Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98
in [Windows 98]
|
From: MEB on 19 Dec 2009 12:05 On 12/18/2009 09:52 PM, 98 Guy wrote: > MEB wrote: > >> 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. 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 ___---
From: 98 Guy on 19 Dec 2009 21:14 MEB wrote: > You forgot the era, AND the intent of creating the browser. Its a > transitional browser, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Win98 > was moving to EOL... What a joke. IE6 was released in August 2001, only 2 years after Win-98se. Only in your twisted mind could that time-frame be classified as "moving to EOL". The fact is that in Microsoft's eyes, every OS is moving toward EOL the day it's released.
From: MEB on 19 Dec 2009 22:09 On 12/19/2009 09:14 PM, 98 Guy wrote: > MEB wrote: > >> You forgot the era, AND the intent of creating the browser. Its a >> transitional browser, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Win98 >> was moving to EOL... > > What a joke. > > IE6 was released in August 2001, only 2 years after Win-98se. > > Only in your twisted mind could that time-frame be classified as "moving > to EOL". > > The fact is that in Microsoft's eyes, every OS is moving toward EOL the > day it's released. Hey stupid, what year was XP being prepared for public offering... You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you. IE 3 was the transitional browser for Win 98, IE 4 was the transitional browser for Win98SE, IE 5.5 was the transitional browser for Millennium [note not even Microsoft considered Millennium to be a real offering, one could easily say the entire OS was transitional], IE 6 was the transitional browser for XP, IE 7 was the transitional browser for VISTA, IE 8 is the transitional browser for Windows 7. Here's a chart style so maybe you can understand WITHOUT having to comprehend what you are reading. IE Version Shipped With 1.0 Win 95 PLUS pack (not part of Win95 by default) 2.0 Win NT4 3.0 Win 95 OSR2 4.0 Win 98 5.0 Win 98 SE and Win 2000 5.5 Win Millennium Edition (ME) 6.0 Win XP Home/Pro 7.0 VISTA 8.0 Windows 7 And yes, Microsoft does have and follow PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE. The only thing that gets in the way of that is the occasional suit that may force extended activities. -- 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: 98 Guy on 19 Dec 2009 23:48 MEB wrote: > > you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows 98. > > WRONG AS USUAL. > > > How can my statement be WRONG, when later in that same post you > > said: "IE6 was not designed nor compatible with Win98." > > Are you so daft that you don't realize when you contradict > > yourself? > > No, you still don't get it... look at the ... No. I don't have to be distracted by your "look over there" answers. You know that you've been caught out in a confused lie, and your misdirections will not cover up that fact.
From: MEB on 19 Dec 2009 23:57
On 12/19/2009 11:48 PM, 98 Guy wrote: > MEB wrote: > >>> you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows 98. >> >> WRONG AS USUAL. >> >>> How can my statement be WRONG, when later in that same post you >>> said: > > "IE6 was not designed nor compatible with Win98." > >>> Are you so daft that you don't realize when you contradict >>> yourself? >> >> No, you still don't get it... look at the ... > > No. I don't have to be distracted by your "look over there" answers. > > You know that you've been caught out in a confused lie, and your > misdirections will not cover up that fact. WHERE was that you ignorant fool. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |