B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to T Bell
Re: Protecting a Win98?
T Bell (I was thinking "Taco" before I saw your icon), I'm one of the people who likes ZAF 2.6 for older (and newer!) hardware. I think it's better, faster, and more stable.
HOWEVER, you left out ISP in your description. Is it possible they have broadband? If so, then I would recommend a $20 NAT router and NO software firewall on that machine.
If they are on dial-up (and/or AOL), I'd stick with the ZAF 2.x.
AVG Free has historically been one of the lightest AV's, and definitely lighter than Avast. I have heard claims to the contrary about the new AVG Free 7, however.
All I can say is that I've given Avast another try on a couple of quite fast machines recently, and it STILL seems slow and bloated in comparison with AVG 6.
I'm a bit puzzled at your attachment to BOClean. Most people get by fine without antitrojans, particularly near-retirees who barely use a computer. I'm sure it's a fine choice; I just don't know that it's warranted in their case, particularly on that old machine.
You should see if Firefox seems snappier than IE on that machine -- with that low RAM it may be better to stick with IE.
If you do stick with IE, you'll need SpywareBlaster and the Spybot S&D immunizations.
If you do keep Avast, I suggest you turn off all the extra modules. Good luck.
-- B
P.S. One the nicest things you could do is throw $20 worth of RAM in there.
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
T Bell
You Can Fly
Premium
join:2003-10-23
Terra Firma
| dslispower,
Thanks for the link to »www.javacoolsoftware.com/downloadfaq.html. You solved the problem I was having with Spywareblaster.
I would like to install Firefox, but he'd have a fit.
As for Boclean, I was concerned about the cws infections, but when I checked his tif files before the reformat, I didn't find any porn sites so I guess he's safe. I would ask, but he may get the wrong idea, he's not my type. 
B,
I never thought of "Taco," but the thought made me update my user name!
He's on MSN dial-up and now that I was able to install spywareblaster and have AVG installed, and I will give Teatimer a shot, and hold off on Boclean.
B, it was your post I was trying to locate regarding Zone Alarm. Thanks for the memory jog.  |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| I wouldn't use Teatimer on that old box either. From what little I know of it, it wouldn't offer enough bang for the resource hit buck.
I think you'll notice a big enough hit from Avast as it is. (Though not as bad as Norton or McAfee!)
Another random suggestion -- crank down the display mode to 16,000 colors or fewer, and 800x600 pixels or fewer.
I guess you meant the threads at »Non-sucky firewall for 9x? and »Free is better? ?
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
clubs:
| said by B  :I wouldn't use Teatimer on that old box either. From what little I know of it, it wouldn't offer enough bang for the resource hit buck. Works fine on my Win95B and Win98 boxes.
Regards,
Doctor Olds
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
T Bell
You Can Fly
Premium
join:2003-10-23
Terra Firma
| reply to B
Re: Protecting a Win?
Yes B, this is the thread I was looking for »Non-sucky firewall for 9x?
So far the pc is chugging along nicely with AVG and Zone Alarm (2.6). I installed Spybot, but skipping Teatimer because of the pop-ups more than anything else. I want things running as transparent as possible and with little or no user intervention. Looks like Zone Alarm will be popping up now and then. I'll tell him when in doubt, don't. It's running with 81% free resources which is okay for that pc.
I was considering dropping a stick of RAM in there and letting it be a surprise. A little belated Christmas present.
Thanks for your help, guys. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
|
I do hope you deselected "Show the alert popup window" and disabled all ZoneLabs update checking. Otherwise the user will get hassled by passing worms and by ZA advertising.
The thing with Spybot is that you'll need to pop in every couple of months to update, re-immunize, and/or scan. Have fun.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Reverend Ike
Premium
join:2001-08-24
Sacramento, CA
| reply to T Bell
said by T Bell :I was considering dropping a stick of RAM in there and letting it be a surprise. A little belated Christmas present. That was the first thing I thought of when reading your first post - relatively inexpensive and would give the system a bit of breathing room.
One of my systems is a Win98se box that currently has 256MB RAM, but previously ran fine with 64MB and ZAF 2.6, and AVG 7 and SpywareGuard resident. If your neighbor's browsing habits are conservative enough, he might be able to get away with using an on-demand anti-trojan program (or periodic online scans), to avoid the overhead of a resident anti-trojan. But no harm in trying BOClean first, to see what happens ... |
|
Bubba
GIT-R-DONE
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-19
Around, Us
 ·Comcast
| reply to B
Re: Protecting a Win98?
said by B :If you do stick with IE, you'll need SpywareBlaster and the Spybot S&D immunizations. Not excluding your other fine suggestions....I'd like to comment on the Spybot suggestion.
Yes....SpywareBlaster(SB) is definetly a good choice as far as the ActiveX protection for IE....but to compliment SB, I would instead suggest IE-Spyad instead of Spybot Immunization. Spybot's Immunization protection has the same 3 features as SB....Internet Explorer ActiveX clsid and Cookie protection along with Restricted Sites protection. The Restricted Sites protection is slim compared to IE-Spyad(8000 entries ~) and almost all of Spybot's Cookie protection URL's are part of it's Restrcited Sites list....where cookies are disabled by default. While Spybot is good layer for cleaning....the Immunization feature is still growing. |
|
T Bell
You Can Fly
Premium
join:2003-10-23
Terra Firma
| reply to B
Re: Protecting a Win?
said by B :I do hope you deselected "Show the alert popup window" and disabled all ZoneLabs update checking. Otherwise the user will get hassled by passing worms and by ZA advertising. The thing with Spybot is that you'll need to pop in every couple of months to update, re-immunize, and/or scan. Have fun. -- B Yes B, I disabled the update checking, and the pop-up window.
I may set Spybot and Adaware to run scans as weekly Scheduled tasks. I have another two weeks before he gets out of rehab for the knee, so I have time to "tinker" and fine-tune
Thanks again. |
|
Mei Guo Ren
join:2001-11-05
Silver Spring, MD
1 edit | reply to T Bell
Check which chipset is on the motherboard. With 64MB, i'm suspicious that it is an Intel 430TX-based board. These are typically found with original Pentium 233MHz and slower. They are also very picky about memory--does it use SIMMs (EDO memory) or DIMMs (SDRAM memory)?
The 430TX chipset has a "feature"-- if you install more than 64MB of RAM, the L2 cache (which is on the board, either hard-wired or a separate dimm-like module) is *disabled.* So installing RAM above 64MB can actually hurt system performance. It's a tradeoff--sometimes it's worth the L2 hit, sometimes it isn't.
If it's using a VIA Apollo or other chipset of the same era, it should be fine with more RAM without paying the L2 cache penalty.
--
Addicted to Linux since 1998. |
|
T Bell
You Can Fly
Premium
join:2003-10-23
Terra Firma
1 edit | said by Mei Guo Ren :Check which chipset is on the motherboard. With 64MB, i'm suspicious that it is an Intel 430TX-based board. These are typically found with original Pentium 233MHz and slower. They are also very picky about memory--does it use SIMMs (EDO memory) or DIMMs (SDRAM memory)? The 430TX chipset has a "feature"-- if you install more than 64MB of RAM, the L2 cache (which is on the board, either hard-wired or a separate dimm-like module) is *disabled.* So installing RAM above 64MB can actually hurt system performance. It's a tradeoff--sometimes it's worth the L2 hit, sometimes it isn't. If it's using a VIA Apollo or other chipset of the same era, it should be fine with more RAM without paying the L2 cache penalty. You're losing me here, but glad you brought it up as it was my next question. Will this help?
It's a P2, Intel MMX (Celron 400 MHz); 64 MB SyncDRAM. I checked in SysInfo, but not sure where to look.
I'll check back later this evening. Thank you. |
|
T Bell
You Can Fly
Premium
join:2003-10-23
Terra Firma | reply to Bubba
Re: Protecting a Win98?
Hi Bubba! Happy New Year!
IE Spyad was one of the first things to get installed. 
Thanks! |
|
Mei Guo Ren
join:2001-11-05
Silver Spring, MD
1 edit | reply to T Bell
Re: Protecting a Win?
you should be good to go-- probably the 440FX or similar P2 chipset; max ram should be at least 768MB, and PC66 or PC100 *should* work with it. 440FX could use EDO SIMMs or SDRAM DIMMs; some even had slots for either but you shouldn't mix and match. You can check www.crucial.com if you know the make /model number or the chipset-- there are devices in Device Manager that should give you a clue, typically the description associated with System components or the Hard Drive controllers.
BTW, Sun Java before the _06 release has a nasty exploit.
--
Addicted to Linux since 1998. |
|
