server running continuously since 1998 succombs to infestation of termites.

Get Internet explorer!

Not necessary

[symbolset]

Both Windows ME users switched to Mac years ago.

Nah

[Einstein_101]

I recall way back when Linux was smaller and faster than Windows. Dare I say it's going the other way now?
 
Nope. You could say that, but it would be completely inaccurate. The problem with Linux is most people confuse with Linux itself with a distro's specific style of Linux.
 
Case in point: SuSE, RedHat, Mandriva, Ubuntu. Take a vanilla distro like Slackware - it's lightening fast, and it has far fewer security bugs than other distros. Why? Because the distros I mentioned make their own 'enhancements', which quite often end up in security bugs. RedHat was always terrible about this. Then you have SuSE, which although pretty secure, is terribly slow. They make their modifications to the DE which in turn makes KDE noticably slower than on other distros. And that's not to mention the memory leaks in Breezy Badger.
 
I replaced my Slackware 10.2 with Windows XP on my laptop, and there was a noticible speed difference. Nothing major, but it was noticible. Browse the forums and search distrowatch to find yourself a minimalized Linux distro. You'll be amazed at the speed difference.

You have to be kidding me.

[Medievalist]

I am supporting Win98SE and Mac OS9 for family and friends right now. Win98 kicks the pants of OS9, particularly in application support. I'm not having any driver issues regardless of which hardware base I'm on (since I hand out salvaged hardware, the platform changes every six to eight months. I'm currently on 2 powerMacs and 10 1.8 GHz Celerons - no driver problems).

Myself, I prefer Ubuntu or Slackware. But for end users Win98se is a fine platform that runs Firefox, IE, and hundreds (if not thousands) of games just fine. Wireless works easily on it too.

OS9, though, is a pig (and has severely limited hardware compatibility). I prefer OS7 or OSX personally; they don't crash as often.

You need old Adobe reader, old ZoneAlarm, and a good antivirus for Win98se, but even with an antivirus running full-time Win98se outperforms XP on the same hardware.

And what's really impressive is MS-DOS dentist office management software on a 2 GHz P4. Effectively instantaneous response yields fantastic productivity for the end-user. Backup and database management is lighting-fast, too - reindexing and archiving ten years worth of data (which was a tedious weekly chore on a 16 MHz 386) can be handled nightly in under ten minutes.

Re:You have to be kidding me.

[Hawthorne01]

Yeah, I gotta agree with you. As much as I'm a Mac Fanboy, the fact is, extension conflicts in 0S9 were easily the equal of .dll hell. And then there's memory management in OS9 (*shudder*)...

Makes me love OS X all the more.

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[macemoneta]

DOS is not supported by Microsoft. But that doesn't mean that it's unsupported; FreeDOS.

Re:Windows 98 is still usable

[MacDaffy]

Part of the secret to your success that you use your machine wirelessly. Most wireless routers protect you from exploits like the one mentioned in the article.

The sad news is

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

How many people are still running Windows 98 because of this whole "I am too stubborn, lazy, cheap, or stupid to have to upgrade my computer".

Sorry, not intending to be flame bait, but its true. There is NO compelling reason for someone to keep using Windows 98.

Price, sorry, you got your money's worth out of an 8 year old OS. ANY OS that is 8 years old is a dinosaur these days.

If you say "but my computer is rock solid and stable", look, XP may have its issues, but I measure up-time in months without BSOD or system crashes. The entire XP/NT architecture these days can handle a software crash without wiping out the OS or BSOD'ing, something Windows 9X could never attest to. Sure, if you have used Win9X long enough, then most drivers and software has been upgraded and patched to death and finally work, but XP is overall a much better platform for driver/software support.

Can't say that 98 is more secure then XP, NO Windows OS is secure, at least Microsoft is working to make XP secure.

I mean, even the hardware your using 98 on must be slow and nearing its end of life. Just buy a new computer and XP will come installed on it. I know few computer components that last 8 years without burning out or running down, if your still running Windows 98, then you must perpetually wallow in the crap that is old legacy hardware.

Yes, sure, you can upgrade to Linux or buy a Mac, but someone using Windows 98 probably isn't savvy enough for either (and price is a BIG factor in getting a Mac).

I applaud Microsoft for finally ending the life of its 9X product, but it comes 5 years too late. Perhaps if Microsoft didn't have to worry about the skeletons in its closet it could focus on making ONE rock solid and secure OS rather then supporting a dozen crappy ones. I blame Windows 98 users for Windows XP not being secure. Microsoft had to keep you happy by sacrificing some of its developers to cater to 9X users.

Re:The sad news is

[askreet]

"I blame Windows 98 users for Windows XP not being secure." That is the single best quote I've read on Slashdot in a long while. Thank you.

Re:The sad news is

[assassinator42]

I'm going to install Windows 98 on a new virtual PC soon. Windows 98 is good for running old games and such that don't work right on XP. Of course, I wouldn't use it as my primary OS. It does work well on older hardware. There are some people who can't afford to buy a new computer. What should they do? OK, I might recommend Damn Small Linux or something, but they probably have applications and games that won't run on Linux.

"Integrated" web browser

[1ucius]

Wasn't windows 98 the first edition bundled the browser with the OS - for the benefit of the consumer of course? Bit ironic that it's now cited at the reason to drop support.

Re:"Integrated" web browser

[F.Prefect]

They're not talking about the browser (Internet Explorer), they're talking about the shell (Windows Explorer).

Re:"Integrated" web browser

[greylion3]

Not exactly.
Win95 OSR (OS Revision) 2.5 had IE4.0 integrated - and what a load of crap that was..
On the PC I installed it on, it kept crashing every time I tried to use the right mouse button on one of the desktop-icons. I had it installed for maybe a couple of hours in total.
Before that, there was OSR 2.0 (adding USB-support) and OSR 2.1 (better networking/stability).
Anyway, that must have been a year or so before I switched to Linux (Debian) in March 1999.
Never looked back. I have maybe one crash a year, or less - it's been so long, I've forgotten when the last time was.

Re:"Integrated" web browser

[timmyf2371]

Internet Explorer 3.0 came with my first PC running Windows 95, though I couldn't say whether this was bundled with the OS or bundled with the actual computer, as I remember Netscape 2.0 also came installed.

IIRC, Windows 95 release 2 included Internet Explorer 4.0 and the infamous Active Desktop.

Re:"Integrated" web browser

[Richard Steiner]

Sorry to nitpick, but OSR2.0 added FAT32 support, not USB. That didn't arrive until OSR2.1.

You're absolutely right that OSR2.5 was crap, tho... :-)

Re:"Integrated" web browser

[evilviper]

Wasn't windows 98 the first edition bundled the browser with the OS

Not at all. However, it was the first one where IE was tightly integrated with Explorer, and could NOT be removed.

Windows NT 4.0 came with IE 2.0 (GAH! DIE!)
Windows 95 OSR2 came with IE 3.0 (Yuck!)

Both OSes could install IE 4.0 and get the active desktop and web folders found in Windows 98... And then have to immediately upgrade to IE 5 to get SOME stability and performance. Hey, it's nice to be able to right-click on the start menu, but it's really just not worth it.

98se more stable than XP

[80 85 83 83 89 33]

i run 98se, and it runs fine. i don't konw how XP has been hyped to be more stable, of course MS kept preaching that so much until others just started repeating it. the many XP systems i use at work or at other places seem to crash so often and be more unstable, and seem to catch so much infestation, that my 98SE system seems bulletproof by comparison.

i'm on the net nearly constantly, and every now and then i run the gamut of scans, and never have anything worse than cookies.

of course, i did the well know tweaks and tuned the memory handling settings, and tweaked the swap file, etc; and don't use IE, and turned off scripting.

Who Cares?

[allometry]

Honestly folks, does anyone really give a damn about Windows 98 any more?

If you need support and have 98, upgrade to 2000. It's that simple!

Re:Who Cares?

[hausmaus]

Honestly folks, does anyone really give a damn about Windows 98 any more?

A lot more than you realize.

If you need support and have 98, upgrade to 2000. It's that simple!

Why are you suggesting another dead product for replacing a dead OS (by its creator)? Yes, MS is still "supporting" W2K until 2010, but if you ask any questions about it, the last word is "upgrade to XP or Server 2003!" If you call MS to get support, they are actually very reluctant to do so and are normally very curt about it, as if you're wasting their time.

I don't know how you'd define it, but I wouldn't call that "support" at all.

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[Zarhan]

What do you mean "1 fps"?

My gaming computer has Geforce 4 Ti4200, 1,2 GHz Celeron and 384 MB of memory, 250 GB worth of HDD and a new DVD-RW drive too. Seems to fill the requirements just about ok. How would Win'98 slow it down?

Meanwhile, Back In Redmond.....

[Skeetskeetskeet]

Microsoft announces it will still continue to patch and support Microsoft BOB due to its overwhelming popularity and stability among home users.

Re:Meanwhile, Back In Redmond.....

[geekoid]

MS hasn't had a complaint regarding MS BOB is years, clearly it is the most stable!

If MS isn't supporting Win98...

[one_red_eye]

...Does that mean I can install this illegal copy now?

Re:If MS isn't supporting Win98...

[poulbailey]

No, of course not. Why would it mean that?

OT but..

[rsilvergun]

what the hell in vista is 8GB? My full Linux install, with a full development envirionment, 2 or 3 sets of office tools, 5+ differnet windowing environments and 3 browsers, web, ftp and mail servers and a ton of crap I'm blissfully ignorate of tops out at 5 gig uncompressed. Far as I know, Vista doesn't come with anymore software than XP did.

Re:OT but..

[suv4x4]

Vista doesn't come with anymore software than XP did.

It does come with a lot more software. But if I start counting it I can hardly make it up to an extra 1GB: WinFX (.NET2, Avalon, Indigo and the rest) say 200-300MB, the new card/chess games (shouldn't be all total more than 100MB-150MB tops), improvements in desktop rendering/aero and various other improvements like new IP stack, audio subsystem and so on, say 100 MB. Calendaring application, say 10 MB. DVD writing application say 30-40MB tops. Gadgets on the sidebar: say 50 MB (graphics heavy). Various other improvements: 100MB.

That still makes below 1GB. What the hell they filled the rest with, no clue.

Re:OT but..

[OneoFamillion]

> That still makes below 1GB. What the hell they filled the rest with, no clue.

DRM?

Re:OT but..

[kamatsu]

Yeah, well, think about it:

Your average XP install, with DirectX, .NET framework 1.1 and 2.0, .NET SDK and media center extensions comes up to about 9GB.. so Vista will include much of this in the ultimate edition by default.. there's your 10GB.

Re:OT but..

[smash]

That still makes below 1GB. What the hell they filled the rest with, no clue.

The 100,000 frames of photo-realistic, full screen search-puppy animation, clippy NG (tm), skynet distributed computing client and Windows geniune (dis)advantage, no doubt...

Tell the School Board

[bennyp]

Tell that to the TDSB, they're still running winNT4.0

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[Thundersnatch]

You do realize that you need to patch client application security vulnerabilities too? Sure, there may be no "invisible" wormable exploit such as that used by Blaster (since Win98 is running no services). But all of the holes in IE, AIM, MS Office, Quicken, Firefox, and whatever else you use are still there. A large amount of malware relies on client-application vulnerabilites (straight buffer overflows, file parsing errors, etc.) to spread.

Now, you can say, "I never use applications except games from Win98". And if that's true, good for you. But those games could have holes, or they could rely on DLLs that have holes (IE libraries in particular).

Even worse, a whole lot of other folks are browsing the web, answering email, and using IM from Win98. A firewall does not provide client-app security, and these folks will be quickly owned when patches stop coming. Nor does AV software protect you from a lot of attacks at the network protocol layer, as most AV software does not scan network connections in real time or only handles HTTP and POP3 scanning. Until we can formally prove the correctness of all software running on the device, patching will always be necessary for Internet-connected machines (no matter what the operating system).

Be careful

[robogun]

Just so you know, there's all kinds of modified T-Buckets out there that would blow anything you're driving clean off of the road.

Re:Be careful

[Richard Steiner]

I'l take any one of 'em on ... in 30-below weather. I know *my* Accord'll start and run well in those conditions, but will their wonderful machines? :-)

VirtualPC? / Windows Update?

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Maybe Microsoft would rather sell VirtualPC for companies stuck with legacy apps. Plus, it's easier for IT departments to manage a single Win98 image than individual ones for each user.

Since Windows 95 and NT patches are still available, I would hope Windows Update will still be supported for Windows 9x.

Sigh....

[hhr]

On my web site, a brochure-ware site for a store that I own, Win 98 users are still around-- about 2% of the web traffic. Win95 is about 0.1% of the traffic.

Here is the scary part-- for the unwashed masses that look at my site, linux only counts as 0.5% of the traffic. At least FireFox is 4% and growing.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[colinrichardday]

I have a six-year old computer with a 900 MHz processor. I suspect that the computers with 300 MHz processors came out in 1998, making them eight years old.

Shane Brooks's 98lite

[HotBlackDessiato]

Remember when win2000/xp/linux seems slow when you switched over? I cannot remember a faster system than my 98lite partition. Is there a faster way to run 32 bit applications?

Stability schmability, security schmacurity...I just remember liking that it was fast.

Re:Shane Brooks's 98lite

[smash]

Erm... no?

When i first started running Linux (Slackware 3.1 ftw :D), quake ran faster, doom ran faster, the web was faster, etc. I mean hell, a couple of years later, on a pentium, i could run 4 copies of doom at once, in 4 Windows (and I did for a laugh).

It wasn't quite as pretty, but FVWM was kinda cool even in a quirky kind of way, and multiple desktops kicked ass.

The ONLY complaint I have ever had about Linux in the 10 years I've been using it, is application support...

Re:Shane Brooks's 98lite

[HotBlackDessiato]

Erm...really?

When I nonshalantly included linux with win2k/xp, I sorta knew someone would describe a similarly stripped down fast running linux install. I meant a big-name distro defualt install from around the same time period, but I made that fine print proviso to myself in quiet. Fair's fair:)

Re:Shane Brooks's 98lite

[smash]

Fair enough - i was comparing slackware to Windows 95, as that was when *I* switched to linux :D

Me too. No problem

[gr8_phk]

I still have Windows 98 running on a 700MHz box that my wife uses all the time. It sits behind the Linksys wireless thingy. Yeah, it was tricky getting wireless to work on 98 (not 98SE) but the card works fine. She runs Firefox and OpenOffice, an old Word97, and Some photo and page layout stuff. She keeps up to date AV software that has never found anything (1 thing but I think that was the XP box). I would never pay to "upgrade" to XP which would cripple it. The UI is still very responsive on that machine.

When the 98 installation does get screwed up, I'll offer to load Fedora on it. She uses my Fedora box without any complaints. There are a couple apps that I have not found suitable replacements for on Linux, but I'm hoping they'll be available before the 98 dies. In particular I grabbed Scribus on the Linux box - she said it looked awful and would never use it. I think it's probably time to try it again.

The other problem with loading Linux on it is this: It has a TNT2 video card. A modern Fedora comes with a modern Kernel that doesn't work with older nVidia drivers. The newer drivers don't work with that old card. This really illustrates the closed source driver problem well. But this is getting way off topic. It runs Windows 98 just fine with no issues or infections and will continue to do so until something breaks.

not as broken as slackware 1.0

[geekoid]

I mean really, it's 8 years old and wasn't designed for the way networkning has exploded since then.

I mean it sucks, but to compare it to todays needs is fool hardy.

But can Windows 98 users get free Windows XP?

[tepples]

But unlike Microsoft, Linus provides free (and Free) upgrades from Linux 1.4 to Linux 2.6, and the GNU team provides the analogous service with its popular userland environment.

Rose tinted glasses.

[Inoshiro]

"It's not that Windows 9x was old, but that it was awfully designed. Linux is older than Windows 9x, and they got the privileges and file permissions right since the beginning."

I do agree that Win9x is not designed so much as evolved, but an 8-year-old distro of Linux is very likely to have heart-stopping security gotchas around every corner due to the sloppy-joe attitude towards code security and provably correct designs.

The only ancient UNIX I'd trust is OpenBSD, because they try to audit their code (although they'd be better served by using a different implementation language/environment, like managed C).

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[Jaysyn]

That will run amazingly fast with BeOS loaded on it. It's even being updated still...

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[Murphy Murph]

Every one of my Windows machines has a one gig FAT 32 boot partition on which I first install a patched version of DOS from bootdisk.com with USB drive support.
I then install Win2K/XP so that I always have the option of booting straight into DOS.
This not only allows me to play old games, it also allows me to run PartitionMagic for DOS (a real lifesaver) w/o having to dig out boot disks.

Re:Windows 98 is still usable

[jafiwam]

What?

How is "wireless behind NAT" any different than "wired behind NAT"?

Ha ha. Win98 is safe.

[Fantastic Lad]

I'm quite dedicated to my copy of Win98. It works fine, and after all these years, I know pretty much everything about it. I've finally gotten comfortable with it and know how to make it perform wonderfully.

Except I've seen a recent push in the media to ditch Win98. They're even pushing the, "You're Not Cool" buttons, which makes me think somebody is getting desperate. . . Now why on earth would the Big World Out There care which version of Windows the public is using? Here are a list of possible answers and general points which strike me off the top of my head. . .

1. Money. If you can convince a few million people that they need to spend a few hundred bucks on a new operating system, (Like, ooooh, say, Vista which is being released so very soon), what better way to increase initial sales on a new product? Mod me down, and I know some of you will want to, (hello MS astroturfers), but this seems like a fairly obvious marketing ploy to jeer and scare people into buying a new product. In other words, FUCK Microsoft; I'm not about to be manipulated by highschool popular kid tactics.

2. DRM. Later releases of Windows are linked to Microsoft and secret services in ways which allow the Powers That Be to keep tabs on you at all times. You want to control media? What better way than to put an OS with built in spy abilities on every desktop and lap top in the world? Win98 isn't so useful to the Black Hats this way; it was written too early in Microsoft's evolution; somewhat before their dance with the devil took it down the domestic spying and social control road.

3. Fear. Anybody who tells me that Win98 is not a safe system is a fool. Win98 has a very short list of vulnerabilities. Nobody attacks it. I don't run a virus checker and my very basic firewall takes care of every other danger. Look at the last three years of viruses and bugs which have hit the world; how many of them have affected Win98? Like 1 percent? Or less? Exactly.

I'll stick with Win98 until they make it illegal not to have government eyes installed in our homes. The way this is going, I probably won't have to wait too long. . .

-FL

this is crap, and you know it

[isourchildrenlearnin]

I've read some of your comments, and most of them are crap. I'm a net engineer/tech of 20 years. This is the same old BS that software companies pull all the time. "We need more money, your software is old, give us more money 'cause we aren't going to support your product anymore." It's a crappy business practice.

Many people don't need the latest IE, media player, shockwave, java, directx, animated ads, 3mbit broadband, 256mb ddr3 PCIe vidcards (with cooling fans *sigh*), processors that use a rediculous amount of power in both the processor itself and the means to keep it cool...just to check their e-mail, do some word processing, surf, download some media, listen to some music, burn some stuff, and balance a checkbook. There are plenty of Win3.1 programs that do most of this, and I'd only upgrade to Win98se for the internet stuff and the CD functionality. The usefullness, to the average users I see every day, needs only to be upped to XP or 2000server if "little Timmy" needs to play some action game online, teleconference or watch a vid stream smoothly, or use a wireless router with some security. The majority of users aren't even planning on using these in the future. Let's not even talk about how fast a P3 800mhz running 98se with 256mbpc100ram, and a 128mb agp vidcard ran the programs of its day vs. how slow an AMD64, with 1gbDDR2, and a 128pcie vidcard run the larger, clunkier programs of today. I see no improvement, it's even slower. There have been very few actual improvements. One exception would be LCD screens, best thing to happen since broadband, and before that, the cd burner.

What about the old PC's we gave away to charitable organizations? or those that will now end up in the landfill? The end of Wme or W98se will surely mean most computers owned before 2002 will be in landfills.

If companies are going to do this, they should list how long they intend to support the product before you buy it. If this is capitalism, let the markets sort out support time as a factor. I'm sure when I pay $495 for my 5 w98se licenses in 2003 from the computer shop (which I didn't), I was expecting a little more than this. If micros*it had listed "were pulling the plug in 3years" on the box, I'd have looked a little more closely at the Red Hat sitting next to it on the shelf. The one good idea I saw was a pay customer service model, though we shouldn't have to pay it.

In any case, doesn't microsh*t make billions with every release of windows? Why is it too expensive for them to provide support for something that works, they made their money. It isn't fair to compare operating system support to, say, support for Madden '03. It's an operating system. Why don't you end support for ms calculator or solitaire instead?
(rant over)
(maybe not)
I suspect, slightly, that this move comes from the fact that 98se and ME are both so easily copied and MS wants everyone to pay. If this is their logic, while fair in a business sense, it's unfair to their paying users and the environment.
(ok, now end rant)

Re:this is crap, and you know it

[smash]

So, how long should a company support their code for?

3 years? 5 years? 10 years? Should microsoft still be supporting DOS 5.0?

Windows 98 is old and broken - and Microsoft has droppped support for it over 2 years ago now.

If you can't afford to run Windows 2k/XP, run Linux - you'll be able to do far more these days that with some old broken O/S with a broken security model and no vendor support.

Re:this is crap, and you know it

[isourchildrenlearnin]

I use MS operating systems instead of Linux for the same reason I use them instead of Applemac's: that's where all the programs are. That's where the majority of the users are. That's where my money comes from. I'll tell you this,though. The day the U.N. starts handing out those $100 laptops to millions all over the world, I'll be buying one (probably for a tad more than $100), because the promise of that project looks to be at least 100 million users, I'm not alone in expecting more. Linux is going to get the big bump it needs. more users=more programs=more support=more techs MS gets a lot of crap for its monopolistic business practices, crappy product, and it's all true, but the beauty in the MS environment is all the stuff, all the people with the same stuff. All the compatibility. If more game and utility companies would make linux versions, you might have a point. Unfortunately, unless programmers are making an income off of the product, it doesn't get updated, or it does during "hobby-time". Linux today reminds me of DOS in the mid 90's. There were 7 versions of DOS, but MS-DOS won the battle by being compatible with all the application and game software. I still miss my "gnarly" copy of DR-Dos 6.0, it was better than MS-DOS in every way except application compatibility. Yes, microsoft should still be supporting dos 5.0...to work with the hardware and peripherals of its time period, to do applications the machine was intended to perform. Laugh, but I know some sorry bastards running W95 on P1's because they don't need anything more than that. We seem to be in one of those b.s. periods in consumerism where novelty and utility are completely irrelative to the other. 98 was intended to surf the internet using TCP/IP and html. Microsft *can't* patch it or WON'T patch it?

Re:this is crap, and you know it

[smash]

If more game and utility companies would make linux versions, you might have a point. Unfortunately, unless programmers are making an income off of the product, it doesn't get updated, or it does during "hobby-time". Linux today reminds me of DOS in the mid 90's. There were 7 versions of DOS, but MS-DOS won the battle by being compatible with all the application and game software.

It's really not quite that bad. Go with one of the Ubuntus and there's generally an installer for anything you need. Ubuntu also has commercial support available (haven't checked pricing, but my bet is that it's competitive with getting support for Windows when you take purchase price into account).

As to games having Linux versions - well, most modern games aren't supported on Windows 98 either - especially not on hardware old enough to have shipped with it.

My point is that because of people clinging to legacy Windows O/Ses and citing lack of funds as an excuse, they're not using Linux (or something else). Because of that, game manufacturers, software vendors, etc are not providing more support to the Linux/other market.

The gaming situation for old software on Linux isn't *that* dire - particularly if you're talking about "hand me down" hardware that wouldn't run recent games anyway. Most abandonware/old dos games will work in Dosbox these days - which runs on Linux as well as it does on Windows. There's transgaming for more recent directX stuff (admittedly it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing - and will get better if more people support/use it).

Look, I agree that Microsoft *could* patch Windows 98, but seriously... how many years of support do you expect for your $100 operating system - particularly when the solution is quite simple: turn off SMB file sharing, or put the machine behind a firewall?

The main issue I see with the situation is that Microsoft needs to be more up-front and put something in writing on the box when they sell software with regards to their support plans. (ie: Windows XP* *supported until 2008) or whatever. Or change to a subscription model, which they are trying to do in the near future, if i'm not mistaken...

Re:this is crap, and you know it

[isourchildrenlearnin]

I agree on everything you said. I agree that the more mainstream linux becomes, the less we will have to deal with MS's rediculous business practices. I agree linux has broad usage, a little unstable in places (so many different versions and TONS of minor compatibility issues). What I like more than anything about linux is that one day, when a linux version has some exclusive advantage over the other linux's (linii?), the consumers, vendors, programmers, and hardware manufacturers won't (might not?) hand that company the keys to a monopoly and (maybe?) make real efforts to keep the options open to everyone's benefit.
An important point I made that no one seems to be engaging is the loss of every system slower than a p3 450/celeron 800 to the trash heap. In every major version of windows, micosoft made upgrades for a reason other than arbitraily deciding "it's time for the new stuff/more money".
3.1 was an actual GUI OS (needed)
95 was a GUI that used the pentium's 16-bit architecture for multitasking(needed)
NT had true server functionality and admin file security(needed)
98se was 95 with better internet and LAN focus (needed)
2000server is a better server, 32-bit (needed)
ME was 98se with system restore (novelty)
XP is just a lot of previous ideas, redesigned to where they actually work with redundancies out the yahoo. It also offered a more personal OS for upgrading users. (not a huge step)

So, what I'm saying is this: unless you are running a server or trying to play the latest games, 98se works. The improvements in software in the last 5 years have been less useful. They seem to be primarily changing to keep up with the hardware world's incremental gains. When are we allowed to buy a computer and, unless it breaks, say "this is all I need". I don't need a computer with a robotic thing to stick my thingy into that plugs into a USB3 port, nor do many of my customers. This is going to create a mountain of waste and make it clear to Microsoft that (thanks to hackers) they can force every pre-W2000 user to have to buy their product, again, along with a new computer system to go with it, only because they want to remain safe on the internet. That's not innovation, that's blackmail. I know I may sound old, but I don't really think HDTV is that huge of an improvement, either, and it definitely isn't a change warranting a mandatory upgrade.

btw, I'm not trying to criticize smash. I just think the phasing out of 98 and the unecessary waste that will come from it is a bigger issue than whether or not linux is the answer. Linux users are like lesbians (this is purely metaphor): When some jerk (microsoft) abuses his girlfriend (the unfortunate MS consumer), that seems to be the best time for a lesbian to...okay, nevermind that, sorry.

I'm just pissed.

Such is the trap of the proprietor.

[jbn-o]

I can't really blame MS for being unable to support software that old.

But the free software community could. The free software community could even charge those who want their Windows 98 systems to continue to work on the Internet rather than be exposed to a growing series of discovered holes; some might do maintenance and bug-fixing work gratis. That's where the real problems is—proprietors forbid anyone from making the software better and proprietors forbid sharing the improved version of the software (if you discover some way to improve it). There's no argument in saying that Microsoft wouldn't make money from offering real commercial support (modifying, documenting, and providing other services for free software for a fee) when they are choosing that path themselves. The important thing here is not whether Microsoft would make money on this, it's the effect on the users. This is the time-honored problem of running proprietary software at all. Users deserve software freedom.

The REAL reason...

[vmcto]

they lost disk 21 of the the 24 floppy installation disks...

give me 98 over XP anyday

[80 85 83 83 89 33]

i've been reading /. for way too long to have not made my obligatory anti-MS rant yet, so here goes.

when MS made XP 10 times more complex than 98, they somehow added 10*10 points of failure.

XP requires a fucking fleet of MCSE techs to keep running. the majority of XP machines i see are down half the time or are so fucked up that doing any thing productive on them is impossible.

XP is the most bloated piece of haphazardly put together shit every programmed by 10,000 monkeys. count your blessings and thank the stars that aligned just right when your XP machine even boots.

take 98se, apply a few simple tweaks that were quickly figured out years ago, toss a cheap firewall on it, and voila, you've got a streamlined, stable, easy to maintain OS that can run just about any program/game you could need or want to run, on just about any machine you have.

XP was just a conspiracy with the hardware accessory industry to make you buy all new stuff, since they just couldn't bring themselves to right new drivers for XP. i wonder if all our stuff from printers to scanners to burners aren't going to work with Vista, cause they won't write drivers, on purpose.

i could go on, but i think i've got most of it outta my system.

they could recommend Firefox and keep OS support

[Locutus]

So, they have a web browser which they claim they can no longer keep secure so they're going to stop supporting the operating system? Surely they could have come up with a better reason.

Maybe Microsoft felt they could do this now because the Mozilla Firefox group said they were stopping official product support on the MS Windows 9x OS(s)...

LoB

If it ain't broke...

[spaceyhackerlady]

Until this year I always steered non-technical computer users (including most family members) to Windows 98SE. Good functionality, runs well on less than a P4, USB works. Some people claim there is a USB implementation on Windows 95, but after careful study I have come to the conclusion that they are mistaken...

It's only now, mainly due to new hardware not supporting Windows 98, that I've moved the family to XP. When my Mom's computer's power supply packed up, for example, the replacement box came with XP. I considered buying her a Mac, but the new XP box was the path of least resistance, and maintains compatibility with her favourite apps.

My old Pentium 3 system at home, which dual-boots Windows 98SE (for a few legacy apps) and Slackware, is the last Windows 98 box in the family. I have a nice shiny new P4 box (assembled from components) plugged in to my KVM switch, and when I get around to it will load Slackware on it and make it dual boot Linux and XP. At that point the Windows 98 era will be over in our family. I may yet end up using a Sun Ultra 5 (bought for the hell of it on EBay; it runs Debian) as my main Internet box, since there is little the hackers can do to it.

...laura

Re:If it ain't broke...

[snilloc]

There was a Win95 w/ USB, but I can't name any device that ever had a driver for it.

Off Topic But...

[MrRuslan]

I see alot of posts about ME sucking compared to 98. I used to work for a Mom and Pop computer store back in those days and went torgh hundreds of computers. Let me set the record straight: ME and 98 suck a nearly identical amount.
They are bouth unstable and unreliable.

More Proof

[TheNetAvenger]

The resposes to this article are more proof that a majority of people on SlashDot don't realize that Win9x and Win2k/XP are ENTIRELY different OSes. Different code bases, actually different code all around.

Windows 101 for Slashdot People

Win3.x was 16bit OS for the x86 only platform and was programmed primarily in C and Assembly
Win9x was a 32bit OS built on top of Win3.x technology and again was programmed using C and Assembly in a lot of areas.
WinNT was a New OS technology with a 'real' kernel and subsystem technology that was built entirely in portable C for Cross Platform Support
WinXP is the modern version of WindowsNT, still built completely in portable C and C++ with no assembly optimization allowed outside of the HAL.

The ONLY reason that Win9X and WinXP 'look' a bit alike is purely cosmetic for end user ease.

So people that are still running Win9x, they deserve the blue screens, you won't have them with XP unless you have hardware failure - you know, like a *nix...

Also as for Win98 being lighter for test environments, you are doing a disservice, especially if you are using it for development testing. Applications run differently on WinXP. Also as for Win9x being lighter, the only truth in this is that Win9x will run well on 32mb of RAM, where WindowsXP requires 64mb of RAM for the 'same level' of performance, and with 128MB of RAM WinXP will run 'faster' than Win98.

I run into people all the time that still associate Windows 'instablity' with Win9x and a 8 year old OS that was mothballed with WinXP was released.

I understand that a lot of peeps and friends in the *nix world run Dual boots or VM versions of Win98, but you need to really move on even if you have to run a hacked version of XP. There are things that will still make you mad at MS but your computer crashing under Windows won't be one of them.

Re:More Proof

[NullProg]

The resposes to this article are more proof that a majority of people on SlashDot don't realize that Win9x and Win2k/XP are ENTIRELY different OSes. Different code bases, actually different code all around.

Sort of. The kernals are different, the DLL's are pretty much the same. The Win32 API is an abstract layer that Microsoft sold us on. One of the selling points was "code for win32 and your programs will run on 9.x and NT based systems". Win98SE runs wicked fast on my wifes AMD64 and has an uptime of over three months.


Win9x was a 32bit OS built on top of Win3.x technology and again was programmed using C and Assembly in a lot of areas.
Um, Win95 ran on my 386/16sx (PS/1). I have screen shots. It worked fine until you enabled 32bit disk support. If you don't know the differences between the 9.x and NT kernels might I suggest Windows System Programming Secrets by Pietrek or any Windows programming book by Andrew Schulman.

WinXP is the modern version of WindowsNT, still built completely in portable C and C++ with no assembly optimization allowed outside of the HAL.
XP Modern kernal my ass. Its the same HAL/Kernal that was released with Windows NT 3.1
It has more kernal calls with some code reviews thrown in. Disassemble or do a bdiff someday on the different NT kernels. You will get sued by Microsoft if you publish the results.

Applications run differently on WinXP. I'm sorry, say what? Other than isolated address space the programs run the same. Any version of Windows is just a layer above the hardware. The CPU still fetches and runs the instructions. Thats why Win98 still runs on any box you can buy out of the store today.

No flame intended. Your post was your opinion, this was mine.

Enjoy.

Re:More Proof

[TheNetAvenger]

I'm not sure whether to even respond or just send you to wikipedia...

Sort of. The kernals are different, the DLL's are pretty much the same. The Win32 API is an abstract layer that Microsoft sold us on. One of the selling points was "code for win32 and your programs will run on 9.x and NT based systems". Win98SE runs wicked fast on my wifes AMD64 and has an uptime of over three months.

The Win32API is from NT, not Win9x. Binary compatibility is because the NT Win32 APi was used in Win9x, however the underlying kernel of the OS was NOT the same.

If you would notice Windows NT can also run Win16 and also could run OS/2 16 applications 'binary' compatible because of the subsystem nature of the NT kernel. The same reason you can run 'BSD' binaries in the Windows NT BSD Unix subsystem. Understand?

As for any DLLs being the same, this was only true of 'applications' running on the OS, NOT THE OS itself. Even the 'common' DLLs that existed on both Win9X and NT4 at the OS level were 'different' DLLs for the most part, try dropping a common DLL from Win9x to NT4 and notice the DLL fails. There are many reasons for this, many stemming from the security in the NT version of the DLLs to the Unicode differences.

The Win32 (Subsystem) runs on the NT Architecture, that is why it is binary compatible with Win9x. NT is a client/server kernel architecture, that is why it can also run Win16 and even BSD subsystems 'equally' along side the Win32 or Win64 subsystems.

Um, Win95 ran on my 386/16sx (PS/1). I have screen shots. It worked fine until you enabled 32bit disk support. If you don't know the differences between the 9.x and NT kernels might I suggest Windows System Programming Secrets by Pietrek or any Windows programming book by Andrew Schulman.

Um, of course it ran... Ok, you do REALIZE that a 386 processor is 32bit? What the hell are you smoking? Also the 32bit disk support in Win9x had NOTHING to do with the kernel or even the CPU it was running on, it had to with whether your mainboard chipsets would allow Win9x to bypass the Bios for I/O to this device and not use a version of Real Mode to access your hard drives. Even Win3.x had this feature. You are seriously confused on several things here.

The Win9x kernel was NOTHING like the NT kernel, you seriously need to read 'Inside WindowsNT' or at least go to WikiPedia.

