Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98
in [Internet Explorer 6]
|
Prev: Opening url pointing to .asx file
Next: 98 Guy wants advise of usage of Win-2K IE6 files in 98 and otherstupid activities
From: 98 Guy on 6 Apr 2010 09:46 MEB wrote: > Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does > anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune > from the present hacks being used? Because: a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug fixes might result in a more stable operating system. b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware. c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any update from Microsoft under any condition. For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98 system. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these days, there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs to seek out and install these files. But regardless what the average win-98 user does, it should always be pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98 "support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98 updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these win-2k files and their operability on win-98. They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98 enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. These same people that you point to for other useful resources relating to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was never properly "ported" to win-98. Your dependency-walker "evidence" purporting to show unresolved dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding of your dependency-walker observations.
From: Peter Foldes on 7 Apr 2010 01:59 98 Guy Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be a Troll -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "98 Guy" <98(a)guy.com> wrote in message news:4BBB3B34.84E8C810(a)guy.com... > MEB wrote: > >> Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does >> anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune >> from the present hacks being used? > > Because: > > a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching > vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug > fixes might result in a more stable operating system. > > b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on > win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute > correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware. > > c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new > vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd > have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any > update from Microsoft under any condition. > > For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the > idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98 > system. > > But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these days, > there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs > to seek out and install these files. > But regardless what the average win-98 user does, it should always be > pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98 > "support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98 > updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these > win-2k files and their operability on win-98. > > They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98 > enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated > into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. > > These same people that you point to for other useful resources relating > to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to > point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered > your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for > win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was > never properly "ported" to win-98. > > Your dependency-walker "evidence" purporting to show unresolved > dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have > never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent > normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding > of your dependency-walker observations.
From: 98 Guy on 7 Apr 2010 08:51 Full-quoter and Top-Poaster Peter Foldes top-poasted: > Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be > a Troll I'm having (or trying to have) a technical discussion regarding windows 98 and the use of IE6 rollups from Microsoft. I don't believe that trolls normally discuss such things. And you obviously don't have the balls or the knowledge to participate in the discussion, other than to make a klownish entrance and make a childish comment and then retreat, as you no doubt will do in this case as you have done in the past.
From: Hot-text on 7 Apr 2010 10:39 Peter ........ 98 Guy is a Troll Eating on you! "Peter Foldes" <okf22(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e5VdLeh1KHA.5996(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > 98 Guy > > Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be a Troll > > -- > Peter > > Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others > Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. > > "98 Guy" <98(a)guy.com> wrote in message news:4BBB3B34.84E8C810(a)guy.com... >> MEB wrote: >> >>> Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does >>> anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune >>> from the present hacks being used? >> >> Because: >> >> a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching >> vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug >> fixes might result in a more stable operating system. >> >> b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on >> win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute >> correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware. >> >> c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new >> vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd >> have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any >> update from Microsoft under any condition. >> >> For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the >> idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98 >> system. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these >> days, >> there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs >> to seek out and install these files. But regardless what the average >> win-98 user does, it should always be >> pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98 >> "support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98 >> updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these >> win-2k files and their operability on win-98. >> >> They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98 >> enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated >> into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. These same >> people that you point to for other useful resources relating >> to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to >> point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered >> your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for >> win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was >> never properly "ported" to win-98. Your dependency-walker "evidence" >> purporting to show unresolved >> dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have >> never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent >> normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding >> of your dependency-walker observations.
From: Corday on 8 Apr 2010 15:08
Maybe just upgrading to Windows 2000 is an answer. Most 98/ME machines have all the capacity (memory, HD size) needed. Of course I mean doing it legally. -- I mastered Wordstar graphics! |