Critical Updates?

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).
79 answers Last reply
More about critical updates
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    John <nospam@nospam.ca> wrote in
    news:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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.
  2. 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-apr.mspx

    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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
  3. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    >
    > 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

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

    --
    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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    > >
    > > 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
    > >
    >
    >
  5. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    > >
    > > 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  6. 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-apr.mspx
    >
    >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).
  7. 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-apr.mspx
    > >
    > >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).
  8. 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-apr.mspx
    > > >
    > > >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).
    >
    >
  9. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    > > >
    > > > 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
  10. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    > > > >
    > > > > 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    >
    >
  11. 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/default.asp
    >
  12. 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/default.asp

    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/default.asp
    > >
    >
    >
  13. 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/default.asp
    > >
    >
    >
  14. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    >>>
    >>> 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
  15. 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
  16. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    > >>>
    > >>> 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
    >
  17. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
  18. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
    >
    >
  19. 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:OvdsJ7FQFHA.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-apr.mspx
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 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:psbq519b9em3n05l7lavria07no62lusp8@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).
  20. 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).
  21. 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
  22. 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).
  23. 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).
  24. 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).
  25. 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).
  26. 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).
    >
    >
  27. 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'.
  28. 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'.
  29. 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'.
    >
    >
  30. 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).
  31. 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.mspx
  32. 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.mspx
    >
  33. 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.
  34. 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.mspx


    "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.mspx
    > >
    >
  35. 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.mspx
  36. 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.mspx
    >

    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.mspx
  37. 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
  38. 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.mspx


    >
    > "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.mspx
    >
  39. 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!
  40. 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?)
  41. 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:OmdQVkrQFHA.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?)
    >
    >
  42. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:OmdQVkrQFHA.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
  43. 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:OmdQVkrQFHA.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?)
  44. 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:OpUAnfuQFHA.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:OmdQVkrQFHA.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?)
    >
    >
  45. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

    "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:OmdQVkrQFHA.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.mspx
  46. 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/v3-19990518/cabpool/IE6.0sp1-KB890923-Windows-98-ME-x86-ENU_d6b3347fe6bc1b21cce7b43fa82fb76.exe

    http://tinyurl.com/9am8f

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


    Best regards, Roman
  47. 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/v3-19990518/cabpool/IE6.0sp1-KB890923-Windows-98-ME-x86-ENU_d6b3347fe6bc1b21cce7b43fa82fb76.exe
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/9am8f
    >
    > More links at this excellent page:
    > http://members.tripod.com/erpman1/iewmpupd.html
    >
    >
    > Best regards, Roman
    >
    >
  48. 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:OpUAnfuQFHA.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:OmdQVkrQFHA.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?)
  49. 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:OTc4FsxQFHA.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:OpUAnfuQFHA.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:OmdQVkrQFHA.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?)
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Security Microsoft Windows XP Windows