Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

  • Thread starter Thread starter 98 Guy
  • Start date Start date
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/...cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&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"
Click to expand...

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 said:
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/...cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&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"
Click to expand...

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].
Click to expand...

So, you are now claiming to have insider info from Microsoft?
What's with this "transitional browser" bullshit?
(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.
Click to expand...

Your continued name calling noted.
 
MEB said:
WRONG AS USUAL.
Click to expand...

You are such a disagreeable bastard.

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.
Click to expand...

Are you so daft that you don't realize when you contradict yourself?
These are two entirely different platforms.
Click to expand...

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];
Click to expand...

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 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

Hey stupid, 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.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
 
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?
Click to expand...

No, you still don't get it... look at the charted materials in the
other post. MAYBE it will dawn on you what the material means, though I
doubt it...

--
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 said:
WRONG AS USUAL.
Click to expand...

"IE6 was not designed nor compatible with Win98."
No, you still don't get it... look at the ...
Click to expand...

No. I don't have to be distracted by your "look over there" answers.

You know that you've been caught out in a confused lie, and your
misdirections will not cover up that fact.
 
MEB said:
Hey stupid, what year was XP being prepared for public offering.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?

Win-98 was supported for FIVE MORE YEARS after IE6 was released.
Win-98se was less than 1/3 of the way to EOL at the time that IE6 was
released.
You REALLY have no clue do you. Let me spell it out for you.
IE 3 was the transitional browser for Win 98
Click to expand...

What exactly is your fixation on the time-line and pedigree of IE?

It's a known fact that MS likes to bring out a new version of IE just
prior to a new OS, basically for only ONE reason: They know that
various web-metrics measurements will try to guage the success of the
new OS by looking at how many hits they get with the new browser. By
introducing a new version of IE slightly before the new version of
Windoze, they make it difficult to guage the true growth of the new OS
because there will be a growing fraction of the older OS that will
update to the new version of IE.
IE 4 was the transitional browser for Win98SE
Click to expand...

IE5 was released in March 1999 and was included with Windows 98se and
Office 2000. A bug-fix version 5.01 was released in December 1999 and
this is the version that shipped with win-2000.

So here again we see a commonality in IE between win-98 and 2K
platforms.
Here's a chart style so maybe you can understand WITHOUT
having to comprehend what you are reading.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to prove?

It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE with
both the 9X/ME and NT platforms.

You can't wrap your head around that simple fact.

There is a major difference in the security model implimentation between
IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not compatible with
win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why IE6-SP1 is actually
MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather than the NT line.
 
What does that have to do with anything?

Win-98 was supported for FIVE MORE YEARS after IE6 was released.
Win-98se was less than 1/3 of the way to EOL at the time that IE6 was
released.


What exactly is your fixation on the time-line and pedigree of IE?
Click to expand...

Because it makes ALL the difference to the discussion, which you still
can't grasp. Win98 is not programmed for anymore, there is no NEED for
compatibility nor to include ANYTHING, fix or otherwise, related to it...

--
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 forgot to quote:
It's clear that IE 5, 5.5 and 6-SP1 were SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPATIBLE
with both the 9X/ME and NT platforms.

You can't wrap your head around that simple fact.

There is a major difference in the security model implimentation
between IE6 Sp1 and Sp2, and this is why the Sp2 version is not
compatible with win-98. This helps to illustrate the reason why
IE6-SP1 is actually MORE compatible with the 9x/me family rather
than the NT line.
Click to expand...

The reader will note that MEB always makes it a point to full-quote the
message to which he replies to, because in his words to "allow future
readers access to the entire conversation".

But you will note that when backed into a corner, MEB will selectively
remove logical or rational points to which he can not form a substantive
answer. So MEB will remove those points from the quoted material, as
the removal of the above 3 paragraphs illustrate.

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to the
observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly "ported" to
Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - is fundamentally
flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives the same
output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. If his logic was
followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported to XP or Vista either
(clearly an incredible conclusion).
 
MEB forgot to quote:


The reader will note that MEB always makes it a point to full-quote the
message to which he replies to, because in his words to "allow future
readers access to the entire conversation".

But you will note that when backed into a corner, MEB will selectively
remove logical or rational points to which he can not form a substantive
answer. So MEB will remove those points from the quoted material, as
the removal of the above 3 paragraphs illustrate.

MEB has so far not given a reasonable or coherent rebuttal to the
observation that his bedrock proof that IE6 was not properly "ported" to
Windows 98 - that being dependency walker analysis - is fundamentally
flawed.

He has no explanation for the fact that dependency walker gives the same
output when IE7 files are examined on XP and Vista. If his logic was
followed, then IE7 was also not properly ported to XP or Vista either
(clearly an incredible conclusion).
Click to expand...

There is none that need given. The Dependency Walker readings are now
immaterial except to show the CONTINUED failure of Microsoft to have
ever corrected the errors IN WIN9X...

The errors were introduced with IE 6.

AND THAT IS THE FINAL ANSWER, DEAL WITH IT.

You ALWAYS attempt to ignore the TWO DIFFERENT operating systems and
what is REQUIRED within the coding for each because that PROOFS your
statements to be the rantings of a moron. And that IS A FACT.

Using your attempted "the reader":
Note specifically that this moron has been repeatedly directed to the
issue of the different coding and OSs; has been repeatedly shown the
differences; has repeatedly been provided with the answers to the
supposed questions, and other shown in this discussion, and elsewhere
for that matter; yet this party is such an ignorant fool and DUMB ROCK,
that NOTHING can explain it or change this stupidity.

--
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 said:
There is none that need given. The Dependency Walker readings are
now immaterial
Click to expand...

Your way of agreeing with my analysis.
except to show the CONTINUED failure of Microsoft to have
ever corrected the errors IN WIN9X...
Click to expand...

Unsatisfied dependencies in certain IE6 DLL files ARE NOT ERRORS because
those files were designed to operate on different platforms
simultaneously.
The errors were introduced with IE 6.

AND THAT IS THE FINAL ANSWER, DEAL WITH IT.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the end.

If you claim that there are "errors" above and beyond the non-errors
listed by dependency walker, then state exactly what those errors are,
or point to a CERT or Secunia or MS-KB article describing them.
You ALWAYS attempt to ignore the TWO DIFFERENT operating systems
Click to expand...

Why does dependency walker show the same list of unsatisfied
dependencies for IE7 as analyzed on both XP and Vista platforms?

It's you who is ignoring the fact that these IE DLL files are designed
to be run on different OS's simultaneously, and are coded internally as
necessary to allow that. That coding will naturally give the impression
to dependency walker that the file was designed for another OS, but that
is a false warning.

Now stop frothing at the mouth and admit you are wrong.

You've been proved wrong before - in REAL courts of law no less. Your
perception of this world and of reality in general is highly flawed and
twisted.

Your dealings with the court system and the award judgements against you
have left you a bitter old coot. If I were you, I'd stop pharting
around making a fool of yourself here on usenet, and get busy paying
back your child support payments. And drop the lawyer facade while
you're at it.
 
MEB said:
On 12/20/2009 01:24 PM, 98 Guy wrote:

More ignorant ramblings from a severely crippled brain which contained
nothing of value.
Click to expand...

IOW, MEB lost the plot, and has run out of bullshit.
(Another MEB resort to name calling)
 
Back
Top