Skip to main content
Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

barkupatree2002

119 Posts

13250

February 3rd, 2007 17:00

End of Support for Windows 98se

Now that Microsoft has officially ended support for Windows 98se (as of July 11, 2006) how do you all feel about running an operating system for which no new security updates are available?
 
Denny Denham (who I noticed has not posted recently) suggested a few years ago before the then anticipated end-of-support date that many of the security risks were really Internet Explorer vulnerabilities (as opposed to Windows vulnerabilities) and that even though those would no longer be available for Windows 98se through the Microsoft updates function they could still be obtained from Microsoft's TechNet page.  There have been several patches for Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 since July 11, 2006.  Microsoft states that it hasn't tested those patches on Windows 98se.
 
Any thoughts generally about the risks of running Windows 98se and also about trying to install the security updates to Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 from the TechNet site?
 
Thanks.
 
 

mombodog

12.7K Posts

February 3rd, 2007 18:00

About Denny Denham
 
You will never catch me using an unpatched version of Windows on the internet. The risks are Malware, Viruses, Worms, Trojans, Rootkits........

Bay Wolf

4.4K Posts

February 4th, 2007 17:00

I agree.  Everyday the Internet is being bombed by new security holes that people are finding.  Those holes will forever be open on an unpatched and unsupported operating system.
 
 

barkupatree2002

119 Posts

February 5th, 2007 22:00

Bay Wolf
 
Your concerns about connecting to the internet with an unpatched or unsupported operating system are well taken.
 
Thanks.
 

barkupatree2002

119 Posts

February 5th, 2007 22:00

Mombodog
 
Thank you for the information about Denny Denham.  He was very knowledgeable and extraordinarily generous with his time.
 
Your concerns about connecting to the internet with an unpatched or unsupported operating system are well taken.
 
I am considering upgrading to Windows XP.  Windows Vista is much more than I need for what I do with the computer.  In addition, HP has stated that they will not be supplying Vista drivers for my all-in-one printer, copier, scanner, fax.
 
 

Flooby

3K Posts

February 7th, 2007 12:00


barkupatree2002 wrote:
I am considering upgrading to Windows XP.

Probably the best choice for an XPST450.  XP Pro runs exceptionally well on my virtually identical system, with 384 MB RAM, and with XP configured to "adjust for best performance."  The system runs pretty much non-stop (going on 4 years now), and while a bit underpowered for some jobs, it handles a variety of day to day tasks without a hitch, including CD burning with a SCSI CD drive and photo editing.  The difference in performance and up time between 98SE and XP has been remarkable, and I can't recall ever seeing a blue screen or being forced to reboot in the middle of something (regular occurrences with 98SE) since switching to XP Pro.

barkupatree2002

119 Posts

February 12th, 2007 01:00

Flooby
 
Thanks for sharing your experience with Windows XP Pro on your XPS T450.
 
Installing Windows XP on my XPS T450,  assuming that the installation is successful and my system then works reasonably well on the internet, would have some significant advantages over the three other alternatives that I have considered:
 
1.  Continue with Windows 98se on my existing system.   The negatives of this are (a) the security risk of surfing the internet with a system that is not supported by Microsoft and (b) an increasing number of applications such as TurboTax 2006 do not run on Windows 98se.
 
2.  Buy a new computer with Windows Vista pre-installed.  The negatives of this are (a) Hewlett Packard has indicated that it would not provide Vista drivers for my all-in-one HP printer/copier/scanner/fax and (b) the cost of a system that would support fully all of the features in Windows Vista would cost substantially more than an upgrade version of Windows XP Home.
 
3.  Buy a new or refurbished system with Windows XP pre-installed.  The negative of this is that recent systems from Dell and HP do not have parallel ports. (Lenovo and eMachine computers seem to have parallel ports but I don't know about the quality of these brands.)  My HP all-in-one has only a parallel port.  I have read that converter cables that connect a parallel port printer to a USB port on the computer work with printers but not with all-in-one machines.
 
ON THE OTHER HAND,  installing Windows XP would involve at least the following steps:
 
1.  Back up  files on existing system.
 
2.  Flash the BIOS.  While there doesn't seem to be unanimity on the need to flash the BIOS prior to upgrading to Windows XP, the majority of posters seem to think it is a good idea.
 
3.  Install a network card that I previously purchased.
 
4.  Clean install Windows XP.  Wow, and I don't mean the Vista wow that Microsoft is advertising.  Rather I am referring to the 24 steps on Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows that include such arcane matters as reformatting the drive from FAT32 to NTFS.
 
5.  Get all the Windows XP critical updates.
 
6.  Reinstall software such as Adobe Reader, antivirus software, and my existing Office 2000 software.
 
So at this time I am undecided, but thanks again for sharing your experience with Windows XP Pro on your XPS T450.
 
By the way, you mentioned configuring XP to "adjust for best performance."  Do you know if that feature is available on Windows XP Home which is the version I am considering.
 
 

Flooby

3K Posts

February 13th, 2007 09:00


barkupatree2002 wrote:
 
1.  Continue with Windows 98se on my existing system.   The negatives of this are (a) the security risk of surfing the internet with a system that is not supported by Microsoft and (b) an increasing number of applications such as TurboTax 2006 do not run on Windows 98se.
Not to mention the fact that 98 is so prone to resource loss lockups and unexplainable crashes and glitches as to make it frequently unusable.
 
ON THE OTHER HAND,  installing Windows XP would involve at least the following steps:
 
1.  Back up  files on existing system.
Which should already be occurring on any system, on a regular basis...
 
2.  Flash the BIOS.  While there doesn't seem to be unanimity on the need to flash the BIOS prior to upgrading to Windows XP, the majority of posters seem to think it is a good idea.  It is, and it's a very simple process on an XPST.
 
3.  Install a network card that I previously purchased.  A 5 minute job, at best.
 
4.  Clean install Windows XP.  Wow, and I don't mean the Vista wow that Microsoft is advertising.  Rather I am referring to the 24 steps on Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows that include such arcane matters as reformatting the drive from FAT32 to NTFS.   Certainly a far easier task than clean installing 98.  The installation process allows for formatting to NTFS along the way as part of the installation process.
 
5.  Get all the Windows XP critical updates.
-Go to Windows Update
-Download and install the Critical Updates
-Download/install any needed Recommended Updates
-Presto, you're done.
 
6.  Reinstall software such as Adobe Reader, antivirus software, and my existing Office 2000 software.
Certainly not an insurmountable task, and much easier and less trouble prone than is the case under 98.
 
So at this time I am undecided, but thanks again for sharing your experience with Windows XP Pro on your XPS T450.
Given the benefits of switching versus the headaches of 98 on that model, I've never thought twice about going with XP.
 
By the way, you mentioned configuring XP to "adjust for best performance."  Do you know if that feature is available on Windows XP Home which is the version I am considering.
I have every reason to believe that it is.  While the side-by-side comparison at the link below isn't quite all-encompassing, it details the major differences between the two versions, and I would consider the ability to be able to easily adjust for best performance to be a major item.
 
 


barkupatree2002

119 Posts

February 15th, 2007 17:00

Flooby
 
Thanks for your comments on my thoughts about three alternatives.
 
By the way, this Microsoft web page seems to refer to both Windows XP Pro and Windows XP Home and therefore seems to confirm that the "adjust for best performance" feature is available in both versions of Windows XP as you said.
 
 
You wrote previously that "XP Pro runs exceptionally well on my virtually identical system, with 384 MB RAM."  Do you still have the original Pentium III 450 MHz processor in your machine?  What are your exact specs?  And does XP Pro actually run better than Windows 98se on your system?
 
Thanks.
 
 

Delierious

414 Posts

February 19th, 2007 21:00

Barkupatree2002,

Can I suggest that when you convert to XP, you do a fresh install. Win98SE did not take kindly to being upgraded in the first place and SP2 caused more problems on upgraded systems than enough.

I speak from experience with BSODs, freezes and crashes before reformatting and doing a fresh install.

I can now say (touching a piece of wood and crossing my fingers) that XP, with all the patches and SPs, is very stable indeed.

Flooby

3K Posts

February 20th, 2007 01:00


barkupatree2002 wrote:
Flooby
 
Thanks for your comments on my thoughts about three alternatives.
 
By the way, this Microsoft web page seems to refer to both Windows XP Pro and Windows XP Home and therefore seems to confirm that the "adjust for best performance" feature is available in both versions of Windows XP as you said.
 
 
I was betting on that.  Glad to have it confirmed.
 
You wrote previously that "XP Pro runs exceptionally well on my virtually identical system, with 384 MB RAM."  Do you still have the original Pentium III 450 MHz processor in your machine?  What are your exact specs?  And does XP Pro actually run better than Windows 98se on your system?
 
XPST450, original processor, ATI Rage 8MB graphics card, cheesy 3Com modem, Turtle Beach Montego II audio card (original everything), with added Adaptec SCSI card, CDR-W SCSI drive,  USR ISA NIC, 250 MB ZIP drive, 384 MB RAM.  XP Pro runs much, MUCH better than 98SE ever thought of doing, from a stability and functionality standpoint, despite the fact that the system has been used on a number of occasions to test all sorts of beta software.  Still working with the original (November 2003) installation of XP Pro.
 
My only complaint is the lack of good drivers for the Montego II.  Pro installed serviceable drivers for most applications, but the MIDI quality is nothing close to that provided by the original Aureal Semiconductor A3D drivers, which weren't even supported under ME or 2000.  It's a shame that the cost of winning a filed against them by Creative was largely responsible for driving them out of business.



Message Edited by Flooby on 02-22-2007 08:32 AM

barkupatree2002

119 Posts

February 21st, 2007 02:00

Delierious
 
Thanks for the suggestion.
 
If I ultimately upgrade to Windows XP, I will definitely do a clean install.
 
 

barkupatree2002

119 Posts

February 21st, 2007 03:00

Flooby
 
Thanks for the feedback.  Your machine is indeed very similar to mine.
 
Over the weekend I ran the Windows XP Upgrade Advisor.  It identified my Hewlett Packard 3150 all-in-one printer/fax/copier/scanner as possibly being incompatible with Windows XP, but Hewlett Packard offers a CD for about $12 that supposedly has the necessary software.
 
The Upgrade Advisor also identified "Java Plug-in" and "YAMAHA DS-XG Audio Config" as being incompatible with Windows XP.  Presumably there is an XP-compatible Java plug-in somewhere.
 
The original packing slip that shipped with my computer lists "Yamaha XG 64V Wavetable Sound" and I noticed a chip on the motherboard with the notation "YMF 724F."  I found a download on a Yamaha website for an XP driver for YMF 724 so perhaps that would be what I need to fix the "YAMAHA DS-XG Audio Config" incompatibility.
 
Thanks again.
 
 
 
 

Flooby

3K Posts

February 22nd, 2007 11:00


barkupatree2002 wrote:
 
The Upgrade Advisor also identified "Java Plug-in" and "YAMAHA DS-XG Audio Config" as being incompatible with Windows XP.  Presumably there is an XP-compatible Java plug-in somewhere.
 
The original packing slip that shipped with my computer lists "Yamaha XG 64V Wavetable Sound" and I noticed a chip on the motherboard with the notation "YMF 724F."  I found a download on a Yamaha website for an XP driver for YMF 724 so perhaps that would be what I need to fix the "YAMAHA DS-XG Audio Config" incompatibility.
 
Assuming that you perform a clean installation of XP to a formatted drive, rather than an upgrade installation over the current OS (and a clean installation is always the preferred method), the Java plugin item will almost certainly become a moot point.  Just visit Windows Update after XP is installed, and obtain all Critical Updates (and any Recommended Updates which pertain to your particular installation), and that should do the trick.  As for the Yamaha sound card, I'd be willing to bet that XP will load serviceable drivers automatically.  You may want to view any available driver updates at Windows Update and install them as well.  I've never had a problem with any of the drivers offered for older hardware under Windows XP.

M Currie

296 Posts

February 28th, 2007 18:00

I've been absent from the forum for several years, but back when I got my XPST-500 back in 2000, Denny was a major contributor here, helping a great many people, and I'm very sorry to hear he's no longer with us. I have just retired the old XPST, with Win98, and I must say that with a firewall in place, and using Netscape and Firefox as my browser, I have NEVER had problems with security with Win98, despite not having run updates for a very long time. The first day I went on DSL I got a virus from my stepson's machine on the home network, but after I got a firewall, I have never gotten any virus, trojan, spyware, etc. Your mileage may, of course, vary, but if Win98 weren't being forsaken by software developers as well, I'd still be using my (never reformatted or reinstalled) Win98 box. I had the same experience with Windows 3.1 before that. The older the OS, the less vulnerable it seems to be.

Delierious

414 Posts

March 1st, 2007 17:00

M Currie wrote,

"The older the OS, the less vulnerable it seems to be."

Each OS is beta tested on the public, codes are then rewritten, numerous updates and service packs are supplied, a few bells and whistles are added to a point at which when the OS reaches it peak of stability and security.

The world now has an entirely satisfactory system but this does not generate new sales. The OS is then discarded and the cycle starts again.

Having said that, if every OS were perfect out of the box on release day, there'd be no need for this forum, its posters and replies, which would be a pity.

Message Edited by Delierious on 03-01-2007 01:51 PM

View More

View All

No Events found!

Top