Login:
Password:

No Fix for Critical Windows 98, Me Flaw

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

June 9, 2006, 1:30 PM

Microsoft has encountered a critical vulnerability in Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Me that it simply cannot fix, the company acknowledged Friday. The flaw affects Windows Explorer and after investigating the issue, Microsoft said it would need to reengineer a significant amount of the operating system.

Announced as part of April's security bulletins, a remote execution vulnerability exists in Windows Explorer because of the way that it handles COM objects. A malicious Web site could force a connection to a remote file server, which in turn causes Explorer to fail and potentially execute arbitrary code.

Microsoft says an attacker could take complete control of affected operating systems in this manner. Patches correcting the flaw were issued for Windows 2000, XP and Windows Server 2003, but the vulnerability remains unpatched on Windows 9x based systems.

The Redmond company says that because it would need to re-architecture Windows Explorer in those legacy systems to better match Windows 2000, a fix just isn't feasible. According to the updated bulletin, Microsoft could not ensure that applications written for Windows 9x would continue to operate as intended after the changes.

Moreover, Microsoft has little incentive to expend the resources necessary to patch the flaw. Support for Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Me ends on July 11, which means no more security updates will be released and no technical or public support will be provided.

Microsoft will continue to offer Windows 98 and Me help topics through its Web site until at least July 11, 2007. However, without additional security updates, customers will be left unprotected from exploits taking advantage of the critical vulnerability, as well as any future problems.

Customers still running the older operating systems can take steps to protect themselves, Microsoft says.

"We do strongly recommend that customers still using Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME) protect those systems by placing them behind a perimeter firewall which filters traffic on TCP Port 139 which will block attacks attempting to exploit this vulnerability."

The company is also taking the opportunity to urge customers to upgrade their machines to a newer version of Windows, such as Windows XP Service Pack 2. Support for Service Pack 1 will cease on October 10, notes Christopher Budd from Microsoft's Security Response Center.

But with the critical vulnerability remaining unpatched, Microsoft could be leaving millions of computers at risk to attack.

"It's surprising how many consumers or businesses still use these older versions, particularly Windows 98. Their continued use partly accounts for an extension of support for about an additional 18 months--from January 2004 to July 2006," Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox told BetaNews.

"Our surveys show that, among consumer households, most older Windows versions run on second or third PCs, and I expect many to remain in use even after security support ends."

Add a Comment (113 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By daniel_djastone

posted May 21, 2007 - 10:22 AM

thank you very much for this information, I think now I must reformat my hDisk and install a real windows Xp from the beggining.

Score: 0

By daniel_djastone

edited Apr 15, 2007 - 4:25 PM

I,am being the Victim's of The Products .That's Microsoft said for answering my problem. You must validate your window's what....(i don.t remember) I must install windows Genuine ...... after I did all that I still can't make the upgrade of ...for examp: My windowmedia player because the system still reject my status in windows, See How **** Windows waisting my Time , I hope May be Some One OUt there more helpfull than That ****in Windows did.

Score: 0

By campart

edited Jun 21, 2006 - 5:20 PM

For those who want to keep their W98 OS running as long as possible may I suggest the following actions. 1. Service Pack, yes I know MS never provided one but Alper Koskun in Germany has done the work on this and should be thanked by us all for his efforts. If you visit Exuberant Software you will be able to download a collection of all relevant updates. 2. IE integration. Many people believe that W98 is more stable than the browser permits. That is to say that any problem with IE pulls the whole system down. A program called IEradicator (from litePC) allows you to break the browser/OS integration. If that sounds too exciting then try using an alternative browser. Of course the usual caveats apply... back up everything, install a firewall and keep your virus checker upto date.
Critics of XP should remember that it does have the stable "NT" core which also provided the heart of W2000, regarded by many as the finest of MS's operating systems.
My comments were intended to be general but are probably more for 'access2000wiz' who started this thread.

Score: 0

By access2000wiz

edited Jun 17, 2006 - 5:11 PM

Why I don't like XP:
1) Having to register everytime I do a clean install of the OS
2) Can't go to DOS
3) Can't Play my old DOS games
4) Not backward compatable.

I'm going to run my WIN98 forever. I love it. I hate XP. I'd rather run Win2000 instead and have a second computer with Win98 on it to play my old DOS games.

Score: 0

By heh heh

edited Jun 17, 2006 - 11:15 AM

I still use windows 98se and 98, properly set up it is just fine and even on an p200 pent it can run very well and very fast this pIII 800 can run linux but i fine 98 for me is much faster running and
i dont have to read 9 books to set up my p'uter. I do have a 2.5 ghz xp and others all running some
form of windows. when i want to run linux, livecd disk fills my linux needs. i cant see throwing out
a perfectly good P1,P2,or p3 k2-6 p'uters. funny thing although 2,5 ghz comps are faster, running xp
on that computer, seems no faster then running 98se on a pentium 800. dont get me wrong winxp is great and my favorite O/S but win98 is just fine!!!!

