RayLopez99 wrote:
 
> And there are people who still believe in MS-DOS (and it's
> 'virus free').

And you missed one of my other points.

By running win-9x/me, I continue to "enjoy" the benefits of using a
WIN32-API-based OS, with essentially the same desktop and file-system
user experience as win-NT based systems. I can run many of the same
secondary programs that make computers useful (office productivity,
multimedia creation and experience, internet connectivity / web browsing
/ media experience) etc.

But because 9x/me is a fundamentally different animal "under the hood"
at the kernel level, it does not come with the baggage of the dozens or
hundreds of vulnerabilities of remote code execution and remote control
that has been discovered (and most times patched, sometimes not) found
in the increasing complexity and bloat in the code of the NT line of
Windoze.

Sometimes there is "security in simplicity", and that is exactly the
strength of 9x/me.  It is not or was not "security because of obscurity"
- because even during the years 2000 through 2005 (when 9x/me systems
were in heavy use) it was Win-2k and XP that were hacked in many
different ways.  

There were no IE-based (or web-based) vulnerabilities that I know of
that could cause code execution and payload downloading on 9x/me
systems, and certainly none of the 6 or so worm families that existed
roughly between 2000 through 2006 were ever shown to work against
9x/me.  9x/me was really only vulnerable to email attachments executed
by the user, but otherwise couldn't really be tripped up and exploited
by the tricks used against NT-based systems.

> I've never had a serious problem with viruses in Windows NT or
> subsequent versions.  

And many people don't know that their XP, vista, 7 or 8 systems are
hacked and participating in botnet operations, sending spam, performing
ddos, keylogging, etc.  

> If you're really paranoid about protection

which I am not.

I am not influenced by peer pressure or marketing.  Back in 2002 - 2004
I needed to be convinced that XP was a better OS than win-98.  I needed
to be shown the advantages of XP and that those advantages outweighed
the disadvantages of learning the differences in various settings and
functions on XP vs 98.

As XP-sp0 and SP-1 were found to be incredibly vulnerable to a new
universe of emerging exploits, it was clear that Macro$haft rushed to
release XP into consumer hands as a way to circumvent software sharing
(as file-sharing was emerging and causing alarm in the music world). 
9x/me did not have remote activation and de-activation, so copies of
could be freely distributed (along with product keys) and freely
installed.  

I stuck with 98, built new systems with better / faster hardware and
found that 98 runs very well with 512 mb ram.  I now have 2 gb (using a
memory patch that allows full use of that) and with NUSB can use all
sorts of thumb drives, and using SATA drives up to t2b is easy.

> If you're really paranoid about protection

Since I've found that no malware has ever made it's way onto my win-98
systems, I've stopped using AV products many years ago.  What I have is
a WIN32 platform that is almost indistinguisable to XP from a
user/desktop/productivity point of view that has none of the
vulnerabilities that the NT-based line has.

> I guess you could surf the net using some small market share
> OS like Linux from a Windows Virtual Machine, like Oracle's
> VirtualBox.

I don't run 98 because NT-based versions of windows are insecure.  The
fact that 98 has shown itself to me to be secure (or, practically
invulnerable to web-based exploits) is a nice side-benefit.  I run 98
because *if it's not broke, don't fix it*.  I'm not fooled (like most
people are) by the emperor's new clothes.  In this case, tailored by
Micro$haft.
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2