Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98
in [Internet Explorer 6]
|
From: 98 Guy on 15 Dec 2009 20:26 "N. Miller" wrote: > > PA Bear top-poasted: > > >> +1 > > > Care to tell us what that means? > > Pretty much the same thing as, "<AOL> 'Me too!" So - he's being a dork about this too?
From: N. Miller on 15 Dec 2009 23:20 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:26:01 -0500, 98 Guy wrote: > "N. Miller" wrote: >>> PA Bear top-poasted: >>>> +1 >>> Care to tell us what that means? >> Pretty much the same thing as, "<AOL> 'Me too!" > So - he's being a dork about this too? Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system files, unless it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
From: 98 Guy on 16 Dec 2009 00:09 "N. Miller" wrote: > > So - he's being a dork about this too? > > Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system > files, unless it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft. I don't know how much you've been following issues relating to IE (IE6) after the official end of support for win-98 (which happened in July 2006). The fact is that after July 2006, there has been no such files, testing, or recommendations by Microsoft for anything relating to win-98. This was not a surprise - or unexpected. IE6 files are not (technically speaking) system files. Files relating to IE can be stripped out of win-98 (perhaps more easily for win-95). It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98 because they both use the exact same version (IE6-Sp1). By intention, Microsoft has never allowed win-2K to be compatible with IE6-SP2 (the version of IE6 that came with XP-SP2). The binary files for that version are somewhat different and are not compatible with win-9x. So, to re-cap: 1) The end of official support of any kind for Win-98 in July 2006 marked the point at which Microsoft would no long make any comment or statement about win-98 in any of it's advisories or bulletins, and for which Microsoft would no longer identify any new patch or update file as being compatible (or incompatible) with win-98. 2) The lack of mention of win-98 in any patch or update file released for the past 3 years DOES NOT MEAN that the file won't work or is not compatible with win-98. Practically speaking, this is notable mostly when we are speaking about patch files released for Windows 2000. 3) Simple file-substitution of new win-2K patch files onto a win-98 system is enough to determine if win-98 is compatible with the files. If the win-98 system is usable an can perform all operations as expected with the new files, then that is generally enough of a test to determine compatibility. No harm can really be done to a system that does not function as intended during this test, and the original files can be easily replaced. 4) A respectible-sized user base of win-98 systems with these file substitutions can be found at msfn.org. These users pay close attention to the workings and performance of their win-98 systems, and any hint of file incompatibility are discussed at length. There is a very good consensus that the various IE6 updates that have been been made for win-2K over the past 3 years function well on win-98.
From: MEB on 16 Dec 2009 00:43 On 12/15/2009 04:56 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <Ob1BBokeKHA.2460(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB > <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> On 12/11/2009 03:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [98Guy's putative enhancements/updates/whatever] >>> Does this set of fixes actually ADD to the vulnerabilities of a system, >>> or just CHANGE it - i. e. could it be that it introduces some new ones >>> but closes some (while also adding other things, such as a DirectX and a >>> web fonts update)? > [] >> Good questions. If it were the OSs designed for it might fulfill the > > Thank you. > >> desired effect, temporarily. However, there is no "patch Tuesday" or >> "zero day" hotfixes for Win9x and these will contain vulnerabilities IN >> THE OSs designed, for which updates will be received, Win9X won't. >> These are for the interface to the Internet, the browser, waving in the >> breeze... >> >> Just as the last posted suggested junk from 98 Guy was patched in a >> week or so, and is NOT part of a normal Win9X installation {MS XML4}, so >> rather obviously they introduce vulnerabilities that wouldn't be there > > They certainly have the potential to do so, though whether they actually > do so hasn't been tested either. > >> to start with. NO ONE tests these for 9X vulnerabilities and they DO >> introduce new vulnerabilities into the OSs intended; nor even for >> compatibility beyond they install... > > They are more likely to, yes. >> >> On the other hand, if you want to *manual* check every day to see if >> Microsoft has offered any security or file fixes, AND check for whether >> they work in 9X, AND are willing to be a "guinea pig" for any new and >> COMPLETELY UNKNOWN 9X vulnerabilities, then sure, install; just don't >> expect anyone to be able to help fix your system and don't expect your >> software will be compatible... including any malware protection. > > Equally, if you don't ever install any of these patches, you will not > suffer from any of the new potential vulnerabilities, but you will also > never experience any of the (equally "potential") benefits, either. >> >> Somewhere along the line since EOL, these people lost track of what >> they hoped to accomplish, keeping 9X alive... that requires someone >> actually test and NOT JUST FOR INSTALLATION, and creation of NEW >> browsers and malware programs... >> > As I've said before, they can choose to preserve in aspic their 98 > system as it was at the instant of EOL, or they can choose to take > potential risks for potential benefits. It's their choice. If they > choose the latter, they can be reassured to whatever extent they trust > 98g, and worried to whatever extent they believe you. So you intend to claim the benefit of installation, verses say, a different application providing BETTER support for new formats... The cost is???? that to use these DOES AND WILL CONTINUE to place these parties doing so in the position of NO knowledge of what present vulnerabilities they have and NO way to protect themselves from them. The *TESTS* come from the fact that these supposed installable files WILL be updated by Microsoft *for the supported OSs* and Win9X will not receive them, nor will any fixes be designed to correct vulnerabilities within 9X created by their installation. If MSFN and those doing the same want to "keep Win98 alive" then work on the well defined vulnerabilities at EOL and correct those. These are supposed coders and programmers,,, So it appears this is just more of an attempt to waste some more time while resting on OLD laurels... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: MEB on 16 Dec 2009 00:57
On 12/16/2009 12:09 AM, 98 Guy wrote: > "N. Miller" wrote: > >>> So - he's being a dork about this too? >> >> Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system >> files, unless it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft. > > I don't know how much you've been following issues relating to IE (IE6) > after the official end of support for win-98 (which happened in July > 2006). > > The fact is that after July 2006, there has been no such files, testing, > or recommendations by Microsoft for anything relating to win-98. This > was not a surprise - or unexpected. > > IE6 files are not (technically speaking) system files. Files relating > to IE can be stripped out of win-98 (perhaps more easily for win-95). > > It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft > released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98 > because they both use the exact same version (IE6-Sp1). By intention, > Microsoft has never allowed win-2K to be compatible with IE6-SP2 (the > version of IE6 that came with XP-SP2). The binary files for that > version are somewhat different and are not compatible with win-9x. > > So, to re-cap: > > 1) The end of official support of any kind for Win-98 in July 2006 > marked the point at which Microsoft would no long make any comment or > statement about win-98 in any of it's advisories or bulletins, and for > which Microsoft would no longer identify any new patch or update file as > being compatible (or incompatible) with win-98. > > 2) The lack of mention of win-98 in any patch or update file released > for the past 3 years DOES NOT MEAN that the file won't work or is not > compatible with win-98. Practically speaking, this is notable mostly > when we are speaking about patch files released for Windows 2000. > > 3) Simple file-substitution of new win-2K patch files onto a win-98 > system is enough to determine if win-98 is compatible with the files. > If the win-98 system is usable an can perform all operations as expected > with the new files, then that is generally enough of a test to determine > compatibility. No harm can really be done to a system that does not > function as intended during this test, and the original files can be > easily replaced. > > 4) A respectible-sized user base of win-98 systems with these file > substitutions can be found at msfn.org. These users pay close attention > to the workings and performance of their win-98 systems, and any hint of > file incompatibility are discussed at length. There is a very good > consensus that the various IE6 updates that have been been made for > win-2K over the past 3 years function well on win-98. AND the whole moronic idea by these purported supporters of this activity is that you just *IGNORE* that prior files were NOT created the same. Look within the original files during 9X support period and note the various internal patching AND/OR DISTINCT 2K or 9X files in some of the files PER OS and directed via the setup. *THAT* is what was once done by Microsoft to make sure of compatibility AND THAT IT ADDRESSED THE VULNERABILITIES within the *INTENDED* OSs. The supposed respectable user base are users who think those creating the modified files *DO* check for vulnerabilities and are generally as ignorant as 98 Guy. ALL these supposed modifiers now do is make an installer from the NT BASED files and are ONLY concerned with that installation. As for supposed user testing, think of 98 Guy and all this party DOESN'T know and understand... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |