NAV & symnrt.exe
in [Anti-Virus]
|
Prev: mrtstub.exe advice needed
Next: Scanning in safe mode?
From: Virus Guy on 3 Jan 2006 09:17 "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote: >>> Ditch XP and install Windows 98. >> >> Yeah, just what he needs. An non-supported OS. > > ..for which Microsloth will never issue a WMF exploit patch. <g> I take it <g> means <grin>, to indicate the irony that MS hasn't released a patch for XP for the WMF exploit, which illustrates the support priority they give to XP. Remember that Bill Gates is LOATH, and I mean he HATES to give XP the support it currently is getting. He thinks that he gave the world a new, free OS when he gave everyone SP2 for free. As for W-98 being un-supported, we see yet again another pseudo-sysadmin claiming a lack of support for Win-98 as the reason not to use it. What a lame reason. With 98se being out there for 5-6 years, could it be that the vast majority of it's failings have been fixed? Na, couldn't be that simple. Could it be that it just plain wasn't as broken as XP was when it first came out? If Win-98 is unsupported, then why does WindowsUpdate still serve up every and all critical updates for 98? How much support do you need?
From: Virus Guy on 4 Jan 2006 01:18
Art 2-threepenny bits wrote: > There are plenty of exploits ... for which for 9x versions > patches are not provided. Name some exploits for which Windows 98 is vulnerable and for which Microsoft has NOT provided a patch or fix. > However, I'm sure you realize the redundance of citing WU's' > serving up patches for 98' as proof of adequate support. It's proof ->of support<- Is it adequate support? I bet it is for most people. > I mean, what would you expect, patches to be written > for 98 but WU *not* provide access to them? Then what does Microsoft do for Win-XP (support-wise) that it doesn't do for 98? > I'm a bit fed up with seeing the 9x systems also affected by > the latest discovered flaw, There has only been speculation that 9X is affected. It's off-hand, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants speculation that "of course, all versions of Windows are affected by this, they must be". Are all versions of windows sufficiently similar to be affected by this current problem? Is that the knee-jerk speculation? If so, then the logical extension is that Macro$haft has been snowing us for the past 5 years with XP because it's obviously a dressed-up version of Win-98. > but for the majority of users 9x systems are > rapidly becoming, if not already are, no longer viable. What are you smoking? You want to practice safe hex? Then use Win-98 because it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that XP has been the biggest security farce and exploit-platform the world has ever seen. |