XP Modern kernal my ass. Its the same HAL/Kernal that was released with Windows NT 3.1
It has more kernal calls with some code reviews thrown in. Disassemble or do a bdiff someday on the different NT kernels. You will get sued by Microsoft if you publish the results.

Well, wrong again, surprise. The HAL has changed, as the x86 architecture has 'changed' over the years. The HAL from NT 3.1 was under 64KB, the current HAL in XP is around 128KB. That would be a 'bit' of a change considering how little takes place in the HAL. (Hardware Abstraction Layer)

Also you seem to think the only aspect of the NT Kernel is the HAL. Again, wrong. This is just the 'platform' Hardware Abstraction Layer, that provides the hardware interface to the NT Kernel. The NT Kernel was well designed for its time, but it also has evolved over the years, the process scheduling, handling of drivers (like Video dropping Rings and Back up in Vista) to 100s of other KERNEL level changes.

NT is a Hybrid Kernel, and even for people that study Kernels, it is a bit hard to 'lump' into a category, some will call it a microkernel, others will say it is the opposite. What the NT kernel DOES do, is it allows multi-process communication at the Kernel level without the performance loss that other non-monolitic kernels fight.

The hybrid nature of the NT kernel is what made it unique, and even to this day it is still Unique in the world of Kernels. Again, this is why NT can have full binary subsystems that run on the Kernel, and function as their own OSes. Hence why if you would take a look at WindowsNT/2K/XP/Vista you will notice the default OS that

Re:More Proof

[evilviper]

Win3.x was 16bit OS for the x86 only platform

Actually, Windows 3.11 was 32-bits, at least partially.

Win9x was a 32bit OS built on top of Win3.x technology

Except for the fact that 32-bit Windows 95 was largely using 16-bit code. Microsoft's insistance that it would be all 32-bit really screwed over Intel when it introduced the Pentium Pro.

So people that are still running Win9x, they deserve the blue screens, you won't have them with XP unless you have hardware failure - you know, like a *nix...

WinXP is a huge improvement over Win9x, but it's nowhere near the stability of a real OS. It will still crash, though far less often, and it will still do nasty things like corrupting it's own registry and system files over time. There's nothing like administering 100+ Windows desktop to really show you how flaky it is.

with 128MB of RAM WinXP will run 'faster' than Win98.

No, not on a fairly old computer. Even with all the optimizations turned off, XP is a CPU hog.

Re:More Proof

[Thornkin]

| Actually, Windows 3.11 was 32-bits, at least partially.
Actually, it wasn't. There was a Win32s subsystem that you could run on it which would get you some 32-bit compatibility but that came out late, was never part of the system you buy, and didn't work very well. Really it was just a dev kit for people writing Win95 programs early.

| Except for the fact that 32-bit Windows 95 was largely using 16-bit code. Microsoft's insistance that it would be all 32-bit really screwed over Intel when it introduced the Pentium Pro.

There was some 16-bit stuff in there I'm sure but saying it was "largely" 16 bit is wrong. All programs that ran natively on it were 32-bit programs. The kernel ran in 32-bit mode. There may have been parts that thunked to 16-bit code but most of what ran most of the time was 32-bits.

| WinXP is a huge improvement over Win9x, but it's nowhere near the stability of a real OS. It will still crash, though far less often, and it will still do nasty things like corrupting it's own registry and system files over time. There's nothing like administering 100+ Windows desktop to really show you how flaky it is.

What, pray-tell, is a "real os"? Unless you have bad device drivers, WinXP will almost never blue screen on you. I haven't run 100+ desktops at the same time but I can say that I run a half dozen or so and have never had the registry corrupt on me or the system files go bad.

|| with 128MB of RAM WinXP will run 'faster' than Win98.
| No, not on a fairly old computer. Even with all the optimizations turned off, XP is a CPU hog.

I have to agree with you there. WinXP is quite painful on 128 MB of RAM. 256 is where it gets usable. 512 is where it is happy. It's not the CPU usage but the RAM usage that kills it. This is pretty true of other modern OS's though.

Re:More Proof

[NullProg]

You seem to think I am claiming that Win9x and NT are the same. I was countering your supposition that Win9x is somehow obsolete and that were all stupid for still running it. From a simple programs perspective, there is no difference between the two platforms. Win32 binaries run the same on both. A bad driver on both will BSOD.

Um, of course it ran... Ok, you do REALIZE that a 386 processor is 32bit?
The 386SX was designed for systems designers who were looking for 386 capabilities at 286 system prices. Like the 286, the 386SX is restricted to only 16 bits when communicating with other system components, such as memory. What part of 386sx did you not read in my orginal post? You should have asked how I got Win95 running on a 386sx because the installer won't run.

The Win9x kernel was NOTHING like the NT kernel, you seriously need to read 'Inside WindowsNT' or at least go to WikiPedia.
What part of different kernels did you not read in my original post? I should of also included system DLLS, but I assumed you would know what I meant.

Heck, challenge yourself, go look up 'real' information on the NT kernel and the NT Architecture.
From my original post, right back at you. "might I suggest Windows System Programming Secrets by Matt Pietrek or any Windows programming book by Andrew Schulman ."

Have a good weekend,
Enjoy.

Re:More Proof

[julesh]

> Ok, you do REALIZE that a 386 processor is 32bit?
The 386SX was designed for systems designers who were looking for 386 capabilities at 286 system prices. Like the 286, the 386SX is restricted to only 16 bits when communicating with other system components, such as memory. What part of 386sx did you not read in my orginal post?

The 386SX is internally identical to the 386DX. Programming it is identical. It has 32 bit registers and uses 32 bit addressing. It is a 32 bit processor.

It sits on a 16 bit bus. This is a hardware interface issue only. If this makes the 386SX a 16 bit processor, then the Pentium is a 64 bit processor.

You should have asked how I got Win95 running on a 386sx because the installer won't run.

By installing it on a DX and then switching the disk to another machine? Only stuff that specifically checks for an SX won't run on an SX. It might be embarassingly slow, but it'll run.

Re:More Proof

[TheNetAvenger]

The 386SX was designed for systems designers who were looking for 386 capabilities at 286 system prices. Like the 286, the 386SX is restricted to only 16 bits when communicating with other system components, such as memory. What part of 386sx did you not read in my orginal post? You should have asked how I got Win95 running on a 386sx because the installer won't run.

And again, I WILL FREAKING REPEAT.. The 386 (being SX or NOT) is a 32bit PROCESSOR. Windows 95 did not GIVE A CRAP ABOUT how it talked to Memory, which was 16bits. This is outside the out 32bit OS concepts, GET IT?

You even responded to show that you were serious about this, how freaking stupid do you think others are, and why do you think you are gaining any respect with this argument. #1) Your argument has no bearing on the conversation #2) You are a freaking under-educated when it comes to 32bit processs and the concepts.

You KEEP REPEATING that it is a 386SX. I don't care if it was 386 Donkey Donkey... ALL, and I MEAN ALL 386 CPUs were 32bit, and had memory and process protection that was used by 32bit OSes. PERIOD (And No I don't care it only talked to RAM in a 16bit pipeline, as that has NOTHING to do with the OS running on it. (386SX were designed for cheaper and easier migration to the new 32bit processor, by using older 286 RAM and chipsets. But again the CPU was 32bit, and that is WHAT the difference was).

This is so insane, I'm not even sure how to respond properly.

Go read up on x86 32bit architectures on wikipedia, and understand that Win95 would NOT give a CRAP about the 16bit bus to RAM. OK?

my original post, right back at you. "might I suggest Windows System Programming Secrets by Matt Pietrek or any Windows programming book by Andrew Schulman ."

Ya you can suggest them, in fact I have read them, and even know one of these people. Does that help you at all? No, why because you have a serious deficiency of knowledge on this subject.

Andrew was brilliant in demonstrating the flaws of the Win95 kernel, how it still was held captive to a 16bit Mutext if the OS was running ANY 16bit application, and tons of other information.

However most of his work in this area is OLD, DEAD and NO LONGER MATTERS. Win9X is dead, MS never claimed it was a perfect or the best OS kernel technology, even as Win9X was being developed, MS had plans then to move everyone from the world of DOS and Win9x to NT eventually, and guess what they did.

From a simple programs perspective, there is no difference between the two platforms. Win32 binaries run the same on both. A bad driver on both will BSOD

Ok, this isn't even true. Yes applicatoin binaries run the same on both, but the drivers truly don't. (Even with the Common Driver technology dropped into Win98 and Win2K, the drivers are still fundamentally DIFFERENT.) (There are a few exceptions to this, depending on the ring level of the driver, but for the most part, the common push allowed hardware manufacturers to create a 'separate' driver for Win2k/WinXP from the same code base, but a different compiled version)

You cannot use a driver designed for Win98 on Win2k or WinXP unless it was designed for the NT common driver and 'includes' SEPARATE driver files for Win2k and WinXP.

So there is NO way the SAME driver could cause both OSes to crash. Additionally, even if the drivers were compiled from the same common code base, if it crashes on Win9x, it DOES NOT MEAN it would be allowed to do the same things and crash on Win2k/WinXP.

Add on to that, in WinXP, the OS does internal call checking, even at the driver level, and many 'bad' calls are corrected in realtime, saving the driver/application from failing and also preventing any damage to the OS running.

And thirdly, a driver that could drop the Win9x kernel, does NOT have the elevated Ring Access on Win2k/XP (except for Video), so most drivers would never be able to 'crash' Win2k/XP even if the same driver was so faulty and using

Re:More Proof

[NullProg]

I'm sorry you had to spend time responding to my post. I bow down to your vast computer knowledge and experience. Your the best and I'm an asshole.

Meanwhile, the (Win9X/NT/Linux) POS drivers I wrote are still running fine across the planet. 6000+ at last count (US/Canada/Mexico/Peru).

Enjoy,

Re:More Proof

[NullProg]

By installing it on a DX and then switching the disk to another machine? Only stuff that specifically checks for an SX won't run on an SX. It might be embarassingly slow, but it'll run.

No, I had a spare hardrive that had Win95 on it. My Parents computer (386/16 SX) hardisk went bad so I replaced it. Until you hit a 32bit operation it ran fine.

The 386SX is internally identical to the 386DX
No, its not. Extenal yes. Internal No.

Enjoy.

Re:More Proof

[TheNetAvenger]

Meanwhile, the (Win9X/NT/Linux) POS drivers I wrote are still running fine across the planet. 6000+ at last count (US/Canada/Mexico/Peru).


Is this where I say that I have software running on the International Space Station or do I just pull out my penis to see whos is longer?

I feel sorry for your customers, if you really thought running a 32bit OS on a 386sx was special...

(PS. I actually do have software on the Space Station, so you can keep your penis in your pants.)

Re:More Proof

[evilviper]

There was a Win32s subsystem that you could run on it which would get you some 32-bit compatibility but that came out late, was never part of the system you buy, and didn't work very well.

From Wikipedia:

It supported 32-bit file access, full 32-bit network redirectors, and the VCACHE.386 file cache, shared between them. The standard execution mode of the windows kernel got discontinued in Windows for Workgroups 3.11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_ 3.1x&oldid=57993255#Windows_for_Workgroups_3.11

I can say that I run a half dozen or so and have never had the registry corrupt on me or the system files go bad.

Yes, well... I have people telling me all the time that they keep their Windows 98 machines up-and-running for months at a time, and have never had it crash...

It's not the CPU usage but the RAM usage that kills it.

While having to swap to disk all the time is an extreme slowdown, it isn't the only one. XP is definately much more CPU-intensive than 98, and an infinite ammount of RAM couldn't make it as fast.

This is pretty true of other modern OS's though.

I run many machines with far less RAM. On Unix systems, you only need that much if you're running KDE and GNOME applications at the same time, and other crazyness like that. I still boot-up and use my old 386, 20MHz/10MB Notebook from time to time, and it works just fine even with X11.

Re:More Proof

[TheNetAvenger]

The 386SX is internally identical to the 386DX
No, its not. Extenal yes. Internal No.

You are insane, two people have explained this to you and yet you are still insisting the 'opposite' of what is true.

Go look up the 386 architecture, and the differences between the SX and DX. I don't think any of us here have the time to educate you on this any further.

Also I really don't care what upgrades you did your parents computers, as your basis of reference. Some of us here actually are engineers and go a bit further than working on mommy's old computer.

Re:More Proof

[TheNetAvenger]

have to agree with you there. WinXP is quite painful on 128 MB of RAM. 256 is where it gets usable. 512 is where it is happy. It's not the CPU usage but the RAM usage that kills it. This is pretty true of other modern OS's though.

There is a sweet spot depending on the applications you run and with each RAM increase. However the orginal point was that on the same hardware, WinXP will run faster than Win98 if you have 128mb of RAM. In fact if you are at 80mb of RAM that seems to be where the XP overhead stops slowing the system in comparative performance.

A lot of the lore of Win98 being faster is that in the transition from 98 to XP, people were just moving to 64 and 128mb of RAM on upgraded systems.

Once the RAM overhead is taken out of the picture the NT OSes have always been faster than the Win9x OSes. Even Windows NT 4.0 would run 20% faster than Windows95 with 32mb of RAM. (You can even find old MS articles on this, and 'their own' surprise since Win95 was assembly optimized and NT was Cross Platform C.)

Re:More Proof

[julesh]

Until you hit a 32bit operation it ran fine.

I developed a 32-bit protected mode operating system kernel with multitasking and memory protection on a 386 SX 40. 386 SXs can run 32 bit operations fine.

big surprise

[aitan]

Where is now all the people that blamed Mozilla.org for dropping support for windows pre-2000?

If Microsoft itself claims that it isn't possible to keep those version updated, how can anyone else provide support for those versions in a product that they give for free?

If you want to use 98, it's all right, but don't ask anyone else to help you or to pay some developers to keep lots of workarounds just to make a few people happy. Surely you might find some place where there's still a network with windows 3.11, how long should anyone keep supporting such OS just to make you happy?

Pretty old operating system anyway.

[Ninlar]

Are they still patching linux kernel vulnerabilities from eight years ago? I am surprised they haven't dropped support for the Operating System already. It sounds like a good business decision to me.

It would be great...

[closer2it]

if M$ released the source code of win98. I know that probably pigs would start flying, but the source code/kernel of win2k, XP and Vista comes from winNT (this OS's still has some "past marks" in folders names, etc.), so would M$ lose anything releasing the code?

I'm not a developer/programmer, so I ask you guys, how useful the source code of win98 could have been to the open source community?

Just a thought that crossed my mind. :)

By the way, sorry my poor english, hope that my point can be clear to everyone. A spell checker would be handy in /. hehe :)

Re:It would be great...

[smash]

Releasing the source to Windows 98 would make it easier for large amounts of the Win32 API to be cloned.

This is very bad from Microsoft's perspective, as it would make it much easier for people to get the Win32 version of Office up and running on other operating systems - which is a large part of why Windows is "indespensible" (not exactly true, but the perception is definately there) for many users in the business world.

I use Debian.

[hearingaid]

How to upgrade Debian, released circa 1998:

1. Install your aged CDs. (Potato? I forget.)
2. dselect update
3. dselect select
4. dselect install
5. Repeat previous step until there's nothing left to install.

I should try this sometime on a stable install. I updated a sarge install and a sid install recently that had both been disconnected from the 'net for a couple years (the sarge was originally a Testing machine; while I was DSL-less, sarge was released; meant I had to edit my /etc/apt/sources.list, but the sid machine didn't care), no problems.

Yeah, you can use apt-get too, but I found that dselect was smarter about the package install order.

The key difference, at least between Debian and Windows, is open ports. You toss on a potato or woody install, and there are no open ports. You toss on an XP install, and the stupid thing leaves a bunch of ports open, including freaking NETBIOS.

Closed ports by default gives you a chance to install updates, and not get creamed. That's the difference.

Re:I use Debian.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

How to upgrade Debian, released circa 1998:
Install your aged CDs. (Potato? I forget.)
dselect update
dselect select
dselect install
Repeat previous step until there's nothing left to install.
I should try this sometime on a stable install.

BAD idea. Trying to upgrade Debian accross different kernel/glibc/gnome/kde/etc. versions will more likely than not result in a bunch of broken packages and dependency hell - not to mention that it will take quite a bit of work to sort out the configuration changes.

The key difference, at least between Debian and Windows, is open ports. You toss on a potato or woody install, and there are no open ports. You toss on an XP install, and the stupid thing leaves a bunch of ports open, including freaking NETBIOS.

Windows Firewall is enabled by default in XP SP2; this provides a measure of protection, though I agree that it's still not as good as having the services disabled in the first place (as is the case to a greater extent with Windows Server 2003 and Vista).

Re:I use Debian.

[Tony Hoyle]

Does Windows switch its firewall on at boot yet? Or does it wait until the system is up. We year or so back had a server pwned because of that little bug..

Re:I use Debian.

[Magus424]

Yes, that issue was also corrected in SP2.

Re:I use Debian.

[hearingaid]

Windows Firewall is enabled by default ...

After it's installed. I nmapped a laptop recently while I was popping XP onto it, and yup, open ports. Happily, I was installing it behind my ultraparanoid firewall, but man: you shouldn't need a proxy connection in order to just have closed ports.

Dependency hell? The only problem I had was that I needed to upgrade the sid machine to a 2.4 kernel. The glibc in sarge, incidentally, still works on 2.2. I've been using Debian on my non-BSD machines for a few years now, and while I have some problems with the distro in general, apt and dpkg are way ahead of everybody else; the only thing that comes close is fink, and well, it's dpkg based too. :)

Not firefox 3

[phorm]

Perhaps you missed This article

Re:Not firefox 3

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Well, I hadn't read the article, but it didn't really contain anything new to me. Let's see:

* We are currently on Firefox 1.5
* The next major release is Firefox 2, which should come out this summer. It will support Win98. * The release after that (version 3) is scheduled for Q1 2007. This is the one that will drop support.

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[oblivionboy]

Or not.

I have a similar Windows 98 system at home, which is there because I'm using a Digidesign Session 8 (kind of an early Protools III system for PC), and it won't work with Win2k. Well its got a wire to the linksys router, and I access the internet on it lots. I play Starcraft on it on battlenet, all sorts of fun stuff. Lots of IE and Firefox.

Here's an interesting piece of news: NOTHING has ever happened to it, and its been running for about two years now. I have AVG on it, along with a software firewall, and it does fine (its also behind the router -- which has firewall functionality). And you know what? If something did happen to it, I just reformat and reinstall. Its not a big deal. Really it isn't. What about my data? Its on another physical drive, and its backed up frequently. For what its worth, I also have a Win2k Viao that I use with a wireless card.

Worried that I have a zombie computer? I can always look at the little blinky lights on the router, and see if its sending some data when nothing is accessing the internet. Imagine that? And I always investigate these instances, mostly though because I worry about spyware.

I get a bit tired of all the geeky security types talking about the latest security patching, as if you don't have the latest security patch and therefore are not allowed to hook up to the net. Its all about acceptable risk versus reality. The reality that you can become obsessed going after all of these security updates, waste all your time doing it, and the real consequences of it are: gee one thirty minute reinstall in 2 years.

I DO agree that on corporate networks, and mission critical systems SECURITY IS ESSENTIAL. And thats great.

But for me, and alot of other people it looks like on this thread, lack of Windows 98 security updates is alot of "Meh".

So I'll keep my Windows 98 installation. And when it does die, I'll just reformat and reinstall. .o.

NO, they don't work

[phorm]

NO they don't. Hence my point. The game doesn't just have to support direct9, they have to support win98.
Of the three mentioned, Galactic Civ 2 is the only one which runs on windows 98

WoW does not support win98
San Andreas also requires windows 2000 or XP


Hence my point. The games may run use DirectX 9, MS may have been patching Win98 and have given it support for directX 9, but the games themselves do not. In other words... it doesn't work... because the venders have decided not to support windows 98 anymore (directX 9 notwithstanding)

Re:NO, they don't work

[Zarhan]

Do you want goddamn screenshots or something? "Official support" means just that the guys at tech support are authorized to say that they aren't touching Win'98. It does not mean a squat on whether the game actually works.

I am running Civ IV, WoW, GTA:SA, and Galciv 2 on my Windows '98 computer and they work, in fact, I'm logged on to EU-Skullcrusher on WoW RIGHT NOW.

Only problems that I've seen so far are from copy protection. For example, GTA:SA does require a crack so that the Win2k-requiring Securom 7 is removed - the game itself works perfectly. Knights of the old republic II is so far the only game that I have not been able to play. The version on the shelf works, but when you patch it, the copy protection is upgraded to a version requiring win2k (same as with GTA:SA, Securom 7) too.

Re:NO, they don't work

[phorm]

Official support and system requirements are two different things. Perhaps these particular games might work on windows 98, though if they do I have doubts of how well, but I've had plenty that give the "This program requests Microsoft Windows 2000 or higher" error message. And for the record, games requiring a crack don't count... if they did I'd happily pronounce many games that work just fine on linux as well.

Re:they could recommend Firefox and keep OS suppor

[smash]

If you RTFA (or perhaps, understood properly) you would know this is port 139 which is windows file sharing, which is not part of Internet Explorer.

Unless you're going to completely rip out Windows file sharing, you're not getting rid of this vulnerability - installing firefox and using it instead of IE *WILL NOT HELP*.

So no, what you suggest will not help.

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[FunctionalMethod]

You say you use Win98. Are you also of the kind that screams "WINDOWS SUCKS" at every chance they get? Because that would explain allot of the things I keep reading in \. .

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[JebusIsLord]

That's about right... i worked retail at the time and we sold probably 266Mhz - 500 Mhz machines in 1998/99.

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[shokk]

I agree. Windows ME was some sort of half assed attempt to sell Win98 with a few of the freely downloadable things and some "enhancements" as a Windows 2000 Home Edition. Thank goodness I saved time and money by avoiding that crap.

2000 vs Millenium

[MrNougat]

Considering that Windows 2000 was released before Windows ME, isn't this tantamount to Microsoft admitting what we all already knew: that releasing WinME at all was a mistake?

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[Thundersnatch]

Your post indicates you're quite familiar with computers in general, and know how to keep yourself out of trouble. My point is 95% of the users of Win98 out there do not know how to stay out of trouble, don't back up their data, and don't check things out when they notice "unusual blinky lights".

You represent an exceptional Win98 user, not the norm.

I do, however, predict Win98 will probably become safer to use as time progresses, since fewer and fewer malware authors will target it as it decreases in popularity.

98 is older than all that.

[Oriumpor]

98 (even SE) is still just a rehash of 95b, which was just an addon to fix 95 Plug n Pray, which was an added network stack and a pretty face to the win32api which was incepted circa win3.11, all of which ran on top of the old horse glue of x86: DOS.

So yes, you should not be running the os which made: "bad command or file name" famous on the internet.

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[justthinkit]

Windows 98SE (and ME) had extremely few bugs. What they both did have was a deliberate design flaw (system resources that were too small in size) that caused things to crash ugly when you ran more than one heavy resource thing (gee, that would be Outlook, Excel, Word...) at the same time. MS doubled the size of the two System Resource memory areas once (when they moved to Win95) but declined to do it again -- they figured there was more money in leaving 9x/ME crashy and pointing people toward 2000/XP -- a design decision roughly equivalent to continuing to sell the Corvair even after it was declared "unsafe at any speed".

More generally, MS rarely ships buggy software, and when they do they ship patches (at least prior to XP). They make the big bucks in deliberating crippling designs, thus forcing users onward and ever upward.

SELinux might be a step in the right direction...

[Ayanami Rei]

In that objects and processes get security contexts and you can create transition and access rules between the contexts.
You can build a whole bunch of different models on top of this if you have the right UI tools and idioms. RBC, capability models, whatever you want.

To some degree a capability model is made available in SELinux by packages bundling they're own rule sets that define "acceptable behavior" according to their best estimation of typical usage of such software. (Sure you _could_ use apache to serve up /etc/passwd to remote users, but why would you want to?)

If you have sufficient coverage with default deny, you could turn of the default UNIX access semantics in the kernel and rely completely on SELinux enforcement.

But that reality is still years off and requires support by anyone wanting to deploy serivces on that platform.
(sigh)
POSIX needs to define a standard in this area or something to get everyone on the same page and thinking about it.

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[SphericalCrusher]

Glad you agree, but I would never refer to ME as a 2000 home edition. Just because Windows 2000 is based on NT and is a lot more stable. But yeah, ME was a beefed up unstable Windows 98 with more driver support.

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[x2A]

ME wasn't just bad, ME was the WORST... ME makes everything else MS has ever done, software and tactics wise, look like the work of angels.

(sorry, had to throw that one in)

Best way to fix Win9x

[Dark Coder]

The best way to fix Windows 98SE would be to open source this ...

And let the FOSS community fix it...

For free!!!

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[1u3hr]

Without support for Windows 98, what will users with limited-capability computers (e.g., computers equipped with 300-MHz processors) do?

Install a free firewall and continue using Win98. I don't see how you could have been going online without one anyway; with that and a non-IE browser, non-Outlook email, you're pretty safe.

Try again

[edward.virtually@pob]

It's an excuse for MS to prematurely EOL (End Of Life) 98, thus generating that much more money from those forced to upgrade.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[Lorkki]

Or they could install Linux, although they'd be able to do less than they do with their computers now.

Nice troll, especially considering the hidden assumption that Windows 98 would only be dragged along to support some legacy proprietary application.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[julesh]

Without support for Windows 98, what will users with limited-capability computers (e.g., computers equipped with 300-MHz processors) do?

Err... install XP on them? I'm running it on a 400 MHz machine here, and it works just fine. If you have less than 128 MB of RAM you may need to fine tune its memory usage (i.e. stop all the useless services from running), and you'll probably need to switch off all the fancy display effects, but it should work just as acceptably as Win98 does on such hardware. My experience of upgrading was that XP performed better on this machine than 98 did.

Firefox gives longer support than Microsoft

[LeapingQuince]

Does anybody else find it ironic that Firefox is going to be offering longer support for Windows 98 than Microsoft? In case you missed it /. had a story Thursday about how Firefox was going to drop pre-2000 Windows support in version 3.0, and the earliest possible date for that is at least a year from now. The Microsoft lifecycle info says that support for Win 98 is gone as of June 11, 2006, but online self-help will be available at least until July 10, 2007. You do the math.

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[strikethree]

If the application that you are running is compromised, then it doesn't matter whether you are running a patched or unpatched version of XP or Windows 98. The whole point the parent poster was trying to make is that there are no remote exploits. That is what differentiates 98 and XP. Both are fucked once an application starts misbehaving.

strike

ReactOS

[MrCopilot]

Bill and Melinda should charitably donate the source to the ReactOS project. They wouldn't mind fixing it.

