Guest Dan Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability within NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W
Guest someone watching Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ ___ "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability >within > NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME > effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke? someone watching wrote: > Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb > working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! > Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ > ___ > "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability >> within >> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME >> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >> >> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >> >> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3 -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke? > > someone watching wrote: >> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb >> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! >> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ >> ___ >> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability >>> within >>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME >>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >>> >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >>> >>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >>> >>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and useable in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't happen. Gary S. Terhune wrote: > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3 > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke? >> >> someone watching wrote: >>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb >>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! >>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ >>> ___ >>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability >>>> within >>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME >>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >>>> >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >>>> >>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >>>> >>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3 came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links? It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone will bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card (I think.) -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and useable > in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't > happen. > > Gary S. Terhune wrote: >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3 >> >> -- >> Gary S. Terhune >> MS-MVP Shell/User >> http://grystmill.com >> >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a >>> joke? >>> >>> someone watching wrote: >>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY >>>> usb >>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! >>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ >>>> ___ >>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability >>>>> within >>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME >>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >>>>> >>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right. Gary S. Terhune wrote: > Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3 > came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links? > > It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone will > bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x > system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card (I > think.) > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and >> useable >> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't >> happen. >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote: >>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3 >>> >>> -- >>> Gary S. Terhune >>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>> http://grystmill.com >>> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a >>>> joke? >>>> >>>> someone watching wrote: >>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY >>>>> usb >>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! >>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ >>>>> ___ >>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability >>>>>> within >>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and >>>>>> ME >>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition YOU are the first person I can see in this thread to mention USB3. That doesn't mean someone else didn't mention it, but there are a few reasons why I might not have seen the mention, because you're talking to at least a couple of people whom I have blocked. I simply answered your question and now you go off on me like it was the most OT item possible. If I missed something, clue me in. OK? OK! -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:%23IfVlZQ7IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right. > > Gary S. Terhune wrote: >> Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3 >> came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links? >> >> It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone will >> bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x >> system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card >> (I >> think.) >> >> -- >> Gary S. Terhune >> MS-MVP Shell/User >> http://grystmill.com >> >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and >>> useable >>> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't >>> happen. >>> >>> Gary S. Terhune wrote: >>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>> http://grystmill.com >>>> >>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a >>>>> joke? >>>>> >>>>> someone watching wrote: >>>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY >>>>>> usb >>>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! >>>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ >>>>>> ___ >>>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >>>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered >>>>>>> vulnerability >>>>>>> within >>>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and >>>>>>> ME >>>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition The subject title of the thread above is: "Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition", right? Right. And unless I am mistaken, this is the win98 newsgroup (to which it is posted). So as you can see, the subject is USB 3.0, and whether it will run on Win98SE. So where is the confusion? You were the one who asked below, "Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x?" Well, win98SE is part of the Win9x family, unless you know something different. :-) Gary S. Terhune wrote: > YOU are the first person I can see in this thread to mention USB3. That > doesn't mean someone else didn't mention it, but there are a few reasons > why > I might not have seen the mention, because you're talking to at least a > couple of people whom I have blocked. I simply answered your question and > now you go off on me like it was the most OT item possible. If I missed > something, clue me in. OK? OK! > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:%23IfVlZQ7IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right. >> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote: >>> Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB 3 >>> came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links? >>> >>> It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone >>> will >>> bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x >>> system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card >>> (I think.) >>> >>> -- >>> Gary S. Terhune >>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>> http://grystmill.com >>> >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and >>>> useable >>>> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't >>>> happen. >>>> >>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote: >>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>>> http://grystmill.com >>>>> >>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a >>>>>> joke? >>>>>> >>>>>> someone watching wrote: >>>>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY >>>>>>> usb >>>>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! >>>>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ >>>>>>> ___ >>>>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >>>>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered >>>>>>>> vulnerability >>>>>>>> within >>>>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and >>>>>>>> ME >>>>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition You're right, I was only reading the posts, not the subject line. The answer to your question, of course, is that the whole thread is the work of Dan. The man of endless questions and limited retention, not to mention a serious issue with redundancy. That's why I block him. My question is then, "What does DNS poisoning have to do with this thread?" Anyway, I hope you all are satisfied with the answers I've given. The answer to the question posed in the Subject is, "Not bloody likely!!!" -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:O$2XJDT7IHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > The subject title of the thread above is: "Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 > Second Edition", right? Right. > And unless I am mistaken, this is the win98 newsgroup (to which it is > posted). > > So as you can see, the subject is USB 3.0, and whether it will run on > Win98SE. So where is the confusion? You were the one who asked below, > "Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x?" Well, win98SE is part of the > Win9x family, unless you know something different. :-) > > > Gary S. Terhune wrote: >> YOU are the first person I can see in this thread to mention USB3. That >> doesn't mean someone else didn't mention it, but there are a few reasons >> why >> I might not have seen the mention, because you're talking to at least a >> couple of people whom I have blocked. I simply answered your question and >> now you go off on me like it was the most OT item possible. If I missed >> something, clue me in. OK? OK! >> >> -- >> Gary S. Terhune >> MS-MVP Shell/User >> http://grystmill.com >> >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:%23IfVlZQ7IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> This was posted to the win98 newsgroup. Right? Right. >>> >>> Gary S. Terhune wrote: >>>> Who said anything about USB 3 in Win9x? In fact, I don't see where USB >>>> 3 >>>> came up in this thread in the first place. One of Dan's links? >>>> >>>> It's not impossible, I don't think, just highly unlikely that anyone >>>> will >>>> bother to write the drivers that would allow USB 3 to work in any Win9x >>>> system. Would either be native to the motherboard or a PCI Express card >>>> (I think.) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>> http://grystmill.com >>>> >>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:u1fTEMP7IHA.1468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>> Well, ok then, although how this could actually be installable and >>>>> useable >>>>> in a Win98 environment, remains to be seen. I'm bettting that won't >>>>> happen. >>>>> >>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote: >>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=USB3 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Gary S. Terhune >>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User >>>>>> http://grystmill.com >>>>>> >>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:eMRCh6O7IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>>>> I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a >>>>>>> joke? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> someone watching wrote: >>>>>>>> Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with >>>>>>>> ANY >>>>>>>> usb >>>>>>>> working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! >>>>>>>> Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ >>>>>>>> ___ >>>>>>>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... >>>>>>>>> I was wondering this because of the recently discovered >>>>>>>>> vulnerability >>>>>>>>> within >>>>>>>>> NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> ME >>>>>>>>> effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W > >
Guest MEB Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition In news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com , Dan contemplated and posted: | I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability | within NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second | Edition and ME effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: | | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx | | http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 | | http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W What a heading,,, come on Dan... Try these for more DNS poisoning info: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1545 http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1546 BTW: I posted that CERT info on the 9th.... As for your heading: USB 3.0 may potentially be ported to 9X, maybe not... the issue will be the boards and adapters that support it and whether they can support 9x and/or provide the drivers... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke? I was thinking the same thing...... I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, so I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now. I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both.... If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our wallets!
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition The purpose is to permit speeds of transfer that will fully support, for example, high-quality video transfer from a video camera to a storage device or computer, or from an external storage device to a playback device(remember: video these days means High Definition video --- lots of bytes), something which can't be accomplished these days except via eSATA (and that has to be SATA II 3Gbps components throughout.) Future improvements would allow higher-quality devices and no need to first transfer to a local HD before using the file. And, of course, any gamer worth his salt could tell you all about how faster USB/Firewire could improve multi-player gaming sessions. Nominally: USB1.1 = 1.5 to 12 Mbps (that's mega-bits, not mega-bytes) USB2 = 480 Mbps Firewire 400 = 400 Mbps Firewire 800 = 800 Mbps eSATA (aka eSATA/150 = 1500 Mbps (1.5 Gbps) eSATA II (aka eSATA/300) = 3000 Mbps (3 Gbps) USB3 = 4800 Mbps (requires fiber-optic cable) On the drawing boards are Firewire 1600 and 3200, and eSATA at 6 Gbps. Note that real-world sustained throughput speeds for USB don't come close to matching nominal throughput numbers, such that Firewire 400 is actually quite a bit faster than USB2 in sustained throughput: http://www.cwol.com/firewire/firewire-vs-usb.htm As I understand it, eSATA is also more prone to degradation of signal. Which is why you don't find eSATA cables longer than ~10' eSATA also does not carry power, like USB and Firewire, and thus is limited in usage to external HDs. (I don't *think* it has been developed for any other use, but I could be wrong.) When choosing eSATA cables, choose the shortest one that will do what you need (there are only three lengths that I've seen: 3', 6' and 9M. Internal SATA cables are shorter, of course, but the same rule applies -- the longer the cable, the slower the throughput. (In short, Firewire has the least signal degradation.) Now, with regard to your experiment, if the card reader you have is only USB 1.1, then that's as fast as it's going to go, no matter what the speed of the port you connected it to. Same goes for all the others. The real speed of transfer depends on the slowest component in the chain. Another example would be putting a SATA I or old-style ATA drive into an external enclosure that is capable of eSATA/300, with the proper cable and SATA II support in the computer itself. The drive is still only going to run at SATA I (1.5 Gbps). -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:0okg84tefk5o16rnj60lcr5851bn729amk@4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke? > > I was thinking the same thing...... > > I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into > my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, so > I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any > difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now. > I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x > and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both.... > > If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our > wallets!
Guest Dan Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition Thanks, but I am not vulnerable to DNS Cache Poisoning in Windows 98 Second Edition and am using Windows 98 Second Edition as well as Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 on a dual-boot desktop computer as well as Windows Vista Home Premium on my Toshiba Laptop. I should have had 2 topics on DNS cache poisoning and USB 3.x and this was my mistake. Your ISP's name server, 68.87.85.101, has other protections above and beyond port randomization against the recently discovered DNS flaws. There is no reason to be concerned about the results seen below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Requests seen for 8f63238a336e.toorrr.com: 68.87.85.101:17812 TXID=12982 68.87.85.101:18266 TXID=3941 68.87.85.101:17548 TXID=7778 68.87.85.101:17715 TXID=50436 68.87.85.101:17765 TXID=35677 ISNOM:ISNOM TXID=ISNOM "someone watching" wrote: > Dan, I don't see how you are connecting DNS cache poisoning with ANY usb > working on ANY OS. Perhaps you can explain! > Check your vulnerability to DNS poisoning: http://www.doxpara.com/ > ___ > "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com... > >I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability > >within > > NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second Edition and ME > > effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx > > > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 > > > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W > > > > > > >
Guest Dan Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition True, but if everything starts requiring USB 3.x, whenever it is released in the future, then I still want to be able to use it with Windows 98 Second Edition if at all possible. I know PCI Express does not work in Windows 98 Second Edition but I am fine using my ATI Radeon 9800 XT video card with the latest drivers for 98 Second Edition. The reason I like ATI better than Nvidia is because I have never run into problems with installing ATI video cards and I certainly have had problems with installing Nvidia video cards. "letterman@invalid.com" wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a joke? > > I was thinking the same thing...... > > I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into > my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, so > I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any > difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now. > I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x > and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both.... > > If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our > wallets! >
Guest Dan Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition You are right, MEB. It was a poor heading with at least 2 thoughts in one topic. I messed up and readily admit it. "MEB" wrote: > In news:EEA69410-15B6-4796-9381-E384E4356D34@microsoft.com , > Dan contemplated and posted: > > | I was wondering this because of the recently discovered vulnerability > | within NT even though Microsoft does not support 98, 98 Second > | Edition and ME effective as of July 11, 2006. Please see: > | > | http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx > | > | http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 > | > | http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/MIMG-7DPJ7W > > What a heading,,, come on Dan... > > Try these for more DNS poisoning info: > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1545 > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1546 > > BTW: I posted that CERT info on the 9th.... > > As for your heading: USB 3.0 may potentially be ported to 9X, maybe not... > the issue will be the boards and adapters that support it and whether they > can support 9x and/or provide the drivers... > > -- > MEB > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com > -- > _________ > > > > >
Guest someone watching Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition Dan, you peaked my interest mentioning the ATI Radeon 9800 and drivers for 98se. Went to ATI's web site http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html and they list ME as the oldest OS they support. Where did you get drivers for 98? I may be upgrading the video card soon and would like a good FAST card with excellent 98 support! Thanks ___ "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C3CE8FE4-BA8A-4E13-8278-EA5C10502B33@microsoft.com... > True, but if everything starts requiring USB 3.x, whenever it is > released in > the future, then I still want to be able to use it with Windows 98 > Second > Edition if at all possible. I know PCI Express does not work in > Windows 98 > Second Edition but I am fine using my ATI Radeon 9800 XT video card > with the > latest drivers for 98 Second Edition. The reason I like ATI better > than > Nvidia is because I have never run into problems with installing ATI > video > cards and I certainly have had problems with installing Nvidia video > cards. > > "letterman@invalid.com" wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co." >> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a >> >joke? >> >> I was thinking the same thing...... >> >> I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into >> my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, >> so >> I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any >> difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now. >> I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x >> and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both.... >> >> If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our >> wallets! >>
Guest Dan Posted July 29, 2008 Posted July 29, 2008 RE: OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition RE: OT: Re: Will USB 3.0 run on Windows 98 Second Edition I use the Windows ME driver(s) in 98 SE and it works great. In addition, my HP printer uses Windows 2000 driver(s) and they work fine within Windows 98 Second Edition. So you can see there is some room to play around and customize Windows 98 Second Edition to a user's needs. "someone watching" wrote: > Dan, you peaked my interest mentioning the ATI Radeon 9800 and drivers > for 98se. Went to ATI's web site > http://ati.amd.com/products/radeon9800/radeon9800pro/specs.html > > and they list ME as the oldest OS they support. Where did you get > drivers for 98? I may be upgrading the video card soon and would like a > good FAST card with excellent 98 support! > > Thanks > ___ > "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:C3CE8FE4-BA8A-4E13-8278-EA5C10502B33@microsoft.com... > > True, but if everything starts requiring USB 3.x, whenever it is > > released in > > the future, then I still want to be able to use it with Windows 98 > > Second > > Edition if at all possible. I know PCI Express does not work in > > Windows 98 > > Second Edition but I am fine using my ATI Radeon 9800 XT video card > > with the > > latest drivers for 98 Second Edition. The reason I like ATI better > > than > > Nvidia is because I have never run into problems with installing ATI > > video > > cards and I certainly have had problems with installing Nvidia video > > cards. > > > > "letterman@invalid.com" wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:58 -0600, "Bill in Co." > >> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >> >I didn't even know there was such a thing as USB 3.0. Is this a > >> >joke? > >> > >> I was thinking the same thing...... > >> > >> I dont see why it would be needed either. I have USB 1.x built into > >> my MB. It works fine. But several devices told me I need USB 2.0, > >> so > >> I bought a USB 2.0 add on card. They both work. I cant see any > >> difference. The only good thing is that I have more ports now. > >> I plugged my card reader from my digital camera into both the USB 1.x > >> and the 2.0. The pictures loaded just as fast on both.... > >> > >> If there is a USB 3, it's probably just another thing to empty our > >> wallets! > >> > > >
Recommended Posts