It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
can be used on win-98 systems.

A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
win-98. Please post your comments regarding the following:

-------------
... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
*between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
e.g., web browsing.

In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].

Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
they DO EXIST.

IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.

IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
other issues...
----------------

The files in question are:

browseui.dll cdfview.dll danim.dll dxtmsft.dll dxtrans.dll
iepeers.dll inseng.dll jsproxy.dll mshtml.dll msrating.dll
mstime.dll pngfilt.dll shdocvw.dll shlwapi.dll urlmon.dll
wininet.dll

But possibly not the directx files danim.dll, dxtrans.dll and
dxtmsft.dll.

I particularly would like to see comments about this statement:

--------------
NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
-------------

The author of those statements will not elaborate or give anything
resembling a coherent answer or explanation to back up his claims nor
reference any published web-source.

Hi 98,

We are volunteers here. Win98 is no longer supported by MS.

I imagine no-one here will waste their breath or time to vindicate/validate
the ravings of an unknown entity. (It's a bit like believing there is a
God).

He is correct that IE is made up of many modules. Retro-fitting those
modules to an unsupported/untested platform. (well.. untested says it all)
is an adventurous idea. At least nothing will be lost (on a win98) if you
choose to do your own testing. Your machine must be one foot from the grave
already.

(MS offers discounted software for NFP organizations. Contact your local MS
office for the location of the nearest MS Partner offering those services).

Regards.

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4ADD29A1.2F2B15B9@Guy.com...
> It has been mentioned in other forums that the files contained in
> MS09-054 (Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer) for win-2K
> can be used on win-98 systems.
>
> A certain well-known kook who harasses a certain win-98 newsgroup has
> made the following claims regarding the use of these win-2k files on
> win-98. Please post your comments regarding the following:
>
> -------------
> ... you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO
> A SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning
> *between* *ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function,
> e.g., web browsing.
>
> In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported
> to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
> browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
>
> Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within
> IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the
> KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available
> in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however
> they DO EXIST.
>
> IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you
> would find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would
> find some of 98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise
> of installable W2K or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy
> discussions of WHY those don't work properly, AND WHY they provide
> nothing more than a false sense of security and MAY install even
> more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist in an EOL IE.
>
> IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless
> you TEST them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS
> you have done nothing but installed some files which may cause
> other issues...
> ----------------
>
> The files in question are:
>
> browseui.dll cdfview.dll danim.dll dxtmsft.dll dxtrans.dll
> iepeers.dll inseng.dll jsproxy.dll mshtml.dll msrating.dll
> mstime.dll pngfilt.dll shdocvw.dll shlwapi.dll urlmon.dll
> wininet.dll
>
> But possibly not the directx files danim.dll, dxtrans.dll and
> dxtmsft.dll.
>
> I particularly would like to see comments about this statement:
>
> --------------
> NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
> Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
> Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
> -------------
>
> The author of those statements will not elaborate or give anything
> resembling a coherent answer or explanation to back up his claims nor
> reference any published web-source.

rob^_^ wrote:

> We are volunteers here. Win98 is no longer supported by MS.

Support was not the intent with my post. I was looking for comments
regarding the claim that IE (or perhaps IE6 specifically) was "designed"
for NT-based OS's and that it's operation on win-9x systems was
borderline, according to this statement:

> --------------
> NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
> Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser
> Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
> -------------

> I imagine no-one here will waste their breath or time to vindicate
> validate the ravings of an unknown entity.

It wouldn't take much time to either state that the statements are
correct or incorrect - it shouldn't matter *who* made them. Either a
statement is factual and correct, or it isin't.

> Your machine must be one foot from the grave already.

Not to go off on a tangent, but there are many people that still run
win-98, and some (like myself) do so on modern hardware (3 ghz P-4's,
Core2, etc, with 500 gb SATA hard drives, etc).

> MS offers discounted software for NFP organizations.

I have access to MSDN CD's and could run 2K, XP, Vista, Windows 7, etc.
I could use them without regard to following their EULA (Microsoft is a
criminal organization so techinically you can't steal from a criminal).
Yet I choose to stay with win-98se and Office 2K Premium. There's
practically nothing I can't do with that platform (other than be
vulnerable to viruses and trojans that have ravaged the NT-based OS's
during the past decade due to the negligent way that Micro$haft designed
XP and forced it upon the public). It was quite funny, in a sad way, to
watch all those XP systems become infected and turn into spam zombies
while my win-98 systems stayed 100% clean.

(and btw, full-quoting is bad form)

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:57:49 +1100, rob^_^ wrote:

> (It's a bit like believing there is a God).

Actually, its more like listening to a raving Atheist.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:05:24 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

> It wouldn't take much time to either state that the statements are
> correct or incorrect - it shouldn't matter *who* made them. Either a
> statement is factual and correct, or it isin't.

Those who know are probably busy with other stuff. The rest of us don't
care, because things are way beyond caring about that. Sort of like
discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

"N. Miller" wrote:

> The rest of us don't care, because things are way beyond caring
> about that. Sort of like discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to "care" about something.

I'm asking if the following statement has any shred of believability or
support:

: NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
: Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs*

What internal structures or conventions within NT-based OS's would IE
rely or depend on that wouldn't also exist on win-9x platforms, such
that it would make the "port" of IE to 9x problematic, difficult or
incomplete?

How does the history of IE development support the above quoted
statement?

Credit: root credos = to have trust/belief in one's word.
incredible!

No wonder Mr. Bush was miss-underestimated. No kudos, no credit.

"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
news:14no1k5vftip2$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:57:49 +1100, rob^_^ wrote:
>
>> (It's a bit like believing there is a God).
>
> Actually, its more like listening to a raving Atheist.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:24:19 +1100, rob^_^ wrote:

> "N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
> news:14no1k5vftip2$.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...

>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:57:49 +1100, rob^_^ wrote:

>>> (It's a bit like believing there is a God).

>> Actually, its more like listening to a raving Atheist.

> Credit: root credos = to have trust/belief in one's word.
> incredible!

Credit? In God we trust; everybody else pays cash.

> No wonder Mr. Bush was miss-underestimated. No kudos, no credit.

How is an atheist any more credible than any other fool posting to a public
Usenet group?

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:06:53 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

> "N. Miller" wrote:
>
>> The rest of us don't care, because things are way beyond caring
>> about that. Sort of like discussing the issues of Windows 3.1.
>
> I'm not asking you or anyone else to "care" about something.
>
> I'm asking if the following statement has any shred of believability or
> support:
>
> : NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within
> : Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs*
>
> What internal structures or conventions within NT-based OS's would IE
> rely or depend on that wouldn't also exist on win-9x platforms, such
> that it would make the "port" of IE to 9x problematic, difficult or
> incomplete?
>
> How does the history of IE development support the above quoted
> statement?

From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can answer is
disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest of us plain don't know.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

:
: From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can answer is
: disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest of us plain don't know.

Or just plain don't care.
: --
: Norman
: ~Oh Lord, why have you come
: ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Tom Willett wrote:

> > From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can
> > answer is disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest
> > of us plain don't know.
>
> Or just plain don't care.

No, it's probably that there's nobody with sufficient knowledge of IE
that can answer the question.

Anyone that could actually speak to the question would most likely not
hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns would
just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares about
answering, when you all have really almost no technical knowledge of IE
or how it interacts with the operating system.

At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give an
opinion:

-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:45:31 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

> Tom Willett wrote:

>>> From the responses so far, I would say that anybody who can
>>> answer is disinclined from offering an answer; and the rest
>>> of us plain don't know.

>> Or just plain don't care.

> No, it's probably that there's nobody with sufficient knowledge of IE
> that can answer the question.

