Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

[98 Guy]

For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.

MD InternetExplorer 6.0sp1 Component Update 3.0

*Windows Script Update 5.6
*971961 - Unofficial JScript Security Update
*944338 - Unofficial Windows Script Security Update
*973354 - Unofficial Outloook Express Cumulative Security Update
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*905495 - Unofficial Security Update (MSIEFTP)
*885258 - Security Update (PROCTEXE)
*816362 - Security Update (MSHTA)
*958869 - Unofficial Security Update (VGX)
*906216 - Unofficial Security Update (DHTML+TRIEDIT)
*920670 - Unofficial Security Update (HLINK)
*918439 - Security Update (ART Image Rendering)
*816093 - JVM 3810 Security Update
*961371 - Unofficial Web fonts update
*824220 - Unofficial Security Update (IMGUTIL)
*886677 - Unofficial Security Update (MLANG)
*896156 - Unofficial Security Update (MSHTMLED)
*893627 - Hotfix for Bug with Group Policies Not Applied in IE6sp1
*973525 - Unofficial ActiveX Kill Bits (AKB) Security Vulnerability Fix
*931125 - Windows Roots Update

*Unofficial DirectX Media (DXM) 6.0 Update

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://rapidshare.de/files/48815001/MDIE6CU30E.EXE.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

*Size: ~14mb

What's new:

*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*961371 - Unofficial web fonts update

removed:

*974455 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update
*976749 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Update
*908519 - Web fonts update

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy
For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.

You know damn well these also subject the users to potential and
ongoing vulnerabilities which are *not* protected via 9X capable AV
and other programs due to the differing operating environments and
expected respective activities. Moreover, *these files* may give users a
false and dangerous feeling that they HAVE secured their systems, when,
IN FACT, they have added to the potential and/or now unknown real
vulnerabilities.

Why don't you just keep this crap over on MSFN and the other sites and
forums that cater to this type of UNTESTED [other than installation]
modifications.

Don't bother pointing to the users of those modifications for supposed
"testing" as most of those {such as you} know *only* that the
modifications install.

Post by 98 Guy
MD InternetExplorer 6.0sp1 Component Update 3.0
*Windows Script Update 5.6
*971961 - Unofficial JScript Security Update
*944338 - Unofficial Windows Script Security Update
*973354 - Unofficial Outloook Express Cumulative Security Update
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*905495 - Unofficial Security Update (MSIEFTP)
*885258 - Security Update (PROCTEXE)
*816362 - Security Update (MSHTA)
*958869 - Unofficial Security Update (VGX)
*906216 - Unofficial Security Update (DHTML+TRIEDIT)
*920670 - Unofficial Security Update (HLINK)
*918439 - Security Update (ART Image Rendering)
*816093 - JVM 3810 Security Update
*961371 - Unofficial Web fonts update
*824220 - Unofficial Security Update (IMGUTIL)
*886677 - Unofficial Security Update (MLANG)
*896156 - Unofficial Security Update (MSHTMLED)
*893627 - Hotfix for Bug with Group Policies Not Applied in IE6sp1
*973525 - Unofficial ActiveX Kill Bits (AKB) Security Vulnerability Fix
*931125 - Windows Roots Update
*Unofficial DirectX Media (DXM) 6.0 Update
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://rapidshare.de/files/48815001/MDIE6CU30E.EXE.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Size: ~14mb
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*961371 - Unofficial web fonts update
*974455 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update
*976749 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Update
*908519 - Web fonts update

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.

You know damn well these also subject the users to potential and
ongoing vulnerabilities which are *not* protected via 9X capable AV
and other programs due to the differing operating environments and
expected respective activities. Moreover, *these files* may give users a
false and dangerous feeling that they HAVE secured their systems, when,
IN FACT, they have added to the potential and/or now unknown real
vulnerabilities.

I agree, he should have perhaps added some warning to that effect, but
he knows he doesn't need to as you will do so for him. (I just _knew_
what the next post I would see would be!)

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)?

[They're of academic interest to me anyway - I do not have IE of any
flavour on my '98SEl machines, one of which has never been online and
the other does so very rarely.]

[Full quote of original post snipped.]

[MEB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.

You know damn well these also subject the users to potential and
ongoing vulnerabilities which are *not* protected via 9X capable AV
and other programs due to the differing operating environments and
expected respective activities. Moreover, *these files* may give users a
false and dangerous feeling that they HAVE secured their systems, when,
IN FACT, they have added to the potential and/or now unknown real
vulnerabilities.

I agree, he should have perhaps added some warning to that effect, but
he knows he doesn't need to as you will do so for him. (I just _knew_
what the next post I would see would be!)
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)?
[They're of academic interest to me anyway - I do not have IE of any
flavour on my '98SEl machines, one of which has never been online and
the other does so very rarely.]
[Full quote of original post snipped.]

Good questions. If it were the OSs designed for it might fulfill the
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
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...

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.

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...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[98Guy's putative enhancements/updates/whatever]

Post by MEB

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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)?

[]

Post by MEB
Good questions. If it were the OSs designed for it might fulfill the

Thank you.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

[98 Guy]

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.

Another convoluted statement from MEB.

If the win-2K patch files for IE6 work for win-98, then use them.

If those files introduce new vulnerabilities for a win-98 system, then
there two possibilities:

a) The new vulnerability is unique to win-98 and is caused by some
peculiar interaction between win-98 and the win-2K patch file that does
not exist on a win-2k system.

b) The new vulnerability will effect win-2K and *might* also affect
win-98 equally. Microsoft will issue yet another patch for this
vulnerability when discovered, assuming win-2k is still being supported.

Now look carefully at those two possible outcomes.

Outcome (a) will probably NEVER be discovered because of the simple fact
that no security analysts or hackers will be examining or testing or
looking for vulnerabilites on a platform consisting of win-98 and IE6
patches derived from win-2K updates.

Outcome (b) is much more likely than (a), and it can be presumed that a
fix will be made available soon after it's discovery. And until it is
discovered - it does not exist.

So even if you want to speculate that the use of these files might cause
some unique vulnerability to a win-98 system, the odds of that
vulnerability being discovered and leveraged is ridiculously small.

NO ONE tests these for 9X vulnerabilities

Bingo. Meb just said it himself.

If no one is testing this combination of win-98 and Win-2K patch files,
then any vulnerability they may uniquely cause to a win-98 system will
go undetected and therefore will never be leveraged by hackers.

Security by obscurity.

and they DO introduce new vulnerabilities into the
OSs intended

If MEB is trying to say that these patches introduce new vulnerabilities
into win-2k (the intended OS), then that's complete and outrageously
wild speculation. Presumably Microsoft would not create updates or
patches for the "intended OS's" that contain known vulnerabilities.

If MEB is trying to say that these patches introduce new vulnerabilities
into Win-98, then again that is complete speculation without any shred
of testing evidence that he claims he is an expert at performing.

It would be useful for MEB to cut the bullshit lawyer-speak and behave
like a normal person and utter clear and understandable statements.

[MEB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[98Guy's putative enhancements/updates/whatever]

Post by MEB

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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)?

[]

Post by MEB
Good questions. If it were the OSs designed for it might fulfill the

Thank you.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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...

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB
So you intend to claim the benefit of installation, verses say, a
different application providing BETTER support for new formats...

What the hell does that mean?

What do you mean by a "different application"?

If you're trying to ask why someone wouldn't use a different browser
(Firefox, etc) instead of IE6, then why not just say that?

Why are you always obtuse and vague in your use of language?

The reason why you'd want to update these IE6 files is because they ARE
hooked into by the operating system and using another browser is no
garantee that those files will not be called upon for one task or
another.

Post by MEB
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.

Why are you stating that the use of these patch files *will* confer
vulnerabilities to win-98?

How can you make such a claim?

Give an example (by CVE or some other identifier) of a vulnerability
that will result if these IE6 files are patched into a win-98 system.

Post by MEB
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,

Nothing you just said in that statement makes any sense.

"these supposed installable files WILL be updated by Microsoft"

It's not that they "will" be updated. They *ARE* being updated. What
is the significance of that?

" *for the supported OSs* and Win9X will not receive them"

Microsoft states the applicability for those files. Win-9x WILL receive
them if the user gives them to it.

Microsoft will not place them in the list of files it serves for win-98
updates on the windowsupdate server because it has closed all new
submissions 3 years ago.

Microsoft's silience on ALL THINGS RELATING TO WIN-98 does not equate to
a blanket statement that no files it releases for win-2K might be
operable on win-98.

You continue to ignore the fact that Microsoft's complete silence about
win-98 does not mean that some patch files it has released in the past 3
years are perfectly compatible with it. We expect Microsoft not to tell
us this even when it's true, because their own support policy forbids
it.

Post by MEB
nor will any fixes be designed to correct vulnerabilities
within 9X created by their installation.

That is the largest flaw in your argument, for which you will not
address here in public.

Any vulnerability that *might* be caused by a peculiar interaction
between win-98 and these files would presumably be a unique
vulnerability that would not exist on win-2K. You propose that such a
vulnerability would leave win-98 users exposed to a problem that
Microsoft would never create a patch for, because the vulnerability
would not exist under win-2K.

The flaw in that argument is that any such hypothetical vulnerability
would be extremely unlikely to ever be detected, because it would
require that professional analysts, hobbyists or hackers would be
examining the combination of win-98 with installed patches from win-2k
looking for it.

Given that current win-9x usage on the internet is estimated to be 0.1%
(1 out of every 1000 computers in current use) it's highly unlikely that
people are examining standard installations of win-98 for new
vulnerabilities, let alone non-standard installations.

A vulnerability that is never discovered by anyone can never become a
threat.

Post by MEB
If MSFN and those doing the same want to "keep Win98 alive"
then work on the well defined vulnerabilities at EOL and
correct those.

How do you know that these "well defined" vulnerabilities are not
corrected by the use of win-2k patch files?

And note that Microsoft has never admitted to the existance of any
vulnerabilities that win-9x has or had at EOL because microsoft became
silent to all things pertaining to win-98 at EOL.

And even before EOL, Microsoft made vague references to win-98 in their
advisory bullitens to make it appear that the bullitens applied to
win-98 - when in fact they did not.

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
So you intend to claim the benefit of installation, verses say, a
different application providing BETTER support for new formats...

What the hell does that mean?
What do you mean by a "different application"?
If you're trying to ask why someone wouldn't use a different browser
(Firefox, etc) instead of IE6, then why not just say that?
Why are you always obtuse and vague in your use of language?
The reason why you'd want to update these IE6 files is because they ARE
hooked into by the operating system and using another browser is no
garantee that those files will not be called upon for one task or
another.

HAHAHAHAHA, so now you ADMIT that these are part of system activities
rather than your other post's comments... SINCE THEY ARE and do affect
the working within the OS, then the vulnerabilities included within the
files DO affect the other programs AS WELL AS ANY MALWARE PROTECTIONS.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
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.

Why are you stating that the use of these patch files *will* confer
vulnerabilities to win-98?
How can you make such a claim?
Give an example (by CVE or some other identifier) of a vulnerability
that will result if these IE6 files are patched into a win-98 system.

Because you have EVERY PRIOR VULNERABILITY AND FIX listed at CERT as
well as the present ones either now or will in the future.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
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,

Nothing you just said in that statement makes any sense.
"these supposed installable files WILL be updated by Microsoft"
It's not that they "will" be updated. They *ARE* being updated. What
is the significance of that?
" *for the supported OSs* and Win9X will not receive them"
Microsoft states the applicability for those files. Win-9x WILL receive
them if the user gives them to it.
Microsoft will not place them in the list of files it serves for win-98
updates on the windowsupdate server because it has closed all new
submissions 3 years ago.
Microsoft's silience on ALL THINGS RELATING TO WIN-98 does not equate to
a blanket statement that no files it releases for win-2K might be
operable on win-98.
You continue to ignore the fact that Microsoft's complete silence about
win-98 does not mean that some patch files it has released in the past 3
years are perfectly compatible with it. We expect Microsoft not to tell
us this even when it's true, because their own support policy forbids
it.

THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR THE SUPPORTED OSs *ONLY*. There is no need now,
for Microsoft to include any code specific to Win9X activities and its
OS workings in any NEW fixes since 2006, which it did PRIOR to EOL.

That you idiots can't figure that out is telling of your mental facilities.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
nor will any fixes be designed to correct vulnerabilities
within 9X created by their installation.

That is the largest flaw in your argument, for which you will not
address here in public.
Any vulnerability that *might* be caused by a peculiar interaction
between win-98 and these files would presumably be a unique
vulnerability that would not exist on win-2K. You propose that such a
vulnerability would leave win-98 users exposed to a problem that
Microsoft would never create a patch for, because the vulnerability
would not exist under win-2K.
The flaw in that argument is that any such hypothetical vulnerability
would be extremely unlikely to ever be detected, because it would
require that professional analysts, hobbyists or hackers would be
examining the combination of win-98 with installed patches from win-2k
looking for it.
Given that current win-9x usage on the internet is estimated to be 0.1%
(1 out of every 1000 computers in current use) it's highly unlikely that
people are examining standard installations of win-98 for new
vulnerabilities, let alone non-standard installations.
A vulnerability that is never discovered by anyone can never become a
threat.

That's the stupidest argument you've made yet. A vulnerability exist
when someone OUTSIDE the malware writer/hacker community *discovers* it.
OTHERWISE, it *remains* an unknown attack vector to the public.

In Win9X, there aren't a sufficient number of QUALIFIED coders and
programmers looking for any NEW vulnerabilities produced BY THESE
non-standard installations, because NO ONE in the protection community
is looking.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
If MSFN and those doing the same want to "keep Win98 alive"
then work on the well defined vulnerabilities at EOL and
correct those.

How do you know that these "well defined" vulnerabilities are not
corrected by the use of win-2k patch files?
And note that Microsoft has never admitted to the existance of any
vulnerabilities that win-9x has or had at EOL because microsoft became
silent to all things pertaining to win-98 at EOL.
And even before EOL, Microsoft made vague references to win-98 in their
advisory bullitens to make it appear that the bullitens applied to
win-98 - when in fact they did not.

Many did when applied in a specific fashion, others were included
because IE6 was never properly ported for Win9X usage in the first place
and Microsoft was unsure since it was not really interested in Win9X in
the years leading up to EOL. If it were, it would have corrected the
large file manipulation issues and other BROKEN or vulnerable aspects in
the Win9X OS. Microsoft DIDN'T; that should spell it out rather clearly
to even the most dense on the planet.

[MEB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by 98 Guy
For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.

You know %^&% well these also subject the users to potential and
ongoing vulnerabilities which are *not* protected via 9X capable AV
and other programs due to the differing operating environments and
expected respective activities. Moreover, *these files* may give users a
false and dangerous feeling that they HAVE secured their systems, when,
IN FACT, they have added to the potential and/or now unknown real
vulnerabilities.

I agree, he should have perhaps added some warning to that effect, but
he knows he doesn't need to as you will do so for him. (I just _knew_
what the next post I would see would be!)
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)?
[They're of academic interest to me anyway - I do not have IE of any
flavour on my '98SEl machines, one of which has never been online and
the other does so very rarely.]
[Full quote of original post snipped.]

Good questions. If it were the OSs designed for it might fulfill the
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... or are these supposedly NOT for people using IE6? Then there
is ZERO reason to install them as they patch the last group of supposed
fixes...

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
to start with. NO ONE tests these for 9X vulnerabilities and they DO
introduce new vulnerabilities into the OSs intended.

On the other hand, if you want to *manually* 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.

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...

But this was already stated for the most part... WHY you two chose to
post otherwise is the actual question...

[unknown]

For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.

MD InternetExplorer 6.0sp1 Component Update 3.0

*Windows Script Update 5.6
*971961 - Unofficial JScript Security Update
*944338 - Unofficial Windows Script Security Update
*973354 - Unofficial Outloook Express Cumulative Security Update
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*905495 - Unofficial Security Update (MSIEFTP)
*885258 - Security Update (PROCTEXE)
*816362 - Security Update (MSHTA)
*958869 - Unofficial Security Update (VGX)
*906216 - Unofficial Security Update (DHTML+TRIEDIT)
*920670 - Unofficial Security Update (HLINK)
*918439 - Security Update (ART Image Rendering)
*816093 - JVM 3810 Security Update
*961371 - Unofficial Web fonts update
*824220 - Unofficial Security Update (IMGUTIL)
*886677 - Unofficial Security Update (MLANG)
*896156 - Unofficial Security Update (MSHTMLED)
*893627 - Hotfix for Bug with Group Policies Not Applied in IE6sp1
*973525 - Unofficial ActiveX Kill Bits (AKB) Security Vulnerability Fix
*931125 - Windows Roots Update

*Unofficial DirectX Media (DXM) 6.0 Update

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://rapidshare.de/files/48815001/MDIE6CU30E.EXE.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

*Size: ~14mb

What's new:

*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*961371 - Unofficial web fonts update

removed:

*974455 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update
*976749 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Update
*908519 - Web fonts update

[rob^_^]

Hi All,

Have a look at 98 Guy's headers. I would not trust someone using Opera to
build IE patches for an unsupported OS or browser.

You may as well accept those Windows Updates trojans that appear in your
Inbox (NOT). I think he is wearing black.

Regards.

Post by 98 Guy
For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.
MD InternetExplorer 6.0sp1 Component Update 3.0
*Windows Script Update 5.6
*971961 - Unofficial JScript Security Update
*944338 - Unofficial Windows Script Security Update
*973354 - Unofficial Outloook Express Cumulative Security Update
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*905495 - Unofficial Security Update (MSIEFTP)
*885258 - Security Update (PROCTEXE)
*816362 - Security Update (MSHTA)
*958869 - Unofficial Security Update (VGX)
*906216 - Unofficial Security Update (DHTML+TRIEDIT)
*920670 - Unofficial Security Update (HLINK)
*918439 - Security Update (ART Image Rendering)
*816093 - JVM 3810 Security Update
*961371 - Unofficial Web fonts update
*824220 - Unofficial Security Update (IMGUTIL)
*886677 - Unofficial Security Update (MLANG)
*896156 - Unofficial Security Update (MSHTMLED)
*893627 - Hotfix for Bug with Group Policies Not Applied in IE6sp1
*973525 - Unofficial ActiveX Kill Bits (AKB) Security Vulnerability Fix
*931125 - Windows Roots Update
*Unofficial DirectX Media (DXM) 6.0 Update
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://rapidshare.de/files/48815001/MDIE6CU30E.EXE.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Size: ~14mb
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*961371 - Unofficial web fonts update
*974455 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update
*976749 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Update
*908519 - Web fonts update

[98 Guy]

Post by rob^_^
Hi All,

Hi Shit-head.

Post by rob^_^
Have a look at 98 Guy's headers. I would not trust someone
using Opera to build IE patches for an unsupported OS or
browser.

Oh, I'm using Opera am I?

Post by rob^_^
I think he is wearing black.

Since when is the use of Opera diagnostic of a black-hat?

Post by rob^_^
You may as well accept those Windows Updates trojans that
appear in your inbox (NOT)

Why don't you take this up with the win-98 community at msfn.org?

Go there and tell them what you think of this update:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=e5ca10a229b0a6bf0386b0687d263179&showtopic=97816&view=findpost&p=888724

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

+1

Post by rob^_^
Hi All,
Have a look at 98 Guy's headers. I would not trust someone using Opera to
build IE patches for an unsupported OS or browser.
You may as well accept those Windows Updates trojans that appear in your
Inbox (NOT). I think he is wearing black.
Regards.

Post by 98 Guy
For those of you that want to use various Win-2K updates from Microsoft
and apply them to your Win-98 system, this update package has been
designed to bring together all those various updates and install them
automatically.
MD InternetExplorer 6.0sp1 Component Update 3.0
*Windows Script Update 5.6
*971961 - Unofficial JScript Security Update
*944338 - Unofficial Windows Script Security Update
*973354 - Unofficial Outloook Express Cumulative Security Update
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*905495 - Unofficial Security Update (MSIEFTP)
*885258 - Security Update (PROCTEXE)
*816362 - Security Update (MSHTA)
*958869 - Unofficial Security Update (VGX)
*906216 - Unofficial Security Update (DHTML+TRIEDIT)
*920670 - Unofficial Security Update (HLINK)
*918439 - Security Update (ART Image Rendering)
*816093 - JVM 3810 Security Update
*961371 - Unofficial Web fonts update
*824220 - Unofficial Security Update (IMGUTIL)
*886677 - Unofficial Security Update (MLANG)
*896156 - Unofficial Security Update (MSHTMLED)
*893627 - Hotfix for Bug with Group Policies Not Applied in IE6sp1
*973525 - Unofficial ActiveX Kill Bits (AKB) Security Vulnerability Fix
*931125 - Windows Roots Update
*Unofficial DirectX Media (DXM) 6.0 Update
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://rapidshare.de/files/48815001/MDIE6CU30E.EXE.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Size: ~14mb
*976325 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update (with
uninstall)
*961371 - Unofficial web fonts update
*974455 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Cumulative Security Update
*976749 - Unofficial Internet Explorer Update
*908519 - Web fonts update

[98 Guy]

+1

Care to tell us what that means?

[N. Miller]

Post by 98 Guy

+1

Care to tell us what that means?

Pretty much the same thing as, "<AOL> 'Me too!"

[98 Guy]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

+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?

[N. Miller]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

+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.

[98 Guy]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.
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...

[N. Miller]

Post by 98 Guy
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).

Would you bet your life on untested speculation? Most parachutists, and rock
climbers do not.

[98 Guy]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

[N. Miller]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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?

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

[98 Guy]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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.

You still don't get it. You're comparing equipment that your life
really depends on with the box sitting at your feet that allows you to
send and recieve trivial or inconsequential spam, access meaningless
websites, or download music / movies / porn. You still want to equate
the two?

Post by N. Miller
Matters not about mission critical.

So your parachute is not mission-critical?

Post by N. Miller
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?

Disengenuous argument.

If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.

And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
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.

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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?

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?

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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,

That's what this is all about.

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.

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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 whole point of using these newer files is to patch *known*,
*existing* vulnerabilities. That's why Microsoft created and released
them.

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?

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

Even if the combination of using these win-2k files on win-98 does
create new vulnerabilities, the real question is who will discover or
look for them? Do you think there are hackers out there that are
testing the combination of win-98 with these files, looking for
vulnerabilities that don't exist on win-2k systems, so they can leverage
those vulnerabilities?

Do you realize that only 1 out of every 1000 computers in use is running
win-9x/me, and that perhaps only 1% of those systems might try this
trick of installing the win-2k files?

Post by N. Miller
Microsoft actually tests those patches on Windows 2000. They
are not testing them against Windows 98.

You can't be concerned about the effectiveness of these files as used on
win-98 on the one hand, and simultaneously NOT be concerned that you're
running an operating system that hasn't received an official security
patch or update in over 3 years.

And like others, you are confused by Microsoft's official policy
regarding win-98.

Microsoft has placed a gag order on itself regarding Win-98 for the past
3.5 years. Even if microsoft tested these files internally on win-98
and found them perfectly compatible, it wouldn't announce that to the
outside world anyways.

For that reason, a lack of comment from Microsoft about the
compatibility of these files on win-98 means nothing - it is expected.

Post by N. Miller
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.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

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.

Post by N. Miller
Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

[N. Miller]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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.

You still don't get it.

No. You are the one who doesn't get it.

Post by 98 Guy
You're comparing equipment that your life really depends on with the
box sitting at your feet that allows you to send and recieve trivial
or inconsequential spam, access meaningless websites, or download
music / movies / porn. You still want to equate the two?

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.

Yes, I will continue to equate the two.

You are a geek. Good for you. Be your own Lab Rat, and I don't care. But I
have to clean up messes newbies get themselves into because they listen to
anonymous, self-proclaimed experts such as yourself. I'd rather not, thank
you.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
Matters not about mission critical.

So your parachute is not mission-critical?

Ha. Ha. Ha. I was referring to the GD computer.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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?

Disengenuous argument.

Relevant argument.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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".

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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,

That's what this is all about.
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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 whole point of using these newer files is to patch *known*,
*existing* vulnerabilities. That's why Microsoft created and released
them.

And you introduce unknown, unknowable new vulnerabilities when you apply
patches to an OS which was never meant to accept them.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

<snip>

Post by 98 Guy
And like others, you are confused by Microsoft's official policy
regarding win-98.

Not at al.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

But not impossible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Post by 98 Guy
Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

[MEB]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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.

You still don't get it.

No. You are the one who doesn't get it.

Post by 98 Guy
You're comparing equipment that your life really depends on with the
box sitting at your feet that allows you to send and recieve trivial
or inconsequential spam, access meaningless websites, or download
music / movies / porn. You still want to equate the two?

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.
Yes, I will continue to equate the two.
You are a geek. Good for you. Be your own Lab Rat, and I don't care. But I
have to clean up messes newbies get themselves into because they listen to
anonymous, self-proclaimed experts such as yourself. I'd rather not, thank
you.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
Matters not about mission critical.

So your parachute is not mission-critical?

Ha. Ha. Ha. I was referring to the GD computer.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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?

Disengenuous argument.

Relevant argument.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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".

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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,

That's what this is all about.
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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 whole point of using these newer files is to patch *known*,
*existing* vulnerabilities. That's why Microsoft created and released
them.

And you introduce unknown, unknowable new vulnerabilities when you apply
patches to an OS which was never meant to accept them.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.
<snip>

Post by 98 Guy
And like others, you are confused by Microsoft's official policy
regarding win-98.

Not at al.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

But not impossible.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Post by 98 Guy
Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

98 Guy IS NOT A PROGRAMMER OR GEEK though WILL ATTEMPT TO LIE THAT
{S}HE IS; this entity brings this crap from MSFN INCLUDING ARGUMENTS
WRITTEN THERE, to this group.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <yxxxiuldy3dr$***@msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller
<***@msnews.aosake.net> writes:
[]

Post by N. Miller
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 ... (-:
[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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"?)

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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".

Post by 98 Guy
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?

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.
[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.
[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter?
[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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.

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.

Or not.

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.)

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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 (-:?

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Post by 98 Guy
Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

Why do you say that?

[MEB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by N. Miller
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.

[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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"?)

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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".

Post by 98 Guy
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?

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.
[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.
[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by 98 Guy
Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter?
[]

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
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.

You mention me, sooooooo....

Sorry you just don't get it yet, that's your personal problem which
only you can correct. I tolerate no attempts to place 9X users at a
security or legal risk in this group [win98.gen_discussion].

These 2K files ARE DESIGNED FOR 2K, an NT based OS, NOT for Win9X. ANY
fixes are directed towards vulnerabilities in native to THE NT OSs and
the browser IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.

In WIn9X, these are COMPLETELY FOREIGN files definitely bringing new
vulnerabilities.

The malware programmers DESIGNED their products around the EOL 9X. ANY
changes to base files, which these do, changes the ability of the
malware programs to provide adequate and *designed for* protection. The
evidence there is the FACT that most continued testing and actively
supporting EOL 9X at least for a year or so afterwards. Though many just
dropped support...
That means they and several of the malware testing services literally
designed their programs for what Win9X was at EOL in its standard state.

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do] AND that malware applications CAN PROTECT against any
new vulnerabilities introduced.

They can not claim malware isn't affected, because malware protection
programmers would need to design their programs for the vastly
DIS-SIMILAR potential 9X modified installations one could be running...
they would need hundreds of SPECIFIC malware applications and thousands
[likely hundreds of thousands] of extra lines of code... AND would need
to modify it EVERY TIME one of these changed do to file changes [similar
to when Microsoft made drastic changes during support].

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.

Or not.

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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.)

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy
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 (-:?

Post by N. Miller

Post by 98 Guy

Post by N. Miller
Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Post by 98 Guy
Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

Why do you say that?

[Sunny]

"MEB" <MEB-not-***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
<snip>

Post by MEB
So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

[MEB]

Post by N. Miller
<snip>

Post by MEB
So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

HEY STUPID, look on the malware sites and elsewhere like CERT, THEY
provide the test results that they DO introduce new vulnerabilities.
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...

[Peter Foldes]

Meb

Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread to sleep. Only my
opinion
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

Post by MEB

Post by N. Miller
<snip>

Post by MEB
So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

HEY STUPID, look on the malware sites and elsewhere like CERT, THEY
provide the test results that they DO introduce new vulnerabilities.
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

[98 Guy]

Post by Peter Foldes
Meb
Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread
to sleep. Only my opinion

Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion?

Care to share your opinions with us?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form
from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files
used on a win-98 system.

And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered
and leveraged against it.

The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here
are astounding.

Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself,
designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to
function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and
demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown,
unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98
platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever
industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of
arcane system vulnerabilities.

Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting
from Santa this Christmas?

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Peter Foldes
Meb
Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread
to sleep. Only my opinion

Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion?
Care to share your opinions with us?
Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form
from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files
used on a win-98 system.
And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered
and leveraged against it.
The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here
are astounding.
Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself,
designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to
function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and
demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown,
unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98
platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever
industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of
arcane system vulnerabilities.
Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting
from Santa this Christmas?

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X, now what part of they
aren't designed for 9X are you friggin missing... Hey, how about we put
some C code from Linux in Windows, think it will work... it makes as
much of an argument as this stupidity you continue to spout...

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB
HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

Post by MEB
now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

Post by MEB
Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?
To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?
And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.
You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.
It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.

Post by 98 Guy
Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.

[MEB]

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?
To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?
And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...
They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.
NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.
You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.
It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Dang it, I did it again, the proper and correct URL is:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Post by MEB
The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.

Post by 98 Guy
Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB
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.

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.

[Sunny]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
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.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)

"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"

I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
with :
(using MEB typespeak shouting)

"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"

[MEB]

Post by Sunny

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
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.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)
"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"
I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
(using MEB typespeak shouting)
"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"

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... break it and it doesn't really matter so long as the OS
functions [however broken].

NICE to see you can actually post something with a small bit of value
instead of JUST using your normal Troll crap... maybe you are smarter
than a snail.

[Sunny]

Post by MEB

Post by Sunny

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
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.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)
"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"
I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
(using MEB typespeak shouting)
"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"

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... break it and it doesn't really matter so long as the OS
functions [however broken].

So, you are now claiming to have insider info from Microsoft?
What's with this "transitional browser" bullshit?
(noticed that you dodged the proof that Microsoft considered IE6 OK for
Win98)

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewinextndfaq
"4. Does this extension include support for Windows 98 and Windows
Millennium Edition components like Internet Explorer?
"Yes. Microsoft will extend the support end date for the current versions
of components (such as Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 and Windows
Media Player 9) on Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me.
For these products running on these three Windows products, Microsoft will
provide paid incident support. Microsoft will also continue to review and
address critical security updates on these products, through July 11,
2006."

Post by MEB
NICE to see you can actually post something with a small bit of value
instead of JUST using your normal Troll crap... maybe you are smarter
than a snail.

Your continued name calling noted.

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB
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.

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
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.

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by MEB
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...

[98 Guy]

Post by 98 Guy
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).

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by 98 Guy
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).

There is none that need given. The Dependency Walker readings are now
immaterial except to show the CONTINUED failure of Microsoft to have
ever corrected the errors IN WIN9X...

The errors were introduced with IE 6.

