Outdated OS?

I was just curious as to what percentage do you think are still using OS's like Windows 95 and 98?

What would be the reason behind not upgrading?

I see my XP Pro being phased out in 4 years or so, and I'm already frightened.

 

My Ma uses Win95 without any AV, pf or security software at all. I scan her computer when I'm town, bring up to date apps with me. I never find any malware or virii. That's why at her age I'd never get her another OS.

 

That depends on your Ma's behaviour on the internet and I don't know your Ma.
If I would visit ONLY my secured bank website and Wilders, I wouldn't need an AV or recent OS.
Besides that, I wonder how many recent and decent security softwares are able to run on an old OS like win95.

 

In whose opinion ? I've been using 98SE for a number of years along with IE, and have had NO problems with Malware etc. I do though have it all securely locked down, but that's a sensible precaution for any OS.

I can run all the software i require, and have a first class AV and AT running full time, along with some other great security Apps that all work just fine and play along together.

Fuuny, but most of the people i keep seeing and reading about with ALL sorts of problems, including many nasty Malware issues etc, are those on XP etc ?


StevieO

 

im sure theres quite a number of people using DOS-based Windows (95, 98, Me).

they may only use office apps or some legacy program, and for that, such OS may be fine.

my reason for upgrading is stability and just cuz I feel better knowing i have the latest app or OS.

i personally never had security apps when i used 98 and i think i did ok. of course my habits are worse now but thats another story.

 

If you visit a Malware Forum, like SWI, where solving HijackThis Logs is the main activity, you will meet these people with ALL sorts of problems.
No matter what OS they use, they will be infected over and over again.

 

I'd still be using 98SE if my old mobo hadn't died on me, mainly because it still retained most of DOS and my old DOS stuff (particularly games) would happily run on it. But with the replacement system (from a local OEM), I had no choice but XP.

 

98 is the only windows OS I will own. Contrary to popular opinion, 98 can be well secured. We didn't need a weekly "patch day" for 98. A large percentage of the new holes and exploits being found in XP don't affect 98, the .wmf exploit for example. How many 98 units have rootkits? With XP you need something like Barts PE to check the file system for them. With 98, you could do it with DOS. With the development of HIPS, 98 can be secured at least as well as XP. Thanks to System Safety Monitor and its developers for supporting 98/ME, these operating systems can also limit and control users as well as XP ever did.
98 can fly on hardware that XP could barely run on. When properly configured and equipped with good quality software, 98 can be very stable. Mine runs 24/7. 98 isn't bloated with useless services. It doesn't try to "call home" nearly as much. Every file in the OS can be accessed via DOS. With XP, additional tools are needed. Think about that when a finished form of DRM becomes part of the windows OS, possibly in the form of a rootkit.
As long as I'm using windows, it will be 98. My next OS won't be windows, especially not Vista.
Rick

 

You are indeed a wise man.

 

The logic seems to make sense now.

For those 98 users, etc, how do you deal with the incompatibilities with new software, or is that not something you come across often?

 

I haven't found that many instances of it. Most of the time, if one vendors software doesn't run on 98, anothers will. Most of the incompatibilities I've run into involved security apps. While I can't use some of the new security suites that come with HIPS, I can obtain equal or better results with separate apps, which is the route I'd choose anyway. While Process Guard and Antihook don't run on 98, System Safety Monitor will and does just as well. Browsers, office software, media players, image software, etc seem to work on all the OSs. True, I can't edit video or play the high end games but that doesn't interest me. Not into games or video/movies so I don't miss it. Haven't run into anything on the web that doesn't run on 98, except exploits. If the time comes that I find something I want to do on a PC that 98 just can't do, then maybe I'll upgrade. Until then, why replace something that works fine?
Rick

 

The problem with XP is, that its default setup is unsecure. Especially WinXP Pro, like service Remote Registry in Pro version is set to Manual by default. Lets hope, that Vista will be better.

 

The setup of Vista will still be basically insecure because IE7 will still have unlimited access to the kernel.
So i think that when you use an older OS and it still works for you, stick with it.
There is no good reason to upgrade for a little eyecandy and to make your computer into a DRM prison.

regards
Lamehand

 

DRM prison?

I agree. I thought they were seperating iexplore.exe and explorer.exe. Oh, when will Microsoft keep it's word?

 

Only way that will happen is when the average user has viable alternatives to their software and OSs and voice their displeasure with their wallets. Problem is, the average user doesn't know they have alternatives. With so many buying their equipment at places like WalMart, they'll never see an alternative to windows. They don't see sites like this, or know they exist. Most have no idea what a tabbed browser is. Most are clueless about getting or using Linux, Unix, BSD, etc. Macs aren't able to compete with them, even if it is better. A monopoly that has the support of both government and the entertainment industry doesn't listen to anyone who isn't padding their wallet. Both get what they want with windows, the ability to monitor and control users, and M$ gets market domination in return. It's unlikely that M$ will ever have any substantial competition so they have no need to listen to anyone.
Rick

 

I hope, that they will never separate IE from OS, it would decrease security of IE.
Now, the security settings of Windows (explorer) affects IE as well, so it really helps.

 

The fact that IE is embeded in the OS has nothing to do with the security of IE itself, IE could be made a stand-alone browser and still be made safer by updates and upgrades.Other browsers like Opera or Firefox, whom are not native to the OS do the same.

regards
Lamehand

 

I disagree with Macs being unable to compete with them. It's just that people have the notion that Macs are inferior, and you have to admit, a decently powered PC with Windows is significantly cheaper than something like an iBook.

 

I think the most important think to make a system secure is ur surfing habit. I have seen people using windows 98/ XP with jus an AV and they are not getting malware too often. I use XP as I can,t resist the desire to use new OS, also I got it on my machine, so it,s the logical choice.
At my home, they still use p3 with 98 and no problems related to just 98.

 

So wat,s ur plan? I am really interested.

 

I agree....macs could compete,especially now they can run both windows and mac OS.I think its the price that is the most offputting.It is in my case anyway Until something really good comes along im sticking with my 98se.I just hope major vendors like av/securuity apps etc will still continue with support for these operating systems though.I know IE7 states a min requirement of XP ,so i guess any software that requires that aint gonna run on 98
ellison

 

What I meant about Macs being unable to compete has nothing to do with the quality and performance of their product. Thanks to their size and their influence over nearly all PC manufacturers and software vendors, plus most of the advertising, Macs will always look overpriced or inferior. In this competition, the best doesn't win. The biggest does. If price was the primary issue, Linux and Open Source software would dominate the market. The main problem is that windows and M$ software is what most users are exposed to. They get what they know, not knowing they could do better.

As long as 98 functions on the net, I will use it. When I have more time, I'm going to install a Linux flavor and either free or open BSD as well. That probably won't be until next winter.

Everything you need is still available, much of it free. For myself, I'm staying with Kerio 2.1.5. It's excellent on 98. IMO, rule based firewalls don't need regular updating. The internet works the same as it ever did. Apps use the same protocols, the same ports, and the same IP addy setup. While new software has more bells and whistles, it still works the same way and is governed by the same rules as before. Kerio 2X works the same now as it did when released. While much has been made of the fragmented packet vulnerability, from what I can determine, System Safety Monitor completely offsets this vulnerability by preventing them from being used to send commands or starting applications.
The only software that could become an issue is the AV. Most are getting so bloated, they don't work well on 98. It's basically expected that they'll get a bit resource hungry when the average AV signature/reference files are over 6mb, but when most have 3 or more processes running full time and are only getting bigger, they will be a problem on older systems. I've stopped using a resident AV. For the last year, I've been testing SSM since being introduced to Max's versions. IMO, SSM with a good ruleset makes a resident AV almost unnecessary. While it won't identify a virus or trojan by name, it will stop them from functioning. A good command line AV scanner like F-Prot for DOS can take care of e-mail and file scanning.
There's more than enough good security apps available for 98 that don't need updating. This is my core package:
Kerio 2.1.5
System Safety Monitor
F-Prot for DOS
Proxomitron
Eraser 5.7
NIS Filecheck
Filechecker
DirMon 2000
Script Sentry
RegProt - if not using SSM
System Lock - for additional user control
Scramdisk 3.01r3
PGP 6.5.8
Mozilla Suite - I have to include this
A good backup program. Acronis works for me. Using the CD only. No longer installed.
Most 98 users overlook one of the best security apps available, DOS. A few good batch files can do a lot of defending.
Defending the registry with DOS.
Total cost, not including the backup program: $24.95 There's just as much good software available for non security purposes that works good on 98 at little or no cost.
Rick

 

Just a quick hardware related note. I'm sure others have run into this as well. I was looking to add an external modem to my old box, win98 first edition, not SE. Linux doesn't like my old internal modem. Every one I looked at said I had to have at least 98SE and specifically said it wouldn't work on the first version of 98. The modem and drivers work fine. It's the additional software on the CD that doesn't, which isn't needed anyway. Ran into the same thing with an 80GB WD external hard drive. The drive works fine with 98, though the drivers were harder to get to, packed in with their software instead of being separate.
It's irritating enough when hardware and software vendors make their products incompatible with the older operating systems. It's infuriating when they tell you it's incompatible when it actually is compatible. When in doubt on if external hardware will work, ask if you can try it and bring it back if it doesn't work. The computer store here did.
Rick