Score: 0

By dardanelles

edited Jun 14, 2006 - 3:54 AM

Amazement continues that MS successfully markets flawed software. Will we find out four years from now that XP has a flaw that cannot repatched? That the only 'fix' is to buy Vista or whatever flawed product is popular by then? One would think that by now MS would have discovered how to find some of the best code writers. I continue to believe that MS places no premium on writing efficient code. Part of this is illustrated by inefficient code requiring more storage space -- need more spacve; just buy a bigger hard drive, they're cheap. Further illustration is the frequent need for patches to correct blunders. Make an effoer -- that's ok, we just put out a patch. What crap! MS -- an old creaky company with an absolutely fabulous marketing division!

Score: 0

By access2000wiz

posted Jun 18, 2006 - 1:49 AM

I think that Bill is just pissed about having being drug into court so he wants to put the screws to all of us just for spite and because he can.

Score: 0

By dkguy

edited Jun 13, 2006 - 11:09 PM

I have a Gateway Pentium III 650 MhZ system that is operating on Windows 98SE and I know it's a dinasour and I would love to be able and update it and did try to update the operating system to the Home Edition XP of Windows that a close friend bought me but from using the part of that CD to see if my system was compatible, it came back with an answer of my system would need many, too many updated driver type files, some i couldn't even locate, and also 2 pieces of my hardware not even recognized by XP. So, I didn't even continue trying to update the operating system. I have a new WIN XP CD for sale if any body wants it! Never used! I would love to update my system, computer and operating system and all, but I just cannot afford to do something like this since I'm completely disabled, being wheel chair bound and my computer is my only enjoyment I have in this world. My system/computer is quite slow I realize, taking several minutes for some web pages to load, but at least it has and is my daily enjoyment. For how much longer . . doesn't sound like very long! I've heard of people and also some computer companies that help out people like myself, providing a disabled person a computer, but I've not been able to come by any information of the sort. Yes, I'd sure like to have an updated system/computer, but I just cannot afford it by no means, and so looks like I'll be having to stay with the Win98SE OS and my slow computer for a long time to come. I really think this is more of a scare tactic to get people to update and upgrade more than anything. Bill Gates, if you read this news forum, you've got enough money, more than you will ever know about, how about helping someone out?

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Jun 22, 2006 - 12:16 AM

Don't know if you'll notice this comment, but you could try contacting a nearby Independent Living Center, like the one I work at. We sometimes buy computers for the disabled and I do plan to give a couple of the computers at work to the disabled. Do a Google search and see what you find.

Score: 0

By jmboh52

edited Jun 13, 2006 - 5:22 AM

I thought when a Company put out a product, they would keep it up and running. Seems like you want us to buy newer machines, when the one I have does everything I want it to do. Besides cost wise it is infesiable to purchase a new computer just because your company won't support it with fixes any longer.

Score: 0

By hspdjones

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 6:14 PM

First Win 98 SE is a DOS & windows system which means you can get into the DOS side to absolutely eliminate deleted files & other junk. Second: XP has had so many hackers & fixes it is rediculous. 98, altho not stable the more you put on it, is still a great windows product. Many of my old programs will either not work with XP or may not work correctly.
My son decided to put both 98se & XP on a divided hard drive - that is working for him (he is a computer repair person). I may end up doing the same - using XP for online & 98se for all my real computer needs.
Maybe this is a solution for others - 2 operating systems....

Score: 0

By Faith28

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 3:29 PM

Does Microsoft have plans to furnish us with an upgrade or a new system? I still use ME and I appreciate knowing there is a danger. However, because its not my fault I feel Microsoft should take full responsibility.

Regards,
Shirley

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 1:58 PM

The bottom line is that MS does not need to create a patch for this old OS. The OS has been around for years and frankly patches are not required. They are free and released by MS for goodwill more than anything. Why should we force MS to create pacthes for threats that were inconcievable when the OS was released? In my mind, no support = no patches. The programmers need to be devoted to working on Vista and beyond.

Score: 0

By access2000wiz

posted Jun 18, 2006 - 1:59 AM

It would be cool if some third party found a fix fo Win98. For all the Win98 users like me still clinging on to 98, someone could make a few bucks selling fixes. Also if Win98 & ME are going to be orphaned then Bill should just sell the source code and someone else other than MS might make it a really great OS.

Score: 0

By clifton

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 12:55 PM

Why don't we all revert to Dos and a good old Intel 8088. Or better yet a good IBM Selectric Typewriter. Come on people, Technology moves on you need to as well or get left behind.

Score: 0

By access2000wiz

edited Jun 21, 2006 - 1:44 AM

Yes but I resist, resist, resist! Espically since the new offerings are crap! Crap! Crap!

Score: 0

By digitalking

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 12:55 PM

Microsoft is a private business. They can sell their OS for 10,000 if they wanted. They don't have to offer any security fixes either. It is like your cars transmission failing after the 36,000 mile warranty. The car dealer doesn't have to fix anything for you, without a charge, and if they wanted to, they could charge you 30,000. Windows 98 is basically "out of warranty", and they don't have to fix anything. You have other alternatives if you don't like their answer. People seem to think they have legal rights on all pricing. WalMart could sell all of their clothes for a 1000 a piece, and the consumer could not do anything, except quit shopping there.

Score: 0

By nigelms

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 10:09 AM

Its a pity windows customers dont mount a boycott of all microsft products for a week! or so its disgusting the way they are forcing consumers to have to continually upgrade both pcs and software only to leave them still at risk on the internet with security flaws.
i have xp as well as 98se i use the old system as i took my valuable pc off the net as i was fed up 0f all the hotfixes and patches , validation etc forced on me by ms and my pc being brokjen by dodgy patches etc, sick of drm, and tired of their invasive prying into my pc , try linux instead!!

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 6:04 PM

"they are forcing consumers to have to continually upgrade both pcs and software"

So your definition of "forcing" is not supporting a nearly decade old OS; and your definition of "continually" is every 6-8 years?

Score: 0

By Theoldwino

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 7:20 AM

??? would runing fire fox fix this problem ???

Score: 0

By lwhite

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 1:32 PM

Probably not as the problem lies in Windows Exployer not Internet Exployer!! Windows Exployer is the file management system.

Score: 0

By GBH

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 8:20 AM

Problem is Explorer, not internet explorer.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

edited Jun 12, 2006 - 8:10 AM

No it would not fix it. Don't be lead by the media into thinking FirxFox is the cure to everything..

Score: 0

By GBH

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 8:21 AM

True,,,,,, but if people ran firefox on linux or mac based systems these windows problems would go away ;)

Score: 0

By sdmunoz

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 7:12 AM

Just read it between lines: "I (Microsoft) want you update your OS"

Score: 0

By metekamil

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 2:18 AM

I thought the fix for Windows 98 was windows XP :)

Score: 0

By glebealyth

edited Jun 11, 2006 - 4:42 PM

Translated, does this mean, "My product is shot through with holes; I admit it; you will receive no recompense; I have more expensive lawyers than you."?
No change from Bill there, then.

Score: 0

By spef

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 2:56 AM

No it means: "our product is now 8 years old and we have better alternatives available, choice is up to you".

Score: 0

By womfalcs7

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 7:34 AM

LOL, yeah. I don't even know why you'd wanna use 98 over 2000 or XP.

Score: 0

By access2000wiz

posted Jun 18, 2006 - 2:05 AM

It's obvious you're not a power user or a diehard DOS gamer.

Score: 0

By GBH

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 8:25 AM

Upgrade version of Windows XP home is $135 australian

thats a lot of money to spend on an older computer

especially for people who just use the computer to bid on ebay and type letters & e-mails.

Score: 0

By SirDarius

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 10:16 AM

then a perfectly viable alternative is Ubuntu Linux.
It's free software, works fine on hardware that can't run Windows XP, and has very good Web/mail clients (Firefox, Konqueror, Thunderbird, Evolution... etc)

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 11:07 AM

Hey c'mon, we're talking OS's here, not geek experiments.

Score: 0

By cozappz

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 4:23 PM

why do you need a 3GHz P4 with 1GB ram and 160GB hdd when all you do on this machine is to run a word editor? because Mico$oft wants you to!! who's missing the point? Keep It Simple,Stupid Volenians!

Score: 0

By catfish182

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 7:11 PM

ok all of you are annoying.
The reason why 90% of the people that still use Win 9X are for one main reason. Its what they know. In this day and age where money is hard to come by, people need to know that spending 100 bucks for a XP machine is worth it. Or if they go get a new machine will it work like thier old one. Its education people. if they have never seen the XP OS then why spend the money. I think PC savy people should get off thier high horse and educate.

Score: 0

By glebealyth

posted Jun 11, 2006 - 4:46 PM

$100???
Try living in the UK where an entry-level XP machine will cost you £299 ($300) and a copy of XP is around $300.
Gates is merely making a booload of money for a shody product. Obviously another one rescued from the computer department's waste bins.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 3:03 AM

Not sure what UK you live in, but the UK where I live, XP is $120 (£70), and you can get a XP capable machine for £150 secondhand.

You don't even need XP to be secure. Win2k is just fine. You can get WIn2k licences for about £10, and the hardware is cheap as chips.

There is absolutly NO excuse to be running Win9x line of operating systems, if you go online with a Win9x system, you are totally mad, and likely to be one of those clueless newbies whose PC is sending me spam and viruses most days.

Score: 0

By GBH

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 8:26 AM

think you will find its a violation of the microsoft eula to sell secondhand licences unless they acompany the machine they were originally sold with.

Score: 0

By esh3

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 6:48 PM

Last reinstall of Windows 2000 June 2005 (only to clean all the junk out) yup.......it's all that. Been the XP route and it blows. I would run Linux solely but my wife would divorce me. W2K never skips a beat.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 9:22 PM

My last reinstall of Win2k was yesterday, but I'm a freak. :P

My last spyware infection was over a year ago, and I don't even run protection software anymore!

netstat -a = 0 ports open

Score: 0

By chriscando

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 4:07 PM

If you want continous updates use Linux. The downside to proprietary software is that when the owner stops updating the software will die, no other developer can pick up where they left off. Too bad.

Score: 0

By investorblogger

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 1:42 PM

Actually, for those people out there who snicker at windows 98se users like me...

I'll tell you some facts:
1. its footprint is very small. I can run it in less than a Gig of space, comfortably, though 2-4 is better. try that with XP.

2. I can manage the partitions very easily with partition software, and have multiple partitions. because of the size and convenience, it's FAST.

3. I NEVER have activation or reactivation problems with WINDOWS 98SE. I already had problems with a legal OS needing reinstalled after upgrades to the system.

4. I have legacy files and software that I need to run, as the later updates are just crap. I used to use Works 4.5, which was great. I then used 6, 7 and 8. All junk. Not one of them was upto the standards of 4.5 or even Office 97.

5. On my souped up system, P4-2.4Ghz, with a few changes, it runs FAST.

6. It's mostly stable, too. (with partition software, any problems can easily be resolved.

whichever way I go, upgrading via XP or Linux, I will most likely run at least 98 in some form, either reinstalled directly or as a virtual system.

It's a bit flaky sometimes, but then so is XP.

Kenneth
http://www.investorblogger.com

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 9:31 PM

1) XP has nothing but bloat in it. Strip out the bloat and it takes 300mb on disk. Strip the bloat out of Win2k and it takes 250mb. That increases to about 500mb if you want .net 1.1, 2.0, and java support. My windows is running very comfortably on a 4gb partition.

2) I like the Win2k partitioner better than Win9x. For resizing though I use some linux thingy I downloaded somewhere.

3) XP Home is a b****. I'd have to phone microsoft so much if I used it. I use Win2k, which does not require activation.

4) I can't run anything legacy, but I can run programs like OpenOffice quite fast. OpenOffice takes about 2 seconds to start on my Barton 2800+. My parents have an XP laptop (Sempron 2800+), and it opens OpenOffice in about 6-8 seconds. BIG difference.

5) XP can run fast on a 333mhz if you tweak it enough. It can also run slow on a 2.0ghz without tweaks. See nLite.

6) My Win2k has never crashed in all the years I've had it. I have gotten 3 illegal operations.

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 10:50 AM

What a horribly misinformed post. XP is light years ahead of 2000 in terms of stability, hardware support, and usability. I use XP and XP MCE2005 at home and dread coming to work on this Win2000 system. XP still looks fresh, but 2000 looks like it's 7 years old.

Both are stable, but XP took 2000's stability even further.

Yes, XP takes more disk space, but WHO CARES?!?!? Disk space is so cheap now it will cost you about $1 extra on your hard drive. GET READY!!! Vista will take up even more room.

What you call bloat, others call features. Movie Maker and Photo Story may be bloat to you, but to others they are useful features.

I've never had any issues with activation. In fact, it works much easier than I thought it would when it was announced years ago. Get used to it, other software vendors are doing the same thing. If you have issues with activation, you may have an illegal copy of XP.

Score: 0

By mikeyx11

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 4:23 PM

You, sir, are an idiot.

1) Windows XP takes up more space because it's better, and if your "souped up" piece of crap P4 can't handle it, then maybe it's time to upgrade.

2) You can also manage partitions in XP with partition software aswell, which has absolutely nothing to do with the differences between Windows 98SE and Windows XP.

3) There is no problems with activation under XP, all you have to do is make a 5 minute call to Microsoft, which I hardly call a "problem".

4) Looks like someones living in the 90's! Get real. MS Works is crap all together, all versions. MS Office 2003 craps all over Works, and OpenOffice is almost as good and is free, and also runs on Windows 98SE.

5) If you have to make changes to Windows 98SE to make it run fast on your P4, then something's wrong with your computer.

6) Windows 98SE is fairly stable yes, but as far as security goes it's out-dated and going to no longer be supported, so get with it and update to either XP or Linux.

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 12:05 PM

The ones who are still using 9x/Me really gotta hit the wall. Time to move on!!

Get a new computer and run XP on it.

It's time to retire these old systems and stinky MS OSes....

Score: 0

By access2000wiz

posted Jun 18, 2006 - 2:18 AM

Screw you buddy!

Score: 0

By nigelms

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 10:23 AM

I agree with you but......yep i have xp , but i use 98se as xp was and is a pain in the arse for patching! buy a external drive and update and youll soon find it no longer works courtesy of our BELOVED mnicrosoft, My pc is hadbuilt withh all the latest gear, why should i let ms knacker it?? I dont like being made to validate my pc installing active x that i dont want or need,bear in mind also not everyone has a bottomless wallet for either a new pc or software, microsoft is too interested in drm, pirating and less about us the consumer , of course there are the microsoft luvvies who cannot admit that the latter do any wrong at all, 98se may be an antique but its a dodle to reinstall no bloody activation codes , no 5 reinstalls and thats yer lot without coughing up 15 notes which would you pick ?? 98se everytime

Score: 0

By Limulus

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 5:20 PM

"Get a new computer and run XP on it. It's time to retire these old systems and stinky MS OSes...."

XP is turning into an old 'stinky MS OS'; hold off on buying a new computer until Vista comes out in half a year, or better yet, use Linux :)

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Jun 12, 2006 - 11:11 AM

You can't use Linux. It's not for users.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 10:58 AM

I can't understand why people have pcs at 500 MHZ and lower..I just cant... you can buy a BRAND NEW pc for $300 that will go 5 times as fast...98 and me smooth??? LOL! 98 and ME are the furthest from smooth...I know people who are so stupid with their pcs they go out and pay $200 dollars to fix a 7+ year old machine...where is the logic there? 98 and ME are horrendous when it comes to USB...no one should have to go through some of the steps to get it working... no new stuff works on these machines either so again I dont understand why someone wants this still...

Score: 0

By mikeyx11

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 4:25 PM

Not everyone can afford $300 for a new PC, especially if it's going to be used as a 2nd or 3rd computer in the home. As for paying $200 to fix a really old computer, yeah that is really dumb I agree. To get USB working in Win 98 and ME is easy.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 7:25 PM

Who said anything about a new PC? Win2k system requirement are broadly similar to WinME.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 9:57 AM

Windows 9x line is insecure from the core. It was never designed with security in mind. This is why Microsoft started from scratch with the NT line (which eventually lead to Win2k, then XP).

Why should they patch it? I think the best they could do, is offer free unsupported upgrades for Win9x users, to Win2k. It may encourage them to pay for XP, after seeing the benefits of the Win2k core.

Score: 0

By Macross74

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 1:09 AM

Some people can not justify or are able to spend money on an updated system capable of running windows 2000 or XP.
And a lot of people cannot see the benefits of updating untill they are affected by the expolits and such, they then blame MS for the problems.
Most of the people who own old systems have no idea or concept of security updates/virus/firewalls to protect themselvess.
and how many of these people will take notice of end of support of a product.

Score: 0

By rgrah

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 12:56 AM

FROM WINDOWS UPDATE (FAQ SECTION ON LEFT) midway down page in table style

THATS WHY THEY ARE NOT FIXING IT or why they should!!!

Additional operating systems
Windows Millennium Edition
Critical and security updates only after December 2003; no updates will be offered after June 2006

Windows 98
Critical and security updates only after August 2002; no updates will be offered after June 2006

Windows NT Server
No longer supported after December 2004

Windows NT Workstation
No longer supported after June 2004

Score: 0

By herbalist_rick

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 9:58 PM

M$ does like to make it sound like impending doom for 98/ME. The only way this is a critical vulnerability is if you're running an unsecured system and clicking on malicious links. If there's a vulnerability in this, it's the user.
From the article:
"We do strongly recommend that customers still using Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME) protect those systems by placing them behind a perimeter firewall which filters traffic on TCP Port 139 which will block attacks attempting to exploit this vulnerability."
AKA, any decent firewall or security suite has this covered. This could also be addressed by closing the ports manually, as per http://www.grc.com/su-bondage.htm

From Microsoft Security Bulletin MS06-015
"An attacker would need to convince a user to visit a Web site that could force a connection to a remote file server. This remote file server could then cause Windows Explorer to fail in a way that could allow code execution. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete control of an affected system."
This is more an example of repeatedly bad judgement on the part of the user than it is an OS vulnerability. The user must click on a malicious link with a system he chose not to secure with freely available software.

To GS5,
I use win98 and trust it far more than I ever will XP. With a good firewall, content filtering and HIPS, it's as secure as windows will get. XP is the most vulnerable OS ever made. 98 never needed a weekly patch day and won't end up rootkitted. Care to use the recent .wmf exploit as another example?
Eventually I will have to upgrade to something newer. Because I am security conscious, it won't be windows. There's nothing secure about any version of windows.
Rick

Score: 0

By smallpotato

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 9:36 PM

We have seen enough problems on these ancient platforms, regardless if they are security related. I know they can never be fixed. And I am surprised if anyone is talking about security on these platforms. Do they REALLY have security at all?

Score: 0

By jbaltz69

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 8:19 PM

Can't support a product forever. No one does.

Score: 0

By GS5

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 6:51 PM

Anyone still using Windows 98/ME doesn't give a $hit about security.

Personally I think anyone still using 98 or ME should be b!tch slapped. lol ;-)

Score: 0

By Pookette

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 3:57 PM

"Personally I think anyone still using 98 or ME should be b!tch slapped. lol ;-")

Oh for Pete's sake... That's not very nice.

Score: 0

By mxxcon

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 7:16 PM

there are many portable/embeded devices that run modified win98 since it's much ligher on resources compared to win2k/xp

Score: 0

By The Yellow One

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 1:09 PM

If they want light and secure then they would go for linux. and who gives a crap what OS you're using, microsoft just sucks. never placed security on top of the list.

Score: 0

By spiked

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:48 PM

Windows ME was released September 14, 2000.

The oldest Red Hat Linux for which you can purchase commercial support was released May 17, 2002.

Does anyone realistically expect ANY vendor to support a product FOREVER? Once we agree that the answer is NO, then it's just a matter of establishing how long is "long enough." If you don't consider Microsoft's support lifecycle for Windows 9X to be "long enough" then there is no major commercial vendor of any x86 operating system which provides "long enough" support for you.

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:43 PM

Believe it or not MS is considering Vista a stepping stone OS for their next Huge OS in 4 or 5 years... They felt they had to produce SOMETHING however in order to survive the long development time for this so called new innovation that is coming. Which basically means, not only are you going to need a new machine to run Vista well, but in a few years it will be obsolete and another version even more ingrained with subscription based content, and multi processer cluster computing abilities over networks will be out that your machine will not run. These too will be another technology leap, requiring a better machine to operate with efficiency... I guess everything we have now is just garbage and should be thrown away every 4 years right? Well thats Microsofts world view at least...

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 8:06 PM

Dude, how long do you expect to keep a computer? 10 to 20 years? Of course they’re going to be obsolete in 4 to 5 years. At the rate that micro processer technology is moving anything you buy today will be obsolete in 6 months anyway. It only makes sense that a new OS that’s going to be ready 4 years from now or in the case of M$ 7 to 8 years, be able to take full advantage of new technological advances in the hardware department. Where would we be if all new OS’ had to be able to run on 386 processors with 1mb of ram? It’s called progress it might be painful to some people but that’s how the world works.

Look on the bright side you got 5 whole years to save up to buy a new computer, that’s pretty reasonable isn’t it? lol

Score: 0

By Hillard

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 7:12 PM

Yeah, I had read an article somewhere, can't remember what the name or who wrote the article, that the next one is already in the works called MS Vienna or something like that anyway. The article had also mentioned that basically Vista was the first process for building Vienna.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:49 PM

Hmm. Kind of like trying to put a 'brain' from a car made in 2006 into a car made in 1960 I say....just doesn't make a drop of sense. While I suppose I sympathise with people still on an OS 8 years old, I don't see the point of MS being penalized for not 'fixing' a product which just isn't in mainstream use or production anymore. Its a waste of their time, their efforts and their money. All of which can be better spent on an OS in use currently or in the future, namely XP and Vista. As mentioned already, 98 isn't able to use the majority of hardware made 'today' so it's just ridiculous to expect MS to fix it.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:18 AM

IMO, if they refuse to offer support for the older os's then they should just cut all ties to them and release the older oses as freeware. but they dont. you can still buy win98 and ms still makes money on those sales. they have their cake and eat it too, nice that someone finally found a way to do that :)

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 3:07 AM

Well if you want a copy of Norton AV for Windows 95, you have to buy that too. But try to get Symantec to help you if there are any problems with it. Heck, I don't think their liveupdate even works with it anymore. If you can buy 98, you can buy 2000.... or save for a month or 2 more, and just buy xp.

Score: 0

By jrizznit

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:58 PM

I wonder what Microsoft will do in another 10 years, when they discontinue support for XP, and try to convince hundreds of millions of people that they need to upgrade, when all these people want to do is surf the internet, read email, and maybe watch a few videos with their "ancient" P4 2.8's.

See, that's what the average user does, and that's it. Sooner or later MS is going to realize that a product they've designed is not going to be obsoleted as fast as is necessary for their particular business model. My personal feeling is that they've already realized that XP is just such a product, and the aggressive anti-piracy push is a tactic designed to soften the blow of millions of people NOT rushing to upgrade to Vista.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 5:27 PM

i would imagine in this hypothetical 10 year span, a comperable alternative linux os will be more than sufficient for replacing their web surfing needs... i point to the open source windows api development, wine, and distributions heading this way like those created by linspire, and novel, and mandrake who seem to be moving in a windowsy direction...

I would imagine in 10 years if you're still using the same pc that you've gotten more milage out of it than any reader on this forum. maybe im crazy

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:25 PM

Problem with your reasoning: Yes, Windows 98SE IS obsolete, as it cannot use NET framework 2.0, it cannot use NTFS or any local security, it has less and less 3rd party support, it will not support new technologies such as HD-DVD drives, newer USB revisions, etc., it has little or no new drivers being written for it by third parties, it "freaks out" on systems with approximately 1.93GHz or faster processors, it will not support XPS files--even using today's "basic email" and "web surfing" will soon become difficult since IE and 3rd party web browsers will not support the newer XML standards.

The internet is changing. IE 2.0 on Windows 95 cannot even surf the web anymore people! IE 5.01 is way to ancient to support all web apps and plugins, Macromedia will discontinue Windows 98 plugin extentions soon, and almost all "new" hardware will not work with Windows 98--these are big problems. Windows 98 has to die because the old technology it uses is obsolete. Give it a year, and the Internet will be filled with websites that require something that cannot be supported for Windows 98SE.

Score: 0

By rainyd

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 12:03 PM

Bourgeoisdude, you're right with regard to hardware support but not quite in relation to the software: you can install NET Framework 2.0 on Win98/SE, Win ME; the latest version Flash Player 9 Beta still supports Win9x; you may use Firefox, Opera or SeaMonkey instead of IE.
Moreover, Windows protection error which you have mentioned may occur on CPU above 2,1 GHz.
Btw, Win 2000 was released on Feb 17, 2000 and is still supported.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:05 PM

"you can install NET Framework 2.0 on Win98/SE, Win ME;"

Really? I've tried it--no cigar for me. Are you surre? Now--I do know that .NET framework 1.1 installs fine on those operating systems, but I have tried 2.0 on both ME and 98SE and they claim the framework only installs on Windows 2000/XP systems.

Score: 0

By rainyd

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 4:49 PM

I had installed it just to check it and then quickly uninstalled because I didn't need it.
Maybe I hadn't any problem because I had an Unofficial Service Pack for Win98SE installed.

Score: 0

By jrizznit

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 9:17 PM

You're right of course but I'm not really concerned with Win98. What I'm saying is that with each new MS OS, the likelihood that an average user is going to feel the need to upgrade becomes less and less. The people who are using 98 right now are the same type of people who will be using XP in 2012. And since XP is such a great OS, its useful lifespan will most likely be much longer than 98's. Right now, the pool of XP users is much larger than the pool of 98 users was back when XP came out. There was obviously good reason to upgrade from 98 to XP, but I don't see such obvious reasons to upgrade to Vista. I see no reason why this pattern won't continue with each new OS release. This puts MS in a tough spot, probably necessitating a new business model. I have no idea what that would be.

Score: 0

By the artist

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 6:54 PM

good comment, but i feel curious about something... what do you mean by " it "freaks out" on systems with approximately 1.93GHz or faster processors " ??? What is the exact behaviour of Win98 with those processors?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:07 PM

I verified the other comment--yup, it is actually 2.1GHz and above CPUs. It will give a "Windows protection error" on them whenever you try to boot.

Score: 0

By karypm

edited Jun 13, 2006 - 6:11 PM

Not so. I've been running 3.4GHz Northwoods for
over a year with no problem. My kids XP-SP2
system used to run '98SE at 3.4 with 512MB RAM.

My system is an 845 overclocked to 188 FSB which
means my 3.4 runs (UNDERclocked) at 3.2, and
it ran prime95 at 99+ percent CPU for MONTHS on
end at 150+F with no problems, until I replaced
the HSF.

Score: 0

By rainyd

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 5:03 PM

To be absolutely correct you MAY have error message only when installing Win95 or Win98.
Anyhow it's not a serious problem because a Microsoft hotfix is available.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 3:55 PM

Microsoft has repeatedly drawn the line at XP, and yes, I'm on the upgrade side of this. If you're not running XP by now — a widely tested, tweaked, and solid OS — then you can't expect any relief from Microsoft. The chevy dealership will repair your 1978 Chevelle, but won't build new parts for your 1940 model car.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:11 PM

Not to troll, but what's wrong with Windows 2000?

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 10:02 PM

That it doesn't come with msconfig. :) That's about my only pet peeve about it. I think zridling meant to imply that most people will use XP (at least in the home)instead of Windows 2000 as Windows 2000 is meant more for business use. I do know someone (who's not a techie) who uses Windows 2000 at home and that's because their church gave them a computer their church had been using. One of my brothers runs Windows 2000 (along with XP), however, he's a techie like me.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 10:08 PM

XP's msconfig doesn't let you delete stuff. Install Spybot S&D or Autoruns instead.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:11 PM

msconfig is nothing more than a registry editor and notepad combined. The "Startup" tab is found at "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" and the "Services" tab is at "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunSvcs". The other tabs just edit .ini files located in your system32 folder. msconfig isn't a necessity. Also checkout services.msc for microsoft stuff.

Score: 0

By rgrah

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 12:48 AM

msconfig answer:

mlin . com (censorship freindly) his startup control panel does not need install does the same thing

Score: 0

By pafinator11

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 10:59 PM

you can copy the msconfig file from windows xp to windows 2000 and it will work. I add it to every computer I attempt to fix with windows 2000.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:25 PM

I will agree here, Windows 2000 should last a while.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 6:23 PM

Perhaps, but Windows 2003 is far better supported these days than 2000. (I was only addressing the fact that Microsoft no longer supports 98.)

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:12 PM

...and I was replying to PC_Tool's post :P

Score: 0

By Intrusive_Rogue

edited Jun 9, 2006 - 3:43 PM

one of my cars is over 20 years old and I would drive it anywhere.

Why, because I take care of my things and am intelligent in the maintenance and usage of it.

Reliability and safety have less to do with Age and more to do with care of operation.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 10, 2006 - 2:22 AM

I totally agree. just because a car isnt "brand new and shiny" doesnt mean that it isnt dependable... I would feel a LOT safer in an accident in a WELL CARED FOR 1966 dodge coronet than I would in a 2006 honda civic if the two were involved in a 30mph head on collision, and probably drive away in my 1966 dodge (more than likely carrying the honbda driver with me to get a tow truck) :)

Score: 0

By nesretep

edited Jun 10, 2006 - 2:12 PM

The car analogy can only be carried so far. After a while it becomes like apples and oranges. Computers have issues they run into as they age that have no parallel in cars.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:08 PM

..and you can *fix* *it* *yourself*.

How many Windows 98/ME users can claim the same?

I'm betting around zero. Which is probably why they're still running those OSes.

Time to upgrade.

Score: 0

By Babylon2x

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:51 PM

I agree with you on that one. With computers moving so fast, such I really side with MS on finally giving up on Win98. They can't support it forever, though it was a fantastic OS.

Score: 0

By mesiex

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:49 PM

Sorry, I mean Port 135. No problems if you use a good firewall.

Score: 0

By mesiex

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:14 PM

No need to change when things go fine. Windows 98 SE is the best product of Microsoft factory from many points of view. You may overcome most of the problems using an incredible amount of third party collaborations that may be easily found on the net. If you don't have an original patch you may find many third party collaborations, i.e. Firefox etc. without having to buy and learn again a new way for doing the same old things. Of course you need to keep blocked port 130 all the time.

Score: 0

By SorenMD

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:12 PM

BURN on Microsoftie!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:12 PM

OK, lets go. Tell me its because Microsoft wants to force people to upgrade, and because they want to force people to quit using the venerable os'es, or some other BS story..

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that the technology is just too old, and can't be fixed.. NO! It must be because MS is greedy...

Yeah.. Jealousy, its the season!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 4:10 PM

Cost prohibitive. Forcing people to upgrade, or "not being aboe to fix it" doesn't even enter into it.

They just don't want to spend the money on what it would take to fix it. Neither of these OSes are mainstream anymore and MS simply cannot justify taking resources from other, more important projects to fix or lock down an OS used by only a (relatively speaking) handful of people.

Score: 0

By snoecks

posted Jun 9, 2006 - 2:02 PM

So you would buy a new car everytime a new model comes out? Somehow I find that hard to believe.

Just have TCP port 139 blocked and you should be fine.

Score: 0