Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

[N. Miller]

"N. Miller" wrote:

Most parachutists and rock climbers do not pack computers running
windows-98 as part of their survival gear.

But they do check their gear thoroughly.

Any computer that is running mission-critical or life-support functions
should theoretically not have an internet connection and should not
allow the user to "surf the web" while in operation.

Matters not about mission critical. It is my GD computer, and it GD well
better work when I need it. And who supports this bastardized OS if
something should go wrong? You?

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.

It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the bilge on
your own when things go wrong.

Microsoft has identified certain reasons to release new versions of
files related to IE6-SP1. The have done so periodically over the life
of that program, and will continue to do so until Win-2K reaches
end-of-life, which I think will happen mid-next year.

So we are going to add Windows 2000 specific files to Windows 98, thus
creating a chimera; the legendary monster.

When those files are copied to a win-98 system (replacing existing
files) they allow the system to operate normally, with no errors or
lock-ups. That's quite a trick to do given the complexity of how these
files and functions interact with the OS. The slightest incompatibility
usually renders a system inoperable.

The issue is vulnerabilities.

The conclusion one can draw from that is that Microsoft would release
the exact same files as part of a win-98 update patch if Microsoft's
support policy for win-98 allowed it.

One can draw all the conclusions one wishes. But they would be wrong.
Microsoft actually tests those patches on Windows 2000. They are not testing
them against Windows 98.

Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest, and add
a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and
unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they
cure. Use at your own risk.

Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.

 

[98 Guy]

But they do check their gear thoroughly.

You still don't get it. You're comparing equipment that your life
really depends on with the box sitting at your feet that allows you to
send and recieve trivial or inconsequential spam, access meaningless
websites, or download music / movies / porn. You still want to equate
the two?

Matters not about mission critical.

So your parachute is not mission-critical?

It is my GD computer, and it GD well better work when I need it.
And who supports this bastardized OS if something should go
wrong? You?

Disengenuous argument.

If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.

And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
a form of support.

And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those
files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had.

It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the
bilge on your own when things go wrong.

Why the anger and bitterness over this?

If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply
revert to the original files.

Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out?

So we are going to add Windows 2000 specific files to Windows 98,

That's what this is all about.

And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.

The issue is vulnerabilities.

The whole point of using these newer files is to patch *known*,
*existing* vulnerabilities. That's why Microsoft created and released
them.

So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

Even if the combination of using these win-2k files on win-98 does
create new vulnerabilities, the real question is who will discover or
look for them? Do you think there are hackers out there that are
testing the combination of win-98 with these files, looking for
vulnerabilities that don't exist on win-2k systems, so they can leverage
those vulnerabilities?

Do you realize that only 1 out of every 1000 computers in use is running
win-9x/me, and that perhaps only 1% of those systems might try this
trick of installing the win-2k files?

Microsoft actually tests those patches on Windows 2000. They
are not testing them against Windows 98.

You can't be concerned about the effectiveness of these files as used on
win-98 on the one hand, and simultaneously NOT be concerned that you're
running an operating system that hasn't received an official security
patch or update in over 3 years.

And like others, you are confused by Microsoft's official policy
regarding win-98.

Microsoft has placed a gag order on itself regarding Win-98 for the past
3.5 years. Even if microsoft tested these files internally on win-98
and found them perfectly compatible, it wouldn't announce that to the
outside world anyways.

For that reason, a lack of comment from Microsoft about the
compatibility of these files on win-98 means nothing - it is expected.

Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will.
But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are
untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98.

They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

And you be honest.

Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the
end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps,
perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is
compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing,
etc.

Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

 

[N. Miller]

"N. Miller" wrote:

You still don't get it.

No. You are the one who doesn't get it.

You're comparing equipment that your life really depends on with the
box sitting at your feet that allows you to send and recieve trivial
or inconsequential spam, access meaningless websites, or download
music / movies / porn. You still want to equate the two?

Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are being
used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work safely,
and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe.

Yes, I will continue to equate the two.

You are a geek. Good for you. Be your own Lab Rat, and I don't care. But I
have to clean up messes newbies get themselves into because they listen to
anonymous, self-proclaimed experts such as yourself. I'd rather not, thank
you.

So your parachute is not mission-critical?

Ha. Ha. Ha. I was referring to the GD computer.

Disengenuous argument.

Relevant argument.

If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.

Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die.

And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
a form of support.

Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support".

And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those
files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had.

Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an
earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced
vulnerabilities.

Why the anger and bitterness over this?

Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and
arrogant manner.

If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply
revert to the original files.

Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out?

Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with open
eyes.

That's what this is all about.

And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.

It is still a bastardized OS at the end of the day.

The whole point of using these newer files is to patch *known*,
*existing* vulnerabilities. That's why Microsoft created and released
them.

And you introduce unknown, unknowable new vulnerabilities when you apply
patches to an OS which was never meant to accept them.

So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?
Yes.

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

And like others, you are confused by Microsoft's official policy
regarding win-98.

Not at al.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

But not impossible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

And you be honest.

Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the
end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps,
perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is
compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing,
etc.

And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by
playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?
Yes.

Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

 

[MEB]

No. You are the one who doesn't get it.


Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are being
used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work safely,
and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe.

Yes, I will continue to equate the two.

You are a geek. Good for you. Be your own Lab Rat, and I don't care. But I
have to clean up messes newbies get themselves into because they listen to
anonymous, self-proclaimed experts such as yourself. I'd rather not, thank
you.



Ha. Ha. Ha. I was referring to the GD computer.



Relevant argument.


Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die.


Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support".


Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an
earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced
vulnerabilities.



Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and
arrogant manner.


Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with open
eyes.



It is still a bastardized OS at the end of the day.



And you introduce unknown, unknowable new vulnerabilities when you apply
patches to an OS which was never meant to accept them.


No.



Not at al.



But not impossible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html


And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by
playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible.



No.

98 Guy IS NOT A PROGRAMMER OR GEEK though WILL ATTEMPT TO LIE THAT
{S}HE IS; this entity brings this crap from MSFN INCLUDING ARGUMENTS
WRITTEN THERE, to this group.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[MEB]

In message <[email protected]>, N. Miller


But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own
risk too (-:

Really? Then where are the test results to prove that point...
*IF* you followed the CERT histories and elsewhere, you would think
otherwise...


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[MEB]

In message <[email protected]>, N. Miller

Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are
being
used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work
safely,
and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe.

Such as an EOL-state 98 ... (-:
[]

Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die.

(By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?)

Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support".


Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an
earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced
vulnerabilities.

As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities?

Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and
arrogant manner.

I think there's some pots and kettles going on here.

Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with
open
eyes.

That is a matter of opinion - BOTH WAYS, i. e. neither approach is
unarguably wrong or unarguably right.
[]

And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.

It is still a bastardized OS at the end of the day.
Correct.
[]

So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?
Yes.

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter?
[]
98G, it might be easier just to do that - it might stop the reflex
action of MEB and this alter ego of his, and you could still post
details of your patches.

You mention me, sooooooo....

Sorry you just don't get it yet, that's your personal problem which
only you can correct. I tolerate no attempts to place 9X users at a
security or legal risk in this group [win98.gen_discussion].

These 2K files ARE DESIGNED FOR 2K, an NT based OS, NOT for Win9X. ANY
fixes are directed towards vulnerabilities in native to THE NT OSs and
the browser IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.

In WIn9X, these are COMPLETELY FOREIGN files definitely bringing new
vulnerabilities.

The malware programmers DESIGNED their products around the EOL 9X. ANY
changes to base files, which these do, changes the ability of the
malware programs to provide adequate and *designed for* protection. The
evidence there is the FACT that most continued testing and actively
supporting EOL 9X at least for a year or so afterwards. Though many just
dropped support...
That means they and several of the malware testing services literally
designed their programs for what Win9X was at EOL in its standard state.

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do] AND that malware applications CAN PROTECT against any
new vulnerabilities introduced.

They can not claim malware isn't affected, because malware protection
programmers would need to design their programs for the vastly
DIS-SIMILAR potential 9X modified installations one could be running...
they would need hundreds of SPECIFIC malware applications and thousands
[likely hundreds of thousands] of extra lines of code... AND would need
to modify it EVERY TIME one of these changed do to file changes [similar
to when Microsoft made drastic changes during support].

Or not.

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:?
Why do you say that?

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[Sunny]

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

 

[N. Miller]

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

Yes. But it is akin to stealing sensitive information from one's PC,
nevertheless.

 

[MEB]

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

HEY STUPID, look on the malware sites and elsewhere like CERT, THEY
provide the test results that they DO introduce new vulnerabilities.
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[Peter Foldes]

Meb

Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread to sleep. Only my
opinion

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

HEY STUPID, look on the malware sites and elsewhere like CERT, THEY
provide the test results that they DO introduce new vulnerabilities.
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[98 Guy]

Peter Foldes top-poasted and full-quoted:

Meb

Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread
to sleep. Only my opinion

Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion?

Care to share your opinions with us?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form
from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files
used on a win-98 system.

And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered
and leveraged against it.

The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here
are astounding.

Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself,
designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to
function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and
demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown,
unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98
platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever
industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of
arcane system vulnerabilities.

Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting
from Santa this Christmas?

 

[Sunny]

On 12/17/2009 07:26 PM, Sunny wrote:
HEY STUPID,
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...

Typical of you MEB, resort to name calling when you get taken to task on
"your facts'

You appear to be deficient in all that lends character.
You have the personality of wallpaper.

Just a reminder of the low life comments you made to me.
(A good indication of your reply when someone dares to disagree with you)

Maurice Edward, Brahier
On 8 Aug 09 you wrote
But while you're here:
Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic
the UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put
large sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of
course if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer,
save, receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or
dividend, and otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own
money or more accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
your nation??

Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?

Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?

 

[MEB]

Typical of you MEB, resort to name calling when you get taken to task on
"your facts'

HAHAHAHA, and WHO started the name calling you friggin worthless POS.

You appear to be deficient in all that lends character.
You have the personality of wallpaper.

Just a reminder of the low life comments you made to me.
(A good indication of your reply when someone dares to disagree with you)

Maurice Edward, Brahier
On 8 Aug 09 you wrote
But while you're here:
Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic
the UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put
large sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of
course if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer,
save, receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or
dividend, and otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own
money or more accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
your nation??

Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?

Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?

And those were posted related to WHAT,,, you and your stupidity AND
name calling.. you have the intellect of a snail...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[MEB]

Peter Foldes top-poasted and full-quoted:


Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion?

Care to share your opinions with us?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form
from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files
used on a win-98 system.

And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered
and leveraged against it.

The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here
are astounding.

Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself,
designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to
function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and
demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown,
unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98
platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever
industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of
arcane system vulnerabilities.

Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting
from Santa this Christmas?

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X, now what part of they
aren't designed for 9X are you friggin missing... Hey, how about we put
some C code from Linux in Windows, think it will work... it makes as
much of an argument as this stupidity you continue to spout...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[98 Guy]

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

 

[MEB]

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.

Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[MEB]

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Dang it, I did it again, the proper and correct URL is:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.


They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

 

[98 Guy]

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

 

[Sunny]

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise


"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"

I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en

That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
with :
(using MEB typespeak shouting)

"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"

 

[MEB]

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

WRONG AS USUAL. The files of the supposed discussion ARE NOT DESIGNED
FOR Win9X...

That you and your like STILL don't get that shows your mental abilities
to comprehend the world at large.

That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

No, stupid, as I have repeatedly advised, just as IE 5.5 was not
completely compatible with Win95, IE6 was not designed nor compatible
with Win98. It is the *transitional browser* created by Microsoft as a
*show case* for the intended OS, XP.

These are two entirely different platforms. ONE is an old DOS based
[mostly from CP/M and BASIC coding languages]; where the other is a
Posix hack [a Unix hack, like Linux]. The single commonality is the
programming code in the latter years. That would generally be one of the Cs.
However the code IS NOT cross platform, it is specifically coded to the
workings of the intended OS. To make it cross-platform, the programmer
MUST include the proper coding FOR THE INTENDED OSs in instances like this.

Now do you see how I lead you right to this. You have already said
installing Linux code into Win9X is NOT proper and would cause issues;
yet you espouse upon doing so with THESE files, merely because these
files can be installed.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---