this post was submitted on
760 points (59% like it)
2,352 up votes 1,592 down votes

geek

unsubscribe173,125 readers

~83 users here now


Missed the best of Reddit yesterday? catch the daily recap and best links at tldr


Yup, you guessed it, geek stuff..

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 180 comments

[–]cloondog 385 points386 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Timely and relevant repost. Well done!

[–]thatoneguydunno 87 points88 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

According to these guys the Windows 98 market share has increased 100 % from June to July.

Very, very small print: from 0.03 % to 0.06 % and then back to 0.05 % but who's counting really. Let the percents do the talking.

[–]whatatwit 31 points32 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Former science journalists.

[–]Southbysouth 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What the hell happened in October 2010? 0.11% to 0.05% in one month?

[–]thatoneguydunno 145 points146 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The other guy upgraded.

[–]Malgas 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To ME, presumably.

[–]KillEmAll83 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sucks for him.

[–]pleatedzombus 39 points40 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Timmy hooked his grandma's Windows 98 machine to the internet. It quickly became infected with the computer equivalent of Super AIDS and went offline.

[–]wombat_jones 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh come on. It couldn't have installed Vista that fast!

[–]mccoyn 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

noise?

[–]CodeBlooded 89 points90 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I thought on Windows 98 you could just click "Cancel" to defeat that logon box. I used to do it all the time, or did Microsoft fix it with a service pack update?

Edit: just tested this in a virtual machine. There are no users by default in Win98, so any users you add are secondary; clicking Cancel on the login box logs on as the default user still.

[–]rnelsonee 61 points62 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You were supposed to be able to Cancel - it's just that you wouldn't be logged in as a networked user, so you couldn't access any network resources. I'm not sure if this method does either, although it is pretty funny.

[–]UnoriginalGuy 49 points50 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It doesn't. When you try and access remote resources, the OS sends your current user information automatically. If you're logged in as guest (and permissions aren't set to allow guest to access the resources) then you'd just get a prompt.

I do believe you could use this method to change the background picture displayed at the login screen however.

Ultimately Windows 9x weren't designed to be multi-user operating systems, and the fact that they supported it at all was just meant to be a nice perk, rather than a security feature.

Contrast that against the Windows NT based operating systems (and UNIX). Ironically when Windows 9x met NT in Windows XP, backwards compatibility did tons of harm to XP's security model, to the point where almost everyone ran as a local administrator making the entire multi-user security model almost completely worthless.

UAC hasn't really fixed that either. Just made people feel safer. It is easy to bypass.

[–]gospelwut 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People will always find escalation holes IMO. Really, I'd argue the big threats to the overall security model aren't the operating systems anymore, but rather they stem from 3rd party sources (e.g. Flash, PDFs, XSS Browser attacks, etc). Don't get me wrong, there are problems that get patched all the time. But, at least, those things get patched in a reasonable time (and can be expected to be more likely updated by the end user).

I mean, we could all use SELinux. I could also masturbate with sandpaper to clean off dead skin.

[–]UnoriginalGuy 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While I agree with you to a point, the difference between OS and third party exploits, is how easy they are to removed once discovered. If the OS had a robust security model, then the worst a piece of malware should be able to do is entirely wipe out a user account.

[–]gospelwut 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can see that, but I just always go under the assumption a single box can be compromised. My main concern, generally, is mitigation and identifying the threat as soon as possible. I agree that fixing OS problems can be more complicated and difficult to find, but Microsoft and more recently Apple have been doing a much better job then they were a decade ago.

A vast majority of the common malware threats are due to people's ignorance or laziness. You can properly harden your personal system to a reasonable point. Sure, that might mean having to whitelist javascript and be cautious about what you download/verify MD5 hashes. But, security in real life is cumbersome too.

If we're talking OS, what concerns me the most right now is the coming tablet-centric operating systems -- especially iOS4/5/Android. On the one hand, you have iOS which is extremely closed and runs on a device which in and of itself is closed/difficult to open. Then you have Android, which is going through the wild west syndrome. While Apple's AppStore is a bit draconian for my tastes, it's undeniable that stringent measures do help security if not stifle creativity.

[–]randomb0y 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

UAC hasn't really fixed that either. Just made people feel safer. It is easy to bypass.

I always thought that UAC was just "nagware" to prevent retards from accidentally opening a file they didn't want to open. It's still not very effective IMO.

[–]Pxtl 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You misunderstand. UAC isn't about you. It's about developers. Basically, its MS saying "You will make your programs conform to the NT security model or your software will be intensely irritating to users. Fix it or they will hate you".

[–]The_MAZZTer 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

More like "Your software does not properly run in a limited user environment, but instead of blocking it from running at all we are going to use this UAC dialog to work around your bugs for you."

Also with a dash of "Switching users to do anything with admin rights is annoying, so we'll make it possible to run limited but elevate individual applications".

Pretty much compatibility is Microsoft's #1 force behind anything they do to Windows. Whenever a new feature is added they have to make sure it doesn't break any old apps, or else businesses that use those apps won't upgrade their thousands of computers, no matter how horrible or buggy those apps may be.

[–]adenbley 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

fix it or you are causing users to be less safe. would you make this argument about the *nix model?

[–]VelvetElvis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wasn't that part of the issue with Jörg Schilling requiring root access to burn CDs with cdrtools? He was hated for a lot of reasons but I think that was one of them.

[–]ironiridis 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And his custom version of make.

[–]IamSparticles 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

UAC prevents processes from starting with admin privileges without explicit permission from the user. So if you have a malware virus or something on your system, it cannot do significant damage unless you intentionally allow it.

[–]andash 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And that's the thing, I think most, or at least many, people just click "Ok" when a box pops up

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

GNU/Linux does the same thing with sudo, yet nobody bashes Linux because of it.

[–]crackofdawn 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's a little bit different - in windows damn near anything can trigger a process to run with admin rights (even if it does require you to allow it). In linux, you are explicitly telling the OS you want to run something with admin rights, not just accepting a random dialog box that tells you to do it that popped up out of nowhere because you visited randommalwaresite.com in your web browser.

[–]adenbley 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

the only time you need admin rights is when a program requires them (or you are changing something about the system). the only reason a program would require them is because the programmer was too lazy, or the program actually needs it. there are only a handful of programs that "need" admin rights. so it is poor 3rd party programming, not microsoft who is to blame for this.

if i wrote a linux app that insisted on installing and writing to sbin it wouldn't be linux's fault that i had to su to use it.

[–]crackofdawn -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's still not much of a valid comparison. A valid comparison would be if you were sitting browsing the internet in Linux and all of a sudden a window popped up asking you if you wanted to allow /usr/local/bin/firefox access to /sbin. Now, obviously most Linux users would say no, but imagine if someone said yes and it whacked out their entire system? That is basically what is happening.

[–]The_MAZZTer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually they aren't different. Linux malware could easily launch a process using gk-sudo and prompt you for your password. So there's your random dialog box.

Only difference really, as I said above, UAC is not a security boundary, from what I know sudo is supposed to be. Also if you run as a truely Limited User you will be prompted for an administrative account name and password, closer to how sudo works. UAC only just shows the "Continue/Cancel" buttons if you're already an Administrator account.

[–]cryonine -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That stems from a systematic flaw with how Windows was designed. They focused on blacklisting rather than whitelisting, while Linux took the opposite (correct) approach. UAC in Windows 7 isn't really annoying and only prompts you when programs want elevated permissions or need to make changes to protected areas. Vista, on the other hand, was really annoying.

[–]adenbley 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

nothing is blacklisted in windows, i'm not sure why you think that. it works exactly the same way in both as far as i'm concerned. want to install something to the shared program files, need admin right. want to delete a system file, need admin rights. i use ubuntu, centos, and windows 7 all day every day.

[–]The_MAZZTer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

UAC is not a security boundary, it is not meant to stop malware.

[–]randomb0y 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The thing is that as far as I know smart viruses can circumvent that. The fact that it nags the user might make the user reconsider though.

[–]smort 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not an expert but the one computer magazine I trust (CT from Germany) recommended to set the UAC to highest when they did their windows 7 reports because the new default (compared to vista) sacrificed a lot in terms of security...

[–]lonewalker 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Privilege escalation exploits, buffer overruns does those, without the nags. Tho, ASLR protections in recent windows versions (Vista and newer) does thwart most of these kinds of attacks

/imho

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except... you can't. All programs allowed to self-elevate (like the control panel) run at a high integrity level. Normal processes run at a lower integrity level, and aren't allowed to inject keystrokes and mouse clicks into the windows of high integrity level processes.

Amazing. It's almost like the people who designed it weren't complete idiots.

[–]hadhad69 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, the problem is people just click through security alerts to get the latest MP3.VIDEO.DOWNLOADS.gif.exe

[–]The_MAZZTer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nothing Microsoft will do can stop these people. I think it's good not to try, at least from a developer standpoint. Let the corporate IT lock down their access rights to a bare minimum.

[–]IamSparticles 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not actually convinced that's possible, but even if it is, there's a simple solution. Log in as a standard user, the way you're supposed to. You won't have the rights to disable UAC.

[–]mallardtheduck 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It was supposed to be a login for the network, not the OS, so clicking 'cancel' just cancelled the login and let you proceed to the desktop. There was however always a registry/policy setting to require a network login, that seems to be enabled in this .gif. However, I'm not sure if the 'vulnerability' exploited was in Windows or the HP printer driver.

[–]radeky 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I thought Windows 98 didn't have any domain access and as such this would've had to be NT4?

[–]CodeBlooded 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

iirc, it had nothing to do with domain access, instead I think 98 was the first Windows to support multiple user accounts (stored in like C:\Windows\Profiles or something)... and if you set that up, you could just click cancel instead of logging in.

Edit: I just realized I have a Win98 virtual machine sitting around. The OS doesn't set up a user by default, so any users you add are secondary accounts from the default one (the user list is initially empty). So you can click cancel at the login box and log on as the default user.

[–]redwall_hp 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I actually have a Win98 computer sitting around. Complete with 15" CRT, Celeron processor, 128mb of RAM and a secondary optical drive that can write CD-Rs!

[–]The_MAZZTer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You also could access network resources as long as your username and password let you in (or Guest account with no password let you in ).

So not too different from modern-day account setup on XP/Vista/7 sans domain server, except 98 did not have ACLs so you could access other users files by default, unlike XP, and up. Probably a ton of other behind the scenes changes but functionally it's not too different.

[–]AnythingApplied 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I assume that was for guest log in and could be disabled.

[–]cairon 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

IIRC that was windows 95. they fixed it a little for 98

[–]CodeBlooded 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just realized I have a Win98 virtual machine sitting around. The OS doesn't set up a user by default, so any users you add are secondary accounts from the default one (the user list is initially empty). So you can click cancel at the login box and log on as the default user.

[–]Tiver 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At my school that would cause restrictive policies to be put in place. There was a far easier method than the one in this gif though to get access to the machine without the restrictions. ctrl+esc would bring up the task manager, file->run and explorer.exe would bring up the desktop. Just drag the login prompt out of the way and you're done.

[–]r4ygun 20 points21 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This would be a lot more useful for me as an IT professional if something like this existed for XP.

[–]bdavbdav 68 points69 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There sort of is. Safe mode will work when there is no explicit admin password set, however when there is (90% of the time now):

For XP / Server 2003 / Server 2008 / 7 / Vista:

  • Boot into recovery console

  • Navigate to windows folder

  • Rename SetHC.exe to something else (setHC.exe.bak)

  • Copy CMD.EXE to SetHC.exe

  • Boot back into windows proper

  • Shift X 5 at login screen

  • Root command prompt - net user administrator NewPassword

  • Reverse SetHC / CMD process so no-one else can do it without a faff.

[–]r4ygun 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's slick.

[–]Z80 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Shift X 5 at login screen

Sorry, don't get this part. Can you explain?

[–]bdavbdav 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you tap shift 5 times usually, you get sticky keys, which lets you tap CTRL then tap C, as opposed to holding CTRL and tapping C - I guess if you have mobility issues of some kind.

What this does is replace the StickyKeys binary (setHC) with the Command prompt, so when it tries to run the SK binary, it starts cmd instead.

[–]Z80 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Got it! Thanks a lot.

[–]Building 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What if StickyKeys is disabled?

[–]Tiver 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To my knowledge that is a per-user setting typically, and thus it will be available by default before a user has logged in. You likely could disable it system wide but if you're just using the control panel, it's only being done for the currently logged in user.

[–]shdwtek 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Won't Recovery Console ask for the admin password before you can navigate to any folders? Sorry if I'm missing something.

[–]bdavbdav 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Server 2k8 definitely doesn't need it (the only one I've tried it on personally), but theoretically Vista and 7 should work in exactly the same way.

[–]shdwtek 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hmm... I haven't tried it on Server 2k8, but I know on XP, unless I'm misunderstanding (very possible), when you first enter into Recovery Console, it asks for Administrator password, then gives you a command prompt. With Vista and 7, when booting into repair mode, I know it will ask for passwords before being able to access a Command Prompt, Restore, etc. I'd really like to understand, because I get people periodically who forget their passwords, and what you are saying looks helpful. :)

[–]The_MAZZTer 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Then you just use a Linux live cd instead to bypass ACLs entirely.

[–]shdwtek 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, usually what I do is boot to a Linux based password blanking cd. But I'll check first whether the data has been password protected as well, or else it could cause issues from what I understand.

[–]Tiver 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've done recovery console for server 2000 and 2003 recently and both needed admin password. I'd be very surprised if 2008 did not. You can however use a linux livecd to do the file swap as well.

[–]UR-ANUS 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You win, good sir.

[–]whateverradar 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

indeed

[–]UR-ANUS 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, there is a trick to bypass Windows XP security (doesn't work with Vista/Seven) :

  1. Boot your computer in safe mode with command prompt.

  2. once you’re at the command prompt, type “net users” (without quotes)

  3. You will see a list of usernames. Pick the username that you are using and type “net users username *” (without quotes, replace username with a real username from that username list)

  4. You will be asked to enter a new password and a second reconfirmation.

  5. ?????

  6. Profit.

[–]bdavbdav 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Only if there is no admin password - safe mode (in later SPs I believe) requires login if theres an admin pw set.

[–]UR-ANUS 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I honestly don't know, thanks for the info.

[–]poo-poo 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And if there is no password then you can just hit ctrl-alt-delete twice at the blue login screen and type administrator as the user and hit OK.

[–]r4ygun 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Has this security hole been patched if a workstation is fully updated?

[–]UR-ANUS 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Honestly, i don't know. Last time I've tried this trick, was several years ago, on a PC equipped with Xp SP3. It worked like a charm.

[–]r4ygun 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm guessing no then. I'll try to file it away in my personal memory banks for the next time I have to bail out one of my non-techy friends.

[–]bdavbdav 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Think it may still work on home, but not on pro.

[–]FrankReynolds 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]The_MAZZTer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Safe mode boots as Administrator user, so you are already on the other side of the airtight hatchway.

[–]Brianbot 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Even though windows provides the illusion you need a password to login, the rule of thumb is any computer where you can control what operating system the computer boots you can bypass the password in some way. Here are the ways I know how:

Linux / Mac: Boot into single user mode, mount root filesystem, change root password

Windows NT based systems (NT4/XP/Vista/7) user a password reset disk or a password cracking disk (here is a bunch: http://pcsupport.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/tp/passrecovery.htm)

All: You can always access all the files on the system without password with an Ubuntu Live CD.

All: Worst case scenario, reinstall the OS.

All that being said, on XP 9 times out of 10 the administrator password is blank. Just press ctrl+alt+del a few times so you can put in the username, type administrator, and hit login.

[–]r4ygun 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In any corporation worth its IT salt, group policy pushes down policy for local admin (in fact, when I create GPO, I disable the "administrator" account altogether.