> Anyone that could actually speak to the question would most likely not
> hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns would
> just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares about
> answering, when you all have really almost no technical knowledge of IE
> or how it interacts with the operating system.
>
> At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give an
> opinion ...

Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years. It has been
left in the dust, as far as I am concerned; ancient history. So why should I
care?

And anybody who actually knows might just feel the same way. I don't know
the specifics of using Gatling's machine gun, and I don't care to know. Most
important knowledge, in my day, was the specifics of using the M60; but that
has been superseded, for the most part, today.

And I don't know the specifics of using Colt's Dragoon pistol. I know it is
a cap-and-ball pistol, loaded from the front end of the cylinders, unlike
the later Colt's SAA (breech loading, using self-contained metallic
cartridges).

There is a lot of archaic hardware out there, knowledge of which has become
specialized to some degree; and useless to some degree. If nobody knows, or
nobody who does is willing to share, what are you going to do? Pitch a fit?
Oh, wail, you're already doing that! ;)

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

"N. Miller" wrote:

> > hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns
> > would just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares
> > about answering, when you all have really almost no technical
> > knowledge of IE or how it interacts with the operating system.
> >
> > At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give
> > an opinion ...

> Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years.

You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.

This is a question about technical-level details about the operability
of IE and win-9x. If you simply don't know or understand the question,
that's understandable - but you don't have to spin it in terms of
denigrating win-9x.

> It has been left in the dust

And it's clear that even during the day, when it was current, that you
wouldn't have been able to answer the question. So your level of
knowledge in that regard is sub-standard, or deficient. You've made
that much clear to the reader.

This statement remains unchallenged and unconfirmed:

-----------
IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
however they DO EXIST.
-----------

Well, have you yourself tested the "statement" you keep posting as
confirmed? If you did and you found it true, then it's true FOR YOU. For the
rest of us, we've moved on, so trying to bait us into a argument and then
calling us "klowns" when we're not really worried about what the past held
(because WE'VE MOVED ON) is petty at best.

Welcome to my killfile....

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4AE057E3.ABB20FB4@Guy.com...
> "N. Miller" wrote:
>
>> > hold back their knowledge and expertise. The rest of you klowns
>> > would just rather think that it's a question that nobody cares
>> > about answering, when you all have really almost no technical
>> > knowledge of IE or how it interacts with the operating system.
>> >
>> > At least, not enough knowledge to speak to this comment and give
>> > an opinion ...
>
>> Well, this "klown" hasn't used a Windows 9x system in years.
>
> You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
> the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.
>
> This is a question about technical-level details about the operability
> of IE and win-9x. If you simply don't know or understand the question,
> that's understandable - but you don't have to spin it in terms of
> denigrating win-9x.
>
>> It has been left in the dust
>
> And it's clear that even during the day, when it was current, that you
> wouldn't have been able to answer the question. So your level of
> knowledge in that regard is sub-standard, or deficient. You've made
> that much clear to the reader.
>
> This statement remains unchallenged and unconfirmed:
>
> -----------
> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED
> for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior
> to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there have been missing
> function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY
> FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY elements is the user environment [usrenv]
> which INCLUDES the security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions
> ONLY available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X,
> however they DO EXIST.
> -----------

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:02:27 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

> You see - this is how you deflect the conversation. This isin't about
> the merrits about using Win-9x now or in the past.

Okay. Allow me to take another tack. I once worked for the Hewlett Packard
Company. Even as a lowly board repair technician, I was required to sign a
"Non Disclosure Agreement". Basically, if I learned anything which was
Corporate Confidential, I was not allowed to reveal what I learned to the
public until after it had be released through official Corporate press
channels. My inclination was to treat anything I learned, which I had not
read in the official HP press releases as "confidential".

I wonder how much of what you wish to learn fall under the same sort of NDA?

Now, it is obvious, to me, that:

A.) Nobody who knows, cares.

B.) Nobody who cares, knows

C.) You are a Troll.

'Bye.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum