Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

MEB wrote:

IE6 was released in August 2001, only 2 years after Win-98se.
Only in your twisted mind could that time-frame be classified
as "moving to EOL".

Hey stupid, what year was XP being prepared for public offering.

What does that have to do with anything?

Win-98 was supported for FIVE MORE YEARS after IE6 was released.
Win-98se was less than 1/3 of the way to EOL at the time that IE6 was
released.

You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you.
IE 3 was the transitional browser for Win 98

What exactly is your fixation on the time-line and pedigree of IE?

It's a known fact that MS likes to bring out a new version of IE just
prior to a new OS, basically for only ONE reason: They know that
various web-metrics measurements will try to guage the success of the
new OS by looking at how many hits they get with the new browser. By
introducing a new version of IE slightly before the new version of
Windoze, they make it difficult to guage the true growth of the new OS
because there will be a growing fraction of the older OS that will
update to the new version of IE.

IE 4 was the transitional browser for Win98SE

IE5 was released in March 1999 and was included with Windows 98se and
Office 2000. A bug-fix version 5.01 was released in December 1999 and
this is the version that shipped with win-2000.

So here again we see a commonality in IE between win-98 and 2K
platforms.

Here's a chart style so maybe you can understand WITHOUT
having to comprehend what you are reading.

What is that supposed to prove?

It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE with
both the 9X/ME and NT platforms.

You can't wrap your head around that simple fact.

There is a major difference in the security model implimentation between
IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not compatible with
win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why IE6-SP1 is actually
MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather than the NT line.

On 12/20/2009 12:24 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

IE6 was released in August 2001, only 2 years after Win-98se.
Only in your twisted mind could that time-frame be classified
as "moving to EOL".

Hey stupid, what year was XP being prepared for public offering.

What does that have to do with anything?

Win-98 was supported for FIVE MORE YEARS after IE6 was released.
Win-98se was less than 1/3 of the way to EOL at the time that IE6 was
released.

You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you.
IE 3 was the transitional browser for Win 98

What exactly is your fixation on the time-line and pedigree of IE?


Because it makes ALL the difference to the discussion, which you still
can't grasp. Win98 is not programmed for anymore, there is no NEED for
compatibility nor to include ANYTHING, fix or otherwise, related to it...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 12/20/2009 12:24 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

IE6 was released in August 2001, only 2 years after Win-98se.
Only in your twisted mind could that time-frame be classified
as "moving to EOL".

Hey stupid, what year was XP being prepared for public offering.

What does that have to do with anything?

Win-98 was supported for FIVE MORE YEARS after IE6 was released.
Win-98se was less than 1/3 of the way to EOL at the time that IE6 was
released.

You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you.
IE 3 was the transitional browser for Win 98

What exactly is your fixation on the time-line and pedigree of IE?


Because it makes ALL the difference to the discussion, which you still
can't grasp. Win98 is not programmed for anymore, there is no NEED for
compatibility nor to include ANYTHING, fix or otherwise, related to it...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

MEB forgot to quote:

It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE
with both the 9X/ME and NT platforms.

You can't wrap your head around that simple fact.

There is a major difference in the security model implimentation
between IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not
compatible with win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why
IE6-SP1 is actually MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather
than the NT line.

The reader will note that MEB always makes it a point to full-quote the
message to which he replies to, because in his words to "allow future
readers access to the entire conversation".

But you will note that when backed into a corner, MEB will selectively
remove logical or rational points to which he can not form a substantive
answer. So MEB will remove those points from the quoted material, as
the removal of the above 3 paragraphs illustrate.

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to the
observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly "ported" to
Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - is fundamentally
flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives the same
output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. If his logic was
followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported to XP or Vista either
(clearly an incredible conclusion).

MEB forgot to quote:

It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE
with both the 9X/ME and NT platforms.

You can't wrap your head around that simple fact.

There is a major difference in the security model implimentation
between IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not
compatible with win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why
IE6-SP1 is actually MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather
than the NT line.

The reader will note that MEB always makes it a point to full-quote the
message to which he replies to, because in his words to "allow future
readers access to the entire conversation".

But you will note that when backed into a corner, MEB will selectively
remove logical or rational points to which he can not form a substantive
answer. So MEB will remove those points from the quoted material, as
the removal of the above 3 paragraphs illustrate.

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to the
observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly "ported" to
Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - is fundamentally
flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives the same
output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. If his logic was
followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported to XP or Vista either
(clearly an incredible conclusion).

On 12/20/2009 10:13 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB forgot to quote:

It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE
with both the 9X/ME and NT platforms.

You can't wrap your head around that simple fact.

There is a major difference in the security model implimentation
between IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not
compatible with win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why
IE6-SP1 is actually MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather
than the NT line.

The reader will note that MEB always makes it a point to full-quote the
message to which he replies to, because in his words to "allow future
readers access to the entire conversation".

But you will note that when backed into a corner, MEB will selectively
remove logical or rational points to which he can not form a substantive
answer. So MEB will remove those points from the quoted material, as
the removal of the above 3 paragraphs illustrate.

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to the
observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly "ported" to
Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - is fundamentally
flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives the same
output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. If his logic was
followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported to XP or Vista either
(clearly an incredible conclusion).

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.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

On 12/20/2009 10:13 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB forgot to quote:

It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE
with both the 9X/ME and NT platforms.

You can't wrap your head around that simple fact.

There is a major difference in the security model implimentation
between IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not
compatible with win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why
IE6-SP1 is actually MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather
than the NT line.

The reader will note that MEB always makes it a point to full-quote the
message to which he replies to, because in his words to "allow future
readers access to the entire conversation".

But you will note that when backed into a corner, MEB will selectively
remove logical or rational points to which he can not form a substantive
answer. So MEB will remove those points from the quoted material, as
the removal of the above 3 paragraphs illustrate.

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to the
observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly "ported" to
Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - is fundamentally
flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives the same
output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. If his logic was
followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported to XP or Vista either
(clearly an incredible conclusion).

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.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

MEB wrote:

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to
the observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly
"ported" to Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis -
is fundamentally flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives
the same output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista.
If his logic was followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported
to XP or Vista either (clearly an incredible conclusion).

There is none that need given. The Dependency Walker readings are
now immaterial

Your way of agreeing with my analysis.

except to show the CONTINUED failure of Microsoft to have
ever corrected the errors IN WIN9X...

Unsatisfied dependencies in certain IE6 DLL files ARE NOT ERRORS because
those files were designed to operate on different platforms
simultaneously.

The errors were introduced with IE 6.

AND THAT IS THE FINAL ANSWER, DEAL WITH IT.

No, it's not the end.

If you claim that there are "errors" above and beyond the non-errors
listed by dependency walker, then state exactly what those errors are,
or point to a CERT or Secunia or MS-KB article describing them.

You ALWAYS attempt to ignore the TWO DIFFERENT operating systems

Why does dependency walker show the same list of unsatisfied
dependencies for IE7 as analyzed on both XP and Vista platforms?

It's you who is ignoring the fact that these IE DLL files are designed
to be run on different OS's simultaneously, and are coded internally as
necessary to allow that. That coding will naturally give the impression
to dependency walker that the file was designed for another OS, but that
is a false warning.

Now stop frothing at the mouth and admit you are wrong.

You've been proved wrong before - in REAL courts of law no less. Your
perception of this world and of reality in general is highly flawed and
twisted.

Your dealings with the court system and the award judgements against you
have left you a bitter old coot. If I were you, I'd stop pharting
around making a fool of yourself here on usenet, and get busy paying
back your child support payments. And drop the lawyer facade while
you're at it.

MEB wrote:

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to
the observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly
"ported" to Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis -
is fundamentally flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives
the same output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista.
If his logic was followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported
to XP or Vista either (clearly an incredible conclusion).

There is none that need given. The Dependency Walker readings are
now immaterial

Your way of agreeing with my analysis.

except to show the CONTINUED failure of Microsoft to have
ever corrected the errors IN WIN9X...

Unsatisfied dependencies in certain IE6 DLL files ARE NOT ERRORS because
those files were designed to operate on different platforms
simultaneously.

The errors were introduced with IE 6.

AND THAT IS THE FINAL ANSWER, DEAL WITH IT.

No, it's not the end.

If you claim that there are "errors" above and beyond the non-errors
listed by dependency walker, then state exactly what those errors are,
or point to a CERT or Secunia or MS-KB article describing them.

You ALWAYS attempt to ignore the TWO DIFFERENT operating systems

Why does dependency walker show the same list of unsatisfied
dependencies for IE7 as analyzed on both XP and Vista platforms?

It's you who is ignoring the fact that these IE DLL files are designed
to be run on different OS's simultaneously, and are coded internally as
necessary to allow that. That coding will naturally give the impression
to dependency walker that the file was designed for another OS, but that
is a false warning.

Now stop frothing at the mouth and admit you are wrong.

You've been proved wrong before - in REAL courts of law no less. Your
perception of this world and of reality in general is highly flawed and
twisted.

Your dealings with the court system and the award judgements against you
have left you a bitter old coot. If I were you, I'd stop pharting
around making a fool of yourself here on usenet, and get busy paying
back your child support payments. And drop the lawyer facade while
you're at it.

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

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

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---