I run Adaware, have a HOSTS file, keep Norton antivirus software up-to-date
and automatic scan on, and have a program (Windows Washer) that wipes out
cookies, temporary internet files and index.dat files. Do I need to add
Spybot????
I am running Windows 98.
Thank you,
Fern
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 02:18:12 GMT, "Fern" <Nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>I run Adaware, have a HOSTS file, keep Norton antivirus software up-to-date
>and automatic scan on, and have a program (Windows Washer) that wipes out
>cookies, temporary internet files and index.dat files. Do I need to add
>Spybot????
The more layered your defenses, the better. Since it's free and will
catch things Ad-Aware doesn't, why not run Spybot? I use both
Ad-Aware and Spybot and they complement each other quite nicely.
-----
Kyle Pope
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6
Keeper of the Edit List -
(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
"Fern" <Nospam@nospam.net> wrote in
news:E7Btb.207565$Tr4.611768@attbi_s03:
> I run Adaware, have a HOSTS file, keep Norton antivirus software
> up-to-date and automatic scan on, and have a program (Windows Washer)
> that wipes out cookies, temporary internet files and index.dat files.
> Do I need to add Spybot????
>
> I am running Windows 98.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Fern
>
>
Well, I have everything you have (exchanging Internet Sweeper for your
Window Washer).
In addition Norton Firewall, a router, Xp (bit more secure than W98). Also
run HijackThis, SpywareBlaster and Spybot.
Do I need any of it? Well, Psych-101 said I need air, food & shelter. Most
everything else is optional :-)
Like Kyle said, why not run Spybot?
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:34:49 GMT, Al Bundy <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
>... Xp (bit more secure than W98).
In some other universe maybe but not in this one.
-----
Kyle Pope
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6
Keeper of the Edit List -
(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
"Kyle Thomas Pope" <kurokyle@notmail.spam.not.com> wrote in message
news:jn0ervgkoqhuhlndng94oo7eajk0e35m8a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:34:49 GMT, Al Bundy <postmaster@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
> >... Xp (bit more secure than W98).
>
> In some other universe maybe but not in this one.
>
You ARE joking, right?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:49:34 +1100, "The person you think"
<spamis@the****house.com> wrote:
>> >... Xp (bit more secure than W98).
>>
>> In some other universe maybe but not in this one.
>>
>
>You ARE joking, right?
No, I am not.
-----
Kyle Pope
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6
Keeper of the Edit List -
(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
"Kyle Thomas Pope" <kurokyle@notmail.spam.not.com> wrote in message
news:bvugrv8r8fk3vs5ojktffvnvfbg35cgqln@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:49:34 +1100, "The person you think"
> <spamis@the****house.com> wrote:
>
> >> >... Xp (bit more secure than W98).
I'm new to all this stuff but please tell me how XP is more secure than 98.
It seems to want to call home (or somewhere) all the time.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:55:51 -0600, "little johnny"
<missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm new to all this stuff but please tell me how XP is more secure than 98.
>It seems to want to call home (or somewhere) all the time.
While no Windows version is ever going to take the prize for security
Win XP's lack of security has been a source of profound embarrassment
for Microsoft which publicly proclaimed it "the most secure Windows
ever." It may be but given the security record of Windows that's not
saying much. For Win XP to even operate is has to phone home and tell
MS all sorts of information on your computer's configuration. Win
98SE doesn't do this. Win 98SE is far from perfect but there's enough
third party stuff out there as well as many tweaks and adjustments to
allow you to harden your system up quite a bit.
There's also the fact that anytime you make any upgrade to your
computer that makes a major change to the hardware (adding or changing
hard drives, upgrading video or sound cards, changing the processor,
etc.) Win XP needs to phone home for permission to continue operating
on the new configuration. Not so with Win 98SE. And after Win XP
"dies" (when MS no longer supports it in favor of a newer OS) your
computer will be locked in because if you upgrade the machine Win XP
will no longer receive permission to keep operating requiring you to
upgrade to MS's new product. I can keep loading Win 98SE for as long
as I have the CD. And Microsoft's follow-up to Win XP (currently code
named Longhorn) is a real nightmare with its Palladium technology
which, when supported by Palladium enabled hardware, will allow third
party vendors to control what _your_ computer will be permitted to do.
Ultimately if you want true security you have to "upgrade" to Linux or
another open source operating system that allows you to see and adjust
exactly what every aspect of your computer is allowed to do.
Unfortunately Linux desktop functionality is limited compared to
Windows though that can be partially dealt with by having a dual boot
system. In any case my Windows experience has stopped at Win 98SE.
That's as far down the MS rabbit hole that I plan to go.
-----
Kyle Pope
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6
Keeper of the Edit List -
(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
"Kyle Thomas Pope" <kurokyle@notmail.spam.not.com> wrote in message
news:bvugrv8r8fk3vs5ojktffvnvfbg35cgqln@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:49:34 +1100, "The person you think"
> <spamis@the****house.com> wrote:
>
> >> >... Xp (bit more secure than W98).
> >>
> >> In some other universe maybe but not in this one.
> >>
> >
> >You ARE joking, right?
>
> No, I am not.
>
>
Then, you don't exist in the same plane of existence as reality if you think
98 is more secure than XP.
"The person you think" <spamis@the****house.com> wrote in
news:XNfub.57$W07.2383@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au:
>
> "Kyle Thomas Pope" <kurokyle@notmail.spam.not.com> wrote in message
> news:bvugrv8r8fk3vs5ojktffvnvfbg35cgqln@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:49:34 +1100, "The person you think"
>> <spamis@the****house.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >... Xp (bit more secure than W98).
>> >>
>> >> In some other universe maybe but not in this one.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You ARE joking, right?
>>
>> No, I am not.
>>
>>
>
> Then, you don't exist in the same plane of existence as reality if you
> think 98 is more secure than XP.
>
>
>
Hey folks. Didn't mean to start a range war here with the secure comment
and Xp/W98.
Maybe from a Phone Home perspective Xp is nastier. My comment was more
geared as people hacking in to the machine. I've always felt hackers look
at W98 like it was for amateurs. NT, W2k and Xp a bit more challenging. I
really have no proof.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote