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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98
MEB wrote:
Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune from the present hacks being used? Because: a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug fixes might result in a more stable operating system. b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware. c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any update from Microsoft under any condition. For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98 system. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these days, there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs to seek out and install these files. But regardless what the average win-98 user does, it should always be pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98 "support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98 updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these win-2k files and their operability on win-98. They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98 enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. These same people that you point to for other useful resources relating to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was never properly "ported" to win-98. Your dependency-walker "evidence" purporting to show unresolved dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding of your dependency-walker observations. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
98 Guy wants advise of usage of Win-2K IE6 files in 98 and otherstupid activities
On 04/06/2010 09:46 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote: Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune from the present hacks being used? Because: a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug fixes might result in a more stable operating system. Might huh. So every idiot on the planet is supposed to install these because they are too stupid to know whether they perform *any* function or not. And even though they may, OTOH, install additional unstable issues and vulnerabilities into Win9X. b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware. Might huh. So even though 98 Guy claims there are no present exploits being used against Win9X users, he recommends every idiot on the planet should install these files to protect against vulnerabilities NOT being exploited while NOT knowing the vulnerabilities that these DO install into Win9X. c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any update from Microsoft under any condition. Here 98 Guy exposes how completely clueless he and the rest of the idiots on MSFN are related to these activities. The CLAIM is Microsoft produces NO flawed updates even for the supported OSs, "there is no possibility" for *ANY* new Win9X vulnerabilities. Of the several THOUSAND updates and hotfixes to THE EXACT SAME FILES due to coding flaws and failed corrections, 98 Guy and the idiots on MSFN claim in Win9X these NEVER occur, yet recommend these files are installed to fix ... ahhh, since there never were any flaws or vulnerabilities EVER, then there obviously was never a reason to upgrade or install hotfixes, EVER. Yep, we have all been duped, we should be running "out-of-the-box" installations without ANY further updates or fixes. For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98 system. And this is an excellent example of how truly clueless these idiots are and particularly 98 Guy. Even though these OSs *REQUIRE* separate and distinct coding and compilation routines and inclusion for programs and applications to properly function; and Win9X and the NTs are separate and distinct OSs REQUIRING these specific compilation and coding activities; and even though NO ONE bothers to make sure these IMPROPERLY programmed files provide ANY function and DO NOT install new vulnerabilities in Win9X; these MORONS want other MORONS to blindly accept these files for installation into Win9X for no other reason than these files can be installed, with _UNKNOWN_ consequences. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these days, there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs to seek out and install these files. *NOTE* this specifically: 98 Guy has specifically stated Win9X is "practically immune" to IE6 exploits. So now that 98 Guy has once again explained MSFN and his distinct knowledge and expertise regarding exactly what occurs everywhere. Obviously now MSFN and 98 Guy claims a IE6 is *SAFE* for Win9X usage *WITHOUT* any W2K file updates involved. {Not true, as IE6 is STILL severely flawed and being leveraged by malicious activity across the world.} That NO ONE need worry about _any_ exploit being leveraged against Win9X with or without the W2K updates. {Not true, as the same and modified versions of Win9X exploits are still being used as when Win9x was a supported OS, in addition to new forms.} That there are _no_ coding differences between Win9X and the NTs. {Not true, as there are distinct differences in even the NTs, and certainly when compared against Win9X.} Installation of improperly compiled files and applications *do not* increase vulnerabilities and potential exploit vectors. {Not true, as improperly compiled files include INCREASED errors, failed system calls, and other aspects which can be used/leveraged maliciously.} --- These are representative of the lunatic ideas presently floating around MSFN and between idiots like 98 Guy. As any new vulnerabilities and exploits pursuant to installing IE6 W2K files into Win9X would require someone with enough experience and understanding to "catch" an exploit AND understand its functioning and usage, these morons would hardly be the ones to do so as they CLAIM there are *no* vulnerabilities installed EVER into Win9X even though there obviously IS into the supported OSs, hence the NECESSITY for continued hotfixes, zero-day fixes, out-of-band updates, and other updates. Here again, is where the world gets to see the reasoning power associated with these morons, these _clueless_ idiots who constantly ignore the world in which they live; who can't even comprehend the reasons *WHY* Microsoft MUST constantly produce updates to its supported OSs and browsers; *WHY* Microsoft always includes the *exact* OSs and _service pack_ levels these files are compiled for and tested against; *WHY* these W2K files are _NOT_ even the same across the NT platforms; and more obvious considerations which must be applied when dealing with these issues. So it boils down to "how stupid are you"... these suggested installations are for the interface to the Internet, the "entry point" for every malicious attack, crimeware, and other one encounters with Internet usage, save for exploits using other applications to effectuate the attack. Are you a clueless "98 Guy", or are you someone with some intelligence. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98
98 Guy
Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be a Troll -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "98 Guy" wrote in message ... MEB wrote: Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune from the present hacks being used? Because: a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug fixes might result in a more stable operating system. b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware. c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any update from Microsoft under any condition. For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98 system. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these days, there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs to seek out and install these files. But regardless what the average win-98 user does, it should always be pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98 "support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98 updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these win-2k files and their operability on win-98. They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98 enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. These same people that you point to for other useful resources relating to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was never properly "ported" to win-98. Your dependency-walker "evidence" purporting to show unresolved dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding of your dependency-walker observations. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98
Full-quoter and Top-Poaster Peter Foldes top-poasted:
Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be a Troll I'm having (or trying to have) a technical discussion regarding windows 98 and the use of IE6 rollups from Microsoft. I don't believe that trolls normally discuss such things. And you obviously don't have the balls or the knowledge to participate in the discussion, other than to make a klownish entrance and make a childish comment and then retreat, as you no doubt will do in this case as you have done in the past. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98
Peter ........
98 Guy is a Troll Eating on you! "Peter Foldes" wrote in message ... 98 Guy Gee guy. Give it a rest already. You are starting to get to be a Troll -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "98 Guy" wrote in message ... MEB wrote: Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune from the present hacks being used? Because: a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug fixes might result in a more stable operating system. b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware. c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any update from Microsoft under any condition. For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98 system. But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these days, there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs to seek out and install these files. But regardless what the average win-98 user does, it should always be pointed out to those that are ignorant about the exact state of win-98 "support" in the post-2006 era, that it IS wrong to say that win-98 updates are no longer available - because of the existance of these win-2k files and their operability on win-98. They have been tested (from a purely operational POV) by various win-98 enthusiasts that participate on the MSFN forums and are incorporated into several independantly-maintained win-98 update packages. These same people that you point to for other useful resources relating to the advanced support of Windows 98 would also be the first people to point out or disover flaws in using these files. They have countered your claims several times that these files are not appropriate for win-98 by pointing out the flaws in your basic argument that IE6 was never properly "ported" to win-98. Your dependency-walker "evidence" purporting to show unresolved dependencies in these files has been totally debunked, and you have never explained how the use of these files can result in the apparent normal and stable operation of a win-98 system given your understanding of your dependency-walker observations. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My Fujifilm Digital Camera and my PC don't want to talk | Tnafbrat | General | 12 | January 12th 08 05:45 PM |
How to talk to Mac using messaging | Orpheus | General | 2 | August 5th 05 05:35 PM |
cannot 'talk' to win98 from winXP Pro | Achtungbaby | Networking | 0 | March 29th 05 02:27 AM |
Using hyperterminal to talk to a UPS | Mike NG | General | 5 | March 7th 05 08:47 PM |
I.E and Outlook express will not talk to ISP | Roy McCabe | Internet | 0 | July 30th 04 04:59 PM |