Question : TCP/IP of Win ME vs. Win 98 (SE)

Discussion in 'Port Explorer' started by Czerno, Jul 6, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Czerno

    Czerno Guest

    Hi ! I suppose this is slightly O.T., yet I'm sure the DiamondCS guys if anyone can answer my question - would you bother doing so, even if briefly, please ?

    Is it true that Win ME includes a TCP/IP stack derived from the Windows 2000 rather than what is found under Windows 98/P8 SE ?

    IF it were true, would it seem feasible to retrofit the new stack to 98 SE by replacing a few files ?

    TIA

    --
    Czerno, still playing with the PE demo trial, under Win 98 SE.



    I think I remeber the saying was long the lines : Win ME got the TCP/IP stack of Win 2k.

    Is there any truth in there ? Since the PortExplorer guys obviously must know the minute details of the Windows IP iimplementations, I think I may ask this here ... Also, if it is worth the trying, do you think it is practical to try to upgrade the Win 98 SE internet stack to Win ME's (would replacing files work...? which precise files under the windows system would you look at if you were to examine the possibility ?)

    Regards

    --
    Czerno <czernobyl AT mail DOT ru>
     
  2. Pilli

    Pilli Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    6,217
    Location:
    Hampshire UK
    Hi Czerno, I cannot answer your question and it is the middle of the night in Perth as I write, hopefully Jason will reply in the morning regarding the TCP/IP stack thoughknowing windows. Personally I doubt if there is a simple way of updating from a Win ME version to a Win98 version
     
  3. Jooske

    Jooske Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Posts:
    9,713
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU near the sea
    I have not anyu problems with the Windows98SE, so for me it would not be worth the trouble of even trying and maybe damaging my system.
    If you have an exact filename i can look in a ME system nearby in the file properties.
     
  4. Jooske

    Jooske Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Posts:
    9,713
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU near the sea
    i saw in some reviews about windows ME so you are right in that part.
    But now: how to do it and which files you need and is is possible?
     
  5. Jason_DiamondCS

    Jason_DiamondCS Former DCS Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Posts:
    1,046
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    I do believe there is a newer TCP/IP stack implementation in Windows ME, but I do not think you can get it to work on Windows 98. At least without a lot of trouble. I tried googling for anyone else who has tried it and didn't find any results. You should just upgrade to Windows XP and experience the other benefits the NT kernel can offer you. :)
     
  6. Jooske

    Jooske Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Posts:
    9,713
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU near the sea
    Upgrading to XP is nice if possible with the current HW, but not necessary for Port Explorer which runs on all versions since Win95 :)
     
  7. Czerno

    Czerno Guest

    Thanks for your responses. No, I won't voluntarily "upgrade" for an NT-kernel,
    the less so for XP - the worse ever system from Microsoft imho. I want to keep Windows 98 SE.

    As for upgrading the TCP/IP stack, I hoped to get easier raw-socket capability maybe among other things. I understand Microsoft won't have facilitated the hack, so I shall postpone this project... I even haven't got a WinME disk for extracting system files from (though it should not be extremely difficult to find one for FTPing...)

    Good day

    --
    Czerno
     
  8. Jooske

    Jooske Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Posts:
    9,713
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU near the sea
    How is Port Explorer this moment for you?
     
  9. Jason_DiamondCS

    Jason_DiamondCS Former DCS Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Posts:
    1,046
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Remember you can make any Microsoft operating system as secure as you want it to be, just requires the right software. I see no reason to not be on Windows XP if you have hardware capable of it, with a firewall installed you wouldn't have even got any of those WinNT based virus's which automatically infect computers, and if you don't use Internet Explorer for web browsing then you won't really get infected by browsing either.
     
  10. Alec

    Alec Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Posts:
    355
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Not to be rude, but this sentiment is largely stemming from ignorance. The NT-derived kernels in Win2K/XP are far more robust and secure than in any of the Win9x line. You really should read up on some of the technical details behind the various kernel mode executive services including the thread scheduler, object manager, security reference monitor, I/O manager, system service dispatcher, virtual memory manager, local procedure call service, NTFS filesystem driver, etc. to a greater degree before commenting in haste (at least, IMHO).

    Do not confuse user mode exploits for deficiencies in the kernel itself. The problem is not the kernel, but rather that historically (and, ironically for this discussion, due to reasons having to do largely with backward compatibility issues with the Win9x line) that many user-mode components and apps were given far too high rights/privileges than were absolutely necessary. It is very similar to the problem, until recently, of Microsoft shipping with too many unnecessary features enabled rather than disabled by default. Many people to this day, run their Win2000 and WinXP Home and/or Pro desktops routinely at Administrator level privileges. This is, of course, bad from a security viewpoint, but some people just don't want to be bothered with switching from a normal user account to an Administrator level account to perform certain actions. Unix/Linux users are comfortable with this rights/privileges model... Win9x users are not. That is one of the key problems. Anyway, maybe sometime you should read "Inside Microsoft Windows 2000, Third Edition" by Solomon and Russinovich; or, perhaps, if you have an even greater technical interest read "Programming Applications for Windows, Fourth Edition" by Jeffrey Richter. You might find some of it enlightening.

    Back to the topic at hand, you might find this article informative of about the features/capabilities of the TCP/IP stack implemented in Win2000. It has a "Feature Comparison Table for Microsoft TCP/IP Versions" early in the article that might prove useful to you.
     
  11. Czerno

    Czerno Guest

    Alec :
    "Not to be rude, but this sentiment is largely stemming from ignorance. The NT-derived kernels in Win2K/XP are far more robust and secure than in any of the Win9x line."

    Rest reassured I do not deem you rude; however I have a better knowledge of the working of the Windows kernel versus the NT kerlel than you seem to imply(NT is NOT windows in my reckonning !). I do not want an NT kernel, I want Windows 386 enhanced, full stop. And no it is no less robust or secure than the Win 2k kernel, it is a misconception - but really off topic :)

    Thank you for the link on features comparison.

    --
    Czerno
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.