Is a Windows 98se computer more, or less, of a security threat with IE 5.5 (unused) & Firefox, or with IE 6.0 & latest updates (unused) & Firefox?

Is a Windows 98se computer more, or less, of a security threat with IE
5.5 with all critical updates (unused) & Firefox browser, or with IE
6.0 & latest updates (unused) & Firefox?

I discussed this last year or before on this group & others. At that
time people's opinions led me to stay with IE 5.5. And I have to say
we've had virtually no problems.

Our strategy for a small company was that Windows 98SE seemed safe
enough with only the critical updates for Windows itself & IE 5.5
updates. We use FireFox for our browser, but we do use Outlook
Express for e-mail, which I know is part of the IE package.

The way i'm thinking is that IE 6 is more of a target, and we're not
really using it anyhow. Keeping Windows secure is still an issue.

The disadvantages of us upgrading all of the computers to IE 6 are:

#1 Constant monthly updates Microsoft requires us to install, where as
with IE 5.5 updates on generally every several months. One would
think that if there were a serious problem, they'd address it. The
company I work for doesn't have the budget to keep me working enough
hours just to deal with all the constant updates from IE 6. I know
after July Win98 itself might be unsafe finally and we may finally
decide to replace all the older pcs. But we'll see. We'd rather
replace them as needed by software requirements.

#2 Microsoft has a history of releasing Windows updates that seem to
have a lack of testing, and very often installing the updates when
first released actually causes many problems for many users. At least

with IE 5.5, updates are less frequent.

#3 Machines running IE 6 often run slower on our older computers, but
since using FireFox maybe this is no longer a problem. Some users
have complained about IE 6 or Outlook 6 running slower than what they
had previously (IE 5.5). Most of these computers are Celeron 600mhz,
128 megs of ram. We have about 30 of them.

We now also have about 8 or 9 Windows XP Pro machines, and they come
with IE 6 and i'm certainly not about to down grade IE 5.5 as IE 6 is
standard for XP.

We've certainly started to replace these older computers, but i'd hate
to have to replace them just over security issues alone. They are
many times the processing power & ram for the applications we run at
present. A better investment would be to wait until Vista is out and
at least we'd know yet another major upgrade isn't just around the
corner again. When most of the machines are finally XP or Vista, at
least then i'll have to option of using WSUS which might speed up the
process a bit, but some administrators are telling me they prefer
manual updates anyhow.

> I'm aware IE SP1 is listed as a critical update, but choose not to
> install it as IE6 is probably more of a target. We use the latest
> version of FireFox as the primary web browser.

Response back to me:

>>>>>IE is very much part & parcel of Windows: Without IE6 SP1 installed, Windows
>>>>>is /not/ as secure as it could be, no matter what browser you use; therefore
>>>>>your machine is in fact "more of a target." <w>
>>>>>
>>>>>PA Bear


Members of this list please advise. All point of views are welcome.
I'm not disagreeing with you PA Bear. From talking to many people
about this topic, there seem to be some different opinions on the
subject by numerous experts. Many MSCE's have steered me towards
sticking with IE5.5 (but using FireFox instead) and Windows 98se for
now if our budget is really that tight.

Thanks.

Bear in mind that support for IE6 RTM and SP1 also expires very soon - there
won't be many updates for them, either!

IE6SP1 is considerably more secure than IE5.5 - and this holds even if it's
not used as the browser. Parts of IE are used by the OS for different
things, including rendering help files, etc., and infestations of malware
can attack unpatched (which is what IE5.5 is) versions a lot easier than
patched versions. Tightening the security down on IE6 is also better.

Since upgrading to IE6SP1 is a no-cash-cost option, I'm really at a loss to
see what prevented you doing it when it made most sense to do so - two years
ago.
--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Nate Goulet" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Members of this list please advise. All point of views are welcome.
> I'm not disagreeing with you PA Bear. From talking to many people
> about this topic, there seem to be some different opinions on the
> subject by numerous experts. Many MSCE's have steered me towards
> sticking with IE5.5 (but using FireFox instead) and Windows 98se for
> now if our budget is really that tight.
>
> Thanks.

I imagine he didn't upgrade to IE6 because it doesn't run well on 98SE. I
had IE6 5 minutes after it was originally released by Microsoft and, one
week later, I reverted to IE5.5 due to the non display of images problem
that many of us saw back then and the fact that it was much slower. I still
use IE5.5. IE6 has improved considerably since the original version was
released but it is simply not intended for 98/98SE. I also use Fx as the
default browser on that computer. I am just an individual though and do not
have the concerns a business might have. I am not worried about getting
infected because I use IE5.5 on that computer.

"Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Bear in mind that support for IE6 RTM and SP1 also expires very soon -
> there won't be many updates for them, either!
>
> IE6SP1 is considerably more secure than IE5.5 - and this holds even if
> it's not used as the browser. Parts of IE are used by the OS for different
> things, including rendering help files, etc., and infestations of malware
> can attack unpatched (which is what IE5.5 is) versions a lot easier than
> patched versions. Tightening the security down on IE6 is also better.
>
> Since upgrading to IE6SP1 is a no-cash-cost option, I'm really at a loss
> to see what prevented you doing it when it made most sense to do so - two
> years ago.
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> "Nate Goulet" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Members of this list please advise. All point of views are welcome.
>> I'm not disagreeing with you PA Bear. From talking to many people
>> about this topic, there seem to be some different opinions on the
>> subject by numerous experts. Many MSCE's have steered me towards
>> sticking with IE5.5 (but using FireFox instead) and Windows 98se for
>> now if our budget is really that tight.
>>
>> Thanks.
>

IE6 has no problems whatever with 98SE (I can't speak for 98FE, as I've
never used it there) - such problems as mostly existed when it came out were
due to either malware, misconfiguration, Norton <g> - those of you who know
me will maybe have been wondering when I was going to get that one in!>, or
low resource/memory problems.
I'd be willing to bet that if you were to upgrade your system today, that it
would be unlikely to show the same problems you seem to have experienced
then.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Melelina" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I imagine he didn't upgrade to IE6 because it doesn't run well on 98SE. I
>had IE6 5 minutes after it was originally released by Microsoft and, one
>week later, I reverted to IE5.5 due to the non display of images problem
>that many of us saw back then and the fact that it was much slower. I
>still use IE5.5. IE6 has improved considerably since the original version
>was released but it is simply not intended for 98/98SE. I also use Fx as
>the default browser on that computer. I am just an individual though and do
>not have the concerns a business might have. I am not worried about getting
>infected because I use IE5.5 on that computer.
>
> "Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Bear in mind that support for IE6 RTM and SP1 also expires very soon -
>> there won't be many updates for them, either!
>>
>> IE6SP1 is considerably more secure than IE5.5 - and this holds even if
>> it's not used as the browser. Parts of IE are used by the OS for
>> different things, including rendering help files, etc., and infestations
>> of malware can attack unpatched (which is what IE5.5 is) versions a lot
>> easier than patched versions. Tightening the security down on IE6 is also
>> better.
>>
>> Since upgrading to IE6SP1 is a no-cash-cost option, I'm really at a loss
>> to see what prevented you doing it when it made most sense to do so - two
>> years ago.
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>> "Nate Goulet" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Members of this list please advise. All point of views are welcome.
>>> I'm not disagreeing with you PA Bear. From talking to many people
>>> about this topic, there seem to be some different opinions on the
>>> subject by numerous experts. Many MSCE's have steered me towards
>>> sticking with IE5.5 (but using FireFox instead) and Windows 98se for
>>> now if our budget is really that tight.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>
>

I didn't have any malware, it was not misconfigured, and low resources were
not the problem plus I have sufficient memory for that box (224MB). I did
have Norton 2001 though. I have heard a ton of complaints over the years
about Norton but not about NAV 2001. That was the last good NAV. I left
Symantec in 2002 for NOD32. Possibly NAV 2001 was a partial culprit but so
many people had the same problem at the time that I think it was more likely
an IE6 bug which certainly may not be there now if I were to upgrade that
computer again (plus I have Bit Defender free on it now).

"Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
news:...
> IE6 has no problems whatever with 98SE (I can't speak for 98FE, as I've
> never used it there) - such problems as mostly existed when it came out
> were due to either malware, misconfiguration, Norton <g> - those of you
> who know me will maybe have been wondering when I was going to get that
> one in!>, or low resource/memory problems.
> I'd be willing to bet that if you were to upgrade your system today, that
> it would be unlikely to show the same problems you seem to have
> experienced then.
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> "Melelina" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I imagine he didn't upgrade to IE6 because it doesn't run well on 98SE. I
>>had IE6 5 minutes after it was originally released by Microsoft and, one
>>week later, I reverted to IE5.5 due to the non display of images problem
>>that many of us saw back then and the fact that it was much slower. I
>>still use IE5.5. IE6 has improved considerably since the original version
>>was released but it is simply not intended for 98/98SE. I also use Fx as
>>the default browser on that computer. I am just an individual though and
>>do not have the concerns a business might have. I am not worried about
>>getting infected because I use IE5.5 on that computer.
>>
>> "Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Bear in mind that support for IE6 RTM and SP1 also expires very soon -
>>> there won't be many updates for them, either!
>>>
>>> IE6SP1 is considerably more secure than IE5.5 - and this holds even if
>>> it's not used as the browser. Parts of IE are used by the OS for
>>> different things, including rendering help files, etc., and infestations
>>> of malware can attack unpatched (which is what IE5.5 is) versions a lot
>>> easier than patched versions. Tightening the security down on IE6 is
>>> also better.
>>>
>>> Since upgrading to IE6SP1 is a no-cash-cost option, I'm really at a loss
>>> to see what prevented you doing it when it made most sense to do so -
>>> two years ago.
>>> --
>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>
>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>
>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>> NG's
>>> "Nate Goulet" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> Members of this list please advise. All point of views are welcome.
>>>> I'm not disagreeing with you PA Bear. From talking to many people
>>>> about this topic, there seem to be some different opinions on the
>>>> subject by numerous experts. Many MSCE's have steered me towards
>>>> sticking with IE5.5 (but using FireFox instead) and Windows 98se for
>>>> now if our budget is really that tight.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>
>

So long as you disable your AV (or run the IE install from Safe Mode) then
there should be no problems.
NAV 2000 and 2001 both caused me severe problems - but I was in Win ME, and
Symantec have never fully supported that OS (or any other, come to that,
since they bought the product from Peter Norton - it's just that the
failings got more noticeable over time!). In the Win ME groups which are my
habitual home, the use of Symantec Software it the single greatest cause of
problems (outside 'user error').

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Melelina" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I didn't have any malware, it was not misconfigured, and low resources were
>not the problem plus I have sufficient memory for that box (224MB). I did
>have Norton 2001 though. I have heard a ton of complaints over the years
>about Norton but not about NAV 2001. That was the last good NAV. I left
>Symantec in 2002 for NOD32. Possibly NAV 2001 was a partial culprit but so
>many people had the same problem at the time that I think it was more
>likely an IE6 bug which certainly may not be there now if I were to upgrade
>that computer again (plus I have Bit Defender free on it now).
>
> "Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> IE6 has no problems whatever with 98SE (I can't speak for 98FE, as I've
>> never used it there) - such problems as mostly existed when it came out
>> were due to either malware, misconfiguration, Norton <g> - those of you
>> who know me will maybe have been wondering when I was going to get that
>> one in!>, or low resource/memory problems.
>> I'd be willing to bet that if you were to upgrade your system today, that
>> it would be unlikely to show the same problems you seem to have
>> experienced then.
>>
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>> "Melelina" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>I imagine he didn't upgrade to IE6 because it doesn't run well on 98SE. I
>>>had IE6 5 minutes after it was originally released by Microsoft and, one
>>>week later, I reverted to IE5.5 due to the non display of images problem
>>>that many of us saw back then and the fact that it was much slower. I
>>>still use IE5.5. IE6 has improved considerably since the original version
>>>was released but it is simply not intended for 98/98SE. I also use Fx as
>>>the default browser on that computer. I am just an individual though and
>>>do not have the concerns a business might have. I am not worried about
>>>getting infected because I use IE5.5 on that computer.
>>>
>>> "Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> Bear in mind that support for IE6 RTM and SP1 also expires very soon -
>>>> there won't be many updates for them, either!
>>>>
>>>> IE6SP1 is considerably more secure than IE5.5 - and this holds even if
>>>> it's not used as the browser. Parts of IE are used by the OS for
>>>> different things, including rendering help files, etc., and
>>>> infestations of malware can attack unpatched (which is what IE5.5 is)
>>>> versions a lot easier than patched versions. Tightening the security
>>>> down on IE6 is also better.
>>>>
>>>> Since upgrading to IE6SP1 is a no-cash-cost option, I'm really at a
>>>> loss to see what prevented you doing it when it made most sense to do
>>>> so - two years ago.
>>>> --
>>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>>
>>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>>
>>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>>> NG's
>>>> "Nate Goulet" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> Members of this list please advise. All point of views are welcome.
>>>>> I'm not disagreeing with you PA Bear. From talking to many people
>>>>> about this topic, there seem to be some different opinions on the
>>>>> subject by numerous experts. Many MSCE's have steered me towards
>>>>> sticking with IE5.5 (but using FireFox instead) and Windows 98se for
>>>>> now if our budget is really that tight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Well, I won't be upgrading but that is because Microsoft has seen fit, after
my using 98SE for over seven years, to suddenly accuse me of being a thief.
It is utterly ridiculous that Microsoft says I have to validate that very
old software on that very old computer. Is Microsoft giving away valid
copies of 98SE to all those found to have pirated the software?

"Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> So long as you disable your AV (or run the IE install from Safe Mode) then
> there should be no problems.
> NAV 2000 and 2001 both caused me severe problems - but I was in Win ME,
> and Symantec have never fully supported that OS (or any other, come to
> that, since they bought the product from Peter Norton - it's just that the
> failings got more noticeable over time!). In the Win ME groups which are
> my habitual home, the use of Symantec Software it the single greatest
> cause of problems (outside 'user error').
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> "Melelina" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I didn't have any malware, it was not misconfigured, and low resources
>>were not the problem plus I have sufficient memory for that box (224MB). I
>>did have Norton 2001 though. I have heard a ton of complaints over the
>>years about Norton but not about NAV 2001. That was the last good NAV. I
>>left Symantec in 2002 for NOD32. Possibly NAV 2001 was a partial culprit
>>but so many people had the same problem at the time that I think it was
>>more likely an IE6 bug which certainly may not be there now if I were to
>>upgrade that computer again (plus I have Bit Defender free on it now).
>>
>> "Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> IE6 has no problems whatever with 98SE (I can't speak for 98FE, as I've
>>> never used it there) - such problems as mostly existed when it came out
>>> were due to either malware, misconfiguration, Norton <g> - those of you
>>> who know me will maybe have been wondering when I was going to get that
>>> one in!>, or low resource/memory problems.
>>> I'd be willing to bet that if you were to upgrade your system today,
>>> that it would be unlikely to show the same problems you seem to have
>>> experienced then.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>
>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>
>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>> NG's
>>> "Melelina" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>>I imagine he didn't upgrade to IE6 because it doesn't run well on 98SE.
>>>>I had IE6 5 minutes after it was originally released by Microsoft and,
>>>>one week later, I reverted to IE5.5 due to the non display of images
>>>>problem that many of us saw back then and the fact that it was much
>>>>slower. I still use IE5.5. IE6 has improved considerably since the
>>>>original version was released but it is simply not intended for 98/98SE.
>>>>I also use Fx as the default browser on that computer. I am just an
>>>>individual though and do not have the concerns a business might have. I
>>>>am not worried about getting infected because I use IE5.5 on that
>>>>computer.
>>>>
>>>> "Noel Paton" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> Bear in mind that support for IE6 RTM and SP1 also expires very soon -
>>>>> there won't be many updates for them, either!
>>>>>
>>>>> IE6SP1 is considerably more secure than IE5.5 - and this holds even if
>>>>> it's not used as the browser. Parts of IE are used by the OS for
>>>>> different things, including rendering help files, etc., and
>>>>> infestations of malware can attack unpatched (which is what IE5.5 is)
>>>>> versions a lot easier than patched versions. Tightening the security
>>>>> down on IE6 is also better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since upgrading to IE6SP1 is a no-cash-cost option, I'm really at a
>>>>> loss to see what prevented you doing it when it made most sense to do
>>>>> so - two years ago.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>>>> http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>>>
>>>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>>>> NG's
>>>>> "Nate Goulet" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> Members of this list please advise. All point of views are welcome.
>>>>>> I'm not disagreeing with you PA Bear. From talking to many people
>>>>>> about this topic, there seem to be some different opinions on the
>>>>>> subject by numerous experts. Many MSCE's have steered me towards
>>>>>> sticking with IE5.5 (but using FireFox instead) and Windows 98se for
>>>>>> now if our budget is really that tight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Melelina <> wrote:

> Well, I won't be upgrading but that is because Microsoft has seen
> fit, after my using 98SE for over seven years, to suddenly accuse me
> of being a thief. It is utterly ridiculous that Microsoft says I have
> to validate that very old software on that very old computer. Is
> Microsoft giving away valid copies of 98SE to all those found to have
> pirated the software?

Can you clarify your problem a little? Validation is not required for
Windows 98 users.

--
Robin Walker [MVP Networking]

It's not required, no - but we/they still have to go through the hoops!
Try it for yourself, in a Win98SE or ME system - go to any KB that has a
validation-aware download, and see what happens.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
"Robin Walker [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:e0i%...
> Melelina <> wrote:
>
>> Well, I won't be upgrading but that is because Microsoft has seen
>> fit, after my using 98SE for over seven years, to suddenly accuse me
>> of being a thief. It is utterly ridiculous that Microsoft says I have
>> to validate that very old software on that very old computer. Is
>> Microsoft giving away valid copies of 98SE to all those found to have
>> pirated the software?
>
> Can you clarify your problem a little? Validation is not required for
> Windows 98 users.
>
> --
> Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
>
>

Last year. when I went for a download for 98x.
I was presented with the fact WGA was required.
However, in bold highlighted yellow it stated something like:
if you desired not to, just "click here" to proceed with download.
It was completely optional.
I chose to install:
Windows Genuine Advantage Validation Tool
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\LegitCheckControl.DLL
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\GWFSPidGen.DLL
v. 1,5,0,42 Friday, January 28, 2005 15:37:58
because I didn't want to see that each time.
Also did the same for XP at that time.
--
mae

"Robin Walker [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:e0i%...
| Melelina <> wrote:
-snip|
| Can you clarify your problem a little? Validation is not required for
| Windows 98 users.
|
| --
| Robin Walker [MVP Networking]
|
|
|