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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I have windows media player 10...It is working fine...
is it compatible with windows server 2003.... If you any idea about it please let me know... Thanks |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
In message , MEB
writes: [] These are DEFINITELY *not* the way to achieve longer use of the 9X OS. Perhaps you could say what _is_ - other than keeping it in aspic, virgin and untouched? Thinking about it, I don't think I have ever seen YOU post anything about any update, for any part of '98. Maybe you've never found any that satisfy your rigorous testing requirements. You're wasting my time... Abuse rather than answering the question. Normal. What part instill NEW AND UNKNOWN vulnerabilities escapes your mental faculties. Or is it you think that these provide fixes when they are NOT designed for the 9X OS and the way IT functions, AND are completely unknown to any available protections used with the 9X OS protection applications. Perhaps its just that you don't think... Whisper this quietly: maybe they DO provide fixes (in the form of extra functionality), but DO introduce new vulnerabilities at the same time! Okay, *YOU* provide the test results; SHOW 9X users they provide functionality and no new vulnerabilities... give them something to review so they can make an intelligent and informed decision... As another said, you don't get to give orders. Whoever these hypothetical people are, all they have to go on is: 98Guy posts some references to files, which he says (without proof) may add some functionality and may patch some vulnerabilities; you, whenever he does, reflexly (I know that's not a word) post a warning that these have not been tested to military standards and may introduce new vulnerabilities (also without proof). These hypothetical people have to decide which of you to believe. Or, you post a warning about new vulnerabilities taken from somewhere else, and someone else (I think it's 98g) reflexly posts the response "are these relevant to 98". Again, people have to make up their own minds, since you don't provide any proof that they are, and he doesn't that they're not. [] For once I will refrain from saying why don't you provide some, because as I say I can't remember - recently, anyway - you providing any details of any updates at all. BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE... 9X is EOL. It ended support life with a finite set of vulnerabilities, change those and you have NO idea what you do have. Or don't change them; you still don't know what you have (unless _possibly_ you're an expert of very high calibre; certainly not the average or even above-average user). I think that's the nub of the problem. You want fixes then do like you're SUPPOSED to do, search for programmers providing ACTUAL DESIGNED FOR 9X applications... guess what, there are some still doing so. Make your mind up, there either are people (not necessarily within MS) supporting 98, or there aren't. -- 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. ** "Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
In message , MEB
writes: [] These are DEFINITELY *not* the way to achieve longer use of the 9X OS. Perhaps you could say what _is_ - other than keeping it in aspic, virgin and untouched? Thinking about it, I don't think I have ever seen YOU post anything about any update, for any part of '98. Maybe you've never found any that satisfy your rigorous testing requirements. You're wasting my time... Abuse rather than answering the question. Normal. What part instill NEW AND UNKNOWN vulnerabilities escapes your mental faculties. Or is it you think that these provide fixes when they are NOT designed for the 9X OS and the way IT functions, AND are completely unknown to any available protections used with the 9X OS protection applications. Perhaps its just that you don't think... Whisper this quietly: maybe they DO provide fixes (in the form of extra functionality), but DO introduce new vulnerabilities at the same time! Okay, *YOU* provide the test results; SHOW 9X users they provide functionality and no new vulnerabilities... give them something to review so they can make an intelligent and informed decision... As another said, you don't get to give orders. Whoever these hypothetical people are, all they have to go on is: 98Guy posts some references to files, which he says (without proof) may add some functionality and may patch some vulnerabilities; you, whenever he does, reflexly (I know that's not a word) post a warning that these have not been tested to military standards and may introduce new vulnerabilities (also without proof). These hypothetical people have to decide which of you to believe. Or, you post a warning about new vulnerabilities taken from somewhere else, and someone else (I think it's 98g) reflexly posts the response "are these relevant to 98". Again, people have to make up their own minds, since you don't provide any proof that they are, and he doesn't that they're not. [] For once I will refrain from saying why don't you provide some, because as I say I can't remember - recently, anyway - you providing any details of any updates at all. BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE... 9X is EOL. It ended support life with a finite set of vulnerabilities, change those and you have NO idea what you do have. Or don't change them; you still don't know what you have (unless _possibly_ you're an expert of very high calibre; certainly not the average or even above-average user). I think that's the nub of the problem. You want fixes then do like you're SUPPOSED to do, search for programmers providing ACTUAL DESIGNED FOR 9X applications... guess what, there are some still doing so. Make your mind up, there either are people (not necessarily within MS) supporting 98, or there aren't. -- 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. ** "Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
98Guy posts some references to files, which he says (without proof) may add some functionality and may patch some vulnerabilities; Microsoft is the source of those files. Microsoft claims they fix some issues with win-2k. Microsoft gives no proof or explanation how they tested those files, nor can they garantee that they don't contain new vulnerabilities to be discovered in the future. There can be no doubt that these files ARE NOT malicious or malware or contain viruses or trojans. The can be downloaded directly from Microsoft. These files represent the safest way to enhance and update win-98. It's a fact that in the past there have been many files that are common between win-9x and NT. It is no surprise that many IE6 files remain compatible between 9x and NT, even these new files. Of course Microsoft will not say that these files apply to win-9x. Once the support period for Win-9x ended back in July 2006, Microsoft's policy is that they simply do not mention win-9x any more for any reason. People like MEB that claim that these files are not compatible with win-9x because Microsoft would have said so if they were. That argument is retarded because Microsoft stopped saying ANYTHING about win-9x three years ago. MEB will not address or respond to this simple point of logic. post a warning that these have not been tested to military standards and may introduce new vulnerabilities (also without proof). Every patch that Microsoft offers for any OS may introduce new vulnerabilities. I've asked MEB why he doesn't ask Microsoft to post evidence that it's tested it's own patches - MEB doesn't respond to that question either. If you follow MEB's logic, then even someone with XP shouldn't install Microsoft's own patches and updates because they could introduce new vulnerabilities - even if those patches fix certain known vulnerabilities today. What kind of cracked logic is that? These hypothetical people have to decide which of you to believe. Why would anyone believe a blow-hard like MEB? He claims to have all this background and experience with testing, yet he doesn't lift a finger to test these files according to his own criteria. You'd think he would jump at the opportunity to test these files, FIND A REAL PROBLEM WITH THEM, and then come back here and post his results along with "I told you so". We can only conclude the following: Either MEB has tested these files, found nothing wrong, and kept his results to himself (he doesn't want to admit that someone else was right about these files) - or - he doesn't have this testing background that he claims, he has no idea how to perform these tests, or his understanding of why these files should work under win-9x is completely faulty. There is no other rational explanation as to why MEB constantly criticizes and warns against updating win-9x this way, while posting nothing to indicate he's done his own investigation to support his own claims. BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE... 9X is EOL. It ended support life with a finite set of vulnerabilities, As of July 2006, Win-2K also had some vulnerabilities linked to IE6 that were discovered over time. Those vulnerabilities were addressed with patches and updates, and many of those same patch files can be applied to win-98 with no loss of stability or functionality. It is not generally known if win-9x systems would have been vulnerable in the same way as 2K systems if those patches are not applied. MEB makes the assumption that exploit code designed to operate on win-2K will also operate on win-9x systems - an assumption that largely does not hold true. But these win-9x systems continue to operate just fine with these files (and believe me, the people in the win-9x forums at msfn.org have many person-years of experience with these files and they would post observations of problems if they encountered them). change those and you have NO idea what you do have. Another frequent comment from MEB that is just totally bogus. His logic is that even if these files allow win-9x to function normally and without error, they may not really fix the vulnerability they were intended to fix, and they may introduce a new vulnerability that remains to be discovered in the future. The fact is that you can ALWAYS say that about ANY NEW FILES from microsoft for any supported operating system. It can always be said that a new file from microsoft does not properly or completely fix a problem, or that it introduces a new vulnerability or problem that will take time for someone to discover. So - do you replace an existing win-98 file with a more recent file released for win-2k if it does not cause operational problems for your system? The upside is that you've probably just closed some vulnerability on your system, or your system is now a little *more* stable or more compatible with the internet. The downside is that this may have fixed a known problem now, but created a new vulnerability down the road. But that's PURE speculation. MEB thinks it's better to not patch your system against a KNOWN vulnerability now, because of the POTENTIAL to give it a new vulnerability in the future. Tell me that's not cracked logic. It's like saying it's better to not fix a broken arm now, because you might break it again in the future. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
98Guy posts some references to files, which he says (without proof) may add some functionality and may patch some vulnerabilities; Microsoft is the source of those files. Microsoft claims they fix some issues with win-2k. Microsoft gives no proof or explanation how they tested those files, nor can they garantee that they don't contain new vulnerabilities to be discovered in the future. There can be no doubt that these files ARE NOT malicious or malware or contain viruses or trojans. The can be downloaded directly from Microsoft. These files represent the safest way to enhance and update win-98. It's a fact that in the past there have been many files that are common between win-9x and NT. It is no surprise that many IE6 files remain compatible between 9x and NT, even these new files. Of course Microsoft will not say that these files apply to win-9x. Once the support period for Win-9x ended back in July 2006, Microsoft's policy is that they simply do not mention win-9x any more for any reason. People like MEB that claim that these files are not compatible with win-9x because Microsoft would have said so if they were. That argument is retarded because Microsoft stopped saying ANYTHING about win-9x three years ago. MEB will not address or respond to this simple point of logic. post a warning that these have not been tested to military standards and may introduce new vulnerabilities (also without proof). Every patch that Microsoft offers for any OS may introduce new vulnerabilities. I've asked MEB why he doesn't ask Microsoft to post evidence that it's tested it's own patches - MEB doesn't respond to that question either. If you follow MEB's logic, then even someone with XP shouldn't install Microsoft's own patches and updates because they could introduce new vulnerabilities - even if those patches fix certain known vulnerabilities today. What kind of cracked logic is that? These hypothetical people have to decide which of you to believe. Why would anyone believe a blow-hard like MEB? He claims to have all this background and experience with testing, yet he doesn't lift a finger to test these files according to his own criteria. You'd think he would jump at the opportunity to test these files, FIND A REAL PROBLEM WITH THEM, and then come back here and post his results along with "I told you so". We can only conclude the following: Either MEB has tested these files, found nothing wrong, and kept his results to himself (he doesn't want to admit that someone else was right about these files) - or - he doesn't have this testing background that he claims, he has no idea how to perform these tests, or his understanding of why these files should work under win-9x is completely faulty. There is no other rational explanation as to why MEB constantly criticizes and warns against updating win-9x this way, while posting nothing to indicate he's done his own investigation to support his own claims. BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE... 9X is EOL. It ended support life with a finite set of vulnerabilities, As of July 2006, Win-2K also had some vulnerabilities linked to IE6 that were discovered over time. Those vulnerabilities were addressed with patches and updates, and many of those same patch files can be applied to win-98 with no loss of stability or functionality. It is not generally known if win-9x systems would have been vulnerable in the same way as 2K systems if those patches are not applied. MEB makes the assumption that exploit code designed to operate on win-2K will also operate on win-9x systems - an assumption that largely does not hold true. But these win-9x systems continue to operate just fine with these files (and believe me, the people in the win-9x forums at msfn.org have many person-years of experience with these files and they would post observations of problems if they encountered them). change those and you have NO idea what you do have. Another frequent comment from MEB that is just totally bogus. His logic is that even if these files allow win-9x to function normally and without error, they may not really fix the vulnerability they were intended to fix, and they may introduce a new vulnerability that remains to be discovered in the future. The fact is that you can ALWAYS say that about ANY NEW FILES from microsoft for any supported operating system. It can always be said that a new file from microsoft does not properly or completely fix a problem, or that it introduces a new vulnerability or problem that will take time for someone to discover. So - do you replace an existing win-98 file with a more recent file released for win-2k if it does not cause operational problems for your system? The upside is that you've probably just closed some vulnerability on your system, or your system is now a little *more* stable or more compatible with the internet. The downside is that this may have fixed a known problem now, but created a new vulnerability down the road. But that's PURE speculation. MEB thinks it's better to not patch your system against a KNOWN vulnerability now, because of the POTENTIAL to give it a new vulnerability in the future. Tell me that's not cracked logic. It's like saying it's better to not fix a broken arm now, because you might break it again in the future. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
gatsmark01 wrote:
I have windows media player 10...It is working fine... is it compatible with windows server 2003.... If you any idea about it please let me know... why ... do ... you... use ... so ... many ... periods? ... What you posted makes no sense. This is a windows-98 news group. Not win-2k3. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
gatsmark01 wrote:
I have windows media player 10...It is working fine... is it compatible with windows server 2003.... If you any idea about it please let me know... why ... do ... you... use ... so ... many ... periods? ... What you posted makes no sense. This is a windows-98 news group. Not win-2k3. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
There is an excellent example of some "testing" he
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug...iple&id=512005 (skip to the bottom unless you want to trawl through all the abuse). -- Jeff Richards ---------------------------------------- "98 Guy" wrote in message ... snip Why would anyone believe a blow-hard like MEB? He claims to have all this background and experience with testing, yet he doesn't lift a finger to test these files according to his own criteria. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
Jeff Richards wrote:
There is an excellent example of some "testing" he https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug...iple&id=512005 Ya, well, you're probably using the term "testing" loosely. This isin't really an example of testing as much as it is a cry-baby who wants someone to fix something that isin't working right. (skip to the bottom unless you want to trawl through all the abuse). Dude. The abuse is the best part! - "And please stop being a dick." It's clear that MEB never read "How to win friends and influence people". I guess we know where he goes to abuse people when he's not lurking around here. I find this particularly hillarious and strange: "It appears that Red Hat is traded on the markets (...)" Where was he going with that? Was he going to short Red Hat? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Windows Media Player 10 for Windows 98
Jeff Richards wrote:
There is an excellent example of some "testing" he https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug...iple&id=512005 Ya, well, you're probably using the term "testing" loosely. This isin't really an example of testing as much as it is a cry-baby who wants someone to fix something that isin't working right. (skip to the bottom unless you want to trawl through all the abuse). Dude. The abuse is the best part! - "And please stop being a dick." It's clear that MEB never read "How to win friends and influence people". I guess we know where he goes to abuse people when he's not lurking around here. I find this particularly hillarious and strange: "It appears that Red Hat is traded on the markets (...)" Where was he going with that? Was he going to short Red Hat? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
problem with mp3 player/windows media player | Mirey86 | General | 0 | June 3rd 08 09:13 AM |
How to change Windows Media Player in Windows 98 to not play CD's? | Bible John | Software & Applications | 4 | February 13th 07 04:41 PM |
How to change Windows Media Player in Windows 98 to not play CD's? | Bible John | Improving Performance | 8 | February 13th 07 04:41 PM |
Mp3 player is not found in Windows MEdia player 8.0 | Banker | Multimedia | 1 | September 7th 05 01:09 AM |
Windows Media Player vs Real player | General | 1 | August 14th 04 03:01 PM |