Unofficial Windows98SE Patch 417
usrid0 writes "A service pack for Windows 98 Second Edition has been released. Big deal, right? It is if it doesn't come from Microsoft. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Unofficial Windows98SE Patch
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
With your bare hands?!?
The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I'll rather be keeping my win98 systems safely protected behind nat and a strict firewall than trusting some stranger offering me unofficial service packs.
Re:The eternal question: (Score:3, Insightful)
just repackaged (Score:5, Insightful)
The article doesn't really specify, but it looks like this guy just too all the microsoft fixes and repackaged them. So most (if not all) of the stuff in it is 'official'
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious. Other than shareholders, to whom are they accountable?
Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The eternal question: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's stance (Score:2, Insightful)
(apologies for strange misspellings.. I'm typing on a broken mac keyboard with no light).
Re:What's so special?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, if it does prove safe its a nice shortcut for admins forced to work with Win98.
Re:Don't install this on non-english MS Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot plagiarizes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:guarantees... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft licenses its patches to allow redistribution, so long as they in the end get run on duly authorized installations of Windows. This package just wraps a bundle of patches up to each run in sequence... which is exactly what a Service Pack does, or a network admin does when he's pushing bunches of patches on his network...
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you trust Microsoft?
After all, they resfue to take on ANY legal liability for the security of your systems. If they intentionally shipped you broken software, what recourse do you think you have?
If this guy publishes real, verifiable contact information, I'd trust him, and I expect he does.
Of course, to me, asking if you can trust this guy is like asking if you can trust someone with the key to those shitty luggage locks they put on suitcases. If you gave a shit about security, you'd be using something else anyways.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Trustworthy? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that this comment from microsoft highlights one reason why open source is a much more trustworthy method than closed.
nick...
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wonder how this will work with 98lite (Score:3, Insightful)
Older RAM can be expensive... and many motherboards choke if you mix brands/models (slight speed differences). Let alone the fact that many boards are maxed out with low-density DIMM's and you would have to re-purchase the amount you have...
Laptop / portable systems... often very difficult to upgrade and they often don't have much RAM capacity in the first place.
Old hardware tricks are about making do. A $80 upgrade for a $30 system may not make sense to someone doing it for a special project.
Re:Do you trust Windows 98? (Score:5, Insightful)
To lend an air of legitimacy to his claims knowing no one will really backup their system. Or the trojan could be delayed by so long that by the time it activates the backups will be useless anyway.
Why would he have a disclaimer with dire warnings about 'no warranty' and "damages" rather than a statement that the software is "r33ly L33t" and that you need it now?
Well, literally, the disclaimer is saying he doesn't guarantee it not to screw up your system. It's reverse-reverse psychology: If I say it will definately work, no one will believe me, so I'll say it may not work and then they will think it will.
I'm not claiming it is or isn't malware, but the evidence you've provided is hardly compelling that it isn't.
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a joke? What happened to your Open Source Religion? If just anybody can offer a patch for linux, and you trust THEM, why won't you trust someone else offering a patch for Windoze? A bit hypocritical, don't you think?
Re:Trustworthy? (Score:3, Insightful)
> I think that this comment from microsoft highlights one reason why open source is a much more trustworthy method than closed.
Any entity that would blanket vouch for another's products without inspection or a solid track-record has suspect judgement, open source or not. Microsoft, not having expended resources regression-testing this unofficial service pack, did the right thing by not making any claims about it, just as Red Hat would do if I released patches for a six year old version for their distribution. There is no business reason to make such claims (and several compelling legal reasons not to).
Would you claim that $open_source_package is bug-free? malware free? regression tested? without first doing a through QC?
Microsoft patch vs some other guy patch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE (Score:3, Insightful)
seriously i have a 1960 chevy pickup that runn fine, a 69 chevell that rund fine as well as a 74 ford grand torino that runs fine. I also have a few newer cars that work good (arount 2000 models) but Nothing is functionally wrong with my older cars and I do drive them quite regularly. One still uses a lead substitue in the gas because i havn't rebuilt the motor yet.
I don't see any difference with a computer operating system. If it works as well as you need it too then why rush to spend more money and upgrade? On a side note I had a consultant try and sell me a dell dual xenon proccessor server with a large raid storage just to run a microsoft exchange server that would replace my postfix/ldap service (only 45 users) I already have in place on an over powered amd 2000+ with 120gig drive and 512 megs ram. I just didn't understand the point. Evidently some people seem to think you need the newest bigest stuff in order to run a computer efectivly.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't support it's customers, but instead only supports their customers who have paid for Microsoft's product AND who have also let Microsoft gouge them over support costs to have thier paid-for product supported.
John Q. Consumer doesn't have enough money to warrent Microsoft's attention.
If MS release a patch that hoses systems or installs a rootkit...
Similar things have happened before (unintentional, I'm sure). Microsoft fixed the problems at it's leisure, never apologizing and never being held truly accountable.
Sure, whatever. People have never really clamoured for blood when yet another virus broke out or yet another security hole was found. As far as I am aware, Microsoft has never paid for damages due to the problems with thier software. There are parts of their EULA that makes them immune to accountability, just for these reasons. Consumers just sit back and tolorate the problem until Microsoft get's around to fixing it.
I ask you this: Specifically, in what capacity is Microsoft accountable to it's customers?
Granted, they are accountable to the US DoJ and the EU Commission, but only because of the weight each carry and the fines they can impose.
In the end, I can see where you're coming from, and you have a decent point, but I think you're not really looking at the real Microsoft, but instead you're looking at the public image of Microsoft.
Re:Free Windows 9X, Microsoft take a hint! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's stance (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like that aspect of this patch. If I was to reload my computer today with windows 98se it would take around 6 hours finding all the trivial stuff to get my things working again. This is outside the 2 hours for windows update and all the reboots needed. I have one word for this guy, "thanks"
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
One the other hand, I have no problems installing this unofficial patch either. The worst that can happen is I have to wipe and reload. I have already placed it on another computer and I'm getting ready to start playing around with it.
If i would have any doubts about it, the difference would be because the source is availible for inspection and at least someone would have encountered something strange by the time i normally use other opensource programs. open source or linux using system admin tend to have alot of stricked network monitoring toold running and can tell when somethign isn't working right or is doing stuff it shouldn't. (of course i nkow i'm still gambling but the odds or good enough that i'm ready to play with them.)
Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell you what the fuck, by ssh'ing over into my Lin/Win98 dual boot machine, cd
Duke3d, Fox Ranger, Freddy Pharkas Frontier Pharmacist, God of Thunder, GTA 1, Keen 1-6, Keen Dreams, Kilrathi Saga, King's Quest 6, Loom, Master of Magic, Monkey Island 1-3, Night Raid, Raptor, SimCity, SimCity 2000, Solar Winds 1 & 2, Space Quest 5, Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, Star Trek: Judgement Rites, Tyrian, Wing Commander: Kilrathi Saga, Wing Commander IV, Wing Commander: Prophecy, Wing Commander: Armada, Wing Commander: Academy, Wing Commander: Privateer, Wolf3d, Wolf3d: Spear of Destiny, and X-Wing Alliance.
All great games. All bought and paid for. And none of which I want to stop playing just because I've changed main machine OSes in the meantime.
Re:The eternal question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, one could say the same about Open Source.
*ducks*
Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a gigantic danger for tech-heads who upgrade multiple times per year to be seriously out of touch with the consumer base at large.
Re:Microsoft patch vs some other guy patch (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure thousands could. Do you think thousands of people (critically) read (and understand) every last line of OO source?
Re:Pouring soda over your keyboard (Score:5, Insightful)
For the purposes I use my Windows box for, 98SE is definately the best version around.
First off, it's easy to easy to disinfect IE from it [litepc.com], which seems to greatly reduce the stability problems, in addition to taking care of the most commonly exploited security holes. Second, it supports a lot more games than 2000. You can also use 98lite to install the old '95 explorer.exe, which is a HUGE gain in usability over the later more annoying explorers. Unlike XP, it doesn't call home. And it's hellaciously fast on my fairly modern equipment, where XP would be just slow enough to make me want to waste a bunch of money on new components.
Re:"Windows 98" - *98* - 1998! - GET A LIFE (Score:4, Insightful)
If the person who's using the computer is not into using Linux, or the computer won't support a modern Linux GUI, Win98SE is a surprisingly decent OS. It doesn't need much memory, lots of hardware and software support, easy to use...
And, if you care to bother, it has a fully functional NAT inside it (ICS, if you care to use ICS-Configurator or play in the registry), and can function alright for most people.
And, when it eventually craps out, at least Fat32 drives are easily mountable
But I have to agree with the immediate parent, Win98 is one of the better OSes that MS has released.