A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 16th 09, 04:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
N. Miller
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 213
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:09:40 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft
released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98
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.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
  #32  
Old December 16th 09, 04:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
N. Miller
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 213
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:09:40 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft
released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98
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.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
  #33  
Old December 16th 09, 06:57 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On 12/16/2009 09:28 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Full-Quoter MEB wrote:

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.


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.


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.


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.


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
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #34  
Old December 16th 09, 06:57 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On 12/16/2009 09:28 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Full-Quoter MEB wrote:

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.


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.


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.


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.


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
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #35  
Old December 17th 09, 02:28 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

"N. Miller" wrote:

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that
Microsoft released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly
usable on win-98


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


Most parachutists and rock climbers do not pack computers running
windows-98 as part of their survival gear.

Any computer that is running mission-critical or life-support functions
should theoretically not have an internet connection and should not
allow the user to "surf the web" while in operation.

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.

Microsoft has identified certain reasons to release new versions of
files related to IE6-SP1. The have done so periodically over the life
of that program, and will continue to do so until Win-2K reaches
end-of-life, which I think will happen mid-next year.

When those files are copied to a win-98 system (replacing existing
files) they allow the system to operate normally, with no errors or
lock-ups. That's quite a trick to do given the complexity of how these
files and functions interact with the OS. The slightest incompatibility
usually renders a system inoperable.

The conclusion one can draw from that is that Microsoft would release
the exact same files as part of a win-98 update patch if Microsoft's
support policy for win-98 allowed it.
  #36  
Old December 17th 09, 02:28 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

"N. Miller" wrote:

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that
Microsoft released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly
usable on win-98


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


Most parachutists and rock climbers do not pack computers running
windows-98 as part of their survival gear.

Any computer that is running mission-critical or life-support functions
should theoretically not have an internet connection and should not
allow the user to "surf the web" while in operation.

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.

Microsoft has identified certain reasons to release new versions of
files related to IE6-SP1. The have done so periodically over the life
of that program, and will continue to do so until Win-2K reaches
end-of-life, which I think will happen mid-next year.

When those files are copied to a win-98 system (replacing existing
files) they allow the system to operate normally, with no errors or
lock-ups. That's quite a trick to do given the complexity of how these
files and functions interact with the OS. The slightest incompatibility
usually renders a system inoperable.

The conclusion one can draw from that is that Microsoft would release
the exact same files as part of a win-98 update patch if Microsoft's
support policy for win-98 allowed it.
  #37  
Old December 17th 09, 08:41 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
N. Miller
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 213
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:28:49 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"N. Miller" wrote:


It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that
Microsoft released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly
usable on win-98


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


Most parachutists and rock climbers do not pack computers running
windows-98 as part of their survival gear.


But they do check their gear thoroughly.

Any computer that is running mission-critical or life-support functions
should theoretically not have an internet connection and should not
allow the user to "surf the web" while in operation.


Matters not about mission critical. It is my GD computer, and it GD well
better work when I need it. And who supports this *******ized OS if
something should go wrong? You?

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.


It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the bilge on
your own when things go wrong.

Microsoft has identified certain reasons to release new versions of
files related to IE6-SP1. The have done so periodically over the life
of that program, and will continue to do so until Win-2K reaches
end-of-life, which I think will happen mid-next year.


So we are going to add Windows 2000 specific files to Windows 98, thus
creating a chimera; the legendary monster.

When those files are copied to a win-98 system (replacing existing
files) they allow the system to operate normally, with no errors or
lock-ups. That's quite a trick to do given the complexity of how these
files and functions interact with the OS. The slightest incompatibility
usually renders a system inoperable.


The issue is vulnerabilities.

The conclusion one can draw from that is that Microsoft would release
the exact same files as part of a win-98 update patch if Microsoft's
support policy for win-98 allowed it.


One can draw all the conclusions one wishes. But they would be wrong.
Microsoft actually tests those patches on Windows 2000. They are not testing
them against Windows 98.

Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest, and add
a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and
unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they
cure. Use at your own risk.

Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
  #38  
Old December 17th 09, 08:41 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
N. Miller
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 213
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:28:49 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"N. Miller" wrote:


It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that
Microsoft released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly
usable on win-98


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


Most parachutists and rock climbers do not pack computers running
windows-98 as part of their survival gear.


But they do check their gear thoroughly.

Any computer that is running mission-critical or life-support functions
should theoretically not have an internet connection and should not
allow the user to "surf the web" while in operation.


Matters not about mission critical. It is my GD computer, and it GD well
better work when I need it. And who supports this *******ized OS if
something should go wrong? You?

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.


It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the bilge on
your own when things go wrong.

Microsoft has identified certain reasons to release new versions of
files related to IE6-SP1. The have done so periodically over the life
of that program, and will continue to do so until Win-2K reaches
end-of-life, which I think will happen mid-next year.


So we are going to add Windows 2000 specific files to Windows 98, thus
creating a chimera; the legendary monster.

When those files are copied to a win-98 system (replacing existing
files) they allow the system to operate normally, with no errors or
lock-ups. That's quite a trick to do given the complexity of how these
files and functions interact with the OS. The slightest incompatibility
usually renders a system inoperable.


The issue is vulnerabilities.

The conclusion one can draw from that is that Microsoft would release
the exact same files as part of a win-98 update patch if Microsoft's
support policy for win-98 allowed it.


One can draw all the conclusions one wishes. But they would be wrong.
Microsoft actually tests those patches on Windows 2000. They are not testing
them against Windows 98.

Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest, and add
a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and
unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they
cure. Use at your own risk.

Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
  #39  
Old December 17th 09, 11:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
J. P. Gilliver (John)
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,554
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest, and add
a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and
unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they
cure. Use at your own risk.


But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own
risk too (-:

Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
  #40  
Old December 17th 09, 11:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
J. P. Gilliver (John)
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,554
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest, and add
a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and
unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they
cure. Use at your own risk.


But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own
risk too (-:

Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet Connection Wizard Component Missing Darlene Internet 6 October 2nd 04 03:27 PM
internet explorer update from windows Maurice Internet 2 August 12th 04 02:24 PM
Windows Update: Enternet Explorer and Internet Tools Mordido General 1 June 11th 04 06:05 AM
Windows Update: Enternet Explorer and Internet Tools Mordido Setup & Installation 0 June 10th 04 11:37 PM
Windows Update: Enternet Explorer and Internet Tools Mordido Setup & Installation 0 June 10th 04 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.