Although maybe burying it away from mankind could be seen as a charitable act.

Re:I still run Windows 98 at home and not upgradin

[Frozen Void]

1.I disabled NETBIoS from registry.
2.I run MSdos windows+2xexPlore instead of explorer.
3.I deleted IE long ago.
4.I never install spyware,firewall,antiviruses,anything suspicious.Nothing useless runs.
5.I don't use swapfiles and have 8mb file cache.It flies.

Guess what? It works for years,with minimal hassle and support.Once you have 9x drivers,its fine.
Plus if you know registry hacks and bit of batch syntax you can optimize,and make your scripts(one of them runs any program links by :` XY).
In the meantime i had to reinstall XP for my family about a dozen times.They fuck up it regularly,though.Installing all those "cool" programs from internet without any second thoughts.

Re:they could recommend Firefox and keep OS suppor

[Locutus]

yup, dumbshit on my part as I misread Windows Explorer for Windows Internet Explorer. And since Windows Explorer is the file browser along with being the Windows desktop, it sounds like the only fix is to replace the desktop. That sounds easy if you've used say UNIX, GNU/Linux, or even OS/2, but Microsoft killed that market by eliminating OEM customizations of the Windows desktop when Windows 95 shipped...

Where's the dumbshit mod button. :-/

LoB

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[plague3106]

Nice troll, especially considering the hidden assumption that Windows 98 would only be dragged along to support some legacy proprietary application.

No hidden assumption; we're talking about people's home computer here. They didn't update because they didn't feel it was necessary.

The fact is that Linux isn't there yet. Trust me, I tried for five years, and while I did see alot of improvement, the fact that I just can't buy a printer without checking some list speaks volumes. Ya, I know, its the printer makers fault. The bottom line though, I don't care, I just want to use my fucking printer without spending hours and hours researching it, only to find that, no, I can't.

Would the '98 user be able to keep running his same version of Quicken (also likely outdated)? Can they use the email program they are familar with. Or will they have to figure out how to move thier mail to a new mail client? For someone that doesn't want to upgrade to the newest Windows, do you think they'll want to learn something totally different?

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[Lorkki]

The fact is that Linux isn't there yet. Trust me, I tried for five years, and while I did see alot of improvement, the fact that I just can't buy a printer without checking some list speaks volumes.

I keep hearing this, and I can't help thinking that by the same general guidelines Windows isn't there yet; the fact that you have to romp through driver discs and various web sites just to get your hardware supported, then go through the same again for applications to actually be able to do something useful speaks volumes of its own. Deployment-wise Linux is already ahead, and usability-wise it's really a matter of training.

I wouldn't buy a printer blind even if I were a Windows user. As a Linux user "some list" enables me to vote with my wallet and choose a vendor who sees fit to provide me with service.

Would the '98 user be able to keep running his same version of Quicken (also likely outdated)?

Possibly not, but then again he might be able to use the same data with some other application. Speaking as a person with nil experience about accounting software, here.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[plague3106]

the fact that you have to romp through driver discs and various web sites just to get your hardware supported

Yes, having the hardware come with a CD that contains the necessary drivers is the same as not having any drivers at all. FWIW, I don't have to 'go romping through websites' to get my drivers. They come on discs. To get updates I go to the manufacturers website and download and install them. I don't need to go to some third party website and download a driver written by Joe Linux Developer.

then go through the same again for applications to actually be able to do something useful speaks volumes of its own

Again, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Usually I just insert the disc and install, and my application is up and running. Again, updates I may have to pull of the web from the vendor. But I don't need to go update some library which itself requires other libraries to be updated, etc. etc. Usually there's a simple 'Update' option in the program. Can you elaborate please on which applications require you to go through more effort than running the installer?

Deployment-wise Linux is already ahead, and usability-wise it's really a matter of training.

What exactly are you refering to? Installing Windows on a new machine? Installing applications on the OS? How is it a matter of training if there are no drivers AT ALL for my printer?

I wouldn't buy a printer blind even if I were a Windows user. As a Linux user "some list" enables me to vote with my wallet and choose a vendor who sees fit to provide me with service.

Can you name a printer that comes without Windows drivers? You need to research the features of your printer, yes, but once you buy it, you know it will work with Windows. The same can't be said for Linux. A printer isn't a service, its a product. So if you're fine looking through lists to see which printer does what you want AND is known to work on windows, that's your choice. But don't tell me its easier than purchasing a printer for Windows.

Possibly not, but then again he might be able to use the same data with some other application. Speaking as a person with nil experience about accounting software, here.

Yes, Wine. A steaming pile. Believe me, I tried it too, and I ran into more problems than successes. It doesn't quite 'just work' as running the application on windows will. I even paid for the version from Transgaming. I didn't have much success running games either.

I used GNUCash. Its not on par with Quicken or MS Money. Also add in the nice lack of a useful export function, and lets just say I won't go back. It was easy to convert TO GNUCash, but I had to leave my data behind when I decided to leave GNUCash. That's right, there's no way to export your transactions to ODF or QIF. At least if I wanted to go back to Quicken, there is an easy way to do so.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[Lorkki]

Again, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Usually I just insert the disc and install, and my application is up and running.

In Ubuntu I click Applications->Add/Remove, check some boxes, click "OK" and the software gets installed. The default installation isn't just a media player and web browser, either.

I don't need to go to some third party website and download a driver written by Joe Linux Developer.

No, because in a vast majority of cases you have drivers bundled along with the distribution or not available at all. From your tone I presume you've walked into an unfortunate case akin to what I went through with WinModems a few years ago. But as you said, the fact that driver hackers don't have specifications and vendors don't provide their own drivers is hardly something the distribution builder can resolve.

It works the other way around, too: I have a few pieces of just slightly older USB hardware that will never work with 64-bit builds of Windows due to lack of vendor support, but function happily with the default installation of the AMD64 version of Ubuntu.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[plague3106]

In Ubuntu I click Applications->Add/Remove, check some boxes, click "OK" and the software gets installed. The default installation isn't just a media player and web browser, either.

There's more than a medial play in Windows too; there's an email program, a couple of game, etc.

Its funny; Linux lovers bash MS for bloat, than turn around and claim that Linux comes with everything by default.

No, because in a vast majority of cases you have drivers bundled along with the distribution or not available at all. From your tone I presume you've walked into an unfortunate case akin to what I went through with WinModems a few years ago.

You would be correct; my USB printer fell into the 'not at all' category.

But as you said, the fact that driver hackers don't have specifications and vendors don't provide their own drivers is hardly something the distribution builder can resolve.

I realize that; however, what I think many Linux lovers forget is that they don't care whose fault it is that their printer doesn't work, they just want it to work. I do like Linux, honestly. I still have a box or two running it, but its more to tinker, and not to use as a server or desktop.

It works the other way around, too: I have a few pieces of just slightly older USB hardware that will never work with 64-bit builds of Windows due to lack of vendor support, but function happily with the default installation of the AMD64 version of Ubuntu.

I realize that too. I'm not expecting windows xp drivers for my ISA Soundblaster or video card. But for something I bought only a few months ago, I do. Anything hardware wise you can buy today, you can be sure there will be XP drivers. Unfortunatly, its not the same for Linux.

I do like Linux, and I really wanted it to become my desktop, but the hit or miss hardware support, endless reading piles and piles of documentation, and the KDE rot that seems to occur caused me to dump it.

Re:Micro$oft Screws Us Good

[Lorkki]

Its funny; Linux lovers bash MS for bloat, than turn around and claim that Linux comes with everything by default.

What's even funnier is I don't ever recall doing that.

I realize that too. I'm not expecting windows xp drivers for my ISA Soundblaster or video card. But for something I bought only a few months ago, I do.

That's because hardware vendors are partly driven by market shares. I have loads of hardware that I wouldn't be able to use in my only PowerPC box simply due to firmware differences, and I don't see that as a particularly huge drawback to MacOS usage either. OSS drivers are not maintained solely by hardware vendors, so they also include the advantages of not being directly connected to some corporate entity's revenue flow.

Also note that I'm not talking about ancient ISA hardware here, but the supposedly idiot-proof hotplug crop of USB devices. Again hardware vendors could take the blame for deciding to go with proprietary protocols.

I do like Linux, and I really wanted it to become my desktop, but the hit or miss hardware support, endless reading piles and piles of documentation, and the KDE rot that seems to occur caused me to dump it.

I take my own medicine too; I've been using Linux as my primary desktop for four years or so. The moments when I dual-boot to Windows now have solely to do with games, and the sad fact that I've yet to find a virtual studio application fully worthy of replacing Jeskola Buzz or FL Studio (though Buzz actually works rather well in what you call "a steaming pile").

I also prefer to use something else than KDE, but that's a completely different topic.

Re:Who ever said Windows 98 was buggy?

[shokk]

They were marketing as such, even though I thought it was a step back from 98. Gladly, that's the one MSFT OS I never experienced.