Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (
More info?)
I suspect MS's reasoning is that there are so few, and only critical
updates, for the Win9X side that older updates are less of an issue, while
the XP side has numerous critical updates, so it is preferable to obtain the
most recent cumulative updates to be fully protected and effective.
But Bill doesn't tell me anything useful anymore <bg>.
Thanks for reporting, Richard. I consider it good news.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you:
http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Alan Edwards" <edwards@southcom.com.au> wrote in message
news:5tptv0d0lk2d7dcc2o2nmirh8u0roq58ql@4ax.com...
> FWIW, I have tried it on both Win98 and Win Me since it supposedly
> expires.
> No problems.
> Yes, I followed the thread in Win98.gen_discussion for a while though
> I soon gave up.
>
> ...Alan
>
> --
> Alan Edwards, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
>
http://dts-l.org/index.html
>
> In microsoft.public.windowsme.general, "Shane"
> <arthursixpence@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, I'm glad you lot have added this. I really didn't want to
re-install
> >just to test this and thought I could go by OCD Greg's claim that it no
> >longer works in Win 98.
> >
> >(I don't want to re-install Win 98 either).
> >
> >
> >Shane
> >
> >
> >"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> >news:et4hGK$BFHA.868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> This is so. The 2K/XP side times out, the 9x side does not.
> >>
> >> Maybe this means Microsoft still loves Windows Me?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
> >> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> >> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> >> * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> >> * HELP us help YOU ...
http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> "Jack E Martinelli" <jemartin_DELETE@NO_SPAM_gis.net> wrote in message
> >> news:ubR9Cg5BFHA.2984@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >> > Perhaps only the NT, W2K, XP side of the family times out for this
2004
> >> > Security Update CD?
> >> > Those with a Virtual PC copy of XP may wish to check.
> >> > --
> >> > Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
> >> > Help us help you:
http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
> >> >
> >> >
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
> >> > Your cooperation is very appreciated.
> >> > ------
> >> > "Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
> >> > news:eM7R2J5BFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> I used the CD without problem on a clean install of 98SE last
weekend
> >for
> >> >> a friend who only has slow dial-up access to the net and had no date
> >> >> problems, just prior to that I tested it for myself on virgin Win Me
> >> >> install in a virtual PC and again didn't need to play with the
dates.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> >> >> mike.maltby@gmail.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Alan Edwards <edwards@southcom.com.au> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > It may not time out. It didn't for me and I don't see why it
should,
> >> >> > (but someone may tell me), looking at control.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have used it on two computers after the supposed time out date
and
> >> >> > had no trouble. Both were offline at the time and that may be a
> >> >> > factor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you really sure you need this CD?
> >> >> > I have used it on computers with no internet connection or a slow
> >> >> > dial-up line but I haven't seen any need to use it on any
computers
> >> >> > that have had access to Windows Update and hence don't need the
CD.
> >> >>
> >> >