PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft: No security updates for 98, ME after July 2006



noalternative
January 31st, 2006, 07:55 PM
Several interesting news items related to this.


Microsoft Clarifies Support for Windows 98, Windows Millennium (http://www.arcweb.com/community/indnews/display.asp?id=7441)

Microsoft announced a clarification in extended security update support for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium (Me) Editions for critical security issues. Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition support was scheduled to end on January 16, 2004. The continual evaluation of the Support Lifecycle policy revealed, however, that customers in smaller and emerging markets needed additional time to upgrade their product. Therefore, critical security updates for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006.

Key Dates:
Paid incident support for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition (Me) is available through June 30, 2006.
Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006.
Customers may request non-critical security fixes for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Me, and the most current version of their components until June 30, 2006 through typical assisted-support channels.
Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me downloads for existing security issues will continue to be available through regular assisted-support channels at no charge until June 30, 2006.
No-charge incident support and extended hotfix support for Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition ended on June 30, 2003.
No-charge incident support and extended hotfix support for Windows Me ended on December 31, 2003.

Microsoft is already leaving these customers high and dry for the WMF security flaw.


Windows 98, ME users left vulnerable to WMF bug?
January 5, 2006 5:17 PM PST (http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-6020645.html)

Microsoft on Thursday rushed out an update to address a serious security flaw in Windows. Patches are available for Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003, but Microsoft left out Windows 98 and Windows Millennium Edition.

The flaw lies in the way the OS software handles Windows Meta File images. Microsoft deems the issue "critical" only for Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, the problem is not as big for Windows 98 and Windows ME because it is harder to exploit on those OSes, the company said in its MS06-001 security bulletin..

Experts from iDefense, F-Secure and SANS agree that no attacks that target the older Windows versions have surfaced. Yet that might only be a matter of time, said Mike Murray, director of vulnerability and exposure research at nCircle, a vulnerability management company in San Francisco.

Releasing a patch for Windows 98 and Windows ME would be the right thing to do, according to Murray. "Even Microsoft acknowledges that the vulnerability exists in those OSes, someone will figure out how to exploit it," he said. .......

Here is someone in the reply section.


MS is wrong not to support 98 (http://news.com.com/5208-12-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=12871&messageID=100962&start=-137)
Reader post by: Bill Dautrive
Posted on: January 8, 2006, 2:51 PM PST
Story: Windows 98, ME users left vulnerable to WMF bug?

Why?

Simple. Around 50% of the windows world is using something other then XP. So why would that mean that MS should still support it?

The intenet is an extremely dangerous place and MS is the primary reason for it. With so many older MS OS's out there unprotected, it causes serious problems for everyone.

No one should have to pay to have problems that MS neglected fixed. We are not talking features here, but security problems that are the fault of Microsoft. All these people using the lame car anology are missing the point and clearly lack understanding of the issues. Even if a 1950 whatever is found to be defective, how many are on the road, how many has 100% original parts? That anology does not even come close to fitting this situtation, stop being ignorant.

Bottom line: These are serious security issues that came about through incompetance and negligence on Microsofts part. Asking anyone but Microsoft to pay for this is beyond ignorant.

Korea is responding by trying to go linux. (http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200601/kt2006012017494811780.htm)


The nation's six ministries including the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) convened of late to discuss ways of reducing dependence on Microsoft, the world's biggest software maker.

``We agreed to cut down on our heavy reliance on Windows while promoting open-source programs such as Linux as an alternative,'' an MIC official said.

As action plans, the six ministries agreed to make Internet banking services and programs dealing with public grievance operable on a Linux-empowered system. Up until now, the programs could be run only through Windows.

``To secure broad-based adoption of non-Windows programs, the government will evaluate ministries regarding how much they brace for open-source programs,'' the official said.


but is the linux community offering an alternative to these former customers of Microsoft? Afterall, while there may be distros designed to work on older legacy computers, none of them are designed to be as easy to use as windows 98. Problems include, having to mount the disk drive from the command line, no control panels for easier customization and the greater difficulty encountered when installing a linux program. I can untar tarballs, but I can never configure one. make and "make install" never work. I am currently trying the live distro of ubuntu but it is too heavy for my computer as well, and it seems that I have to use advanced installing to do a dual boot, and to get xpde instead of gnome.

According the same article more asinine members of the linux community are probably gearing up to infect these people with viruses in July.


`Windows 98 is still widely used. Some people would replace their programs with advanced systems like Windows 2000 and XP. But some will continue to bank on Windows 98 even after this July,'' Seung Jae-mo, the researcher at the Korea Information Security Agency, said.

He expected hacking and virus attacks would rage in the latter half of this year as global crackers would launch full-throttle attacks on Windows 98-outfitted computers that will not be updated regularly.

I personally feel the efforts of all those code vigilantes would be better spent creating an easy to use distro for older computers but what do I know?

According to Wikipedia, small business customers of Microsoft who can't pay for an upgrade to xp are being offered a thin client (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals_For_Legacy_PCs) but the program is getting no advertising from Microsoft, and it is not being offered to home users of of Win 98 and ME. There is a something like a thin client being offered developing countries called Windows XP Starter Edition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#Windows_XP_Starter_Edition), but Microsoft is not offering this to home users in the developed countries and we may not be able to afford the latest thing either.

Yes, I am biased because I am a Win 98 user. I switched to feather as a dual boot, but I don't find it easy to use, and I started out with a Dos system so I am not ignorant of command lines like most 98 people. The heavier distros just run way slow. I have tried Debian Woody with KDE and and Red Hat 7.3 with Gnome. Neither Gnome nor Kde were much easier to use than Fluxbox despite the more familiar appearance. They still made it difficult to install programs, and there plug n play wasn't nearly as good as Feathers. They also didn't have easy to use control panels though the control panels existed.

Windows 3.1 and 95 users were left in the cold in 2002.

This didn't harm 3.1 users as much since the hackers focused on 32 bit Windows after 95 was invented, but most any virus that involved NT/Xp will harm 95, 98, and ME.

Blaster harmed 95 users badly, and I remember having to work on a number of friends computers as a result of it.

I posted this at feather as well. Know of any other good places?

bored2k
January 31st, 2006, 08:14 PM
Microsoft stops giving support after X amount of years. The of 98 and ME has come. Where's the problem? Even Ubuntu plays it similar.

TechSonic
January 31st, 2006, 08:20 PM
One word

Figures.

mstlyevil
January 31st, 2006, 08:25 PM
Microsoft annouced this last year to give customers time to decide what they wanted to do. They also annouced that they will quit supporting 2000 Pro in 2010. This is old news and even Ubuntu only has a 18 month cycle on support for previous versions.

dosed150
January 31st, 2006, 08:30 PM
but ubuntu is free to upgrade windows isnt

noalternative
January 31st, 2006, 08:31 PM
It's true, but Linux distros are more affordable.

They are not however easy to use, and many packages you install will install programs that break it. With feather gtk always breaks it whenever I install synaptic through apt get, and when I looked up the problem in google, I found this happening in all the debian sarge based distros. So it is not true that packet managements solved the problems of linux programs being difficult to install.

morphodone
January 31st, 2006, 08:33 PM
Microsoft stops giving support after X amount of years. The of 98 and ME has come. Where's the problem? Even Ubuntu plays it similar.

I think the main argument to that respsone would be that with ubuntu you can easily upgrade for free.

All the windows 98 users would have to buy a new license for windows xp which most of them cannot afford.

edit: you guys beat me to it

Lord Illidan
January 31st, 2006, 08:36 PM
I agree that Windows 98 and ME are way out of date. Microsoft, for all its size can't afford to keep programmers working on security updates for these operating systems. 98 is about 8 years old.

True, maybe it costs money to upgrade, and maybe Linux is not so easy as Windows. Then, the solution is darned simple. Learn Linux, whatever it takes.

Bandit
January 31st, 2006, 08:44 PM
DIE!!... DIE!!... DIE!!...
Windows must DIE!!!....

Oh' Sorry I was thinking out loud again......

noalternative
January 31st, 2006, 08:45 PM
It is very wrong assume people aren't trying. Most people don't have 24 hours a day to learn. Only young people with no children or work do. I personally spent long hours learning iptables and researching why make install was hosed, and researching a fix for gtk, to no avail.

That was why desktop systems were invented. Also you can't claim ubuntu is linux for everyone with that attitude.

Also i don't understand why people like me are viewed as more trollish than some of the "let them eat cake"="let them by a new 500 dollar dell posters? People who get those computers have xp so why would they want ubuntu? Are you interested in having people use it or not?

noalternative
January 31st, 2006, 08:50 PM
many of these people are just as short on extra time as money. Kids, work and other obligations prevent this.

The other solution is better programing

Ubantu was made to be easier than its mother program debian so what is wrong with a light version for legacy computers?

mstlyevil
January 31st, 2006, 08:54 PM
I believe this is a non issue for most computer users since most people upgrade their PC's every 3-5 years. Most people will still be using a supported OS. Besides, PC's were never intended to last forever so there are less and less Windows 9x machines in use every year due to hardware failure. As for the operating system costing money, most people never directly pay for it anyways since it was included with the computer. If they do not want to pay for it the only option they have is to run Linux and build their own computers. Even if you buid your own computer, good luck finding drivers for these outdated operating systems.

noalternative
January 31st, 2006, 09:31 PM
I would say it is more likely due to software failure, and many cars are still on the road from 98. We don't tell people with old cars they have no right to get on the road. As it happens my computer still runs and has had no hardware failures. Why should I be forced to buy a new one, or not get security updates? All I am asking for is security updates, not feature improvements and I really can't afford a new dell. Ubuntu isn't for everyone if it doesn't pick up the slack. Mac isn't a good example since they are upscale anyway. Is ubuntu for just rich folks too?

xequence
January 31st, 2006, 10:14 PM
Put it this way: Using windows 98 is like using Debian hamm.

I doubt you could go on your Hamm system and do apt-get update and it would update everything to the final versions.

Brunellus
January 31st, 2006, 10:25 PM
so we can now look forward to all those users migrating to ReactOS?

Stormy Eyes
January 31st, 2006, 10:45 PM
All the windows 98 users would have to buy a new license for windows xp which most of them cannot afford.

Screw 'em. They probably use bootleg copies of 98. Why would they pay for XP?

mstlyevil
January 31st, 2006, 10:56 PM
I would say it is more likely due to software failure, and many cars are still on the road from 98. We don't tell people with old cars they have no right to get on the road. As it happens my computer still runs and has had no hardware failures. Why should I be forced to buy a new one, or not get security updates? All I am asking for is security updates, not feature improvements and I really can't afford a new dell. Ubuntu isn't for everyone if it doesn't pick up the slack. Mac isn't a good example since they are upscale anyway. Is ubuntu for just rich folks too?

No one said you did not have a right to the web. Your car analogy is severely flawed. Electronics do not have the same life cycle a car does. You don't have to get a new one but you can not expect it to be supported forever. Warranties on cars do not last forever using your same logic. When you choose to use outdated equipment that is past it's prime you can not forever expect MSFT to continue to update something that even software vendors do not code new software for. Ther comes a point you move on to either new equipment or you get another OS that is supported.

I don't see how Ubuntu which is free as in cost is comparible to Windows when it comes to ending support. What do you mean by is Ubuntu for just rich folks too? Even if you installed a new version of Ubuntu every 18 months to stay current, how much did that cost you? This is about MSFT ending support for propietary Windows 98 and ME. The two just do not make a fair comparison.

xequence
February 1st, 2006, 12:37 AM
Screw 'em. They probably use bootleg copies of 98. Why would they pay for XP?

I'm with you on that. I was gonna say that, but whenever I say something like that it always brings back an argument over is piracy right :/

noalternative
February 1st, 2006, 04:23 AM
Default Re: Microsoft: No security updates for 98, ME after July 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by noalternative
I would say it is more likely due to software failure, and many cars are still on the road from 98. We don't tell people with old cars they have no right to get on the road. As it happens my computer still runs and has had no hardware failures. Why should I be forced to buy a new one, or not get security updates? All I am asking for is security updates, not feature improvements and I really can't afford a new dell. Ubuntu isn't for everyone if it doesn't pick up the slack. Mac isn't a good example since they are upscale anyway. Is ubuntu for just rich folks too?

No one said you did not have a right to the web. Your car analogy is severely flawed. Electronics do not have the same life cycle a car does. You don't have to get a new one but you can not expect it to be supported forever. Warranties on cars do not last forever using your same logic. When you choose to use outdated equipment that is past it's prime you can not forever expect MSFT to continue to update something that even software vendors do not code new software for. Ther comes a point you move on to either new equipment or you get another OS that is supported.

I don't see how Ubuntu which is free as in cost is comparible to Windows when it comes to ending support. What do you mean by is Ubuntu for just rich folks too? Even if you installed a new version of Ubuntu every 18 months to stay current, how much did that cost you? This is about MSFT ending support for propietary Windows 98 and ME. The two just do not make a fair comparison.

I believe the original post suggested that Linux support these people. so I don't know what your point is.

noalternative
February 1st, 2006, 04:26 AM
This isn't about piracy. This is true. That would be known as highjacking a thread.

mstlyevil
February 1st, 2006, 04:28 AM
It isn't as easy to use yet, and they haven't come out with a distro for old hardware.

Yes they have. Ever heard of Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux. Xubuntu also is a good distro for older hardware.

noalternative
February 1st, 2006, 04:39 AM
Yes they have. Ever heard of Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux. Xubuntu also is a good distro for older hardware.

As already posted, I'm running feather, so I know about small distros. I have run darn small and puppy. None of these three oses are easy to use, and xubuntu isn't even a distro. You have install a server first and than use apt-get. I am in the process of attempting this but etc/apt/sources.list has a bunch of obsolete sources in it, so I am stuck. That isn't something most people could deal with at all.

Anyway, it seems you don't even read posts so I don't know why I am bothering.

You are just knocking strawmen.

anyway, usenet traditions of flamin newbies sure are going to do much for cause of ubuntu.

bye bye.

I posted more to alert programers to the needs of several millions of 98 users.

I hope xubuntu works out.

I don't think these flames seem very much in the spirit of ubuntus advertising. "Linux for human beings!"

prizrak
February 1st, 2006, 05:20 AM
Ubuntu is not a lightweight distro and was never intended to be. It is a modern OS and as any modern OS it requires more or less modern hardware. The reason lightweight distros aren't easy to use is because there aren't many drivers out for it and most effort goes into drivers for new hardware (since it is easily obtained as opposed to something old). Also nice GUI's make things easier and those also require fairly modern hardware. You cannot expect MS to keep supporting 8 year old OS's, they need to sell new stuff and can't really afford to keep older stuff around. It's impressive they have supported it for as long as they have. You also have to consider that as off right now they are supporting, 98, ME, 2K, XP, Server 2003. (NT4 possibly?) This is 5(!) OS's we are talking about, that takes money and time, both of which can be used on supporting current versions. Using a car analogy old cars have the same problems, it is hard to locate parts for them. Hell I needed a master cylinder for a 98 Buick Century and it took my mechanic some hunting to find it and we are talking about a fairly new car (in car terms). So if you don't have the money for an upgrade that means you will have to spend the time to learn a new OS. Another reason OS's for older hardware are harder is because that hardware is normally used for random stuff like routing or firewalling, which of course requires a good amount of knowledge.

noalternative
February 1st, 2006, 06:32 AM
xfce is a pretty nice gui, but the small distros don't use it, because they prioritize server administrators. Also 98 runs on old hardware and is a extremely nice gui. 95 was nice too. You don't need new hardware to automatically mount the disk drives dos does that. You don't need new hardware, to easily install programs. Dos and Windows did this.

So I think you are just blustering. BTW, do you just hate it that people donate their old computers to the ubuntu program? There are alot of poor people in it, and they ofcoarse deserve lesser service in life.

If it wasn't designed for older hardware, how do you explain ubuntu?

aysiu
February 1st, 2006, 06:53 AM
I'm kind of surprised no one's released an .ISO of Xubuntu. If Xubuntu were a full distro release (with gnome-volume-manager and nautilus), it'd be great for these old computers. I have to say, though, Windows 98 is pretty resource intensive. We have some Win '98 computers at work, and they take forever to do anything. A Ubuntu live CD runs faster on them, believe it or not--with Gnome!

mstlyevil
February 1st, 2006, 08:01 AM
As already posted, I'm running feather, so I know about small distros. I have run darn small and puppy. None of these three oses are easy to use, and xubuntu isn't even a distro. You have install a server first and than use apt-get. I am in the process of attempting this but etc/apt/sources.list has a bunch of obsolete sources in it, so I am stuck. That isn't something most people could deal with at all.

Anyway, it seems you don't even read posts so I don't know why I am bothering.

You are just knocking strawmen.

anyway, usenet traditions of flamin newbies sure are going to do much for cause of ubuntu.

bye bye.

I posted more to alert programers to the needs of several millions of 98 users.

I hope xubuntu works out.

I don't think these flames seem very much in the spirit of ubuntus advertising. "Linux for human beings!"

For one thing I read your post and understood the not easy part. I never claimed these distros to be easy. Don't accuse me of flaming because flaming your post was never my intention. I stated facts about continuing to use older unsupported hardware. In an idea world these older computers would continue to be supported until the last one died. In the corporate world the bottom line is going to dictate how long a company supports older hardware and operating systems.

From my understanding, Dapper Drake is going to ship a Xubuntu ISO. When that happens Ubuntu will have a fully supported distro that will work on most of those computers that run 98. Later this year 98 users are going to have three choices. They either can continue to run a unsupported OS, they can switch to some form of Linux or they will just have to upgrade their computers to run 2000, XP, or Vista. That is just the price you pay for using outdated equipment and it sucks royally.

prizrak
February 1st, 2006, 08:26 AM
xfce is a pretty nice gui, but the small distros don't use it, because they prioritize server administrators. Also 98 runs on old hardware and is a extremely nice gui. 95 was nice too. You don't need new hardware to automatically mount the disk drives dos does that. You don't need new hardware, to easily install programs. Dos and Windows did this.

This is wrong, 95/98 had horrible GUI, it wasn't nice in any way shape or form. Both of those OS's were actually pretty slow even on the hardware that they were intended for. I had a dual boot of 2K and 98, 2K on an NTFS partition (NTFS is slower than FAT) ran faster (not to mention better) than 98 in EVERYTHING including games that 2K wasn't even officially supposed to support. Automounting of disks doesn't require newer hardware but does require utilities that automount it one being gnome-volume-manager as mentioned by aysiu. That would require much of GNOME stuff to be included making the distro not lightweight. You also pretty much reiterated my point with
xfce is a pretty nice gui, but the small distros don't use it, because they prioritize server administrators.
Older hardware isn't really developed for, it is used for certain things such as firewalls/routers/switches, but not as main workstations. There are distros that CAN be run nicely on older hardware but they are not easy. Gentoo + Fluxbox or XFCE would be awesome on something old (after about a week of compiling) but it's not easy. I stated reasons behind that but let me give you a real life example.
About 9-10 months ago I was building a computer for my friend. I purchased a motherboard (built in A/V). Memory, CPU, PSU, HDD, and a CDRW for it (had an old case lying around).
The total came out to about $300 and that is a fairly nice machine with an AXP 1800+, 256(maybe even 512) MB RAM and an 80gig HDD. Now of course this does not include a monitor (she had one) but this config is more than capable of running Win2K (what I put on it) and would definetly do fine with a default Ubuntu install (replace Metacity with XFWM and enable nVidia renderaccell and it will fly). Now this is almost a year ago now such setup would be about $200.
It is reasonable enough for people to assume that just about anyone from a developed country will be able to scrape together $200-300 for a system, so it makes little reason to develop for anything less than that.


So I think you are just blustering. BTW, do you just hate it that people donate their old computers to the ubuntu program? There are alot of poor people in it, and they ofcoarse deserve lesser service in life.

I don't hate people donating old computers to ANY program, they are free to do w/e they want with their property. Old machines have uses, but it takes tweaking and effort to get them to perform those simple as that. I never said that poor people don't deserve same things as those who are better off, but the reality of the world is that things become old and absolete. If you still want to use them prepare to put work into them, after all when you pay a premium for something you pay for convenience.


If it wasn't designed for older hardware, how do you explain ubuntu?
What does that have to do with anything? Ubuntu is NOT a lightweight distro, a default Ubuntu install is close to a gig and was fairly sluggish on my fairly decent laptop (before I replaced Metacity with XFWM). Xubuntu might be faster but it also lacks features found in Ubuntu (for instance my flash drive didn't automount in XFCE at all, never tried CDs). I am sorry that you are not having much luck with Ubuntu (as you mentioned above that you had some issues with sources.list file).

noalternative
February 1st, 2006, 07:54 PM
I'm kind of surprised no one's released an .ISO of Xubuntu. If Xubuntu were a full distro release (with gnome-volume-manager and nautilus), it'd be great for these old computers. I have to say, though, Windows 98 is pretty resource intensive. We have some Win '98 computers at work, and they take forever to do anything. A Ubuntu live CD runs faster on them, believe it or not--with Gnome!
Well my experience is that when I use ubuntu live cd or anything with gnome on it, it takes five minutes at least to open any program. I don't have this problem with 98. I tried to install xubuntu, but the universal repository is hosed, and keeps giving me some error involving the Release.gpg, and I am not getting any help on the matter either. My request for help has been up for a day now.

I actually prefer red hat based distros because apt get never ******* works.

noalternative
February 1st, 2006, 07:56 PM
For one thing I read your post and understood the not easy part. I never claimed these distros to be easy. Don't accuse me of flaming because flaming your post was never my intention. I stated facts about continuing to use older unsupported hardware. In an idea world these older computers would continue to be supported until the last one died. In the corporate world the bottom line is going to dictate how long a company supports older hardware and operating systems.

From my understanding, Dapper Drake is going to ship a Xubuntu ISO. When that happens Ubuntu will have a fully supported distro that will work on most of those computers that run 98. Later this year 98 users are going to have three choices. They either can continue to run a unsupported OS, they can switch to some form of Linux or they will just have to upgrade their computers to run 2000, XP, or Vista. That is just the price you pay for using outdated equipment and it sucks royally.
If you understood that I specified an easy distro than you clearly weren't talking to me.

earobinson
February 1st, 2006, 08:00 PM
You cant support everything forever!

noalternative
February 1st, 2006, 08:00 PM
This is wrong, 95/98 had horrible GUI, it wasn't nice in any way shape or form. Both of those OS's were actually pretty slow even on the hardware that they were intended for. I had a dual boot of 2K and 98, 2K on an NTFS partition (NTFS is slower than FAT) ran faster (not to mention better) than 98 in EVERYTHING including games that 2K wasn't even officially supposed to support. Automounting of disks doesn't require newer hardware but does require utilities that automount it one being gnome-volume-manager as mentioned by aysiu. That would require much of GNOME stuff to be included making the distro not lightweight. You also pretty much reiterated my point with
Older hardware isn't really developed for, it is used for certain things such as firewalls/routers/switches, but not as main workstations. There are distros that CAN be run nicely on older hardware but they are not easy. Gentoo + Fluxbox or XFCE would be awesome on something old (after about a week of compiling) but it's not easy. I stated reasons behind that but let me give you a real life example.
About 9-10 months ago I was building a computer for my friend. I purchased a motherboard (built in A/V). Memory, CPU, PSU, HDD, and a CDRW for it (had an old case lying around).
The total came out to about $300 and that is a fairly nice machine with an AXP 1800+, 256(maybe even 512) MB RAM and an 80gig HDD. Now of course this does not include a monitor (she had one) but this config is more than capable of running Win2K (what I put on it) and would definetly do fine with a default Ubuntu install (replace Metacity with XFWM and enable nVidia renderaccell and it will fly). Now this is almost a year ago now such setup would be about $200.
It is reasonable enough for people to assume that just about anyone from a developed country will be able to scrape together $200-300 for a system, so it makes little reason to develop for anything less than that.

It isn't as slow as ubuntu. It doesn't make me mount drives, has a good word processor, and goes online.






What does that have to do with anything? Ubuntu is NOT a lightweight distro, a default Ubuntu install is close to a gig and was fairly sluggish on my fairly decent laptop (before I replaced Metacity with XFWM). Xubuntu might be faster but it also lacks features found in Ubuntu (for instance my flash drive didn't automount in XFCE at all, never tried CDs). I am sorry that you are not having much luck with Ubuntu (as you mentioned above that you had some issues with sources.list file).

It was a typo. I meant xubuntu. Anyway, I don't think your talking to me.

prizrak
February 2nd, 2006, 05:15 AM
It isn't as slow as ubuntu. It doesn't make me mount drives, has a good word processor, and goes online.
It was a typo. I meant xubuntu. Anyway, I don't think your talking to me.
If you were using the LiveCD you can't make a judgement on the speed of the thing, I used a LiveCD on a machine that ran XP w/o much issue and it was so slow that I ended up rebooting back into Windows before the system even loaded.
The aforementioned key problem has been around for sometime and there is no known cure I had it on my desktop for a while it just went away after like a 20th time I refreshed the repo cache. I don't remember the terminal command for it tho. You might want to try http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Main_Page for answers. Xubuntu is not an official Ubuntu subdistro it's more or less "fan made" so it wasn't really meant as a lightweight distro, even with a base install it will still be a fairly large installation. You also have to remember that DSL and Puppy are both MUCH smaller than Win98, so they don't come with alot of stuff that is normal to a 98 user. In any case since Linux is not working out for you I'd suggest getting a hold of Win2K it's still supported and will run on your hardware as well (if not better that) 98.

aysiu
February 2nd, 2006, 05:24 AM
Well my experience is that when I use ubuntu live cd or anything with gnome on it, it takes five minutes at least to open any program. I don't have this problem with 98. Tell me the last time you ran Windows 98 from only a CD and your computer's RAM, not accessing the hard drive at all.


I tried to install xubuntu, but the universal repository is hosed, and keeps giving me some error involving the Release.gpg, and I am not getting any help on the matter either. See the first link of my signature. That should get you all set.



I actually prefer red hat based distros because apt get never ******* works. ... for you. I haven't had any problems with apt-get. Your experience is only your experience. Plenty of people have had the reverse--problems with RPMs and no problems with apt-get. In the end, though, use whatever works for you. If you like Windows 98 and Red Hat-based distros, use those. No one's holding a gun to your head and saying, "Use Ubuntu now or die!"

gabba
February 13th, 2006, 06:07 AM
People, I can't believe what some of you are saying in this thread:

- "**** people with old computers, they just have to upgrade": hey, first of all, where's your ecological sense: should we just throw millions of perfectly working computers to the garbage? Office machines were meant to last, they have rock-solid hardware. If right now a pentium II with 128 MB can run an excellent word processor at top notch speed, run presentations, play mp3s, small games, manage usb keys photo cameras and scanners, print, and browse the internet, I don't see the point of ditching it and upgrading. For what? To install an OS that offers nothing more than a bit more security and extra eye candy (read: Windows XP/any big linux distro)?

- "Windows 98 is slow / linux is not that slow": Ok, I'm writing this from a win 98 computer running on a pentium II with 128 MBs RAM. I installed it and locked it down with third-party programs so the six people who are using it can't install bad stuff on it. I also put a free anti-virus, and we're protected by our router's firewall. Well, it runs Office 2000 perfectly, actually it takes 1 or 2 seconds to open Word. In comparison, OpenOffice (the only reasonable alternative given our needs) takes 30 seconds and is slow as hell during use. I can run Media Player + Word + Powerpoint + Excel + Firefox together without major crashes or slowdowns. The system has been installed for six month, and we haven't seen the shadow of a virus/spyware/trojan.

- I've tried hard to convert this computer and its users to linux, and I tested about 8 distros on it, both in pure and heavily customized form. Major distros, that match the features of win98, are way too slow, and sad to say, buggy. Prolonged use reveals random freezes and program terminations; besides, normal tasks like browsing the file system are slow as hell (I tried many linux filesystems). When I try to use lightweight distros or simply lighter window managers, all of a sudden the lack of features hit: usually one or more of these features are missing, slow, or not easy to use for the average user:

- there's no printer status icon when printing, and printing often gets buggy
- multimedia/flash/etc are hard to install and behave buggily
- few distros are localized, and I need to install this one in french
- no automount such as under windows 98 (many solutions besides gnome or kde exist, none or them are recommended, and just getting a window to open with the drive content or
- the OS refuses to unmount the CD without apparent reason, and we need to reboot (I can't find the solution, let alone the average user)
- using SAMBA freezes the computer
- feature-wise, I can't find an equivalent program to MSN (yep, I've tried GAIM and Kopete, they didn't convince anybody)
- no matter what ******* combination of speed optimization I try, OpenOffice is still slow as hell, and no other program has that level of compatibility with MS Office. And MS Office under Wine/Crossover is an awful buggy mess.
- sorry to say, even with xfce, openbox, as few services as I can afford (you can't cut much here if you want automount and other features), overall the total feeling and the the programs are slower than on Win 98.

I don't give up easily, and I tried every solution I could find on the internet, for several months. I also tried to install linux on many other computers. I had to give up due to popular demand. I check regularly the news to see if there's a new emphasis on speed, and thankfully OpenOffice, Gnome and KDE seem to be heading in that direction. But there's no alternative to Windows 98 yet.

In conclusion, I don't think the argument "gnu/linux is slower because it's a modern OS" holds water. A more secure architecture doesn't mean it has to be slower. I'm sure you could design an OS faster AND more secure than win98. Bad programming and emphasis on features rather than performance make current linux distros slow. Not to blame all the programmers who contributed time to these projects, but we need a new focus on simplicity and economy. Isn't it a bit humiliating that no linux distro can match the feature set and usability of Windows 98 running on the same hardware?

aysiu
February 13th, 2006, 06:40 AM
- "Windows 98 is slow / linux is not that slow": Ok, I'm writing this from a win 98 computer running on a pentium II with 128 MBs RAM. I installed it and locked it down with third-party programs so the six people who are using it can't install bad stuff on it. I also put a free anti-virus, and we're protected by our router's firewall. Well, it runs Office 2000 perfectly, actually it takes 1 or 2 seconds to open Word. I don't doubt that this is true for your computer, but every computer I've seen with 128 MB of RAM and Windows 98 has run slow as hell and doesn't open anything in 1 or 2 seconds, not even Explorer.

You really can't argue anecdotes--I'm sorry. We have a whole ton of these Windows 98 128 MB of RAM computers at work that are molasses slow. I pop a live CD of Knoppix in them, and they're faster running out of RAM. I'm not kidding.

This whole, "Well, in my experience" stuff just doesn't convince people because in their experience, something else happened. You need a study or a survey or some real benchmarks.

prizrak
February 13th, 2006, 06:45 AM
gabba,
That is a heavily subjective post. OpenOffice is slow, no way around it, it's slow on any OS you can find. MS Office is highly integrated with the OS because of the hidden API's MS doesn't release to the public. Win98 is horribly outdated compared to any Linux distro. You are also forgetting that 98/2K were both developed for the hardware at the time. Linux isn't developed for older machines anymore. Ubuntu was made for your average 1Ghz + w/ 256+megs of RAM. The lightweight distros don't have the features of Win98 but at the same time Win98 can't run off a 56MB USB flash can it? This is what people like you fail to understand, Linux is very fast but it's fast on the hardware it is meant for. Security is not the only thing that a modern OS has there are many things you are not aware off. For instance a journaling filesystem that keeps you from losing your data when you crash, while they are nice they are slower than the non journaling ones such as FAT32 (which is what 98 uses). Sure it's buggy on your hardware, most likely because the devs don't test it with it. Older PC's have their uses sure but they don't normally get used as desktops more or less servers/routers/firewalls that have no need for high speed or many desktop-like features.
As for ecology, look into recycling your machine, there are many groups that offer recycling for electronics I'm sure you won't have a problem finding one if you care to look.

towsonu2003
February 13th, 2006, 06:46 AM
- "**** people with old computers, they just have to upgrade": hey, first of all, where's your ecological sense
+1

: should we just throw millions of perfectly working computers to the garbage? Office machines were meant to last, they have rock-solid hardware. If right now a pentium II with 128 MB can run an excellent word processor at top notch speed, run presentations, play mp3s, small games, manage usb keys photo cameras and scanners, print, and browse the internet, I don't see the point of ditching it and upgrading. For what? To install an OS that offers nothing more than a bit more security and extra eye candy (read: Windows XP/any big linux distro)?

top notch speed->drivers->manufacturers
run presentations->search synaptic
mp3s->proprietary codecs
small games->search synaptic
usb keys->I use them in ubuntu??
photo cameras->drivers->manufacturers
internet->dillo, epiphany, galeon, lynx, elinks, searc synaptic
no upgrading->search distrowatch for something you want, need, and can settle for.


- "Windows 98 is slow / linux is not that slow": Ok, I'm writing this from a win 98 computer running on a pentium II with 128 MBs RAM. I installed it and locked it down with third-party programs so the six people who are using it can't install bad stuff on it. I also put a free anti-virus, and we're protected by our router's firewall. Well, it runs Office 2000 perfectly, actually it takes 1 or 2 seconds to open Word. In comparison, OpenOffice (the only reasonable alternative given our needs) takes 30 seconds and is slow as hell during use. ms office puts part of its code into the operating system so that it runs faster. do that with linux, you'll get too many people very angry


- I've tried hard to convert this computer and its users to linux, and I tested about 8 distros on it, both in pure and heavily customized form. Major distros, that match the features of win98, are way too slow, and sad to say, buggy.
install ubuntu with server option, than apt-get xubuntu-desktop


- there's no printer status icon when printing, and printing often gets buggy
you don't need a status icon to see that the printer is crapping out on you. buggy printer issue: manufacturer (as usual)


- multimedia/flash/etc are hard to install and behave buggilyemail those who make the software


- few distros are localized, and I need to install this one in french
too many people in the US... using linux... so distros are configured for them... see http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=France&basedon=All&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Active for french distros


- no automount such as under windows 98 (many solutions besides gnome or kde exist, none or them are recommended, and just getting a window to open with the drive content linux is multiuser oriented, u don't want people inserting cds to your server. but still, +1 - play around with your /etc/fstab


- the OS refuses to unmount the CD without apparent reason, and we need to reboot (I can't find the solution, let alone the average user)whenever I have that problem, I find out that something else is using the CD. don't browse it in nautilus while trying to unmount for example. also, sudo eject should help. you may need to open up a thread for that


- using SAMBA freezes the computeragain, a new thread -> you need it fixed.


- feature-wise, I can't find an equivalent program to MSN (yep, I've tried GAIM and Kopete, they didn't convince anybody)aMSN? what features do you need?


- no matter what ******* combination of speed optimization I try, OpenOffice is still slow as hell, and no other program has that level of compatibility with MS Office. And MS Office under Wine/Crossover is an awful buggy mess.try opening OOo documents in MS word. compatibility is hard, bc MS doesn't give you the specs you need. tell people to send you documents in formats you can read.


- sorry to say, even with xfce, openbox, as few services as I can afford (you can't cut much here if you want automount and other features), overall the total feeling and the the programs are slower than on Win 98.
add ram, it's cheap


I don't give up easily, and I tried every solution I could find on the internet, for several months. I also tried to install linux on many other computers. I had to give up due to popular demand. I check regularly the news to see if there's a new emphasis on speed, and thankfully OpenOffice, Gnome and KDE seem to be heading in that direction. But there's no alternative to Windows 98 yet.
http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=Old+computers&origin=All&basedon=All&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Active


In conclusion, I don't think the argument "gnu/linux is slower because it's a modern OS" holds water. +1

A more secure architecture doesn't mean it has to be slower. I'm sure you could design an OS faster AND more secure than win98. Bad programming and emphasis on features rather than performance make current linux distros slow. look tru distrowatch

Not to blame all the programmers who contributed time to these projects, but we need a new focus on simplicity and economy.
there are so many distros you can try for old computers. try distrowatch when you have free time

Isn't it a bit humiliating that no linux distro can match the feature set and usability of Windows 98 running on the same hardware?
hardware->proper drivers->manufacturers
usability->need to learn how to use a computer again, bc. u are using a new OS
feature set-> like?

As you see in my signature, I understand your frustration with hardware. but there's not much anyone can do about it... the best way to go about it is to do research bf buying. the difference is, linux doesn't have millions to give out to manufacturers to make deals (so they preinstalle linux instead of windows). there are linux installed computers out there, but they are too expensive bc they don't seel too many.

PS. install windows that predates your computer hardware, you'll see the "slowness factor"... when I reinstalled windows to this computer (XP on a 2.8 celeron 1GB RAM) it crapped out until I installed proprietary video (ati) drivers.

gabba
February 16th, 2006, 05:17 AM
I don't doubt that this is true for your computer, but every computer I've seen with 128 MB of RAM and Windows 98 has run slow as hell and doesn't open anything in 1 or 2 seconds, not even Explorer.

You really can't argue anecdotes--I'm sorry. We have a whole ton of these Windows 98 128 MB of RAM computers at work that are molasses slow. I pop a live CD of Knoppix in them, and they're faster running out of RAM. I'm not kidding.

This whole, "Well, in my experience" stuff just doesn't convince people because in their experience, something else happened. You need a study or a survey or some real benchmarks.

I did many win98 installs on many of my friends' desktop computers. I think this is a good benchmark, since I did the install myself on several different computers. And I can assure you that it is a very fast OS on any PII 350 MHz or more with 128 MB. And there are some pretty easy optimizations that make it even faster (such as setting a fixed swap file size). I'm talking about a clean install with only the apps you need.
The computers you have at work probably have some added software or networking stuff that make them slower. Often businesses customize heavily to meet their various needs, at the expense of performance.
On a desktop computer, windows 98 can become a mess after a while if you install and remove many apps.

