Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)

"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"

I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en


That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
with :
(using MEB typespeak shouting)

"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)

"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"

I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en


That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
with :
(using MEB typespeak shouting)

"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"

On 12/18/2009 09:52 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

WRONG AS USUAL. The files of the supposed discussion ARE NOT DESIGNED
FOR Win9X...

That you and your like STILL don't get that shows your mental abilities
to comprehend the world at large.



That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.


No, stupid, as I have repeatedly advised, just as IE 5.5 was not
completely compatible with Win95, IE6 was not designed nor compatible
with Win98. It is the *transitional browser* created by Microsoft as a
*show case* for the intended OS, XP.

These are two entirely different platforms. ONE is an old DOS based
[mostly from CP/M and BASIC coding languages]; where the other is a
Posix hack [a Unix hack, like Linux]. The single commonality is the
programming code in the latter years. That would generally be one of the Cs.
However the code IS NOT cross platform, it is specifically coded to the
workings of the intended OS. To make it cross-platform, the programmer
MUST include the proper coding FOR THE INTENDED OSs in instances like this.

Now do you see how I lead you right to this. You have already said
installing Linux code into Win9X is NOT proper and would cause issues;
yet you espouse upon doing so with THESE files, merely because these
files can be installed.

--
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 12/18/2009 09:52 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

WRONG AS USUAL. The files of the supposed discussion ARE NOT DESIGNED
FOR Win9X...

That you and your like STILL don't get that shows your mental abilities
to comprehend the world at large.



That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.


No, stupid, as I have repeatedly advised, just as IE 5.5 was not
completely compatible with Win95, IE6 was not designed nor compatible
with Win98. It is the *transitional browser* created by Microsoft as a
*show case* for the intended OS, XP.

These are two entirely different platforms. ONE is an old DOS based
[mostly from CP/M and BASIC coding languages]; where the other is a
Posix hack [a Unix hack, like Linux]. The single commonality is the
programming code in the latter years. That would generally be one of the Cs.
However the code IS NOT cross platform, it is specifically coded to the
workings of the intended OS. To make it cross-platform, the programmer
MUST include the proper coding FOR THE INTENDED OSs in instances like this.

Now do you see how I lead you right to this. You have already said
installing Linux code into Win9X is NOT proper and would cause issues;
yet you espouse upon doing so with THESE files, merely because these
files can be installed.

--
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 12/19/2009 01:06 AM, Sunny wrote:
"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)

"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"

I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en


That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
with :
(using MEB typespeak shouting)

"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"


You forgot the era, AND the intent of creating the browser. Its a
transitional browser, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Win98 was
moving to EOL... break it and it doesn't really matter so long as the OS
functions [however broken].

NICE to see you can actually post something with a small bit of value
instead of JUST using your normal Troll crap... maybe you are smarter
than a snail.

--
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 12/19/2009 01:06 AM, Sunny wrote:
"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)

"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"

I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en


That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible
with :
(using MEB typespeak shouting)

"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack
1"


You forgot the era, AND the intent of creating the browser. Its a
transitional browser, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Win98 was
moving to EOL... break it and it doesn't really matter so long as the OS
functions [however broken].

NICE to see you can actually post something with a small bit of value
instead of JUST using your normal Troll crap... maybe you are smarter
than a snail.

--
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 in message
...
On 12/19/2009 01:06 AM, Sunny wrote:
"98 Guy" wrote in message
...
MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to
windows
98.

Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise
:-)

"System Requirements
Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME;
Windows
NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1"

I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en


That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since
both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and
hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency
walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein
lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied
dependencies.

Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is
compatible
with :
(using MEB typespeak shouting)

"WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service
Pack
1"


You forgot the era, AND the intent of creating the browser. Its a
transitional browser, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Win98 was
moving to EOL... break it and it doesn't really matter so long as the OS
functions [however broken].

So, you are now claiming to have insider info from Microsoft?
What's with this "transitional browser" bull****?
(noticed that you dodged the proof that Microsoft considered IE6 OK for
Win98)

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifewinextndfaq
"4. Does this extension include support for Windows 98 and Windows
Millennium Edition components like Internet Explorer?
"Yes. Microsoft will extend the support end date for the current versions
of components (such as Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 and Windows
Media Player 9) on Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me.
For these products running on these three Windows products, Microsoft will
provide paid incident support. Microsoft will also continue to review and
address critical security updates on these products, through July 11,
2006."


NICE to see you can actually post something with a small bit of value
instead of JUST using your normal Troll crap... maybe you are smarter
than a snail.

Your continued name calling noted.

MEB wrote:

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed
into it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported"
to windows 98.

WRONG AS USUAL.

You are such a disagreeable *******.

How can my statement (above) be WRONG, when later in that same post you
said:

No, stupid, as I have repeatedly advised, just as IE 5.5 was not
completely compatible with Win95, IE6 was not designed nor
compatible with Win98.

Are you so daft that you don't realize when you contradict yourself?

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on
Win XP, dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied
dependencies, ... these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and
2K platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of
recognizing that it should not be reporting platform-dependent
unsatisfied dependencies.

These are two entirely different platforms.

XP and Vista are not entirely different. Why don't you read my material
more carefully?

ONE is an old DOS based [mostly from CP/M and BASIC
coding languages];

More old rubbish. Win-9x is a fully 32-bit OS, which puts the i86 CPU
into protected mode during it's boot process. The fact that DOS is
initially transiently loaded to boot 9x always fools old pharts like you
who like to think of the win-9x platform as being dos-based.

So what if 9x has 16-bit code SOLEY FOR DOS-COMPATIBILITY purposes. So
does every NT-based OS for the same reason. Doesn't make it DOS-based.

(more of your arcane gibberish not quoted because it makes no sense)

Nice try to divert attention away from your sorry attempt to respond.
The fact remains that these dependency walker unsatisfied dependency
logs of yours indicate only that both you and dependency walker do not
understand the concept of dual-use or cross-platform DLL's.

MEB wrote:

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed
into it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported"
to windows 98.

WRONG AS USUAL.

You are such a disagreeable *******.

How can my statement (above) be WRONG, when later in that same post you
said:

No, stupid, as I have repeatedly advised, just as IE 5.5 was not
completely compatible with Win95, IE6 was not designed nor
compatible with Win98.

Are you so daft that you don't realize when you contradict yourself?

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on
Win XP, dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied
dependencies, ... these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and
2K platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of
recognizing that it should not be reporting platform-dependent
unsatisfied dependencies.

These are two entirely different platforms.

XP and Vista are not entirely different. Why don't you read my material
more carefully?

ONE is an old DOS based [mostly from CP/M and BASIC
coding languages];

More old rubbish. Win-9x is a fully 32-bit OS, which puts the i86 CPU
into protected mode during it's boot process. The fact that DOS is
initially transiently loaded to boot 9x always fools old pharts like you
who like to think of the win-9x platform as being dos-based.

So what if 9x has 16-bit code SOLEY FOR DOS-COMPATIBILITY purposes. So
does every NT-based OS for the same reason. Doesn't make it DOS-based.

(more of your arcane gibberish not quoted because it makes no sense)

Nice try to divert attention away from your sorry attempt to respond.
The fact remains that these dependency walker unsatisfied dependency
logs of yours indicate only that both you and dependency walker do not
understand the concept of dual-use or cross-platform DLL's.

MEB wrote:

You forgot the era, AND the intent of creating the browser. Its a
transitional browser, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Win98
was moving to EOL...

What a joke.

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".

The fact is that in Microsoft's eyes, every OS is moving toward EOL the
day it's released.