# Micro$oft . Net



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I've just installed Win2K on an old laptop powered by an AMD K6-2 550Mhz with 256 meg of RAM and would like to keep it as "slim" as possible. I installed SP4 and the unofficial SP5 but for the life of me I can see no need to install MS .Net nor do I know what would need me to.









There is little information on the interweb as to what .Net is and its value to ordinary computer users, it appears to be a development tool for certain types of software.

It does seem like a lot of bloat for a low powered machine that will be used as little more than an internet kiosk.

Any tips fellas?


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Tips? Yes, but not what you're expecting. Get rid of W2K quickly and put XP on. W2K is way too vulnerable to be on the interweb at all; don't do it!

You're correct in your second paragraph. .NET might be insignificant to you or absolutely crucial depending on the software you want to run. I install it all so it's there if necessary (and I have a few programs that rely on it).

It's not that much bloat, is it? I haven't checked


----------



## colinryan (Jul 8, 2007)

Windows 2000 is not too vulnerable at all; that is a ludicrous statement. I have various boxes running W2K on years-old installs with no hassle whatsoever and they are a lot more reliable than anything XP-powered I have or have had.

Disclaimer: I am not a network engineer. But I used to be.


----------



## pugster (Nov 22, 2004)

yup as long as you have a firewall+av program i wouldnt worry too much, unless you are working for the MOD ,main thing is to just turn off unwanted services as in xp ,this site has a good win2k config guide and is also the site i use to turn off unwanted xp services.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

colinryan said:



> Windows 2000 is not too vulnerable at all; that is a ludicrous statement. I have various boxes running W2K on years-old installs with no hassle whatsoever and they are a lot more reliable than anything XP-powered I have or have had.
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not a network engineer. But I used to be.










And what does being an ex network engineer have to do with it? Anyway, it's always comforting to learn that there are people who don't keep up with the times. They keep me busy and make my life "interesting"!

True, I am a bit paranoid about this kind of stuff, but really W2K is wide open to all kinds of trivial hacks. However:

pugster said:



> yup as long as you have a firewall+av program i wouldnt worry too much, unless you are working for the MOD ,main thing is to just turn off unwanted services as in xp ,this site has a good win2k config guide and is also the site i use to turn off unwanted xp services.


That's good advice.

I'm glad to see blackviper back; his site disappeared a while ago and I thought it was gone for good. Perhaps he was just changing hosts or something? Or maybe moving off W2K which he was running in 2005


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Oh yeah, these guys also know a thing or three 

http://nsa2.www.conxion.com/win2k/download.htm


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Thanks for the tips and links gents. The problem is the machine itself, itâ€™s old and slow and I canâ€™t afford to replace it. I use it when Iâ€™m immobile and canâ€™t sit in front of the desktop.

It came with win98 installed and ran reasonably well, but â€™98 it getting harder to protect thatâ€™s why I put 2k on having tried WinXP which ran so slowly that it was unworkable when trying to load programmes. (Nothing heavy, just Abiword, Firefox etc.).

I have tried a couple of Linux builds but they either wonâ€™t boot from CD or canâ€™t handle some of the hardware especially the USB ADSL modem.

Win2k is my only option without throwing money I don't have at the problem.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

If you can find some more RAM (128MB+) somewhere, that would speed things up considerably. I never run Windows on less than 384MB if I can help it.

Also (and I know I keep going on about it







) try using Opera as your browser. I would expect it to be quicker than Firefox.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Thanks Rich, but the machine is maxed out at 256 Mb.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

It can recognise more than 256MB though, can't it? I'm guessing you've got two slots with 128MB in each. What sort of RAM is it? I may have a 256MB SDRAM lying around somewhere that you can have, if it'll help.


----------



## neil_s (May 29, 2006)

Stan,

I don't know if you have seen this already, but you can launch IE in kiosk mode by adding the -k switch to the target field on an IE shortcut...

Target: "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe" -k

Neil


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> It can recognise more than 256MB though, can't it? I'm guessing you've got two slots with 128MB in each. What sort of RAM is it? I may have a 256MB SDRAM lying around somewhere that you can have, if it'll help.


According to the manual, it has two slots for 100 Mhz SDRAM SO-DIMM and the maximum it can take is 128 Mb in each slot. I haven't tried to install larger DIMMs because I don't have any, if you have a 256 Mb going spare I could try it and let you have it back if it's not recognised.

Thanks Rich.


----------



## limey (Aug 24, 2006)

What about this?

Never tried it, but heard good things, maybe you can reduce your memory needs....


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Neil: tried the IE kiosk mode and it works nicely.

Pugs: good link, I'm going to try turning off a few services and see how it goes.

Martin: XPLite is pretty good but all the good features are in the Pro version (greedy buggers







).

Chris: I'm having a job to get Linux CDs to boot on this old bag of spanners. Windows disks are OK but most Linux disks won't and those that do have hardware issues.

I do have an unopened OEM WinXP home, I may test it out and try to reduce the services running and turn off things like System Restore etc before I have to activate it. I don't want to waste it if it doesn't like the machine, it may do for someone else I know on a tight budget.

Thanks everyone.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Don't have any SO-DIMM's Stan. Sorry


----------



## pugster (Nov 22, 2004)

turn off all things that boot with windows aswell stan, type msconfig in the run box and goto startup ,all you need checked are your antivirus and firewall.



Stan said:


> Neil: tried the IE kiosk mode and it works nicely.
> 
> Pugs: good link, I'm going to try turning off a few services and see how it goes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Rich: No worries mate, thanks for looking. 

Pugs: I'm putting XP on at the moment, once it's on I'll be looking at that link again and try to turn off as much as I can.









I just remembered, 8Mb of the 256 is used by graphics card.









I'm begining to think this laptop is a bag of :*****: .


----------



## neil_s (May 29, 2006)

Stan said:


> I have tried a couple of Linux builds but they either wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t boot from CD or canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t handle some of the hardware especially the USB ADSL modem.


Stan, have you tried...

http://www.puppylinux.org or

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

DSL =50MB Puppy Linux =28-72MB

Both are bootable('Live') CD images that will fit on a business card CD. Puppy is easier to install to HDD.I'm not sure about your ADSL modem though , but it may be worth a try. They are handy bootable CD to have anyway for getting files off of failed systems.

Neil


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Neil: Thanks mate, I have tried both the Pup and DSL and they both either won't boot on this bag of crap (variable







) and niether have support for Speedtouch or Sagem ADSL USB modems.

Linux doesn't support the above modems on other than Mandriva 2007. xx or PCLOS 2007, and they won't boot on this sack of pants.

I have installed WinXP on the old laptop and the main thing that seems to be consuming most of its resources is Windows Update.







I can't turn it off completely in services and it consumes nearly 100% of the CPU's power just by seaching for updates.

What a bag of *****, it cripples the machine completely, it has no control. :*****:

I'm thinking of going back to Win2K and trying to find SP3 on the internet and bolstering it up with Zone Alarm and AVG or Antivir.

WinXP SP2 and Win2K SP4 with Windows Update turn this box into nothing more than a doorstop.

I need a "better" laptop but that ain't on the cards, Windblows will run OK if it's a version that isn't bogged down with programmes that run automaticaly and consume vast resources.

Typical Micro$oft, let hardware make up for the deficiencies in their software and the poor customer they failed to educate and let down through greed. Just tell the bloody truth about the real requirements of your software M$, instead of bullshitting us.

System requirements for Windows Vista? Multiply Micro$oft's estimate by four and you may have a chance of running it as it needs you to.









I wish this bloody box would boot a Mandriva CD.


----------



## pugster (Nov 22, 2004)

how did you turn updates off?

one of the biggest resource hogs in xp is index sevicing (it under admin tools,services) dont go through control panel to disable any services type 'services.msc' no qoutes in the run box ,turn off system restore if you dont need it 4right click my comp then system restore tab,right click my comp again and select advanced>performance and select 'adjust for best performance' ,this turns off all the bells and whistles.

forgot to add ,what modem model is it you cant get working in linux? if its a standard speedtouch theres a guide here


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

How about this? Install XP Home, then build aBart PE Windows bootable CD including your modem drivers and a Firefox plugin. Then just boot off the Bart PE disk and use that for browsing?

It may (or may not) be quicker than the full-blown XP OS on your hard disk, but it might be an interesting exercise


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Just as a matter of interest, today I asked some of my peers which operating system they thought would be less likely to be compromised by attackers when installed on a home computer used primarily for web browsing: Windows 9x/ME or un-hardened Windows 2000 (that is, Windows 2000 without going through all those tweaks as recommeded by blackviper / NSA we posted earlier)?

However ludicrous it might sound, we were all in agreement that you'd be safer using Windows 9x/ME! That's not to suggest that Windows 9x/ME is secure (because it isn't) but it does enjoy a similar advantage to that of Mac OS X in that it's not a very big target and therefore less likely to be successfully attacked. Windows 2000, on the other hand, is in a much more perilous position. Whereas the majority of NT3.51/NT4 boxes exist(ed) behind the relative safety of a corporate firewall (i.e. they were business machines) and possibly had some host-based protection and/or security enhancements applied, many Windows 2000 machines are home-user boxes, un-hardened and relatively unprotected. Moreover, they'll happily run lots of the code aimed at exploiting XP and Windows 2003 systems. That makes them both a big target and a big risk unless you take a lot of time and trouble to lock them down. Also, note that many of the recommended steps to secure Windows 2000 are already applied if run Windows XP with the latest service packs - and I'm the last person to suggest that Windows XP is a "secure" Operating System









So Stan, given the hardware limitations of your laptop, I reckon you might be better off re-installing Win9x/ME. I haven't checked recently, but I think there are still a few antivirus and personal firewall programs that work on that platform.

At least the PC will run faster... until the (albeit unlikely) event that some git turns it into a spambot


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Thanks Rich (very much), I read your post a few hours ago and decided to live recklessly and install Windows 98 SE.

The HP reset disk did the job in about 15 minutes and it took another half hour to uninstall the outdated junk that HP installed with â€™98. I then got out my Windows security update disk from 2004 and let that update to IE6 and the other fixes. I have disks with old programmes on dating back to 1999 and amongst them found the last version of Zone Alarm to work with Win 98. I also downloaded the latest version of AVG and installed that too, before I loaded the modem software.

Once on the net I went straight to Windows Update and installed the last few security fixes for â€™98 before I went further a field. I have an MS Office 97 disk too, but I think Iâ€™ll stick with AbiWord for the time being.

The machine is a whole lot faster and the cooling fan works perfectly now whereas with XP and 2K its operation was random.

But, how awful is the disk defragmenter in Windows 98?







I had almost forgotten how dreadful it is.









You know, this is retro computing in reality. Iâ€™m quite impressed with being part of an IT niche, well almost. 

I promise not to let the thing be turned into a zombie, not until at least 28 days later.

Thanks for the help and tips everyone.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Windows 98 became terminally unstable after it failed to shut down properly when the battery ran out, I had the choice of re-installing it or opting for a slower but more reliable OS, Windows XP.

XP has been installed and all critical updates downloaded, no additional software has been added other than AVG. I've turned off the indexing service and system restore, I may be turning off quite a few other services as described in the link pugster provided. I've set Windows update to check for updates on a weekly basis rather than it being active all the time, that seems to have calmed it down a little.

Th old laptop certainly isn't fast but is substantially more stable and most likely safer with XP on board. One thing is painfully clear, the AMD K6-2 has no multi-media capability worth talking about. Metacafe streams are virtually unplayable.









Mustn't grumble though, this old laptop has allowed me to get on the internet over the last four days of being stuck in bed. That's a bonus.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Stan said:



> I've set Windows update to check for updates on a weekly basis


Microsoft generally release updates on the second Tuesday of each month, so you might try disabling Windows Update entirely and just remembering to check manually every month.

Apart from what you've already suggested, also try running the Windows "classic" theme rather than the "Telly-Tubby" default, don't use any background wallpaper, turn off all the desktop "effects" like shadows and showing contents whilst dragging and dropping, drop the colour quality to 16-bit. Also, change the Start Menu to the Classic version. Disable "Hibernation" to free up some disk space if you need it.

That might speed it up a tad


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Iâ€™ve been quite busy these last few days, this old machine has really seen some different OSs during that time.

Windows XP had to go, for a least five minutes after it booted there was a lot of disk activity and CPU usage caused by background services, what services and what they were doing I have no idea. Scrolling in IE7 was like trying to run in 10 feet of horse muck. :*****:

In the mean time I discovered why some Linux distros will no longer boot, they have an i686 kernel and the laptop has an i586 CPU. I then set about re-mastering PCLOS to use an i586 kernel that is in the repos and within a couple of hours I had a bootable CD, which I then installed as a dual boot with XP. The fact remains that this old machine was not designed to run a modern OS, yes it will load it and run the OS but it just doesnâ€™t have the hose power for all the modern applications as well.

I decided to go back to Windows 98, it may not be stable but it runs reasonably fast and can still be set up with a firewall and AV software. Later versions of Zone Alarm have lots more features than the version that was around when this laptop was built so I checked out opinions on which version would protect Windows 98 without adding too much strain, that turns out to be version 4.5xx. I still had a copy on a back up CD so that got installed immediately. I opted for the latest version of AVG which doesnâ€™t seem too system hungry and is suitable for â€™98.

Something hit me (not too hard), I have a copy of Windows ME upgrade that I used years ago before I got Windows XP. I ran it for a couple of years without problems but had forgotten about it and a lot of other apps Iâ€™d bought and moved on from.

This will sound outrageous to many people but I went ahead and installed ME over â€™98. The only problem I encountered was that AVG â€œforgotâ€ its serial number and had to be re-installed.

The shocking thing is that this machine seems to respond more quickly now that it did with Win 98. I can almost play videos on Metacafe whereas before they used to bring â€™98 to a standstill.

Disk defragmenter runs properly in ME rather than having to run it in safe mode as I had to under Win 98. Applications seem to open a lot quicker and even the latest version of Firefox isnâ€™t too much of a burden (Iâ€™m not keen on IE6).

Some of my problems have been due to the fact that I was trying to run software on this machine that it wasnâ€™t designed for, the AMD K6-2 550Mhz is about as fast as a Celeron 300Mhz after all. Zone Alarm 4.5 â€œstealthsâ€ just as well as version 6.1 but uses less resources.

An interesting experiment and a useful learning experience, I would never have tried changing the kernel in PCLOS and re-mastering so extremely before Saturday!









One thing does bug me though, why should ME run so well on a machine â€œdesignedâ€ for â€™98 SE? It certainly seems faster and more stable, thatâ€™s not what most ME critics would have expected.


----------

