Maxthon ver 1.6 as a substitute for IE6
in [Internet Explorer 6]
|
From: 98 Guy on 20 Jan 2010 20:38 I'm going to re-post this for MEB, because his favorite usenet server censored this the first time. ----------- MEB wrote: > Wait a minute 98 Guy, on one hand *you recommend* installation of > *IE6 updates from W2K* into Win9X [you have repeatedly done that > in the win98.gen_discussion group], and here you state that leaving > Win98 IE6 at SP1 EOL level provides protection... What I said was this: | What it also means is that after June 2010, you're safer | (from a drive-by exploit POV) running Win-98 than you are | running win-2k. The intention being that all 98-operable IE6 updates being made available for 2K are being applied to 98 all along during the past 3 years - on the off-chance that circulating IE6 exploit code does in fact execute properly on win-98 (and so the win-2K patches would therefore provide protection against those exploits). > I previously made similar statements wherein I said You are saying that you now believe that a win-98 machine is better off with IE6 as it existed as of June 2006 vs having FF 2.0.0.20 as it existed at it's EOL. I would argue that surfing the web with IE6 is today a joke, and has been for several years, due to the horrible job that IE6 does with current web content, and that any vulnerabilities that is exposed by FF ..20 is trivial compared to the decency of the web experience it provides. > And in others where *you* specifically argued and recommended > these installations of W2K update files into 9X IE6 REGARDLESS > of any new vulnerabilities these might install. You continue to flog that bogus argument that these IE6 patches might, or do, contain new (but undiscovered) vulnerabilities. What a complete load of horse s.h.i.t thinking that is. That logic could be applied to *ANY* patch or update that microsoft releases *for anything*. By your logic, if I'm running win-2K, and Microsoft releases a new IE6 patch for 2K, then maybe I shouldn't install it because even if fixes a known vulnerability, it may give my system a new vulnerability to be discovered at a later date. I've pointed that out to you before, and you never provide a satisfactory response. > On the other hand, it takes a malicious website a few > milliseconds to determine *exactly* what a browser supports > and what OS is being run [do to what the OS supports/offers > within it], hence its vulnerabilities, so... And by that you are supposing: a) operable unpatched IE6 vulnerabilities exists today within win-98, and b) hackers actually are aware of the vulnerabilities and have coded them for correct delivery via web-server user-agent detection. If you are aware of any real instances of (a), please tell us. I don't have to tell you that the probability of (b) is low and getting lower all the time.
From: ANONYMOUS on 20 Jan 2010 20:43 "N. Miller" <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message news:1g8lrbiq3e1b0$.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net... > PA Bear is no more an MS "poodle" than you, puddinghead. > How the hell did you work this out with your small penis? In physics I have worked out that people with small penises have smaller brain and consequently they don't think rationally. they are depressed sods.
From: ANONYMOUS on 20 Jan 2010 20:46 "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:enHx6RimKHA.3792(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Bingo! Give the man a cigar. Most probably he doesn't smoke but you can try here: http://www.sunbingo.co.uk/?CMP=KNL-NBSgoogle&HBX_PK=bingo+com&gclid=CKDbgL-ttJ8CFRpBlAod-1DjxA Who knows you can meet a fellow geriatric there.
From: Sunny on 21 Jan 2010 00:56 "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eWwK5plmKHA.1824(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... <snip> > THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT OSs which require patches SPECIFIC to the OS > intended AND per whatever present level.... e.g., in the NTs the > specific Service pack level... the meory handling is different, the file > handling is different, the systems react in different ways... > DUUUUUHHHHHHH Microsoft has just announced a patch for IE6, wonder which OS it will be aimed at :-) (I still use IE6 in Win98SE, and the Update site still shows me a few critical updates avail)
From: MEB on 21 Jan 2010 01:07
On 01/21/2010 12:56 AM, Sunny wrote: > "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:eWwK5plmKHA.1824(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > <snip> >> THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT OSs which require patches SPECIFIC to the OS >> intended AND per whatever present level.... e.g., in the NTs the >> specific Service pack level... the meory handling is different, the file >> handling is different, the systems react in different ways... >> DUUUUUHHHHHHH > > Microsoft has just announced a patch for IE6, wonder which OS it will be > aimed at :-) > > (I still use IE6 in Win98SE, and the Update site still shows me a few > critical updates avail) > > That's a choice you make. What supposed criticals? Since EOL? My guess would be the NT based systems as usual. I would look for a potential pull of IE6 or NT support sooner than expected. Maybe not, since W2K is still under support.. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |