Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98
in [Windows 98]
|
From: 98 Guy on 20 Dec 2009 00:24 MEB wrote: > > 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". > > Hey stupid, what year was XP being prepared for public offering. What does that have to do with anything? Win-98 was supported for FIVE MORE YEARS after IE6 was released. Win-98se was less than 1/3 of the way to EOL at the time that IE6 was released. > You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you. > IE 3 was the transitional browser for Win 98 What exactly is your fixation on the time-line and pedigree of IE? It's a known fact that MS likes to bring out a new version of IE just prior to a new OS, basically for only ONE reason: They know that various web-metrics measurements will try to guage the success of the new OS by looking at how many hits they get with the new browser. By introducing a new version of IE slightly before the new version of Windoze, they make it difficult to guage the true growth of the new OS because there will be a growing fraction of the older OS that will update to the new version of IE. > IE 4 was the transitional browser for Win98SE IE5 was released in March 1999 and was included with Windows 98se and Office 2000. A bug-fix version 5.01 was released in December 1999 and this is the version that shipped with win-2000. So here again we see a commonality in IE between win-98 and 2K platforms. > Here's a chart style so maybe you can understand WITHOUT > having to comprehend what you are reading. What is that supposed to prove? It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE with both the 9X/ME and NT platforms. You can't wrap your head around that simple fact. There is a major difference in the security model implimentation between IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not compatible with win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why IE6-SP1 is actually MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather than the NT line.
From: MEB on 20 Dec 2009 00:40 On 12/20/2009 12:24 AM, 98 Guy wrote: > MEB wrote: > >>> 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". >> >> Hey stupid, what year was XP being prepared for public offering. > > What does that have to do with anything? > > Win-98 was supported for FIVE MORE YEARS after IE6 was released. > Win-98se was less than 1/3 of the way to EOL at the time that IE6 was > released. > >> You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you. >> IE 3 was the transitional browser for Win 98 > > What exactly is your fixation on the time-line and pedigree of IE? > Because it makes ALL the difference to the discussion, which you still can't grasp. Win98 is not programmed for anymore, there is no NEED for compatibility nor to include ANYTHING, fix or otherwise, related to it... -- 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 20 Dec 2009 10:13 MEB forgot to quote: > It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE > with both the 9X/ME and NT platforms. > > You can't wrap your head around that simple fact. > > There is a major difference in the security model implimentation > between IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not > compatible with win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why > IE6-SP1 is actually MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather > than the NT line. The reader will note that MEB always makes it a point to full-quote the message to which he replies to, because in his words to "allow future readers access to the entire conversation". But you will note that when backed into a corner, MEB will selectively remove logical or rational points to which he can not form a substantive answer. So MEB will remove those points from the quoted material, as the removal of the above 3 paragraphs illustrate. MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to the observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly "ported" to Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - is fundamentally flawed. He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives the same output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. If his logic was followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported to XP or Vista either (clearly an incredible conclusion).
From: 98 Guy on 20 Dec 2009 13:24 MEB wrote: > > MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to > > the observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly > > "ported" to Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - > > is fundamentally flawed. > > > > He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives > > the same output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. > > If his logic was followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported > > to XP or Vista either (clearly an incredible conclusion). > > There is none that need given. The Dependency Walker readings are > now immaterial Your way of agreeing with my analysis. > except to show the CONTINUED failure of Microsoft to have > ever corrected the errors IN WIN9X... Unsatisfied dependencies in certain IE6 DLL files ARE NOT ERRORS because those files were designed to operate on different platforms simultaneously. > The errors were introduced with IE 6. > > AND THAT IS THE FINAL ANSWER, DEAL WITH IT. No, it's not the end. If you claim that there are "errors" above and beyond the non-errors listed by dependency walker, then state exactly what those errors are, or point to a CERT or Secunia or MS-KB article describing them. > You ALWAYS attempt to ignore the TWO DIFFERENT operating systems Why does dependency walker show the same list of unsatisfied dependencies for IE7 as analyzed on both XP and Vista platforms? It's you who is ignoring the fact that these IE DLL files are designed to be run on different OS's simultaneously, and are coded internally as necessary to allow that. That coding will naturally give the impression to dependency walker that the file was designed for another OS, but that is a false warning. Now stop frothing at the mouth and admit you are wrong. You've been proved wrong before - in REAL courts of law no less. Your perception of this world and of reality in general is highly flawed and twisted. Your dealings with the court system and the award judgements against you have left you a bitter old coot. If I were you, I'd stop pharting around making a fool of yourself here on usenet, and get busy paying back your child support payments. And drop the lawyer facade while you're at it.
From: MEB on 20 Dec 2009 13:41
On 12/20/2009 01:24 PM, 98 Guy wrote: More ignorant ramblings from a severely crippled brain which contained nothing of value. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |