Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Critical Updates?

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
April 13, 2005 2:43:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to W98, need
critical security updates installed.
Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 - they all seem to
be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.

Any suggestions?

John <><

A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
with an other monkey's monkey.
(A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).

More about : critical updates

Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 13, 2005 2:43:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

John <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in
news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com:

> In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to W98,
> need critical security updates installed.
> Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 - they all
> seem to be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
>
> Any suggestions?

Did you go to WindowsUpdate? There was an update there for me.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 13, 2005 4:27:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued update.)

Here's the whole list for yesterday:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...

You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to W98,
need
> critical security updates installed.
> Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 - they
all seem to
> be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> John <><
>
> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> with an other monkey's monkey.
> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
Related resources
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 13, 2005 7:34:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Here we go again.

Thanks for posting the information pages.
Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.

I don't see it on any of the pages.
And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".

Any help would be much appreciated.

darkrats



"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued update.)
>
> Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
>
> You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> > In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to W98,
> need
> > critical security updates installed.
> > Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 - they
> all seem to
> > be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> > John <><
> >
> > A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> > with an other monkey's monkey.
> > (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 13, 2005 7:34:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

How about the Windows Updates Catalog?
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/defaul...

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"darkrats" <darkrats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uq6RbCHQFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Here we go again.
>
> Thanks for posting the information pages.
> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
>
> I don't see it on any of the pages.
> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.
>
> darkrats
>
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
update.)
> >
> > Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> >
> > You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> > > In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to
W98,
> > need
> > > critical security updates installed.
> > > Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 -
they
> > all seem to
> > > be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > John <><
> > >
> > > A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> > > with an other monkey's monkey.
> > > (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
> >
>
>
April 13, 2005 7:39:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update, darkrats. The
advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each user's machine.
2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since everyone wants
to destroy people's computers with false patches -- eg false security
newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware SE that contain a 2.5 Mini
Keylogger that happened to me from download.com when my XP SP 2 was hacked,
etc.
3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical need for
98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released in 2007 and expect
some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself knows 5. Bye and have a
great rest of the week

Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a first name
would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named darkrats and I
always liked the light better than the dark although the darkness allows me
to sleep well. Have a nice life and be seeing you darkrats or whoever/many
people or just one individual you are -------- and the million dollar
question for me to you is what is darkrats first name <???>

"darkrats" wrote:

> Here we go again.
>
> Thanks for posting the information pages.
> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
>
> I don't see it on any of the pages.
> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.
>
> darkrats
>
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued update.)
> >
> > Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> >
> > You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> > > In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to W98,
> > need
> > > critical security updates installed.
> > > Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 - they
> > all seem to
> > > be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > John <><
> > >
> > > A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> > > with an other monkey's monkey.
> > > (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
> >
>
>
>
April 13, 2005 8:54:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Thanks, Gary!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:27:23 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org>
wrote:

>There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued update.)
>
>Here's the whole list for yesterday:
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
>
>You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.


John <><

A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
with an other monkey's monkey.
(A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 13, 2005 8:54:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Note that MS05-002 (KB891711) *doesn't* appear on that list, because it
was a re-issued Update and not part of the same workflow (word has it
that PSS wasn't absolutely sure until the last minute that it would go
live when it did.)

This occasionally occurs with other updates, too, which is one of the
reasons using Windows Updates is so much more preferable to any other
method (for Win99/98SE/ME systems, at least.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:gn1r51p15dqp20cknb9fb1hna5dfch4su7@4ax.com...
> Thanks, Gary!
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:27:23 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
> >There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> >http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> >http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
update.)
> >
> >Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> >http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> >
> >You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
>
>
> John <><
>
> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> with an other monkey's monkey.
> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
April 13, 2005 8:54:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Exactly, Gary -- you mean 98 not 99 -- shall everyone party like its 1999 --
sorry I could not resist the humor and I hope you do not see me as a lessor
person. You are one of the great MVP's imo Gary and I can see you continuing
to live in Alex Nichol's shoes. <grin, smile, wink> LOL!!

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> Note that MS05-002 (KB891711) *doesn't* appear on that list, because it
> was a re-issued Update and not part of the same workflow (word has it
> that PSS wasn't absolutely sure until the last minute that it would go
> live when it did.)
>
> This occasionally occurs with other updates, too, which is one of the
> reasons using Windows Updates is so much more preferable to any other
> method (for Win99/98SE/ME systems, at least.)
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:gn1r51p15dqp20cknb9fb1hna5dfch4su7@4ax.com...
> > Thanks, Gary!
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:27:23 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
> <grystnews@mvps.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> > >http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> > >http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
> update.)
> > >
> > >Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> > >http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> > >
> > >You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
> >
> >
> > John <><
> >
> > A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> > with an other monkey's monkey.
> > (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 13, 2005 9:40:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I'll probably get it the same way I got the last one. Wait until enough
people download it, and then retrieve it from someone's TIF folder.

darkrats



"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C9ACB81C-DC2D-4948-BB88-2FC549ACB264@microsoft.com...
> I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update, darkrats. The
> advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each user's
machine.
> 2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since everyone
wants
> to destroy people's computers with false patches -- eg false security
> newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware SE that contain a 2.5
Mini
> Keylogger that happened to me from download.com when my XP SP 2 was
hacked,
> etc.
> 3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical need
for
> 98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released in 2007 and expect
> some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself knows 5. Bye and have a
> great rest of the week
>
> Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a first name
> would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named darkrats and I
> always liked the light better than the dark although the darkness allows
me
> to sleep well. Have a nice life and be seeing you darkrats or
whoever/many
> people or just one individual you are -------- and the million dollar
> question for me to you is what is darkrats first name <???>
>
> "darkrats" wrote:
>
> > Here we go again.
> >
> > Thanks for posting the information pages.
> > Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
> >
> > I don't see it on any of the pages.
> > And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
> >
> > Any help would be much appreciated.
> >
> > darkrats
> >
> >
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
update.)
> > >
> > > Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> > >
> > > You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > MS MVP Shell/User
> > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> > >
> > > "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> > > > In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to
W98,
> > > need
> > > > critical security updates installed.
> > > > Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 - they
> > > all seem to
> > > > be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > John <><
> > > >
> > > > A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> > > > with an other monkey's monkey.
> > > > (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
> > >
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 13, 2005 9:55:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

That didn't take long.
Found and installed on my system.

darkrats



"darkrats" <darkrats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#iwEeIIQFHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I'll probably get it the same way I got the last one. Wait until enough
> people download it, and then retrieve it from someone's TIF folder.
>
> darkrats
>
>
>
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C9ACB81C-DC2D-4948-BB88-2FC549ACB264@microsoft.com...
> > I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update, darkrats. The
> > advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each user's
> machine.
> > 2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since everyone
> wants
> > to destroy people's computers with false patches -- eg false security
> > newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware SE that contain a 2.5
> Mini
> > Keylogger that happened to me from download.com when my XP SP 2 was
> hacked,
> > etc.
> > 3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical need
> for
> > 98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released in 2007 and
expect
> > some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself knows 5. Bye and have
a
> > great rest of the week
> >
> > Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a first
name
> > would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named darkrats and
I
> > always liked the light better than the dark although the darkness allows
> me
> > to sleep well. Have a nice life and be seeing you darkrats or
> whoever/many
> > people or just one individual you are -------- and the million dollar
> > question for me to you is what is darkrats first name <???>
> >
> > "darkrats" wrote:
> >
> > > Here we go again.
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting the information pages.
> > > Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
> > >
> > > I don't see it on any of the pages.
> > > And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
> > >
> > > Any help would be much appreciated.
> > >
> > > darkrats
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > > news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
> update.)
> > > >
> > > > Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> > > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> > > >
> > > > You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gary S. Terhune
> > > > MS MVP Shell/User
> > > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> > > >
> > > > "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> > > > > In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to
> W98,
> > > > need
> > > > > critical security updates installed.
> > > > > Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 -
they
> > > > all seem to
> > > > > be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > John <><
> > > > >
> > > > > A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> > > > > with an other monkey's monkey.
> > > > > (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 5:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Please could someone post the link
for then latest patch for english IE6.SP1 that I
use with slovenian version of Windows
98 SE that unfortunatelly does not support
Windows Update any more.

Roman

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23eT9yjHQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> How about the Windows Updates Catalog?
> http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/defaul...
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 5:16:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Roman,

I'm sorry if I seem dense, but does your OS also not support Windows
Updates Catalog? This is not something that is clear to me. Does this
link not function? Does it not provide any updates for Win98/98SE? I'm
trying to understand the full nature of your problem.
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/defaul...

I cannot find any such download as you ask for. Only the version for IE
5.5 in Windows ME.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"roman modic" <modicr@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uP3yAIOQFHA.2932@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Please could someone post the link
> for then latest patch for english IE6.SP1 that I
> use with slovenian version of Windows
> 98 SE that unfortunatelly does not support
> Windows Update any more.
>
> Roman
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23eT9yjHQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > How about the Windows Updates Catalog?
> > http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/defaul...
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 5:16:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Never mind. I can see now that Slovenian updates are not offered at
Windows Updates Catalog.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"roman modic" <modicr@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uP3yAIOQFHA.2932@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Please could someone post the link
> for then latest patch for english IE6.SP1 that I
> use with slovenian version of Windows
> 98 SE that unfortunatelly does not support
> Windows Update any more.
>
> Roman
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23eT9yjHQFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > How about the Windows Updates Catalog?
> > http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/defaul...
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

My plan is to avoid ME , XP etc. and go straight to longhorn when it comes
out. Will I be able to survive until then on 98SE?

Dan wrote:
> I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update, darkrats.
> The advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each
> user's machine.
> 2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since
> everyone wants to destroy people's computers with false patches -- eg
> false security newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware SE
> that contain a 2.5 Mini Keylogger that happened to me from
> download.com when my XP SP 2 was hacked, etc.
> 3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical
> need for 98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released in
> 2007 and expect some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself
> knows 5. Bye and have a great rest of the week
>
> Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a first
> name would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named
> darkrats and I always liked the light better than the dark although
> the darkness allows me to sleep well. Have a nice life and be seeing
> you darkrats or whoever/many people or just one individual you are
> -------- and the million dollar question for me to you is what is
> darkrats first name <???>
>
> "darkrats" wrote:
>
>> Here we go again.
>>
>> Thanks for posting the information pages.
>> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
>>
>> I don't see it on any of the pages.
>> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
>>
>> Any help would be much appreciated.
>>
>> darkrats
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
>>> update.)
>>>
>>> Here's the whole list for yesterday:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
>>>
>>> You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>> MS MVP Shell/User
>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>>>
>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
>>>> In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to
>>>> W98, need critical security updates installed.
>>>> Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 -
>>>> they all seem to be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> John <><
>>>>
>>>> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
>>>> with an other monkey's monkey.
>>>> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hello,

"Dave B." <daveNOSPAM@telstra.com> wrote in message
news:ev5zVaNQFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> My plan is to avoid ME , XP etc. and go straight to longhorn when it comes
> out. Will I be able to survive until then on 98SE?
>

I don't know if upgrade from Win98SE to Longhorn will be supported.
When I wanted to install Longhorn (test version) from Windows 98 SE
environment the installation complained. Then I started setup from
Windows XP and everything went OK (I installed it on empty partition).

Roman
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

No, you will not likely be able to decently maintain a Windows 98/98SE
or ME system until "Longhorn" is released. I strongly suggest you
migrate to Windows XP ASAP.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Dave B." <daveNOSPAM@telstra.com> wrote in message
news:ev5zVaNQFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> My plan is to avoid ME , XP etc. and go straight to longhorn when it
comes
> out. Will I be able to survive until then on 98SE?
>
> Dan wrote:
> > I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update, darkrats.
> > The advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each
> > user's machine.
> > 2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since
> > everyone wants to destroy people's computers with false patches --
eg
> > false security newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware SE
> > that contain a 2.5 Mini Keylogger that happened to me from
> > download.com when my XP SP 2 was hacked, etc.
> > 3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical
> > need for 98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released in
> > 2007 and expect some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself
> > knows 5. Bye and have a great rest of the week
> >
> > Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a first
> > name would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named
> > darkrats and I always liked the light better than the dark although
> > the darkness allows me to sleep well. Have a nice life and be
seeing
> > you darkrats or whoever/many people or just one individual you are
> > -------- and the million dollar question for me to you is what is
> > darkrats first name <???>
> >
> > "darkrats" wrote:
> >
> >> Here we go again.
> >>
> >> Thanks for posting the information pages.
> >> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
> >>
> >> I don't see it on any of the pages.
> >> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
> >>
> >> Any help would be much appreciated.
> >>
> >> darkrats
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> >> news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >>> There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> >>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> >>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
> >>> update.)
> >>>
> >>> Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> >>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> >>>
> >>> You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>> MS MVP Shell/User
> >>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> >>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >>>
> >>> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> >>> news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> >>>> In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to
> >>>> W98, need critical security updates installed.
> >>>> Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 -
> >>>> they all seem to be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any suggestions?
> >>>>
> >>>> John <><
> >>>>
> >>>> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> >>>> with an other monkey's monkey.
> >>>> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

You mean I am doomed after all? Gimme that crystal ball, you thief!

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> No, you will not likely be able to decently maintain a Windows 98/98SE
> or ME system until "Longhorn" is released. I strongly suggest you
> migrate to Windows XP ASAP.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Dave B." <daveNOSPAM@telstra.com> wrote in message
> news:ev5zVaNQFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> My plan is to avoid ME , XP etc. and go straight to longhorn when it
comes
>> out. Will I be able to survive until then on 98SE?
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update, darkrats.
>>> The advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each
>>> user's machine.
>>> 2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since
>>> everyone wants to destroy people's computers with false patches -- eg
>>> false security newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware SE
>>> that contain a 2.5 Mini Keylogger that happened to me from
>>> download.com when my XP SP 2 was hacked, etc.
>>> 3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical
>>> need for 98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released in
>>> 2007 and expect some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself
>>> knows 5. Bye and have a great rest of the week
>>>
>>> Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a first
>>> name would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named
>>> darkrats and I always liked the light better than the dark although
>>> the darkness allows me to sleep well. Have a nice life and be seeing
>>> you darkrats or whoever/many people or just one individual you are
>>> -------- and the million dollar question for me to you is what is
>>> darkrats first name <???>
>>>
>>> "darkrats" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here we go again.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for posting the information pages.
>>>> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see it on any of the pages.
>>>> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
>>>>
>>>> Any help would be much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> darkrats
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
>>>>> update.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the whole list for yesterday:
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
>>>>>
>>>>> You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>> MS MVP Shell/User
>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
>>>>>> In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to
>>>>>> W98, need critical security updates installed.
>>>>>> Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 -
>>>>>> they all seem to be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John <><
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
>>>>>> with an other monkey's monkey.
>>>>>> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

The way things are going, you're going to have a hard time maintaining
*XP* until LH comes out, <eg>!

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e6uiu7QQFHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> You mean I am doomed after all? Gimme that crystal ball, you
thief!
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > No, you will not likely be able to decently maintain a Windows
98/98SE
> > or ME system until "Longhorn" is released. I strongly suggest you
> > migrate to Windows XP ASAP.
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "Dave B." <daveNOSPAM@telstra.com> wrote in message
> > news:ev5zVaNQFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> My plan is to avoid ME , XP etc. and go straight to longhorn when
it
> comes
> >> out. Will I be able to survive until then on 98SE?
> >>
> >> Dan wrote:
> >>> I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update,
darkrats.
> >>> The advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each
> >>> user's machine.
> >>> 2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since
> >>> everyone wants to destroy people's computers with false patches --
eg
> >>> false security newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware
SE
> >>> that contain a 2.5 Mini Keylogger that happened to me from
> >>> download.com when my XP SP 2 was hacked, etc.
> >>> 3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical
> >>> need for 98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released
in
> >>> 2007 and expect some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself
> >>> knows 5. Bye and have a great rest of the week
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a
first
> >>> name would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named
> >>> darkrats and I always liked the light better than the dark
although
> >>> the darkness allows me to sleep well. Have a nice life and be
seeing
> >>> you darkrats or whoever/many people or just one individual you are
> >>> -------- and the million dollar question for me to you is what is
> >>> darkrats first name <???>
> >>>
> >>> "darkrats" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here we go again.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for posting the information pages.
> >>>> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see it on any of the pages.
> >>>> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
> >>>>
> >>>> Any help would be much appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>> darkrats
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> >>>> news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >>>>> There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
> >>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
> >>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
> >>>>> update.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's the whole list for yesterday:
> >>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>>>> MS MVP Shell/User
> >>>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> >>>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back
to
> >>>>>> W98, need critical security updates installed.
> >>>>>> Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 -
> >>>>>> they all seem to be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any suggestions?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John <><
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> >>>>>> with an other monkey's monkey.
> >>>>>> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Depends on how you define "maintaining". :-) (you haven't heard me
complaining of any recent BSODs in here, now have ya? LOL)

When is LH expected? Like maybe next year? (I was just curious)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> The way things are going, you're going to have a hard time maintaining
> *XP* until LH comes out, <eg>!
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:e6uiu7QQFHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> You mean I am doomed after all? Gimme that crystal ball, you thief!
>>
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> No, you will not likely be able to decently maintain a Windows 98/98SE
>>> or ME system until "Longhorn" is released. I strongly suggest you
>>> migrate to Windows XP ASAP.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>> MS MVP Shell/User
>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>>>
>>> "Dave B." <daveNOSPAM@telstra.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ev5zVaNQFHA.2876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> My plan is to avoid ME , XP etc. and go straight to longhorn when it
comes
>>>> out. Will I be able to survive until then on 98SE?
>>>>
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> I still do not know why you dislike using Windows Update, darkrats.
>>>>> The advantages of Windows Update are that it is targetted to each
>>>>> user's machine.
>>>>> 2. It helps Microsoft release patches in a secure arena since
>>>>> everyone wants to destroy people's computers with false patches -- eg
>>>>> false security newsletters, false downloads, downloads of Adaware SE
>>>>> that contain a 2.5 Mini Keylogger that happened to me from
>>>>> download.com when my XP SP 2 was hacked, etc.
>>>>> 3. It is so kind of Microsoft to realize that their is a critical
>>>>> need for 98SE in the marketplace 4. Longhorn should be released in
>>>>> 2007 and expect some surprises that no one but Bill Gates himself
>>>>> knows 5. Bye and have a great rest of the week
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely, Dan -- posted to the unknown Alias of "darkrats" a first
>>>>> name would be nice since it is really hard to know someone named
>>>>> darkrats and I always liked the light better than the dark although
>>>>> the darkness allows me to sleep well. Have a nice life and be seeing
>>>>> you darkrats or whoever/many people or just one individual you are
>>>>> -------- and the million dollar question for me to you is what is
>>>>> darkrats first name <???>
>>>>>
>>>>> "darkrats" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here we go again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for posting the information pages.
>>>>>> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see it on any of the pages.
>>>>>> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any help would be much appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> darkrats
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:o vdsJ7FQFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> There are at least two for Win98/98SE:
>>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=890923
>>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=891711 (this is a re-issued
>>>>>>> update.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the whole list for yesterday:
>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You *should* use Windows Updates to get your patches, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>>>>>> MS MVP Shell/User
>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:p sbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> In the news today it was announced that all Windows OS's, back to
>>>>>>>> W98, need critical security updates installed.
>>>>>>>> Going to the Microsoft site, I don't see any updates for W98 -
>>>>>>>> they all seem to be for XP, ME, 2000 etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John <><
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
>>>>>>>> with an other monkey's monkey.
>>>>>>>> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
April 14, 2005 11:49:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:43:10 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org>
wrote:

>The way things are going, you're going to have a hard time maintaining
>*XP* until LH comes out, <eg>!

Holy smoke!!!! I just paid $ 150 to buy an 98 to XP upgrade.
Wasted money?
Matter of fact, I still normally use 98 - XP is there only in case I want to
install a program which won't run on 98.

Oh, well . . . . . guess I'm a luddite. . . .(-:

John <><

A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
with an other monkey's monkey.
(A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23HoQzyRQFHA.508@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Depends on how you define "maintaining". :-) (you haven't heard
me
> complaining of any recent BSODs in here, now have ya? LOL)

No, not you particularly. But I *regularly* deal with BSODs in this NG.
Not even counting the recent SNAFU involving KB891711, BSODs and Invalid
Page Faults constitute a major portion of the issues we deal with here.
On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I had to deal with
either of those issues in any normal XP systems that I'm responsible for
(my own isn't normal, because I'm always pushing the envelope well
beyond specs and working betas.)

Just the opposite, my "Little Old Ladies" club, a dozen or so strong,
who regularly called me over the last few years to come fix, maintain or
repair their 98/98SE/ME systems have for the most part migrated to XP,
and aside from initial setup and configuration, I never get calls from
them anymore. The XP issues for which I'm still called mostly involve
user training and fixing things like networking issues, or cleaning up
systems for those who consistently ignore my advice regarding safe hex
practices..

> When is LH expected? Like maybe next year? (I was just curious)

If we're lucky. I doubt I'll be promoting migration to LH before
sometime well into 2007. And *that* is not something I'm counting on.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Just in case your post wasn't totally in jest...

Windows 98, 98SE and ME will soon relatively worthless for normal,
internet-connected use. Windows XP is the *only* decent next-step for
most current 9x users, at least within the Windows group.

Windows XP *should_be* good for another three to five years. My point
was that, with the way Longhorn development is proceeding, getting it
mainstreamed even by 2010, when XP will most assuredly have reached
untenability, is questionable. Yes, I'm exaggerating by a year or two--I
hope.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:gtst51ljk2t7nnlh29p2pmecoleoq1un7m@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:43:10 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
> >The way things are going, you're going to have a hard time
maintaining
> >*XP* until LH comes out, <eg>!
>
> Holy smoke!!!! I just paid $ 150 to buy an 98 to XP upgrade.
> Wasted money?
> Matter of fact, I still normally use 98 - XP is there only in case I
want to
> install a program which won't run on 98.
>
> Oh, well . . . . . guess I'm a luddite. . . .(-:
>
> John <><
>
> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
> with an other monkey's monkey.
> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 14, 2005 11:49:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Just in case your post wasn't totally in jest...
>
> Windows 98, 98SE and ME will soon relatively worthless for normal,
> internet-connected use.

Now just what does that mean? (Prove it, cause I don't believe it).

Let me define "relatively worthless" here: not able to connect and go to web
sites.
In which case I'd say, I'll believe it when I see that actually happen!

> Windows XP is the *only* decent next-step for
> most current 9x users, at least within the Windows group.

Well, I won't deny that, when someone decides it's finally necessary to
upgrade.

> Windows XP *should_be* good for another three to five years. My point
> was that, with the way Longhorn development is proceeding, getting it
> mainstreamed even by 2010, when XP will most assuredly have reached
> untenability, is questionable. Yes, I'm exaggerating by a year or two--I
> hope.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "John" <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in message
> news:gtst51ljk2t7nnlh29p2pmecoleoq1un7m@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:43:10 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The way things are going, you're going to have a hard time maintaining
>>> *XP* until LH comes out, <eg>!
>>
>> Holy smoke!!!! I just paid $ 150 to buy an 98 to XP upgrade.
>> Wasted money?
>> Matter of fact, I still normally use 98 - XP is there only in case I want
to
>> install a program which won't run on 98.
>>
>> Oh, well . . . . . guess I'm a luddite. . . .(-:
>>
>> John <><
>>
>> A wise monkey is a monkey who doesn't monkey
>> with an other monkey's monkey.
>> (A very free paraphrase of Exodus 20:14).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 1:49:17 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Your definition of "relatively worthless" is different from the one that
Gary and I share:

"Windows 98, SE and Me will soon be relatively worthless for
Internet-connected use as the number of exploits they are/will be vulnerable
to will make them a dangerous platform."

If you want to trust your personal data to a Windows 98, SE or Me computer
that can no longer be adequately secured while online, that's your choice.
I consider it to be an unwise one.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
* http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm



"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%235zz2mVQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> Just in case your post wasn't totally in jest...
>>
>> Windows 98, 98SE and ME will soon relatively worthless for normal,
>> internet-connected use.
>
> Now just what does that mean? (Prove it, cause I don't believe it).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 1:49:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> Your definition of "relatively worthless" is different from the one that
> Gary and I share:
>
> "Windows 98, SE and Me will soon be relatively worthless for
> Internet-connected use as the number of exploits they are/will be
vulnerable
> to will make them a dangerous platform."

Oh - OK. If that's what you meant.

> If you want to trust your personal data to a Windows 98, SE or Me computer
> that can no longer be adequately secured while online, that's your choice.
> I consider it to be an unwise one.

And I don't, so we just differ there. So let's just agree to disagree.

> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
> * In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
> * http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
>
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%235zz2mVQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> Just in case your post wasn't totally in jest...
>>>
>>> Windows 98, 98SE and ME will soon relatively worthless for normal,
>>> internet-connected use.
>>
>> Now just what does that mean? (Prove it, cause I don't believe it).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 1:49:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Additionally, a vast number of websites, including most of the ones that
even you probably consider required reading today, will be adopting
technologies that Windows 9x system with IE 6.1 won't be able to use.
The situation will be comparable to "text-only" alternate versions that
were quite common up until a few years ago. (And the current version of
IE *will* be the last IE that's installable to any Win9x system.)

The trend has already begun, at least at the design stage, and I predict
that it will reach >80% (measured by traffic) before Longhorn is
released. You either won't be able to afford the "legacy" technology
that you will require in order to even reach the internet, or you won't
find much worth doing once you get there. Hell, within another couple of
years, PCs that will even support Win9x OS systems, period (except
perhaps those mounted into Virtual PC or similar) will start dying off
by the millions, much like 486s died off about a decade ago.

Bill, you're quite welcome to be a Luddite. More power to you. But don't
think for a minute that you will have much company. And once your
numbers dwindle to <5%, *nobody* will any longer care about your needs
or desires. Any whining about "compatibility" will fall on deaf ears,
and rightly so.

Do I have proof? No. Only time will prove the veracity of my
predictions. But while I may be off in this or that particular aspect,
or off by a few months to a year, one way or the other, in timing, I'll
bet you a hundred dollars that my predictions will, in great measure,
prove true. Nominate a referee if you want though I will naturally
reserve the right to reject any that I consider overly biased, <s>.
Shall we call it, say, this time in 2008? (Just remember that this NG
will be moribund except for old toothless geezers talkin' about the good
old days, so look me up in the Longhorn groups when you're ready to pay
up.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:eCVlW1VQFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Your definition of "relatively worthless" is different from the one
that
> Gary and I share:
>
> "Windows 98, SE and Me will soon be relatively worthless for
> Internet-connected use as the number of exploits they are/will be
vulnerable
> to will make them a dangerous platform."
>
> If you want to trust your personal data to a Windows 98, SE or Me
computer
> that can no longer be adequately secured while online, that's your
choice.
> I consider it to be an unwise one.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
> * In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
> * http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
>
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%235zz2mVQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >> Just in case your post wasn't totally in jest...
> >>
> >> Windows 98, 98SE and ME will soon relatively worthless for normal,
> >> internet-connected use.
> >
> > Now just what does that mean? (Prove it, cause I don't believe
it).
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 2:56:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

You are one of the great MVP's imo Gary and I can see you continuing
> to live in Alex Nichol's shoes. <grin, smile, wink> LOL!!

you are tooooooooooo much son, make sure you
stay in merica'.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 2:56:36 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

was that Dan you were replying to, Jane? Isn't he a little old to be your
son? :-)

jane wrote:
> You are one of the great MVP's imo Gary and I can see you continuing
>> to live in Alex Nichol's shoes. <grin, smile, wink> LOL!!
>
> you are tooooooooooo much son, make sure you
> stay in merica'.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 2:56:37 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you would quit replying to either of those troubled souls, Bill, I
wouldn't have to see them at all, <eg>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ek7NG8QQFHA.2948@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> was that Dan you were replying to, Jane? Isn't he a little old to be
your
> son? :-)
>
> jane wrote:
> > You are one of the great MVP's imo Gary and I can see you
continuing
> >> to live in Alex Nichol's shoes. <grin, smile, wink> LOL!!
> >
> > you are tooooooooooo much son, make sure you
> > stay in merica'.
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 3:58:07 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Additionally, a vast number of websites, including most of the ones that
> even you probably consider required reading today, will be adopting
> technologies that Windows 9x system with IE 6.1 won't be able to use.
> The situation will be comparable to "text-only" alternate versions that
> were quite common up until a few years ago. (And the current version of
> IE *will* be the last IE that's installable to any Win9x system.)
>
> The trend has already begun, at least at the design stage, and I predict
> that it will reach >80% (measured by traffic) before Longhorn is
> released. You either won't be able to afford the "legacy" technology
> that you will require in order to even reach the internet, or you won't
> find much worth doing once you get there. Hell, within another couple of
> years, PCs that will even support Win9x OS systems, period (except
> perhaps those mounted into Virtual PC or similar) will start dying off
> by the millions, much like 486s died off about a decade ago.
>
> Bill, you're quite welcome to be a Luddite. More power to you.

Well, I'm driving a 1988 Nissan. So am I a Luddite? :-)

> But don't think for a minute that you will have much company. And once
your
> numbers dwindle to <5%, *nobody* will any longer care about your needs
> or desires. Any whining about "compatibility" will fall on deaf ears,
> and rightly so.
>
> Do I have proof? No. Only time will prove the veracity of my
> predictions. But while I may be off in this or that particular aspect,
> or off by a few months to a year, one way or the other, in timing, I'll
> bet you a hundred dollars that my predictions will, in great measure,
> prove true. Nominate a referee if you want though I will naturally
> reserve the right to reject any that I consider overly biased, <s>.

Hmmm. We could try Dan or Jane or ....?

> Shall we call it, say, this time in 2008? (Just remember that this NG

I have no idea what it will really be like in 2008, although I do think I'll
still be able to use the Internet here (well, for most things). (Of
course, if my machine dies by then I guess it's a moot point, but hopefully
that won't happen).

I'll tell you what probably will happen though - once it gets to the point
that hardly anything is available that runs on Win9x (and I'm including
shareware and other apps here, not necessarily Office 2008), then I'll
probably be forced to upgrade. Or if I'm blocked from doing Internet
Banking or ordering anymore, that might do it (but that will piss me off!).
I think 2010 might be more like it. If they do this they are going to
lose a LOT of old customers, all those old grannies, Luddites, and whatnot.

> will be moribund except for old toothless geezers talkin' about the good
> old days, so look me up in the Longhorn groups when you're ready to pay
> up.)
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> news:eCVlW1VQFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Your definition of "relatively worthless" is different from the one that
>> Gary and I share:
>>
>> "Windows 98, SE and Me will soon be relatively worthless for
>> Internet-connected use as the number of exploits they are/will be
vulnerable
>> to will make them a dangerous platform."
>>
>> If you want to trust your personal data to a Windows 98, SE or Me
computer
>> that can no longer be adequately secured while online, that's your
choice.
>> I consider it to be an unwise one.
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
>> * In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
>> * http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:%235zz2mVQFHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>> Just in case your post wasn't totally in jest...
>>>>
>>>> Windows 98, 98SE and ME will soon relatively worthless for normal,
>>>> internet-connected use.
>>>
>>> Now just what does that mean? (Prove it, cause I don't believe it).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 4:20:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:exaOn%23WQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl..
<snip>
> Additionally, a vast number of websites, including most of the ones that
> even you probably consider required reading today, will be adopting
> technologies that Windows 9x system with IE 6.1 won't be able to use.
> The situation will be comparable to "text-only" alternate versions that
> were quite common up until a few years ago. (And the current version of
> IE *will* be the last IE that's installable to any Win9x system.)
<snip>

So you are saying that using an alternate web browser will not allow one to use the
Internet anymore? One must use an XP system's IE or get off the Internet? I am
having a hard time buying that part of your argument, Gary.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 15, 2005 4:20:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

No, I'm saying that *whatever* web browser you find yourself using in
2008, it will either be severely limited in functionality or it won't be
installed on a Win9x system. I just used IE as the primary example.

But that's not all I'm saying. Less and less new equipment will support
Win9x, dwindling to negligible by the end of the decade, and whatever
equipment now exists that supports Win9x will either be incompatible
with the rest of the world or will be burned out. Not only that, I'm
betting that dial-up connections will be so rare that they will cost a
mint to use, and that the alternatives will, again, be entirely
incompatible with Win9x systems. Another aspect that I haven't mentioned
yet, and which may or may not ever occur, and even if it does will
probably take a bit longer than three years to fulfill--In the eyes of
many, *Something* has to be done about the wild-west nature of the
internet and the resulting *expensive* garbage, invasion of privacy,
etc., etc., and I'm guessing it will involve technologies that will
force a good part of what's out there today into quick oblivion. Look
for this to be a major issue in politics over the next few years.

In short, by the end of this decade, even *if* you can make it to the
internet, or even run Win9x at all, perhaps, it will be as a child
system on a LAN that is based upon XP or later, or, just maybe, from
within a VPC. Which kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?

No, I don't think *all* of this will have come to pass in the next three
years, but a great portion will have, and my predictions will be fully
realized by 2010 or so. So says I.

(Hey, what fun is predicting the future if you don't stick your neck out
just a bit, <bg>?)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eE$NbJXQFHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:exaOn%23WQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl..
> <snip>
> > Additionally, a vast number of websites, including most of the ones
that
> > even you probably consider required reading today, will be adopting
> > technologies that Windows 9x system with IE 6.1 won't be able to
use.
> > The situation will be comparable to "text-only" alternate versions
that
> > were quite common up until a few years ago. (And the current version
of
> > IE *will* be the last IE that's installable to any Win9x system.)
> <snip>
>
> So you are saying that using an alternate web browser will not allow
one to use the
> Internet anymore? One must use an XP system's IE or get off the
Internet? I am
> having a hard time buying that part of your argument, Gary.
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
>
April 15, 2005 5:55:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I'm with you Bill,
Gary's advice of due advancement is a very safe bet.
during the period of which he speaks, I think it obvious there will come a
time for each to decide when the time is ripe for change.

I prefer to roll along until such time, personal choice will
dictate a necessary decision, but as for the threat of being secured whilst online
that may be for others to worry about, I certainly have not felt and change
of vulnerability of late. I keep my net wanderings and my personal
data sets at a safe distance by using dedicated drives for each.

There will be a window of possibly 5 years whilst others test out the new
technologies, and hard change becomes unavoidable.
I would hope common sense be the dictate rather than the "must" for
new technology, or any "perceived threat"


| > If you want to trust your personal data to a Windows 98, SE or Me computer
| > that can no longer be adequately secured while online, that's your choice.
| > I consider it to be an unwise one.
|
| And I don't, so we just differ there. So let's just agree to disagree.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 12:49:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

While I understand and agree with most of your original statements regarding the
need to upgrade in order to remain secure online for the most part, I don't see how
you make the quantum leap that someone using Win98SE three years from now will find
themselves severely limited in browser functionality. Just because IE6 may not be
able to handle some of the web pages three years from now (just as IE4 became
outdated a few years ago), does not mean that there won't be capable browsers
available that will still support Win98SE....Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Deepnet
Explorer. Gary, I have a 486 with only DOS 6.22 installed, and I can surf the
Internet just fine, and use email, using the DOS Arachne browser. Plenty of
functionality still there. I think there will be browsers available that will
operate on Win98 and allow all the web's functionality, years from now. Take a look
at the win3x_wfw_dos group and you will find a number of users still fully
functioning online, with those old operating systems, and not posing any security
risks....indeed, many of today's malware won't run on those systems.

There are currently still a large number of people worldwide, such as in Eastern
Europe, who still use 486's and even 386's. There are a lot of users right here in
the US still using their old Pentium 166, or PII 233. A co-worker of mine is very
happy since I got him a "new" pc.....a PII 450. While I fully understand that
legacy hardware is being phased out, that simply does not mean that it will no
longer be in use. I find that we "geek" types sometimes forget that not everyone
buys or builds a new computer every couple of years, and a lot of folks expect their
investment to last them a long while.

I am definitely not arguing with most of what you are saying....I agree with most of
it, for better or worse....but I do not think that Win98SE will become quite as
"dead" as the picture you paint. As for dial-up, I don't see that changing in the
way you describe, and I am quite likely to still be on dial-up three years from now.
Other than that, I think we agree. ;-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...


"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u2gQ7SXQFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No, I'm saying that *whatever* web browser you find yourself using in
> 2008, it will either be severely limited in functionality or it won't be
> installed on a Win9x system. I just used IE as the primary example.
>
> But that's not all I'm saying. Less and less new equipment will support
> Win9x, dwindling to negligible by the end of the decade, and whatever
> equipment now exists that supports Win9x will either be incompatible
> with the rest of the world or will be burned out. Not only that, I'm
> betting that dial-up connections will be so rare that they will cost a
> mint to use, and that the alternatives will, again, be entirely
> incompatible with Win9x systems. Another aspect that I haven't mentioned
> yet, and which may or may not ever occur, and even if it does will
> probably take a bit longer than three years to fulfill--In the eyes of
> many, *Something* has to be done about the wild-west nature of the
> internet and the resulting *expensive* garbage, invasion of privacy,
> etc., etc., and I'm guessing it will involve technologies that will
> force a good part of what's out there today into quick oblivion. Look
> for this to be a major issue in politics over the next few years.
>
> In short, by the end of this decade, even *if* you can make it to the
> internet, or even run Win9x at all, perhaps, it will be as a child
> system on a LAN that is based upon XP or later, or, just maybe, from
> within a VPC. Which kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?
>
> No, I don't think *all* of this will have come to pass in the next three
> years, but a great portion will have, and my predictions will be fully
> realized by 2010 or so. So says I.
>
> (Hey, what fun is predicting the future if you don't stick your neck out
> just a bit, <bg>?)
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:eE$NbJXQFHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > news:exaOn%23WQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl..
> > <snip>
> > > Additionally, a vast number of websites, including most of the ones
> that
> > > even you probably consider required reading today, will be adopting
> > > technologies that Windows 9x system with IE 6.1 won't be able to
> use.
> > > The situation will be comparable to "text-only" alternate versions
> that
> > > were quite common up until a few years ago. (And the current version
> of
> > > IE *will* be the last IE that's installable to any Win9x system.)
> > <snip>
> >
> > So you are saying that using an alternate web browser will not allow
> one to use the
> > Internet anymore? One must use an XP system's IE or get off the
> Internet? I am
> > having a hard time buying that part of your argument, Gary.
> > --
> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
> >
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 12:49:41 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hey, maybe the beta groups.google will finally go RTM before then and
actually work. Then we can come back to this and compare notes.

I gotta wonder, though, just what kind of sites you can surf using DOS
6.22. What browser?

No, I'm not saying that the whole world will be 100% as I described,
just 99.99% of it. And in many of the things I described, I really feel
like 2008 will be the threshold year, with saturation being achieved
over the next two to three years after that. In particular, I think you
seriously underestimate the amount of progress that is being made in
communications infrastructure worldwide. I live in an area that is quite
remote in infrastructure terms (seriously mountainous.) We only *just*
got DSL at the beginning of last year, and already, in combination with
WiFi systems that came in at around the same time, and satellite which
became much more competitive, the saturation is well over 80% of users
(whose numbers grew substantially, also)--compared to 99% dial-up 15
months ago. Likewise, the growth in multiple-computer households is just
astounding. I also expect to be a groundswell of support for legal
restrictions being implemented regarding privacy and security, much of
which will require much better encryption, etc., and besides simply
becoming passé, older systems will be *forced* off of the internet. Look
for that to be a *major* issue in the 2008 Presidential elections here
in the US and other political debates throughout the world.

And the next wave will be homes and businesses being overhauled to use
fully integrated systems that combine *all* communications, a *lot* of
the service industry, and entertainment delivery. Which is why I've gone
ridiculously overboard with renovations of the house we purchased last
fall, with almost as many LAN/Coaxial/Sound stations as there are
electrical outlets. (OK, I exaggerate. The ratio is more like two to
one, and the wife refused to let me put any stations in the bathrooms.)

And already, I'm kicking myself for not installing gigabit wiring
instead of CAT5e. Yes, I'm a Neanderthal and don't like wireless.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23KYKs4hQFHA.4020@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> While I understand and agree with most of your original statements
regarding the
> need to upgrade in order to remain secure online for the most part, I
don't see how
> you make the quantum leap that someone using Win98SE three years from
now will find
> themselves severely limited in browser functionality. Just because
IE6 may not be
> able to handle some of the web pages three years from now (just as IE4
became
> outdated a few years ago), does not mean that there won't be capable
browsers
> available that will still support Win98SE....Firefox, Mozilla, Opera,
Deepnet
> Explorer. Gary, I have a 486 with only DOS 6.22 installed, and I can
surf the
> Internet just fine, and use email, using the DOS Arachne browser.
Plenty of
> functionality still there. I think there will be browsers available
that will
> operate on Win98 and allow all the web's functionality, years from
now. Take a look
> at the win3x_wfw_dos group and you will find a number of users still
fully
> functioning online, with those old operating systems, and not posing
any security
> risks....indeed, many of today's malware won't run on those systems.
>
> There are currently still a large number of people worldwide, such as
in Eastern
> Europe, who still use 486's and even 386's. There are a lot of users
right here in
> the US still using their old Pentium 166, or PII 233. A co-worker of
mine is very
> happy since I got him a "new" pc.....a PII 450. While I fully
understand that
> legacy hardware is being phased out, that simply does not mean that it
will no
> longer be in use. I find that we "geek" types sometimes forget that
not everyone
> buys or builds a new computer every couple of years, and a lot of
folks expect their
> investment to last them a long while.
>
> I am definitely not arguing with most of what you are saying....I
agree with most of
> it, for better or worse....but I do not think that Win98SE will become
quite as
> "dead" as the picture you paint. As for dial-up, I don't see that
changing in the
> way you describe, and I am quite likely to still be on dial-up three
years from now.
> Other than that, I think we agree. ;-)
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 1:43:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

glee wrote:
> While I understand and agree with most of your original statements
regarding
> the need to upgrade in order to remain secure online for the most part, I
> don't see how you make the quantum leap that someone using Win98SE three
> years from now will find themselves severely limited in browser
> functionality. Just because IE6 may not be able to handle some of the web
> pages three years from now (just as IE4 became outdated a few years ago),
> does not mean that there won't be capable browsers available that will
still
> support Win98SE....Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Deepnet Explorer. Gary, I
have a
> 486 with only DOS 6.22 installed, and I can surf the Internet just fine,
and
> use email, using the DOS Arachne browser. Plenty of functionality still
> there. I think there will be browsers available that will operate on
Win98
> and allow all the web's functionality, years from now. Take a look at the
> win3x_wfw_dos group and you will find a number of users still fully
> functioning online, with those old operating systems, and not posing any
> security risks....indeed, many of today's malware won't run on those
systems.
>
> There are currently still a large number of people worldwide, such as in
> Eastern Europe, who still use 486's and even 386's. There are a lot of
users
> right here in the US still using their old Pentium 166, or PII 233. A
> co-worker of mine is very happy since I got him a "new" pc.....a PII 450.
> While I fully understand that legacy hardware is being phased out, that
> simply does not mean that it will no longer be in use. I find that we
"geek"
> types sometimes forget that not everyone buys or builds a new computer
every
> couple of years, and a lot of folks expect their investment to last them a
> long while.
>
> I am definitely not arguing with most of what you are saying....I agree
with
> most of it, for better or worse....but I do not think that Win98SE will
> become quite as "dead" as the picture you paint. As for dial-up, I don't
see
> that changing in the way you describe, and I am quite likely to still be
on
> dial-up three years from now. Other than that, I think we agree. ;-)
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
>

I agree with ya, Glen. I think Gary's being a bit of a naysayer here.
There is just WAY too much older stuff out there in the world to believe
that IE6 will be next to useless in 3 years (I think). Or that all
Win98SE machines will be forced to the scrap heap, and only WinXP machines
will useful. (And, again, just for the record, my 1988 Nissan is doing
just fine in this world, thank you. :-)

Bill, the "Luddite". :-)

>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:u2gQ7SXQFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> No, I'm saying that *whatever* web browser you find yourself using in
>> 2008, it will either be severely limited in functionality or it won't be
>> installed on a Win9x system. I just used IE as the primary example.
>>
>> But that's not all I'm saying. Less and less new equipment will support
>> Win9x, dwindling to negligible by the end of the decade, and whatever
>> equipment now exists that supports Win9x will either be incompatible
>> with the rest of the world or will be burned out. Not only that, I'm
>> betting that dial-up connections will be so rare that they will cost a
>> mint to use, and that the alternatives will, again, be entirely
>> incompatible with Win9x systems. Another aspect that I haven't mentioned
>> yet, and which may or may not ever occur, and even if it does will
>> probably take a bit longer than three years to fulfill--In the eyes of
>> many, *Something* has to be done about the wild-west nature of the
>> internet and the resulting *expensive* garbage, invasion of privacy,
>> etc., etc., and I'm guessing it will involve technologies that will
>> force a good part of what's out there today into quick oblivion. Look
>> for this to be a major issue in politics over the next few years.
>>
>> In short, by the end of this decade, even *if* you can make it to the
>> internet, or even run Win9x at all, perhaps, it will be as a child
>> system on a LAN that is based upon XP or later, or, just maybe, from
>> within a VPC. Which kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?
>>
>> No, I don't think *all* of this will have come to pass in the next three
>> years, but a great portion will have, and my predictions will be fully
>> realized by 2010 or so. So says I.
>>
>> (Hey, what fun is predicting the future if you don't stick your neck out
>> just a bit, <bg>?)
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS MVP Shell/User
>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>>
>> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:eE$NbJXQFHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:exaOn%23WQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl..
>>> <snip>
>>>> Additionally, a vast number of websites, including most of the ones
>> that
>>>> even you probably consider required reading today, will be adopting
>>>> technologies that Windows 9x system with IE 6.1 won't be able to
>> use.
>>>> The situation will be comparable to "text-only" alternate versions
>> that
>>>> were quite common up until a few years ago. (And the current version
>> of
>>>> IE *will* be the last IE that's installable to any Win9x system.)
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> So you are saying that using an alternate web browser will not allow
>> one to use the
>>> Internet anymore? One must use an XP system's IE or get off the
>> Internet? I am
>>> having a hard time buying that part of your argument, Gary.
>>> --
>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 2:19:31 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> If you would quit replying to either of those troubled souls, Bill, I
> wouldn't have to see them at all, <eg>.

First you have to comprehend what a soul is mr terhune, only
then can you make comment.
It is going to be a hard road for you to travel to understand though,
because 'soul' is not of this earth, and you sure dont believe
in a creator.........
Why dont you stick to simple stuff like what man has created,
instead of getting out of your depth.

jj
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 3:41:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23HNLYSiQFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hey, maybe the beta groups.google will finally go RTM before then and
> actually work. Then we can come back to this and compare notes.

LOL

> I gotta wonder, though, just what kind of sites you can surf using DOS
> 6.22. What browser?

Arachne WWW Browser:
http://browser.arachne.cz/

>
> No, I'm not saying that the whole world will be 100% as I described,
> just 99.99% of it. And in many of the things I described, I really feel
> like 2008 will be the threshold year, with saturation being achieved
> over the next two to three years after that. In particular, I think you
> seriously underestimate the amount of progress that is being made in
> communications infrastructure worldwide. I live in an area that is quite
> remote in infrastructure terms (seriously mountainous.) We only *just*
> got DSL at the beginning of last year, and already, in combination with
> WiFi systems that came in at around the same time, and satellite which
> became much more competitive, the saturation is well over 80% of users
> (whose numbers grew substantially, also)--compared to 99% dial-up 15
> months ago. Likewise, the growth in multiple-computer households is just
> astounding. I also expect to be a groundswell of support for legal
> restrictions being implemented regarding privacy and security, much of
> which will require much better encryption, etc., and besides simply
> becoming passé, older systems will be *forced* off of the internet. Look
> for that to be a *major* issue in the 2008 Presidential elections here
> in the US and other political debates throughout the world.

Major issue in the elections? Nah, ain't gonna happen.


> And the next wave will be homes and businesses being overhauled to use
> fully integrated systems that combine *all* communications, a *lot* of
> the service industry, and entertainment delivery. Which is why I've gone
> ridiculously overboard with renovations of the house we purchased last
> fall, with almost as many LAN/Coaxial/Sound stations as there are
> electrical outlets. (OK, I exaggerate. The ratio is more like two to
> one, and the wife refused to let me put any stations in the bathrooms.)
>
> And already, I'm kicking myself for not installing gigabit wiring
> instead of CAT5e. Yes, I'm a Neanderthal and don't like wireless.

Well, that will give you something to do in a few years ;-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...



>
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:%23KYKs4hQFHA.4020@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > While I understand and agree with most of your original statements
> regarding the
> > need to upgrade in order to remain secure online for the most part, I
> don't see how
> > you make the quantum leap that someone using Win98SE three years from
> now will find
> > themselves severely limited in browser functionality. Just because
> IE6 may not be
> > able to handle some of the web pages three years from now (just as IE4
> became
> > outdated a few years ago), does not mean that there won't be capable
> browsers
> > available that will still support Win98SE....Firefox, Mozilla, Opera,
> Deepnet
> > Explorer. Gary, I have a 486 with only DOS 6.22 installed, and I can
> surf the
> > Internet just fine, and use email, using the DOS Arachne browser.
> Plenty of
> > functionality still there. I think there will be browsers available
> that will
> > operate on Win98 and allow all the web's functionality, years from
> now. Take a look
> > at the win3x_wfw_dos group and you will find a number of users still
> fully
> > functioning online, with those old operating systems, and not posing
> any security
> > risks....indeed, many of today's malware won't run on those systems.
> >
> > There are currently still a large number of people worldwide, such as
> in Eastern
> > Europe, who still use 486's and even 386's. There are a lot of users
> right here in
> > the US still using their old Pentium 166, or PII 233. A co-worker of
> mine is very
> > happy since I got him a "new" pc.....a PII 450. While I fully
> understand that
> > legacy hardware is being phased out, that simply does not mean that it
> will no
> > longer be in use. I find that we "geek" types sometimes forget that
> not everyone
> > buys or builds a new computer every couple of years, and a lot of
> folks expect their
> > investment to last them a long while.
> >
> > I am definitely not arguing with most of what you are saying....I
> agree with most of
> > it, for better or worse....but I do not think that Win98SE will become
> quite as
> > "dead" as the picture you paint. As for dial-up, I don't see that
> changing in the
> > way you describe, and I am quite likely to still be on dial-up three
> years from now.
> > Other than that, I think we agree. ;-)
> > --
> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 11:23:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uqh9HajQFHA.1884@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> snip
> I agree with ya, Glen. I think Gary's being a bit of a naysayer here.
> There is just WAY too much older stuff out there in the world to believe
> that IE6 will be next to useless in 3 years (I think). Or that all
> Win98SE machines will be forced to the scrap heap, and only WinXP machines
> will useful. (And, again, just for the record, my 1988 Nissan is doing
> just fine in this world, thank you. :-)
>
> Bill, the "Luddite". :-)

My 1972 Ford F-100 daily driver has you beat, Luddy!
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 5:18:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

glee wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uqh9HajQFHA.1884@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> snip
>> I agree with ya, Glen. I think Gary's being a bit of a naysayer here.
>> There is just WAY too much older stuff out there in the world to believe
>> that IE6 will be next to useless in 3 years (I think). Or that all
>> Win98SE machines will be forced to the scrap heap, and only WinXP
machines
>> will useful. (And, again, just for the record, my 1988 Nissan is doing
>> just fine in this world, thank you. :-)
>>
>> Bill, the "Luddite". :-)
>
> My 1972 Ford F-100 daily driver has you beat, Luddy!

But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!
Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he thinks IE6 and
Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the bet?)
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 7:56:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I never said "IE6 and Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008".

I said they'd be "relatively worthless."

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o mdQVkrQFHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!
> Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he thinks IE6
and
> Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the bet?)
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 8:15:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o mdQVkrQFHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| glee wrote:
| > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
| > news:uqh9HajQFHA.1884@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| >> snip
| >> I agree with ya, Glen. I think Gary's being a bit of a naysayer
here.
| >> There is just WAY too much older stuff out there in the world to
believe
| >> that IE6 will be next to useless in 3 years (I think). Or that
all
| >> Win98SE machines will be forced to the scrap heap, and only WinXP
| machines
| >> will useful. (And, again, just for the record, my 1988 Nissan is
doing
| >> just fine in this world, thank you. :-)
| >>
| >> Bill, the "Luddite". :-)
| >
| > My 1972 Ford F-100 daily driver has you beat, Luddy!
|
| But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!
| Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he thinks IE6
and
| Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the bet?)

Unfortunately, Terhune will be swallowed by an earthquake long before
you can collect!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 10:53:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Come on now, that's just semantics. Of course your definition of
"relatively worthless", and mine, may be quite different. As long as my
computer is still functional for what I use it for, that's enough for me!
Once that point passes, I'll have to bite the bullet.

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> I never said "IE6 and Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008".
>
> I said they'd be "relatively worthless."
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o mdQVkrQFHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!
>> Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he thinks IE6
and
>> Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the bet?)
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 16, 2005 11:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

No, it's not "just semantics". Useless means without any use whatsoever.
"Relatively worthless" suggests that for most people, Win98/IE6 won't
get the job done, will limit their surfing abilities to the extent that
they will "need" something more up to date.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o pUAnfuQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Come on now, that's just semantics. Of course your definition of
> "relatively worthless", and mine, may be quite different. As long as
my
> computer is still functional for what I use it for, that's enough for
me!
> Once that point passes, I'll have to bite the bullet.
>
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > I never said "IE6 and Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008".
> >
> > I said they'd be "relatively worthless."
> >
> > --
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:o mdQVkrQFHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!
> >> Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he thinks
IE6
> and
> >> Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the
bet?)
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 17, 2005 12:47:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o mdQVkrQFHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> glee wrote:
> > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:uqh9HajQFHA.1884@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> snip
> >> (And, again, just for the record, my 1988 Nissan is doing
> >> just fine in this world, thank you. :-)
> >>
> >> Bill, the "Luddite". :-)
> >
> > My 1972 Ford F-100 daily driver has you beat, Luddy!
>
> But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!

The truck is the only vehicle I own. Anything further questions?? :-p

> Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he thinks IE6 and
> Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the bet?)

No, as I said I agree with *most* of his statements. Besides which, he didn't say
'useless', but 'worthless'.....based on current technological depreciation, that is
a correct statement. :-)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.ms...
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 17, 2005 4:49:29 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hello,

"darkrats" <darkrats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uq6RbCHQFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Here we go again.
>
> Thanks for posting the information pages.
> Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
>
> I don't see it on any of the pages.
> And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.
>

Found the direct link for KB890923 that I
needed for our Slovenian Windows 98 SE.

http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3-...

http://tinyurl.com/9am8f

More links at this excellent page:
http://members.tripod.com/erpman1/iewmpupd.html


Best regards, Roman
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 17, 2005 4:49:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It's not considered proper to post direct links to executables in these
groups, and I recommend that people not use them.

You crack me up. You're not willing to use Windows Updates or the
Windows Updates catalog, for whatever reason, yet you *are* willing to
use a download link that appears at Windows Updates Catalog. I can't
find any logic in that.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"roman modic" <modicr@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ePnxlUtQFHA.688@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
>
> "darkrats" <darkrats@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uq6RbCHQFHA.1096@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Here we go again.
> >
> > Thanks for posting the information pages.
> > Can you please post a direct link to the KB890923 item for 98/ME.
> >
> > I don't see it on any of the pages.
> > And I would prefer not to use "Windows Update".
> >
> > Any help would be much appreciated.
> >
>
> Found the direct link for KB890923 that I
> needed for our Slovenian Windows 98 SE.
>
>
http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3-...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9am8f
>
> More links at this excellent page:
> http://members.tripod.com/erpman1/iewmpupd.html
>
>
> Best regards, Roman
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 17, 2005 4:59:34 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> No, it's not "just semantics". Useless means without any use whatsoever.
> "Relatively worthless" suggests that for most people, Win98/IE6 won't
> get the job done, will limit their surfing abilities to the extent that
> they will "need" something more up to date.

Well then, in what way will their "surfing abilities" be "too limited"?
For example, I can't imaging their cutting off Internet Banking, or placing
Internet orders, for so many customers out there (I bet some even with 386's
and 486's, still using Windows 95, and maybe even Windows 3.1)

As for "getting the job done", that depends on which apps they are running.
If you're implying they *need* (as in MUST) to use the latest versions of
Office and whatnot, then I'd probably have to agree.

> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:o pUAnfuQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Come on now, that's just semantics. Of course your definition of
>> "relatively worthless", and mine, may be quite different. As long as my
>> computer is still functional for what I use it for, that's enough for me!
>> Once that point passes, I'll have to bite the bullet.
>>
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> I never said "IE6 and Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008".
>>>
>>> I said they'd be "relatively worthless."
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gary S. Terhune
>>> MS MVP Shell/User
>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:o mdQVkrQFHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>> But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!
>>>> Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he thinks IE6
and
>>>> Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the bet?)
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
April 17, 2005 5:04:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Considering the escalating pace of ID theft, etc., I fell fairly certain
that, yes, you *will* need something more secure, in ways that are only
now being developed, in order to make use of the services you mention
within the next few years. The finger-in-the-dike methods being employed
today aren't going to hold back the flood much longer.

And, yes, you hit upon another aspect, if obliquely. For instance,
online delivery of multimedia is as yet in its infancy. And just as DVDs
have replaced VHS, and as the new home-delivery of DVDs on a
subscription basis will bite deeply into the Video Store market, DVDs
themselves will sooner than later be obsolete as entertainment delivery
vehicles, also.

But those are just examples. Fact is, I have no fixed idea of what the
future will hold, I just know that it *won't*, for the most part, be
supported by Win9x based technology. As with so many other aspects of
modern life, you'll either keep up with the Joneses or you'll be
sidelined.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o Tc4FsxQFHA.4028@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> > No, it's not "just semantics". Useless means without any use
whatsoever.
> > "Relatively worthless" suggests that for most people, Win98/IE6
won't
> > get the job done, will limit their surfing abilities to the extent
that
> > they will "need" something more up to date.
>
> Well then, in what way will their "surfing abilities" be "too
limited"?
> For example, I can't imaging their cutting off Internet Banking, or
placing
> Internet orders, for so many customers out there (I bet some even with
386's
> and 486's, still using Windows 95, and maybe even Windows 3.1)
>
> As for "getting the job done", that depends on which apps they are
running.
> If you're implying they *need* (as in MUST) to use the latest versions
of
> Office and whatnot, then I'd probably have to agree.
>
> > Gary S. Terhune
> > MS MVP Shell/User
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >
> > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:o pUAnfuQFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> Come on now, that's just semantics. Of course your definition
of
> >> "relatively worthless", and mine, may be quite different. As long
as my
> >> computer is still functional for what I use it for, that's enough
for me!
> >> Once that point passes, I'll have to bite the bullet.
> >>
> >> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >>> I never said "IE6 and Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008".
> >>>
> >>> I said they'd be "relatively worthless."
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Gary S. Terhune
> >>> MS MVP Shell/User
> >>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> >>> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
> >>>
> >>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:o mdQVkrQFHA.3868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >>>> But is that the only car you're driving? Mine is. So there!
> >>>> Hey, maybe we should take Gary up on that bet (about how he
thinks IE6
> and
> >>>> Win98SE machines will be useless in 2008. Wanna get in on the
bet?)
>
>
!