Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

You mention me, sooooooo....

Sorry you just don't get it yet, that's your personal problem which
only you can correct. I tolerate no attempts to place 9X users at a
security or legal risk in this group [win98.gen_discussion].

These 2K files ARE DESIGNED FOR 2K, an NT based OS, NOT for Win9X. ANY
fixes are directed towards vulnerabilities in native to THE NT OSs and
the browser IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.

In WIn9X, these are COMPLETELY FOREIGN files definitely bringing new
vulnerabilities.

The malware programmers DESIGNED their products around the EOL 9X. ANY
changes to base files, which these do, changes the ability of the
malware programs to provide adequate and *designed for* protection. The
evidence there is the FACT that most continued testing and actively
supporting EOL 9X at least for a year or so afterwards. Though many just
dropped support...
That means they and several of the malware testing services literally
designed their programs for what Win9X was at EOL in its standard state.

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do] AND that malware applications CAN PROTECT against any
new vulnerabilities introduced.

They can not claim malware isn't affected, because malware protection
programmers would need to design their programs for the vastly
DIS-SIMILAR potential 9X modified installations one could be running...
they would need hundreds of SPECIFIC malware applications and thousands
[likely hundreds of thousands] of extra lines of code... AND would need
to modify it EVERY TIME one of these changed do to file changes [similar
to when Microsoft made drastic changes during support].

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

Yes. But it is akin to stealing sensitive information from one's PC,
nevertheless.

look on the malware sites and elsewhere like CERT, THEY
provide the test results that they DO introduce new vulnerabilities.
Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS...

Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread to sleep. Only my
opinion

Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion?

Care to share your opinions with us?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form
from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files
used on a win-98 system.

And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered
and leveraged against it.

The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here
are astounding.

Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself,
designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to
function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and
demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown,
unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98
platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever
industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of
arcane system vulnerabilities.

Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting
from Santa this Christmas?

Typical of you MEB, resort to name calling when you get taken to task on
"your facts'

You appear to be deficient in all that lends character.
You have the personality of wallpaper.

Just a reminder of the low life comments you made to me.
(A good indication of your reply when someone dares to disagree with you)

Maurice Edward, Brahier
On 8 Aug 09 you wrote
But while you're here:
Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic
the UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put
large sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of
course if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer,
save, receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or
dividend, and otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own
money or more accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
your nation??

Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?

Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X, now what part of they
aren't designed for 9X are you friggin missing... Hey, how about we put
some C code from Linux in Windows, think it will work... it makes as
much of an argument as this stupidity you continue to spout...

Dang it, I did it again, the proper and correct URL is

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.

YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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.

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.

You are such a disagreeable bastard.

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

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

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

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.

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.

what year was XP being prepared for public offering...

You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you. IE 3 was
the transitional browser for Win 98, IE 4 was the transitional browser
for Win98SE, IE 5.5 was the transitional browser for Millennium [note
not even Microsoft considered Millennium to be a real offering, one
could easily say the entire OS was transitional], IE 6 was the
transitional browser for XP, IE 7 was the transitional browser for
VISTA, IE 8 is the transitional browser for Windows 7.

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

IE Version Shipped With
1.0 Win 95 PLUS pack (not part of Win95 by default)
2.0 Win NT4
3.0 Win 95 OSR2
4.0 Win 98
5.0 Win 98 SE and Win 2000
5.5 Win Millennium Edition (ME)
6.0 Win XP Home/Pro
7.0 VISTA
8.0 Windows 7

And yes, Microsoft does have and follow PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE. The only
thing that gets in the way of that is the occasional suit that may force
extended activities.