[–]Brianbot 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Any corporation worth its IT salt wouldn't forget its administrative password, either.

[–]r4ygun 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are many different administrative passwords. I think we're only referring to the local admin password here.

A scenario where this would be relevant, even in a corporate setting is that an older workstation attached to a domain has a NIC that goes dead. Also, for some reason, GPO did not push out a new local admin account with a standard password.

So since you can't login through the domain (no NIC), getting in locally is your only way in, hence making a password hack necessary.

[–]1RedOne 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All: You can always access all the files on the system without password with an Ubuntu Live CD.

Not anymore! Have you ever tried Bitlocker on Windows 7 or TrueCrypt or other Encrypting File systems? These full-dick encryption systems make it impossible to get access to the data without at least some of the passwords.

[–]Brianbot 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, I am a fan of truecrypt and encfs (my personal favorite). I'm guessing still that the sort of person that would forget their password wouldn't use these tools either.

[–]ironiridis 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Linux / Mac: Boot into single user mode, mount root filesystem, change root password

I do like how there isn't a pretense of "security" here; given the right tools, any local password can be reset, and any domain policy settings can be disabled. Linux and OS X don't pretend like these tools don't exist. Nice.

All: You can always access all the files on the system without password with an Ubuntu Live CD.

Well, no. Not always. On Windows, any encrypted files are encrypted with the password for the account. Same deal with File Vault on OS X. If the password is forcibly reset in either case, the data isn't deleted but does become inaccessible.

[–]Smotpoker 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ultimate BootCD and Offline NT password reset. You could probably get it done about as fast as that gif just loaded.

[–]r4ygun 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah that's the route I've taken in the past. Luckily, I'm past the point in my career where this is something I have to take care of on a regular basis. It would be helpful for friends and family.

[–]illobo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I prefer Hiren's boot cd over UBCD. More tools, more fun.

[–]cesiumk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

KON-BOOT How to bypass without changing the password

[–]diskis 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

XP home allows passwordless admin logins in safe mode. So, if you do support for home users, no problem.

[–]gospelwut 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You... don't know about bypassing the XP password and you're an IT professional?

[–]r4ygun 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I said "something like this" in my comment. Of course I know there are numerous ways to bypass a local password.

For the most part, I have worked on machines attached to domains, so most times not an issue anyway.

Also, I haven't been desktop support in many years now. These type of things get rusty if you're not "on the front lines" actually doing them day-to-day.

[–]gravyenema 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pressing Esc seemed to work for me every time.

[–]netwiz101 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The title accurately describes what was done here but also misleads the user into thinking that you shouldn't be able to open a windows 98 session without a password.

It's not a security flaw. It seems counterintuitive, but this isn't your password for windows. It's your password for Microsoft Networking, and nothing in this animation defeated it. You will still need to enter a microsoft networking password to access microsoft network shares which are password protected.

This windows is intended as a convenience to the user, not a security wall.

[–]ironiridis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, but as you'll note in the animation, clicking "cancel" throws an error message that bounces the user back to the login prompt. So it's trying to be a security wall, and this is how you bypass it.

[–]brandonclyon 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I see you were browsing the same open directory everyone else was last night.

[–]aftli 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can you clue me in to what I missed last night? :(

[–]brandonclyon 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This which then lead to everyone trying the same thing and the link I just posted is one of the top google search results when you search just 'index.of'

[–]aftli 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks!

[–]dggenuine 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which open directory, silvousplait?

[–]brandonclyon 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://dontclickthis.whatingods.name/ - potentially NSFW, you've been warned.

[–]hyperhopper 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Where did it come from?

[–]omgwtfbbq69 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

who the fuck is still using windows 98?

[–]wub_wub 34 points35 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I had this in my repair shop few days ago, look how fast it is!... sigh

[–]Hazard666 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why on earth would someone pay to repair such a relic?

[–]bobqjones 28 points29 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

we see them all the time in factory settings. they never upgrade until it dies completely, and a lot of times the software was custom made and can't be ported to a newer OS. i was working on an OS2 2.0 box just the other day.

[–]Hazard666 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's crazy. I would be under the impression that it would be more cost effective and efficient to upgrade the entire department's system at that point, but that's just me not knowing any better.

[–]bobqjones 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

most of these we see are in the control system/HMI of a CNC router or mill. until it dies completely they won't pull it out of the cabinet. when we get them there will be 3" of sawdust in them and all dead fans...i've have bunches that die because metal flakes from a mill is getting onto the motherboard somehow, or are covered in oil/grease. nasty shit. inevitably the software is ancient. i see DOS all the time. these OEM machine manufacturers are bad to use one-off operating systems too, and when we get it, we find out the company that made it has been out of business for 15 years. so we have to recreate it from scratch.

[–]AnonymooseRedditor 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Been there :D I had to find a "new" machine with ISA slots..that was fun

[–]bobqjones 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

yeah. ISA is a headache. we get those LONG motion control boards that are like 14-18" long, they run the entire length of an old IBM XT metal case...try to find a replacement that has ISA AND has enough room for the bigass boards...funky power supplies abound too.

on the flip side, though, we get paid big money to fix this ancient shit.

[–]mccoyn -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Two seconds on Google

http://www.arstech.com/item-USB-2-0-to-ISA-card-ROHS-usb2isar.html

P.S. I feel bad for people with this problem.

[–]bobqjones 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you don't quite understand. going through USB is not always compatible. i've got tools/software i use every day that won't work through usb to serial devices. there has to be a physical serial port.

there are custom cards that require specific hardware interrupts or addresses that do not transfer over USB. this thing requires windows drivers to run, also.

a lot of the numerical control/PLC boards are full PCs on a card, talking to the motherboard via the hardware ISA bus. you can't do that over a USB adapter. i wish it were that simple.

[–]TheJosh 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Backorder: Currently Out Of Stock. This order will automatically ship once the item is in-stock.

[–]meeblek 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I run a medical lab. We have a hematology analyzer purchased in 2003 that has a 486DX running DOS controlling everything.

Luckily, the instrument manufacturer supports everything, I swear at it every time I see it boot up into DOS protected mode.

[–]bobqjones 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

yeah. it takes so long to develop some of these machines that the hardware in them is 10 years out of date by the time it gets to market. seems to be that way all across the board.

[–]JumpinJackHTML5 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I used to work for a department in a university and we had a couple ancient computers that were the controllers for some of the ultra-specialized tools. One of which was a Scanning Electron Microscope; its computer was running Windows 3.1.

I tried to get them to upgrade but found out that the manufacturer of the SEM took every measure they could to make sure you couldn't upgrade without buying a whole new SEM.

[–]crackofdawn 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are a lot of small shops that have custom software written to do their business, and paying another company to write all new software, or adopting some enterprise/official software would cost so much that it doesn't make sense to bother with it until you're forced to.

[–]Hazard666 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ah, touche. I was thinking more along the lines of customized off the shelf solutions so this makes perfect sense for custom software.

[–]hobofats 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you are correct. the problem is that the people in charge of these departments are not tech people, and they themselves just don't know any better.

[–]2cats2hats 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If the machine isn't networked it isn't a big deal.

[–]wub_wub 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah I also see a lot of ancient PCs in various offices, mostly because of custom written software.

But the PC in picture was actually for a personal use. Why they brought it in for repair? I have no idea, my best guess is that they have no knowledge about computers. I explained to them that it'd be cheaper and better to buy something new than to repair that...

[–]keezel 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why not buy a new box and run a OS2 virtual machine? Then hardware isn't as much of an issue, right?

[–]bobqjones 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

actually it's usually custom hardware. motion control boards, I/O boards, etc. running realtime motion control on a PC can get tricky. write behind caching, buffer settings, and a bunch of other stuff can throw off the timing quite badly. virtualization just adds yet another layer to translate through and would cause even more timing headaches.

it can be done with some devices, but a lot of them are so sensitive to timing that just going from a 133mhz proc to a 166mhz processor can cause havoc.

[–]pitman 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Worked in a factory doing IT not long ago and this is much true, all of the machines run with MSDOS based programs.

[–]Stingray88 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

THIS.

I used to work IT for a large university and that includes some interesting departments. One of which is the facilities management building, in which there is an office with some computers that control the heating plant and air conditioning through out the university. This one computer running an air controller program was running WINDOWS 95! They refused to update until the computer completely died... at which point we refused to give them another computer running '95, they had to get a new computer and contact the developers of their software for updates. (surprise surprise! The last version of the software stopped working on XP! ಠ_ಠ)

[–]MrBarry 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How did the climate control system fair while this computer was down?

[–]Stingray88 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It maintained it's typical programming. The computer was only used for monitoring, and changing the programming.

[–]bomber991 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The funny thing is I remember having a 166Mhz pentium system that we upgraded to Windows 98 and it ran pretty slow once 98 was on there. So what we have here in this guys picture is an old machine with an operating system it can't handle.

[–]squigs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A computer for a specific specialised task. It does the job and will continue to do the job for as long as it can be kept running. I saw a CP/M machine in the mid 90's that a small company used to handle payroll or something. Why upgrade if it does the job? The job hasn't changed.

[–]porkbyproduct 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This nudged a dormant brain cell - I just remembered that in high school one of our Apple II's had a CP/M board, and for some reason the name of the file management program, PIP, came to mind. Now 25 years later I can finally reuse that cell for something more useful.

[–]randomb0y 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

2 whole megs of video memory? Sick!

[–]diskmaster23 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But, will it run Crysis?

[–]pryomancer 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm going with a risky 'yes'.

[–]SeeEmTrollin 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Only on medium graphic level though.

[–]omgwtfbbq69 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're fucking kidding me right?

[–]theCroc 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I remember the 133MHz. That thing was a tank! It would frequently outperform our 233MHz on certain tasks. Seemed less likely to choke on a big workload etc. I'm not sure why that is but something tells me there was some cheating involved in creating the 233MHz Pentium line.

[–]dinglebrits 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

the multimillion dollar C-17 Block 13

the newest model is Block 17 which uses vista (yikes!), but I'm in training for these guys so we learn how to fly all of them and had a good laugh when I opened up the Block 13 laptop which we load up flight plans with

edit: and it uses a floppy disk and windows 98

[–]porkbyproduct 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Think you got cut off.

I did maintenance on KC-135's 20 years ago and their avionics still used tubes, rheostats, potentiometers, etc. The Navy's P-3 Orion not that many years ago still used ferrous core memory.

[–]2cats2hats 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is still running on a PC(standalone) in our basement. One of these days I will take a screenshot of the uptime.

You can apparently get the uptime of Win98.

[–]JohnoTheFoolish 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My radio direction finder runs on Win 98.

[–]markevens 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I sold an old win 98 laptop on ebay just a few weeks ago, so someone out there is.

[–]Syphon_Kai 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm a big fan of the YTMND version from 2007.

[–]BottleCap42 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wish I'd known this 13 years ago.

[–]jrh3k5 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This animation is immensely boring without its epic music: http://epiclogon.ytmnd.com/

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why bother reposting something that was only relevant 13 years ago?

[–]casper_T_F_ghost 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

while I'm here, does anybody here know how do deactivate ancient egyptian booby traps? just curious

[–]diskmaster23 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How the hell did anyone figure that out?

[–]rpg 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The same way someone would find a web exploit...play with something and think really hard. Experiment with different techniques. If you really want to get into something then you can, just gotta have patience and the right mindset.

[–]SuperDuper-C 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This will come in useful when I gun my DeLorean to 88 to go back and stop Michael Bay from releasing Armageddon.

[–]Legacys 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you press Esc it works just as well.

[–]c0nundrummer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hitting cancel was just as effective!!!!!

[–]scottread1 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love the [Repost] tag trend.

[–]Robulus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that this is Windows NT and not 98. Windows 98 didn't even have the ability to be domained without 3rd party software. After Windows 3.1 up until Windows XP came out, there were two distinct client offerings for personal users (95, 98, ME) and corporate users (NT, 2000). The personal versions had very limited networking options and were not geared towards security in any way. If memory serves, 98 didn't even have a password option, at least not at initial release.

[–]RSollars 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Widows 98: Where the security is made up and the passwords don't matter.

[–]Canucklesandwich 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes! I've been waiting years to recover these Tiffany Amber Thiessen jpegs

[–]tupidflorapope 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yep, and some folks use similar techniques to bypass security features of kiosks.

....But who cares about logging in to a win98 session, when there is no security for FAT32 to prevent someone from accessing every bit of data there.

[–]k00pa 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This works also on Vista (maybe on 7), when you have not entered the cd-key for 30 days.

Just choose "register online" or something, then file -> open -> search explorer -> desktop is open.

However it reboots every 3 hours or so if you do this.

[–]qoa 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would just rip the hdd out and plug it into a newer computer. I doubt anyone gives a shit about something running 98, unless it's some old lady asking you to "upgrade" it. Then getting mad her printer doesn't have windows 2000 drivers.

[–]Cosmicsheep 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

School novel network, Windows XP. Printer trick still worked.

[–]etherkiller 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Step 1: Build time machine.

[–]MarcDe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If only this was possible on Vista.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Next up: How to program a smiley face in QBasic!

[–]Supersnazz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I worked at an office supply store years ago. The 710C was our most popular printer model for quite a while.

[–]netcrusher88 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Did I stumble into r/redditthroughhistory?

[–]keylogthis 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This brings back memories of .pwl files and getting my teachers passwords in high school.

[–]kriukov 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I did something similar the other day with a lab computer (WinXP) which was supposed to be used "as a virtual machine only". It had some software which replaced explorer.exe and auto-restarted even if you killed the process through the Task Manager. It showed only the VMware Viewer window, which was made to look like a regular WinXP/WinNT login screen (not "Welcome screen"). The "Run" option, as well as many other, was disabled.

Pretty much the same technique did the job. Clicking on Help and a few other windows brought the Explorer's "Open" window, through which you could open (I chose "explore") C:. The desktop appeared, with a very similar error message as in this GIF.

[–]1RedOne 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I felt like a master hacker when I figured this out on my own back in middle school.

The same works on Novell logon clients too.

[–]wacrover 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow - I'm totally updating to Windows ME tomorrow.

[–]Batmaster1337 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who still uses Windows 98?

[–]maenomo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Windows98 and 98SE have a low security margin. The password for the screensaver is stored in registry and is easily decryptable. As a proof of concept, I once wrote a tool that read out the screensaver password and displayed it as cleartext, then burned it with autorun on a cd-rom. If a Win98-box didn't have cd autorun disabled (which only few people did), you could just pop in the cd, enter the screensaver password and had full access to the system.

Sadly, this was after the time when most computers in stores still had Win98. Would have been a blast.

[–]B1ade 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow. Its nice to see old school hacking.

[–]bobqjones 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

hacking!? he just hit cancel.

[–]hadhad69 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Certainly the hacker mindset however.

[–]ece_guy -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Right, but when I was using Windows 98, I was pretty young. If I knew this trick and I showed it to my friends, they would have definitely thought that I am a hacker.

Of course, this isn't even script kiddie level.

[–]ece_guy -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reminds me of the time my friend showed me his computer with Windows ME. He had a password to login, but even without typing in the password, you could login on to the computer by simply pressing Enter. So, is Windows ME the worst Microsoft OS do date or what? I have used Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, but none of them were as bad as what my friend showed me.

[–]bobdle -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i hate people who right click & select open. just double fucking click! ಠ_ಠ

[–]oskarw85 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I hate people who doesn't check what default explorer action is and then wonder how the hell they've got virus from that USB key yesterday.

[–]hamiltenor -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Looks like an HP vulnerability, nothing to do with windows 98.

[–]bdavbdav 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The HP help file is running in the standard Windows CHM help file viewer - Would be the same under any help file - MS need(ed) to either disable the help file viewer without being logged in, or disable the Windows Open panel, or disable launching explorer from the open panel.