AND THAT IS THE FINAL ANSWER, DEAL WITH IT.

You ALWAYS attempt to ignore the TWO DIFFERENT operating systems and
what is REQUIRED within the coding for each because that PROOFS your
statements to be the rantings of a moron. And that IS A FACT.

Using your attempted "the reader":
Note specifically that this moron has been repeatedly directed to the
issue of the different coding and OSs; has been repeatedly shown the
differences; has repeatedly been provided with the answers to the
supposed questions, and other shown in this discussion, and elsewhere
for that matter; yet this party is such an ignorant fool and DUMB ROCK,
that NOTHING can explain it or change this stupidity.

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

Post by MEB
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.

[MEB]

On 12/20/2009 01:24 PM, 98 Guy wrote:

More ignorant ramblings from a severely crippled brain which contained
nothing of value.

[Sunny]

Post by MEB
More ignorant ramblings from a severely crippled brain which contained
nothing of value.

IOW, MEB lost the plot, and has run out of bullshit.
(Another MEB resort to name calling)

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB
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.

Post by 98 Guy
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.

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
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.

You are such a disagreeable bastard.

How can my statement (above) be WRONG, when later in that same post you

Post by MEB
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.

Are you so daft that you don't realize when you contradict yourself?

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on
Win XP, dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied
dependencies, ... 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.

These are two entirely different platforms.

XP and Vista are not entirely different. Why don't you read my material
more carefully?

Post by MEB
ONE is an old DOS based [mostly from CP/M and BASIC
coding languages];

More old rubbish. Win-9x is a fully 32-bit OS, which puts the i86 CPU
into protected mode during it's boot process. The fact that DOS is
initially transiently loaded to boot 9x always fools old pharts like you
who like to think of the win-9x platform as being dos-based.

So what if 9x has 16-bit code SOLEY FOR DOS-COMPATIBILITY purposes. So
does every NT-based OS for the same reason. Doesn't make it DOS-based.

(more of your arcane gibberish not quoted because it makes no sense)

Nice try to divert attention away from your sorry attempt to respond.
The fact remains that these dependency walker unsatisfied dependency
logs of yours indicate only that both you and dependency walker do not
understand the concept of dual-use or cross-platform DLL's.

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB

Post by 98 Guy
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.

You are such a disagreeable bastard.
How can my statement (above) be WRONG, when later in that same post you

Post by MEB
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.

Are you so daft that you don't realize when you contradict yourself?

No, you still don't get it... look at the charted materials in the
other post. MAYBE it will dawn on you what the material means, though I
doubt it...

[98 Guy]

Post by MEB

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

"IE6 was not designed nor compatible with Win98."

Post by MEB

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.

[MEB]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by MEB

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

"IE6 was not designed nor compatible with Win98."

Post by MEB

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.

[Sunny]

Post by MEB
HEY STUPID,
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...

Typical of you MEB, resort to name calling when you get taken to task on
"your facts'

You appear to be deficient in all that lends character.
You have the personality of wallpaper.

Just a reminder of the low life comments you made to me.
(A good indication of your reply when someone dares to disagree with you)

Maurice Edward, Brahier
On 8 Aug 09 you wrote
But while you're here:
Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic
the UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put
large sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of
course if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer,
save, receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or
dividend, and otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own
money or more accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
your nation??

Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?

Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?

[MEB]

Post by Sunny

Post by MEB
HEY STUPID,
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...

Typical of you MEB, resort to name calling when you get taken to task on
"your facts'

HAHAHAHA, and WHO started the name calling you friggin worthless POS.

Post by Sunny
You appear to be deficient in all that lends character.
You have the personality of wallpaper.
Just a reminder of the low life comments you made to me.
(A good indication of your reply when someone dares to disagree with you)
Maurice Edward, Brahier
Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic
the UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put
large sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of
course if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer,
save, receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or
dividend, and otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own
money or more accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
your nation??
Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?
Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?

And those were posted related to WHAT,,, you and your stupidity AND
name calling.. you have the intellect of a snail...

[N. Miller]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
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.)

Yes. But it is akin to stealing sensitive information from one's PC,
nevertheless.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller
<***@msnews.aosake.net> writes:
[]

Post by N. Miller
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

Post by N. Miller
Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.

[MEB]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by N. Miller
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

Really? Then where are the test results to prove that point...
*IF* you followed the CERT histories and elsewhere, you would think
otherwise...

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by N. Miller
Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.

[N. Miller]

Post by rob^_^
Have a look at 98 Guy's headers. I would not trust someone using Opera
to build IE patches for an unsupported OS or browser.

How does one use a web browser to build OS, or browser patches?