Donated an old PII laptop with a Wireless PCMCIA card(a resource hog).
(The receiver can only connect to the internet through the network of a
generous neighbour.)

When setting it up again I discovered that the two lightest AV, Avira and
F-prot, ceased to support W9x-ME last year.
AVG minimum requirement is CPU 300MHz, which proved to be right. :-(
Besides, AVG will only support W9x-ME until August this year.
With Avast it became even worse.

Ad-Aware doesn't support W9x either.

In my experience it is limited what an ordinary user can or will adapt to
and manage, so I chose:
- Sygate firewall
- BitDefender Free (only an AV-scanner)
- Spybot S&D *without* the TeaTimer (against malware)
- K-Meleon browser (instead of the unsupported IE)

Should have liked a *light* replacement for Ad-Aware to complement Spybot,
though.


--
JP Loken

Opera e-mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[OK] JP Loken wrote:
Neither does Micro$oft so that should tell you something... it's time to
move on and upgrade to XP at least. Days of the old Win9x/ME are long over.


--
I filter all Google posts - sorry, way too much spam

Actually, Microsoft would love to see the end of XP too. We're having
a really tough time finding drivers to load XP images on new machines
that come with Vi$ta. It's almost like a thinly veiled collusion going
on with the larger OEM manufacturers and MS. They first say there is
no driver support for XP on the new equipment, then they try to talk
us into using Vista, then they finally break down and give us unlisted
links to XP drivers.

Grab a copy of XP while you have the chance. It's a really great OS.
But you're kind of caught between really old equipment and really new
equipment here. There are problems with both, as far as quality
software support goes.

If it was me I'd use nLite to create a stripped down version of XP to
run:

<gubsq3lbkde46nnopt5s3rujmpl13esned@4ax.com>

I'd set it up without IE, really slim, slipstream critical updates,
set it all up, create and burn an image and just run Firefox and
NoScript to browse, no AV, probably an install of SuperAntiSpyware,
which is only a scanner in freeware version, and just live safely on
the net. The image can be reapplied anytime you want. Save everything
to another partition and you can literally install your OS everyday,
if you're that patient and think it necessary.

Stripped of all the unnecessary services XP will probably run better
than Win9x-ME. The NT File System rocks.

From: "REM" <REMbranded@netscape.com>


|
| Actually, Microsoft would love to see the end of XP too. We're having
| a really tough time finding drivers to load XP images on new machines
| that come with Vi$ta. It's almost like a thinly veiled collusion going
| on with the larger OEM manufacturers and MS. They first say there is
| no driver support for XP on the new equipment, then they try to talk
| us into using Vista, then they finally break down and give us unlisted
| links to XP drivers.
|
| Grab a copy of XP while you have the chance. It's a really great OS.
| But you're kind of caught between really old equipment and really new
| equipment here. There are problems with both, as far as quality
| software support goes.
|

Buy from Dell. You can request XP instead of Vista.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

REM <REMbranded@netscape.com> wrote in
news:c1lsq3l6qln5vl096aj54tmuhntk72egl0@4ax.com:

Thinly veiled? Where have you been living the past few years?

It was made obvious from the very beginning that Microsoft would only
support hardware vendors who would release "Vista supported hardware."
Vista supported means that there are no drivers for any other OS, not even
XP. Thinly veiled?

"JP Loken" <jp_lokennospam@hotmailspam> wrote in newsp.t59ykmw0a82et9
@jplevo:

No, securing computers with Win98 has never been easier. Who attacks Win98?
That's almost as time wasting as attacking DOS.

A Win98 computer needs very little protection. I run 2000 with NO
protection except a firewall. Securing your computer is not about add-on
programs. It's about common sense.

On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, elaich <|@|.|> wrote:

Where did you source this "information" from? I think you'll find more
than a handful of "Vista supported" hardware at
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/23...dware-software
(just one example) that also supports (provides drivers for) other
Windows OS flavours.

Brian

"Me.Here" <my.email@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
news:47ae401f$0$13113$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u:


I think it continues to get better every year.

On 10 fév, 07:08, elaich <|@|.|> wrote:
Hmm. I'm running Win me, since i'm too lazy to change my habits and
i'm used to this OS; but sometimes i like to scan a just downloaded
file to be sure it's safe. I use Avast for it...

L

REM <REMbranded@netscape.com> wrote in
news:rilsq3dhpa2lf5ivs6i5dak13brr1eostd@4ax.com:

are still available.

Everybodys opinion is different, but mine is that W98SE is easy, and easy
to customize, mine has always been stable. W2K is inherently more stable,
not easy to customize but tolerable, it is my main OS these days. I also
have an XP Pro machine- don't like it. If it ever crashes, it will become
W2K.

Mike Sa

På Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:07:52 +0100, skrev Me.Here
<my.email@ddress.is.invalid>:

I know.
My problem is that the computers I get to redistribute are old, and I
rarely get a legal copy of W2k or XP.
I am contemplating one of the light Linux distros. Not belonging to the
computer generation the learning curve for these distros has unfortunately
been too steep.


--
JP Loken

Opera e-mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/

På Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:50:01 +0100, skrev REM <REMbranded@netscape.com>:

Thanks! Very interesting.
I will try that (with W2k, too).


--
JP Loken

Opera e-mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/

På Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:56:33 +0100, skrev ms <ms@invalid.com>:

Thanks. Downloaded. Will try.
I thougt the file was only for the new version.


--
JP Loken

Opera e-mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/

På Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:08:59 +0100, skrev elaich <|@|.|>:

<snip>
I agree.
Those of my receivers with W9x who have followed my stern advice and
stayed away from IE have in general a painless experience.


--
JP Loken

Opera e-mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"JP Loken" <jp_lokennospam@hotmailspam> wrote in
newsp.t59ykmw0a82et9@jplevo:

F-prot still works on W95.
AdAware SE works on W95.

One should also use non-MS mail and news readers.

J
--
Replies to: Nherr1professor2doktor31109(at)Oyahoo(dot)Tcom

On 10/02/08 00:07, Me.Here wrote:
Thing is that Win XP is not freeware to upgrade.

However, I'm running Windows 98SE and still continue to update Ad-Aware
SE and F-prot. Even so, I rarely use IE as I prefer Firefox as my
default browser which may be less prone to attacks.

Also consider setting up a Win98SE / Linux Ubuntu dual boot system.

Ed

På Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:24:14 +0100, skrev <me@tadyatam.invalid>:


They work on W9x, but they're not updated, which is quite essential, I
think.

About F-Prot:
http://www.f-prot.com/products/lifecycle_win.html
"Please note that F-PROT Antivirus will continue to be functional after
these dates (July 11th 2007, my remark) but updates of these versions will
no longer be available."

About Avira:
http://forum.avira.com/thread.php?threadid=17256
"31.03.2007 Avira AntiVir for Windows NT - replacement is Avira AntiVir
for Windows XP.
30.06.2007 Avira AntiVir for Windows 98, 98SE and ME - replacement is
AntiVIr for Windows XP.
VDF- and engine updates (inclusive VXD) for Avira AntiVir for Windows 98,
98SE and ME are still available till 31.12.2007.
This means you are still protected till the end of 2007."


--
JP Loken

Opera e-mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Feb 11, 4:43 pm, "JP Loken" <jp_lokennospam@hotmailspam> wrote:
I continue to use Win98SE with even more of a committment. I use
protection software which continues to support 98SE. Avast Free,
Spyware Blaster, Spyware Terminator (replaces AdAware), Sygate
Personal Firewall (version 5.5 2710, the version for Win98SE). As a
non-techie, the thorough scans I run with Avast + Spyware Terminator
are reassuring by their lack of problematic results, just my
experience.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:21:24 +0000, Ed <ex@directory> wrote:

Or run Win98 in a virtual machine (if you have plenty of RAM)
Just don't use VirtualBox - it's good but no support for Win98 (you
only get 640x480 and it runs as slow as a dog).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine