Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98
in [Windows 98]
|
From: 98 Guy on 16 Dec 2009 20:28 "N. Miller" wrote: > > 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 > > Would you bet your life on untested speculation? Most > parachutists, and rock climbers do not. Most parachutists and rock climbers do not pack computers running windows-98 as part of their survival gear. 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. So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply. 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. 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 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.
From: N. Miller on 17 Dec 2009 02:41 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:28:49 -0500, 98 Guy wrote: > "N. Miller" wrote: >>> 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 >> Would you bet your life on untested speculation? Most >> parachutists, and rock climbers do not. > 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. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 17 Dec 2009 17:59 In message <cxuk2cekampc.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> writes: [] >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. But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own risk too (-: > >Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute. > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** "I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense, reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 17 Dec 2009 18:17 In message <yxxxiuldy3dr$.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> writes: [] >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 ... (-: [] >> 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. (By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?) > >> 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. As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities? > >>>> 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. > >> Why the anger and bitterness over this? > >Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and >arrogant manner. I think there's some pots and kettles going on here. > >> 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 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? [] >>> 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. 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. >>> >>> They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure. Or not. > >> The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely. > >But not impossible. > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html 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.) > >> 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. YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:? > >>> Use at your own risk. > >> 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. > Why do you say that? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** "I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense, reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
From: MEB on 17 Dec 2009 18:26
On 12/17/2009 05:59 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <cxuk2cekampc.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller > <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> writes: > [] >> 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. > > 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... >> >> Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute. >> > -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |