Bye, Windows 98

[useSVGnotSWF]

If you can give me one good reason to stop support for something that works and has the hardware to support the product other than they can no longer make any money on the product.

..and here it is:

http://news.com.com/No+fix+for+critical ... 82307.html

End of my ranting we don't need to clutter the forum beating a dead horse with any more useless discussions.

cheryl52h

You said it exactly.

[herman]

If you can give me one good reason to stop support for something that works and has the hardware to support the product other than they can no longer make any money on the product.

..and here it is:

http://news.com.com/No+fix+for+critical ... 82307.html

Did you read it? Did you try to understand?

:
..The security bug relates to Windows Explorer..

Instead, Microsoft recommends that people who still use the older operating systems protect their PCs by using a network firewall that filters traffic on TCP Port 139. "Such a firewall will block attacks attempting to exploit this vulnerability from outside of the firewall," it said.

The software maker even had trouble with its fix for Windows XP. It had to revise the update and release it a second time because the patch caused problems for people who used Hewlett-Packard Share-to-Web software or older Nvidia graphics drivers.

TCP Port 139, thats NETBIOS. You can block that if you professionally know very much about the details of networking on Windows.
There also was a step-by-step illustrated tutorial on grc.com how to fix this by installing correctly, not the flawed way win98 setup installs.

The simplest solution is to install a firewall, say ZoneAlarm, free or professional.

And what about the problems with the XP patch?
That's not a patch, that's snake oil. The patch filters the input coming from programs to block the exploit. But the patch also revealed that some programs didn't work thereafter. What did they the do?
Include the hp-program on a whitelist. The whitelist existed from start on in that patch. So if you want to install a trojan, add the installer to the whitelist, that's it!

XP is more insecure than 98, especially if you are doing a fresh install. No chance to download servicepacks from the internet with a freshly installed XP, Trojans and Worms are faster than you can patch.


Do you know about <a href="http://aplawrence.com/Forum/Drag1.html">LINK: <b>The dark side of NTFS and Alternative Data Streams.</b></a> ?

Hiding rootkits and data knowbody will see? Lot of Antivirus software doesn't find?

herman

[BenBasson]

Stop waffling about unrelated things. Vulnerabilities in current (or even vaguely recent) operating systems can still be detected and fixed. Windows 98 is not going to get the same treatment.

The reason to stop supporting Windows 98 is because it's a financial black hole to bother doing so. It costs money, wastes developer time (fiddling with old APIs so that new things work on the older OSes) and gives no major rewards. If you want to step up and do it for free, there are people out there who'll help you succeed. If not, posting stuff about XP vulnerabilities isn't going to help.

[ehume]

.

[herman]

Stop waffling about unrelated things.

I just answered a posting pretending to give the ultimate reason. I told him how to fix this bug, as told in the same MS document he linked to. In the meantime I found another document noteworthy for those still using Win9x, NT or maybe also current windows, you never know ;-)
<a href="http://www.grc.com/su-bondage.htm">Link: <b>Network Bondage</b></a> has a tutorial about fixing this without use of external means.
A lot of answers in this thread was ' waffling about unrelated things'.
The first answer not to be disputed was <a href="http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=401271&postdays=0&postorder=asc&postsperpage=15&start=37">Link: <b>msvcrt8 dependancy</b></a>

Vulnerabilities in current (or even vaguely recent) operating systems can still be detected and fixed.

you mean browser manufacturers have to work around some bugs of the OS.

Windows 98 is not going to get the same treatment.

I never expected that, and I didn't hear much about vulnerabilities in Win9x, I heard a lot of vulns in IE.

The reason to stop supporting Windows 98 is because it's a financial black hole to bother doing so. It costs money, wastes developer time (fiddling with old APIs so that new things work on the older OSes) and gives no major rewards. If you want to step up and do it for free, there are people out there who'll help you succeed. If not, posting stuff about XP vulnerabilities isn't going to help.

It doesn't cost money, if nobody wants to get paid. Did people get paid for doing win98 software at mozilla.org? I didn't hear that someone would like to do the job, paid or unpaid. Fiddling with old APIs may cost time, but as I understood, they didn't have to be created, they have been removed. The retreat was done in an unorderd way, after win9x performance was broken in some unrelated bugs. I'm not a mozilla developer, I'm used to writing real-time software without having an OS, so I don't know about the innards of Windows. The retreat could have been done in a better way, but as nobody steps up to reimplement it, that doesn't care.
But people have been told multiple times, that Win9x was unsupported for Firefox3 only. Now gerv wants to kill it on Firefox2 also.
<a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/06/drop_windows_9xme_support.html">Drop Windows 9x/ME Support For Firefox 2</a>
<a href="http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox2/Requirements#Platform_Support">Firefox2/Requirements - Platform Support</a>

I don't want to discuss anymore, ifn't somebody comes up with another fancy argument I doubt about.

And thank you, Cusser, for bringing mostly technical arguments.

herman

[BenBasson]

It doesn't cost money, if nobody wants to get paid. Did people get paid for doing win98 software at mozilla.org? I didn't hear that someone would like to do the job, paid or unpaid.

They're paid for doing it every time they have to hack around something that Windows 98 is lacking.

Now gerv wants to kill it on Firefox2 also.

Yeah, I don't really support that, but I won't argue against it either. Technically, he's correct. Whether it's worth specifically disabling Firefox 2.0 for Win98 users is debatable.

[Metalstream]

Use SeaMonkey and the problem is solved.

[Jarrad]

Excellent. Why make Firefox slower, and less stable for the sake of a few ancient OSs? Windows 95/98/ME are junk - always have been as always will be. NT4 is ten years old now - so it's unreasonable to expect support to continue for that OS as well. FWIW, Windows 2000 support ends in 2010.

Those who say 9x is more stable and secure than XP really, really need to get a life! 9x has no support for DEP, EFS, NTFS, x64 or anything else than increases stability, performance and security. XP also has a firewall (albeit, a basic one) that is on by default and greatly enchances security. In fact 9x is so insecure that if you setup a password on a 9x system at the login screen you can just press the cancel button, or hit the escape key on your keyboard to gain full access to the machine! How's that for security?

[BenBasson]

Use SeaMonkey and the problem is solved.

If you're talking about a different problem, sure. This'll eventually happen to SeaMonkey too, assuming that they're going to update Gecko, ever.

[schapel]

Use SeaMonkey and the problem is solved.

No, SeaMonkey 1.5 will be also based off Gecko 1.9 which uses Cairo and therefore will not run on Windows 9x.

[webworm98]

Use SeaMonkey and the problem is solved.

No, SeaMonkey 1.5 will be also based off Gecko 1.9 which uses Cairo and therefore will not run on Windows 9x.

I do suggest K-Meleon for older windows system once firefox and seamonkey quit. I am not sure if K-Meleon will be using the New or the old Gecko engine.

By using Gecko 1.9 won't that mess up other systems like linux, Mac, Etc?

[schapel]

I do suggest K-Meleon for older windows system once firefox and seamonkey quit. I am not sure if K-Meleon will be using the New or the old Gecko engine.

If it uses Gecko 1.9 it won't work on Windows 9x either. If it uses Gecko 1.8, why not just stick with SeaMonkey 1.1 or Firefox 2.x? I don't understand why people are considering switching to another browser <i>now</i>, as Firefox 2.x will work on Windows 9x and will get security updates for years. The real issue is that Windows 9x will not be getting any more security updates, regardless of what Mozilla does.

[Metalstream]

If it uses Gecko 1.8, why not just stick with SeaMonkey 1.1 or Firefox 2.x? I don't understand why people are considering switching to another browser <i>now</i>, as Firefox 2.x will work on Windows 9x and will get security updates for years.

Because firefox 2.X maybe, will not support 9x.
Well if 9x users can't with seamonkey or firefox there is other browsers...
K-Meleon, Flock, I don't know...Maxthon if you want...Opera also...
Well I will install a GNU/Linux distro I know this support problem since last year and I recommend if you don't want a Linux only install windows 2000 I always felt that is much better than XP...

[chrisgeleven]

If it uses Gecko 1.8, why not just stick with SeaMonkey 1.1 or Firefox 2.x? I don't understand why people are considering switching to another browser <i>now</i>, as Firefox 2.x will work on Windows 9x and will get security updates for years.

Because firefox 2.X maybe, will not support 9x.
Well if 9x users can't with seamonkey or firefox there is other browsers...
K-Meleon, Flock, I don't know...Maxthon if you want...Opera also...
Well I will install a GNU/Linux distro I know this support problem since last year and I recommend if you don't want a Linux only install windows 2000 I always felt that is much better than XP...

Gerv has been quoted on his blog that there are good reasons to support Win9x for Firefox 2 afterall.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/arc ... updat.html

Quite frankly, I don't understand why anyone is complaining about Firefox 3 not supporting Win9x. Firefox 2 will be supported for awhile after Firefox 3 comes out and even when Firefox 2 turns unsupported, I bet Windows 98 users will be so far below 1.0% that it isn't worth worrying about (and those users have other issues to worry about at that point, like their hardware dying, no modern programs working, security issues, etc.).

Completely a non-issue for probably 98% of all computer users.

[webworm98]

Does Gecko 1.9 which uses Cairo work on other non-windows system?