About all the other replies: Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate your suggestions and your explanations. The point of my post was rather to confirm what the OP said: however good the reasons for it may be, Linux is currently not offering an upgrade path for windows 98 computers. Which is a pity, since it would be a great move, for:
- ecological reasons: reuse computers instead of using non-renewable resources to build some more (recycling costs quite a bit, too, and is never perfect).
- economical reasons: help third-world countries with donated hardware and free software; help small businesses by allowing them too keep their current hardware.
- the promotion of linux: it would show its usefulness in a very upfront way, and steal a huge marketshare from Microsoft. (Which could mean a snowball effect, with more hardware support for linux, and so on.)
- promoting once more efficient and useful programming. Coders are usually very proud when they can make more with less, such as making a great app or game with the limited resources or a cell phone or a portable console (nintendo DS, PSP...).

The time window to achieve this is quite small, as most businesses are probably planning their upgrades right now. But the free sofware world is known to move very fast at times, so with a big effort in the departments of speed, UI and program-desktop integration, I think it can be achieved.

The distribution that I know that is the closest to be a complete replacement for windows 98 is the current version of Vector Linux SOHO. But even it has a long way to go.

poofyhairguy
February 16th, 2006, 07:48 AM
Also i don't understand why people like me are viewed as more trollish than some of the "let them eat cake"="let them by a new 500 dollar dell posters? People who get those computers have xp so why would they want ubuntu? Are you interested in having people use it or not?

Maybe not all of us, but the developers are. I use Dapper today and I have been keeping up with it and pretty much all of the biggest improvements in the next Gnome release are going to be related to speed and memory use.

The next release will be as light as Ubuntu can be while remaining a modern OS.

bodhi.zazen
July 12th, 2006, 12:47 AM
wft?

Microsoft + Security = Oxymoron.

So what? What I want to know is what made you think the Linux/Ubuntu community cares. Post this information of a Microsoft forum to someone who cares.

One more reason not to run Microsoft products if you ask me. I gave up Microsoft several months ago and you should do the same.

If you play a Microsoft XP install CD backwards you will hear demonic voices worshiping Satan. Worse, if played forwards it installs Windows XP.

Rule
July 12th, 2006, 01:04 AM
I find with older computers slackware + XFCE or fluxbox works great :twisted:

briancurtin
July 12th, 2006, 01:08 AM
wft?

Microsoft + Security = Oxymoron.

So what? What I want to know is what made you think the Linux/Ubuntu community cares. Post this information of a Microsoft forum to someone who cares.

One more reason not to run Microsoft products if you ask me. I gave up Microsoft several months ago and you should do the same.

If you play a Microsoft XP install CD backwards you will hear demonic voices worshiping Satan. Worse, if played forwards it installs Windows XP.
misinformed

its a reason to not use MS software because they dont support incredibly old versions? stop using java then too, and lots of other software.

atezun
July 12th, 2006, 01:15 AM
I remember back when I was using an old pII 233 about a year and a half ago and the hell i wen through trying to find something suitable for it, because win 98 caused too many headaches for me, I eventually found an awesome little distro called COBIND desktop, it's a shame they don't make it anymore, it was XFCE with nautilus as it's file manager and some yum manager i can't rember for it's software management. It was based off Redhat 9. I still miss that distro. I also remeber using BeOSmax for awhile on that machine which made it feel blazing fast.

RJARRRPCGP
July 12th, 2006, 03:04 AM
Blaster harmed 95 users badly, and I remember having to work on a number of friends computers as a result of it.


The Blaster virus only exploited Windows NT-based operating systems, AFAIK.

whynotchevron
July 12th, 2006, 03:45 AM
Quote "If you like Windows 98 and Red Hat-based distros, use those. No one's holding a gun to your head and saying, "Use Ubuntu now or die!"

amen , just use what makes you happy :D i'll stick with ubuntu and kubuntu

bodhi.zazen
July 12th, 2006, 05:41 AM
briancurtin:

First this is a Linux site and I, for one, could care less about Microsoft, let alone Windows 98, let alone a lack of "security" provided with Microsoft. Do you honestly believe Microsoft provides security in any of it's products?

Second there are a long list of reasons not to use Microsoft products not the least of which is unethical business practices (of Microsoft) and security. I could give a long list of reasons, none of which have to do with old hardware. I would not run a microsoft product regardless of hardware/platform.

Third, Linux runs on old hardware better, faster, more secure then Windows. Try Vector, Debian, Slackware, Zenwalk, to name a few.

Fourth, what makes you think I run Java? What is the point of Java? It is just a security hole and running a browser on Linux without JAVA, Flash, etc is faster and more secure. I do not miss the fluff/pictures. Try Dillo- Fast, efficient, no cookies.

Last, yes I run bleeding edge software. Windows 98, is how old now? From what I recall there is no support for flash cards, USB, ZIP drives, or digital cameras. You can purchase a new computer, Linux installed for $129.

http://store.madtux.org/index.php?cPath=57

Features:
Quote:

For a limited time MadTux is offering a value-oriented PC that includes the following features:

* VIA C3 SamuelII 2000 800MHz processor
* 256MB PC-266 RAM included
* 8.4GB Hard Disk
* 100Mbps fast-ethernet port
* 128-bit 3D/2D Graphics engine
* Full-featured AGP v2.0 compliant 4x transfer mode AGP controller
* UltraDMA EIDE controller
* Memory expandable to 2GB
* Two 32-bit PC slots
* Two IDE connectors onboard
* VIA VT1612A 6-channel audio codec, Intel AC'97 compliant
* Two PS/2 ports for mouse and connector, one serial, one parallel ports, one VGP port, one LAN port, four USB 2.0 ports and audio jacks

The low-cost PC comes with a 30-day parts and labor warranty.

The image shown here is a representation only. Actual case may vary in style/color.

Note: you need to supply your own CD-ROM drive, monitor and keyboard.

Endquote

http://store.madtux.org/product_info.php?cPath=57&products_id=229&osCsid=10aad647f8de709a3f6367ed0b565135

For $129 what is the point of running Windows 98 on old hardware?

jason.b.c
July 12th, 2006, 06:18 AM
Ha Ha..:p I find this hilarious , That this topic was brought back up from the nearly forgoten months ago only one day after microsoft stopped their support and the topic with a reply about a win 95 virus..:eek:

:-k

beercz
July 12th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Microsoft: No security updates for 98, ME after July 2006?

Well, I am gutted!!!!!

FurryNemesis
July 13th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Here's a question, not that I'm trying to hijack, I just feel it's a side topic:

I'm assuming that malware writers go with the flow. They'll attack what's popular in order to cause havoc and generally wreck and steal things.

Deliberate hack-ins aside, how long will it be until OSs like Win98 are so obsolete that no malware writer can remember how/be bothered to write an expliot for it, thus rendering it de facto secure?

How long until computing architecture changes so much that today's viruses won't run, patches and upgrades regardless? Is there a time cycle for this, and is it based on upgrade cycles or hardware evolution?

bodhi.zazen
July 13th, 2006, 08:40 AM
FurryNemesis:

nteresting thoughts, but....

First Windows, as an OS, is very lax on security and the passage of time will not make it more secure. Microsoft is always behing the curve, releasing an OS or software and filling in holes later. Microsoft has never done a top-down security review of the OS and their firewall/Adware programs are a joke. Microsoft is busniss partners with the largest offender of spyware and their spyware removal tool overlooks anyone willing to pay the bribe.

Second, crackers have several motives and may include identity theft and using a hijacked computer to launch further attacks, against other computers, making it more difficult to track the perpetrator/cracker.

Knowing that there will never be any further security fixes now makes Windows 98/ME a perfect target. It should be no problem for crackers to search and destroy as many techniques can be automated and scans for know vulnerable systems will just become part of the cracking scripts. Since cracking is scripted it takes very little time to add vulnerabilities once they are identified, and once added to a script it would actually take time to remove. since there are no further security updates this means Windows 98/ME are sitting ducks and the passage of time only avails the crackers.

You make it sound as if you believe a cracker manually probes/attacks a computer.

The most powerful cracking techniques use programs (scripts) which automate the whole cracking process from identification of targets, to cracking into a computer, to hiding tracks and "reporting" back to the cracker. Just look at root kits for example. Or password cracking programs. To make matters worse, if I recall correctly, Windows 98/ME has no root/administrator password by default and the file system is wide open. Alas it has been some time since I have used Windows and my memory fails me.

I see nothing to support you hypothesis and anyone using Windows 98 on old hardware is a fool. First more modern hardware is easily available as is Linux/BSD which will run on older boxes no problem, just get Vector or an older version of Debian or Red Hat.

bodhi.zazen
July 14th, 2006, 01:14 AM
All you Windows 98 bone heads should try dyne:bolic.

Built on linux from scratch.

http://www.dynebolic.org/

From the home page:

"It is optimized to run on slower computers, turning them into a full media stations: the minimum you need is a pentium1 or k5 PC 64Mb RAM and IDE CD-ROM, or a modded XBOX game console - and if you have more than one, you can easily do clusters."

Yes, this is a live CD that will cluster you old computers and run on your old box.

Please, what is Windows 98 needed for?

briancurtin
July 14th, 2006, 01:47 AM
who said windows 98 was needed? you are just being too big of a linux fanboy at the moment. let me know when you back down a bit.

PatrickMay16
July 14th, 2006, 02:19 AM
Hello there! I'd just like to let you know that Windows 98 is pretty cool. I like it.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

moshuptrail
July 14th, 2006, 02:27 AM
and there are only two things you can do with windows ME
1) erase it and write over it with win98se
2) erase it and write over it with Ubuntu

djsroknrol
July 14th, 2006, 03:11 PM
It's not like Win98 is going to stop working.....support is going to stop, that's all. I remember how many people were still using 3.1 after 98 came out...even my lawyer was still using 3.1 at the time..a fellow poster said it best (thank you aysiu):

To each his own....

I still have 98SE on my 'puter, and don't intend to remove it anytime soon. I will not be using Internet on that desktop, but games and certain programs only, so I see no harm to the OS...I don't predict MS will come over the internet to melt my computer because 98SE is still on it...One needs to take precautions is all.

bodhi.zazen
July 15th, 2006, 02:27 PM
briancurtin:

This is a LINUX website. Of course I am a fan of Linux, what did you expect?. I personally use 100 % GNU/Linux.

Perhaps you should go to a Microsoft site if you want fans of Microsoft products.

Otherwise, let me know when you are no longer "just being too big of a" microsoft (windows 98) "fanboy at the moment". I mean if you want help running a program on Linux (Ubuntu or otherwise), configurating wine if needed, whatever, I am more then willing to help. But support an outdated Microsoft OS?; Try another forum.

Viper550
July 15th, 2006, 02:32 PM
I'm just going to switch my friend to Xubuntu...

kabus
July 15th, 2006, 02:53 PM
briancurtin:

This is a LINUX website. Of course I am a fan of Linux, what did you expect?.


I don't know about Mr. Curtin, but I expect people to be rational instead of being 'fans'. It's just a bloody OS, for god's sake.

Not calling anyone a 'bone head' would be nice, too.

bodhi.zazen
July 15th, 2006, 04:55 PM
kabus (and others):

You are correct, I am sorry and stand corrected. I was not thinking when I posted.

Calling me "linux fanboy" (briancurtin) and implying I am irrational (kabus), however, is equally offensive on your part(s) and equally inappropriate. My use of Linux is very well thought out. My reasons for using Linux are based on my analysis of security as well as GNU.

I would urge STRONG CAUTION if you use Windows 98 (or Microsoft) and are concerned regarding security. If you know what you are doing Windows can be hardened, but "out of the box" it is vulnerable.

I stand by my claims that Linux remains a viable option for older hardware. Windows 98 is well emulated with Wine.

I also suggest microsoft fans move to microsft forums if you desire microsoft enthusiasts. This is not the "proper" fourm to post concerns regarding security or updates for Windows 98/ME. Ubuntu does not maintain Windows and Ubuntu useres are less likely then microsoft users to be able to offer any type of assistance.

As I said earlier, if you would like help with Linux (Ubuntu or otherwise) I am willing to be of assistance.

blastus
July 15th, 2006, 09:52 PM
I thought that MS had dropped all support for even Windows 2000 a long time ago. Guess it's time to convert all those granmas and grandpas to Ubuntu. :cool:

Kernel Sanders
July 16th, 2006, 12:19 AM
I find it weird that some people feel that MS have a duty to support their products indefinately? 8 Years of support is pretty damn good IMHO.

tastefulasever
July 16th, 2006, 07:45 AM
Attention denizens of the Windows 95, 98 and ME variety. Microsoft doth loveth you not. Your Mother doth loveth you, Jesus doth loveth you, and Linux doth loveth you, but, Microsoft most assuredly doth not loveth you. Giveth not thine resources to yon stifler of ideas and productivity. Turnest thou eyes upon freedom. Embrace thy mother, embrace thy Jesus, and embrace the Penguin. Amen.