reverting to windows 98?

**1petros** · July 11th, 2004, 02:16 PM

I have a friend who swears by still using windows 98 because he believes that there aren't many virus' being made for it any more.

Can I get some pro's and cons on doing this, is there some validity in what he's saying or is this just a bad idea

**TechZ** · July 11th, 2004, 02:49 PM

The problem with win98 is that it probably has quite a few security flaws that havent or never will be addressed, he should atleast use a safe browser like Mozilla or IE6 with all the updates. As long as he uses a good antivirus and firewall and as NooNoo says doesnt play around with P2P apps, he should be safe.

Mozilla : Firefox 0.9.2 for Windows

**1petros** · July 13th, 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by TechZ

The problem with win98 is that it probably has quite a few security flaws that havent or never will be addressed, he should atleast use a safe browser like Mozilla or IE6 with all the updates. As long as he uses a good antivirus and firewall and as NooNoo says doesnt play around with P2P apps, he should be safe.

Mozilla : Firefox 0.9.2 for Windows

Thanks for the info techz! 1petros

**ShadowWynd** · July 13th, 2004, 08:07 PM

There is a certain element of truth to this. Win98 does not have the problems with running vulnerable services that plague the 2k/XP straight-out-of-the-box builds, so there is a certain immunity to Blaster / Sasser style worms.

I deal with probably 8-10 spyware/virus machines a week; I encounter many more XP machines that are too far corrupted and require a wipe/reload than 98se machines. Today came across a W95 system, no virus, no spyware - apparently W95 is even better at not running new viruses and spyware than W98.

I will agree with TechZ - a good firewall, a good antivirus, a patched system, and stay away from IE.

**mib** · July 14th, 2004, 01:16 AM

I agree with everyone that Windows 98 is less inclined to get infected with the more recent virus threat, like Blaster and Sasser, than the 2k/XP systems. In fact, I do not like the NTFS format at all, because it gets corrupted very easily.

However, one disadvantage with Win98, apart from the fact that Microsoft does not support it anymore, is when it comes time to install new software. For instance, Office 2003 will not work on Win98 at all.

If the user is not into installing new software, then he'll be fine.

**hudsonsmith** · July 14th, 2004, 06:24 AM

98 more secure than 2k/xp? I don't know what you guys are smoking but get me some. While it is true that some viruses and trojans do not effect 98, it is also true that 98 does not receive the level of security attention from ms that 2k/xp do. When vulnerabilities are discovered on xp, they are patched fast. With 98, you are lucky if they get patched at all.

If you are running the newest hardware, forget it. There simply is not adequate driver support for current hardware in 98.

The key is to keep your system patched, and maintain current A/V and firewall. Most importantly, don't download crap like kazaa onto your computer. All the patches and firewalls in the world won't help you if you open the door and invite the stuff in. My home system has been running for something like 4 years on the same W2K installation, and I've had no infiltrations of any kind.

**mib** · July 14th, 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by hudsonsmith

98 more secure than 2k/xp? I don't know what you guys are smoking but get me some. While it is true that some viruses and trojans do not effect 98, it is also true that 98 does not receive the level of security attention from ms that 2k/xp do. When vulnerabilities are discovered on xp, they are patched fast. With 98, you are lucky if they get patched at all.

If you are running the newest hardware, forget it. There simply is not adequate driver support for current hardware in 98.

The key is to keep your system patched, and maintain current A/V and firewall. Most importantly, don't download crap like kazaa onto your computer. All the patches and firewalls in the world won't help you if you open the door and invite the stuff in. My home system has been running for something like 4 years on the same W2K installation, and I've had no infiltrations of any kind.

Amen, Hudsonsmith.

We are not actually saying that Win98 is more secure than 2k/XP. What we are saying is that it is immune to recent virus attacks that target vulnerabilities in 2k/XP. That is not to say that it is immune to virus attacks, because many viruses also target Win98.

Furthermore, Microsoft has stopped supporting Win98. If you go to the Windows Update site, you will be warned accordingly.

Some new hardware, and software as well, like Office 2003, will not work on Win98 at all.

**corturbra** · July 14th, 2004, 08:04 AM

Well I've a Fujitsu PC that I have had for about 4 years, its running windows 98SE, has never been rebuilt uses IE6(soon to change to mozilla)/Office 2000, I've always had Zone Alarms/AVG installed.

I also do not install crap on it, like kazaa/napster etc

I have never ever been hit with a virus/hack.

So as for operating system, I'd say protect your a$$ and stick with what you're happy with. I stick with 98SE as it runs all my music/recording software quite happily.

Bear in mind though that MS don't support it, and new software/hardware will be harder to install, points all made above. I don't think it's anymore secure than anything else MS produce, by their very nature I don't think they understand the meaning of the word secure....

(IF IT AIN'T BROKE, LEAVE IT THE F**K ALONE)

**hudsonsmith** · July 14th, 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by corturbra

Well I've a Fujitsu PC that I have had for about 4 years, its running windows 98SE, has never been rebuilt uses IE6(soon to change to mozilla)/Office 2000, I've always had Zone Alarms/AVG installed.

I also do not install crap on it, like kazaa/napster etc

I have never ever been hit with a virus/hack.

So as for operating system, I'd say protect your a$$ and stick with what you're happy with. I stick with 98SE as it runs all my music/recording software quite happily.

Bear in mind though that MS don't support it, and new software/hardware will be harder to install, points all made above. I don't think it's anymore secure than anything else MS produce, by their very nature I don't think they understand the meaning of the word secure....

(IF IT AIN'T BROKE, LEAVE IT THE F**K ALONE)

I agree with you 100%. My point was that going out of your way to install a 6 year old OS on a new machine solely on the presumption of "security" was pointless.

**corturbra** · July 14th, 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by hudsonsmith

I agree with you 100%. My point was that going out of your way to install a 6 year old OS on a new machine solely on the presumption of "security" was pointless.

Yeah... I missed that bit. Don't you know I'm the one who doesn't read previous posts properly

I also agree with you 100%

**NooNoo** · July 14th, 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by mib

Amen, Hudsonsmith.

We are not actually saying that Win98 is more secure than 2k/XP. What we are saying is that it is immune to recent virus attacks that target vulnerabilities in 2k/XP. That is not to say that it is immune to virus attacks, because many viruses also target Win98.

Furthermore, Microsoft has stopped supporting Win98. If you go to the Windows Update site, you will be warned accordingly.

Some new hardware, and software as well, like Office 2003, will not work on Win98 at all.

I have noticed you tend to talk in the plural quite often, who is we?

**corturbra** · July 14th, 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by NooNoo

I have noticed you tend to talk in the plural quite often, who is we?

The royal we....

**TechZ** · July 14th, 2004, 03:33 PM

The we of teh WOTPP.

**mib** · July 15th, 2004, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by NooNoo

I have noticed you tend to talk in the plural quite often, who is we?

I did not know that I was doing this often.

Anyway, by we, I was referring to the similar comments that the other users were giving, which I thought hudsonsmith was reacting to. I was merely putting the "we" in the context of the previous posts.

**NooNoo** · July 15th, 2004, 03:00 AM

I think you can only use your point of view. It is hard to represent all the members here. I have occasionally used we in the context of the windrivers membership, but only in greeting a new member and requesting more details so that "we" can help.