N. Miller said:
But they do check their gear thoroughly.
You still don't get it. You're comparing equipment that your life
really depends on with the box sitting at your feet that allows you to
send and recieve trivial or inconsequential spam, access meaningless
websites, or download music / movies / porn. You still want to equate
the two?
Matters not about mission critical.
So your parachute is not mission-critical?
It is my GD computer, and it GD well better work when I need it.
And who supports this bastardized OS if something should go
wrong? You?
Disengenuous argument.
If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.
And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
a form of support.
And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those
files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had.
It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the
bilge on your own when things go wrong.
Why the anger and bitterness over this?
If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply
revert to the original files.
Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out?
So we are going to add Windows 2000 specific files to Windows 98,
That's what this is all about.
And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.
The issue is vulnerabilities.
The whole point of using these newer files is to patch *known*,
*existing* vulnerabilities. That's why Microsoft created and released
them.
So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?
Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?
Even if the combination of using these win-2k files on win-98 does
create new vulnerabilities, the real question is who will discover or
look for them? Do you think there are hackers out there that are
testing the combination of win-98 with these files, looking for
vulnerabilities that don't exist on win-2k systems, so they can leverage
those vulnerabilities?
Do you realize that only 1 out of every 1000 computers in use is running
win-9x/me, and that perhaps only 1% of those systems might try this
trick of installing the win-2k files?
Microsoft actually tests those patches on Windows 2000. They
are not testing them against Windows 98.
You can't be concerned about the effectiveness of these files as used on
win-98 on the one hand, and simultaneously NOT be concerned that you're
running an operating system that hasn't received an official security
patch or update in over 3 years.
And like others, you are confused by Microsoft's official policy
regarding win-98.
Microsoft has placed a gag order on itself regarding Win-98 for the past
3.5 years. Even if microsoft tested these files internally on win-98
and found them perfectly compatible, it wouldn't announce that to the
outside world anyways.
For that reason, a lack of comment from Microsoft about the
compatibility of these files on win-98 means nothing - it is expected.
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will.
But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are
untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98.
They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.
The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.
And you be honest.
Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the
end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps,
perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is
compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing,
etc.
Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?
Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?
