We have been deserted again

[lb]

Saw an announcement for Adobe flash player 10.X. Of course it only
supports XP and Vista. Looks like they are not going to fix the
9.0.124 version which does not work well with Firefox 2.X even though
they claim it does.

Shame on you Adobe, BOO, HISS!

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT), lb <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com>
wrote:

>Saw an announcement for Adobe flash player 10.X. Of course it only
>supports XP and Vista. Looks like they are not going to fix the
>9.0.124 version which does not work well with Firefox 2.X even though
>they claim it does.
>
>Shame on you Adobe, BOO, HISS!

I wonder how much MS is paying these companies to do this?
Firefox really came as a puzzle, since FF is free and in the public
domain, sort of like Linux.

 

[Dan]

The really sad thing is that eventually there will be no 3rd party support
for Windows 98 Second Edition. The main dates I can think of off-hand are
the middle of December 2008 for support ending for Mozilla Firefox 2.x and as
we all know Mozilla Firefox 3.x does not support Windows 98 Second Edition.
This will be a major development because the options will significantly
narrow after this development and hopefully Mozilla can be convinced to
support Mozilla Firefox 2.x until at least October 31, 2009 when Sun Java
will end support for Java 5 which supports Windows 98 Second Edition so it
appears by the end of 2009 you will be hard pressed to find software that
still supports Windows 98 Second Edition even by 3rd parties.

Note: Proudly posted in Windows 98 Second Edition with Mozilla Firefox
2.0.0.16. <smile>

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT), lb <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Saw an announcement for Adobe flash player 10.X. Of course it only
> >supports XP and Vista. Looks like they are not going to fix the
> >9.0.124 version which does not work well with Firefox 2.X even though
> >they claim it does.
> >
> >Shame on you Adobe, BOO, HISS!
>
> I wonder how much MS is paying these companies to do this?
> Firefox really came as a puzzle, since FF is free and in the public
> domain, sort of like Linux.
>

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:67BF5078-794E-4905-9452-43DDEE9F2AE3@microsoft.com...
> The really sad thing is that eventually there will be no 3rd party support
> for Windows 98 Second Edition. The main dates I can think of off-hand are
> the middle of December 2008 for support ending for Mozilla Firefox 2.x and
> as
> we all know Mozilla Firefox 3.x does not support Windows 98 Second
> Edition.

The whole idea of application software *supporting*
operating system software would seem laughable if
were it not for the fact that to some extent it is true.

Logically, it would be the other way around since the
OS is the platform from which the applications are
launched.

It is essentially a corollary of the Betamax scenario. Many
engineers agree that Sony's Betamax system was better
than the VHS system. Tape formats are *supported* by
the respective mechanical *platforms*. But alas - it was
the *content* available for one format and not the other
that caused the downfall of an arguably better system.

So, in that sense, the content did not support the platform
and the platform ran out of air. Win98 RIP.

[snip]

 

[Dan]

Thank you for your comments but Windows 98 Second Edition may be RIP for some
people but not for me and I will continue to use it to go on-line and defy
the critics and naysayers and watch and wait and see when it truly fails me
then it may be time to set my sights on something else but what truly can
beat the awesome operating system that survives an attack in September 2007
that annihilated the great Windows XP Professional operating system and 98
Second Edition responded with a Denial of Service Error to the attacker
unlike Windows XP Professional which just opened its doors to the attacker
after the APS Network was hacked and it made all the external security of a
wired ethernet router, a software firewall and other protocols a joke because
it just bypassed them. Now, I ask people to think do you want an operating
system that someone can just open up or do you want an operating system that
truly belongs to you. This argument may be over in many people's eyes but I
am stubborn.

"FromTheRafters" wrote:

>
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:67BF5078-794E-4905-9452-43DDEE9F2AE3@microsoft.com...
> > The really sad thing is that eventually there will be no 3rd party support
> > for Windows 98 Second Edition. The main dates I can think of off-hand are
> > the middle of December 2008 for support ending for Mozilla Firefox 2.x and
> > as
> > we all know Mozilla Firefox 3.x does not support Windows 98 Second
> > Edition.
>
> The whole idea of application software *supporting*
> operating system software would seem laughable if
> were it not for the fact that to some extent it is true.
>
> Logically, it would be the other way around since the
> OS is the platform from which the applications are
> launched.
>
> It is essentially a corollary of the Betamax scenario. Many
> engineers agree that Sony's Betamax system was better
> than the VHS system. Tape formats are *supported* by
> the respective mechanical *platforms*. But alas - it was
> the *content* available for one format and not the other
> that caused the downfall of an arguably better system.
>
> So, in that sense, the content did not support the platform
> and the platform ran out of air. Win98 RIP.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F032D36C-E95A-4CAD-9ED2-FBF72C42DC04@microsoft.com...
> Thank you for your comments but Windows 98 Second Edition may be RIP for
> some
> people but not for me and I will continue to use it to go on-line and defy
> the critics and naysayers and watch and wait and see when it truly fails
> me
> then it may be time to set my sights on something else

Fine. I'm not trying to talk you out of it, just trying to explain why
it is inevitable that it will go extinct.

> but what truly can
> beat the awesome operating system that survives an attack in September
> 2007
> that annihilated the great Windows XP Professional operating system and 98
> Second Edition responded with a Denial of Service Error to the attacker

The fact that Win98 was less affected by the attack has nothing to
do with the overall security of the involved systems. The attack was
likely not aimed at Win98's vulnerabilities.

> unlike Windows XP Professional which just opened its doors to the attacker
> after the APS Network was hacked and it made all the external security of
> a
> wired ethernet router, a software firewall and other protocols a joke
> because
> it just bypassed them.

Finally, a period to end a sentence. )

> Now, I ask people to think do you want an operating
> system that someone can just open up or do you want an operating system
> that
> truly belongs to you.

Now you are arguing for the other side - the people have obviously
made their choice in favor of dropping Win98 for that very reason.
Win98 is *less* secure than modern OSes. They can all be attacked
however.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Once again, you prove why you *shouldn't* be offering advice to other users
of Windows 98. The simple fact is that it isn't worth *anybody's* time,
outside of a very small, specialized market (and hobbyists), to write the
programming that such support requires. It is also rather unfair to users of
WinXP/Vista to expect them to carry the burden -- several burdens, in
fact -- that is imposed by insisting on 9x inclusion. The idea that MS is at
all interested in strong-arming companies, in this case (9x support), is
ludicrous. I'll go so far as to say that few people at MS these days even
know what Windows 98 is. Not unlike yourself.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:lov0d4tl82qd2lt354h684hdin1o5gm9j1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:37:13 -0700 (PDT), lb <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Saw an announcement for Adobe flash player 10.X. Of course it only
>>supports XP and Vista. Looks like they are not going to fix the
>>9.0.124 version which does not work well with Firefox 2.X even though
>>they claim it does.
>>
>>Shame on you Adobe, BOO, HISS!
>
> I wonder how much MS is paying these companies to do this?
> Firefox really came as a puzzle, since FF is free and in the public
> domain, sort of like Linux.

 

[Dan]

Thank you for the feedback FromTheRafters and I appreciate the debate.
Anyway, how do you explain the data from secunia.com and we can talk about
Mozilla Firefox, IE, Windows Media Player, Quicktime, etc. later if you would
like. <smile>

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13/


Vendor, Links, and Unpatched Vulnerabilities

Vendor Microsoft

Product Link N/A

Affected By 32 Secunia advisories
21 Vulnerabilities

Monitor Product Receive alerts for this product

Unpatched 9% (3 of 32 Secunia advisories)

Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 98
Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical .


http://secunia.com/advisories/product/1/


Vendor, Links, and Unpatched Vulnerabilities

Vendor Microsoft

Product Link View Here (Link to external site)

Affected By 182 Secunia advisories
165 Vulnerabilities

Monitor Product Receive alerts for this product

Unpatched 12% (21 of 182 Secunia advisories)

Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 2000
Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical .

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/22/

Vendor, Links, and Unpatched Vulnerabilities

Vendor Microsoft

Product Link N/A

Affected By 219 Secunia advisories
202 Vulnerabilities

Monitor Product Receive alerts for this product

Unpatched 14% (30 of 219 Secunia advisories)

Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP
Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical .

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/


Vendor, Links, and Unpatched Vulnerabilities

Vendor Microsoft

Product Link View Here (Link to external site)

Affected By 40 Secunia advisories
63 Vulnerabilities

Monitor Product Receive alerts for this product

Unpatched 8% (3 of 40 Secunia advisories)

Most Critical Unpatched
The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows
Vista, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical .


If users want to go with the best safety and security experience then you
can choose Ubuntu Linux but since this operating system cannot run as many
programs it cannot be the choice or at least the only choice for everyone but
technical users should at least try it out imo.

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18611/

Vendor, Links, and Unpatched Vulnerabilities

Vendor Canonical Ltd.

Product Link View Here (Link to external site)

Affected By 37 Secunia advisories
107 Vulnerabilities

Monitor Product Receive alerts for this product

Unpatched 0% (0 of 37 Secunia advisories)

Most Critical Unpatched
There are no unpatched Secunia advisories affecting this product, when all
vendor patches are applied..

Finally, the current DHS vulnerabilities for those who are interested. I
look forward to your future reply.

http://www.us-cert.gov/current/



"FromTheRafters" wrote:

>
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F032D36C-E95A-4CAD-9ED2-FBF72C42DC04@microsoft.com...
> > Thank you for your comments but Windows 98 Second Edition may be RIP for
> > some
> > people but not for me and I will continue to use it to go on-line and defy
> > the critics and naysayers and watch and wait and see when it truly fails
> > me
> > then it may be time to set my sights on something else
>
> Fine. I'm not trying to talk you out of it, just trying to explain why
> it is inevitable that it will go extinct.
>
> > but what truly can
> > beat the awesome operating system that survives an attack in September
> > 2007
> > that annihilated the great Windows XP Professional operating system and 98
> > Second Edition responded with a Denial of Service Error to the attacker
>
> The fact that Win98 was less affected by the attack has nothing to
> do with the overall security of the involved systems. The attack was
> likely not aimed at Win98's vulnerabilities.
>
> > unlike Windows XP Professional which just opened its doors to the attacker
> > after the APS Network was hacked and it made all the external security of
> > a
> > wired ethernet router, a software firewall and other protocols a joke
> > because
> > it just bypassed them.
>
> Finally, a period to end a sentence. )
>
> > Now, I ask people to think do you want an operating
> > system that someone can just open up or do you want an operating system
> > that
> > truly belongs to you.
>
> Now you are arguing for the other side - the people have obviously
> made their choice in favor of dropping Win98 for that very reason.
> Win98 is *less* secure than modern OSes. They can all be attacked
> however.
>
>
>
>

 

[FromTheRafters]

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79DFF2D4-C92F-4DEB-91CA-58757ED978A6@microsoft.com...
> Thank you for the feedback FromTheRafters and I appreciate the debate.
> Anyway, how do you explain the data from secunia.com

What's to explain? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

> and we can talk about
> Mozilla Firefox, IE, Windows Media Player, Quicktime, etc. later if you
> would
> like. <smile>

No thanks.