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 » Improving Performance
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 6th 10, 02:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default 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  
Old April 6th 10, 04:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default 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  
Old April 7th 10, 06:59 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser
Peter Foldes
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 13
Default 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  
Old April 7th 10, 01:51 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default 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  
Old April 7th 10, 03:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser
Hot-text
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,026
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.