[CLASYS]

Thanks Petr!

To all of our collective knowledge, is this all there is in terms of IE 6.0 SP1 updates?

Depending on how many of these nine [new to me] can be added, that means a potential total of 58 post-release updates.

When done, I'll post the whole mess to wherever someone who knows best about such things directs me to. [Upload bandwith from me is not a problem - 2.1 MBps uplink.]

cjl

ps: Anyone knowledgable about DOS BATCH trickiness willing to help me on a few esoterica points?

[bristols]

CLASYS, on Jun 8 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

To all of our collective knowledge, is this all there is in terms of IE 6.0 SP1 updates?

CLASYS,

Do you have these (haven't tested them, and at least with the first two, I'm not sure if they're for IE6 or IE6 SP1)?:

323759: http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...-US/q323759.exe
318089: http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...US/vbs56men.exe
328676 (OE hotfix): http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...-US/q328676.exe
813502 (OE hotfix): http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/2...4c9/q813502.exe

Hope someone can help with your DOS BATCH problems (beyond me I'm afraid).

[CLASYS]

bristols, on Jun 9 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

CLASYS, on Jun 8 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

To all of our collective knowledge, is this all there is in terms of IE 6.0 SP1 updates?

CLASYS,

Do you have these (haven't tested them, and at least with the first two, I'm not sure if they're for IE6 or IE6 SP1)?:

323759: http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...-US/q323759.exe
318089: http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...US/vbs56men.exe
328676 (OE hotfix): http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...-US/q328676.exe
813502 (OE hotfix): http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/2...4c9/q813502.exe

Hope someone can help with your DOS BATCH problems (beyond me I'm afraid).

Thanx for the updates, the only one I had is 318089, which is a Windows Script update, not technically an IE/OE update [and no minor version update as such], and is/was a standard part of 98SE Windows Update offerings. The rest look totally relevant.

cjl

[erpdude8]

[quote name='CLASYS' date='Jun 11 2006, 11:37 PM' post='518478']

Hope someone can help with your DOS BATCH problems (beyond me I'm afraid).
[/quote]Thanx for the updates, the only one I had is 318089, which is a Windows Script update, not technically an IE/OE update [and no minor version update as such], and is/was a standard part of 98SE Windows Update offerings. The rest look totally relevant.

cjl
[/quote]

Q318089 is NOT needed if IE6 SP1 is installed. IE6 SP1 includes this fix as well as Windows Script version 5.6.8825.

[quote name='the_guy' post='516843' date='Jun 7 2006, 04:00 PM']
If you mean to get the files, almost all (except 841873) are replaced by 912812.

the_guy
[/quote]

KB916281 replaces KB912812; last official IE6 SP1 update for Win98/ME. Future
IE6 SP1 updates after July 11 will only be released for Win2k SP4/WinXP SP1.

Win9x/ME are NOT affected by the problems of 841873 - no KB841873 fix for 9x systems were made .

BTW - support for Windows XP SP1 ends on Oct. 10, 2006.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 14 June 2006 - 04:05 PM

[erpdude8]

Chozo4, on Mar 14 2006, 08:54 PM, said:

You are right on some poeple not agreeing with a requirement of IE6. I for one would be one of those poeple. I intend to keep IE 5.00 (yes, not 5.5) on my pc's and they will stay that way. I've had bad experiences in the past regarding IE6 while additionally not seeing the real need to even bother with having it. I stick with the base version for personal reasons as well as development reasons. Need older versions to cross-browser test some of my web-projects on for functionality. I avoid using 'w3c standards' as my methods of writing out pages involve compatibility and bandwitch concerns. To convert them to standards means nearly doubling the size of each page. This is where cross-browser version testing comes into play.

So yes, an optional package would be perfect. Perhaps being the same package but as suggested have it as an autodetectable option.

Another reason why I disagree with Chozo4 keeping IE 5.00; some Win98 patches do NOT work unless IE 5.5 or better is installed such has KB888113 and the newly release KB918547. Some Win98 patches DO check the version of IE installed. Run the KB888113 or the KB918547 update under Win98+IE5.0 and the patches will say "This update is not designed for your version of Internet Explorer. Press OK to Exit". Only Win98+IE5.5 or Win98+IE6 configs those patches should work as expected.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 19 June 2006 - 10:28 AM

[CLASYS]

erpdude8, on Jun 19 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

Chozo4, on Mar 14 2006, 08:54 PM, said:

You are right on some poeple not agreeing with a requirement of IE6. I for one would be one of those poeple. I intend to keep IE 5.00 (yes, not 5.5) on my pc's and they will stay that way. I've had bad experiences in the past regarding IE6 while additionally not seeing the real need to even bother with having it. I stick with the base version for personal reasons as well as development reasons. Need older versions to cross-browser test some of my web-projects on for functionality. I avoid using 'w3c standards' as my methods of writing out pages involve compatibility and bandwitch concerns. To convert them to standards means nearly doubling the size of each page. This is where cross-browser version testing comes into play.

So yes, an optional package would be perfect. Perhaps being the same package but as suggested have it as an autodetectable option.

Another reason why I disagree with Chozo4 keeping IE 5.00; some Win98 patches do NOT work unless IE 5.5 or better is installed such has KB888113 and the newly release KB918547. Some Win98 patches DO check the version of IE installed. Run the KB888113 or the KB918547 update under Win98+IE5.0 and the patches will say "This update is not designed for your version of Internet Explorer. Press OK to Exit". Only Win98+IE5.5 or Win98+IE6 configs those patches should work as expected.

Agreed.

What do you want the SP to do? Have a downgrade option which does NOT install security updates coupled with refusing to at least upgrade to IE55 SP2?

I suspect there is little support for updating to IE6.0 sans SP1, so it appears there are only three options at best:

1) New SP warns that security updates cannot be installed unless you check viable IE upgrade box[es].

2) Choose to install ALL upgrades to IE55 SP2 and relevant updates.

3) Choose to install ALL upgrades to IE6.0 SP1 and relevant updates.

I think it's counter-productive to ask Gape to support #1. #2 should be the default and an additional check-box for #3 should be available [and these numerals disappear!] or it just checks what IE version you already have the base install for, etc.

cjl

ps: I haven't pinned it down, but I believe there is some interaction with Q823559 and just exactly what IE 6.0 SP1 and following updates are installed at the time.

[pcalvert]

No need to have support for IE in the unofficial SP at all, IMHO. It would be better to support IE via a separate SP.

Now that support for Win98SE is going away, many people may choose to completely remove IE as a way to improve security. Many people keep IE around, even though they don't use it, because of Windows Update's dependence on it. Soon, that will no longer be a factor, so that's one less reason for keeping IE around.

Phil

[erpdude8]

pcalvert, on Jun 27 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

No need to have support for IE in the unofficial SP at all, IMHO. It would be better to support IE via a separate SP.

Now that support for Win98SE is going away, many people may choose to completely remove IE as a way to improve security. Many people keep IE around, even though they don't use it, because of Windows Update's dependence on it. Soon, that will no longer be a factor, so that's one less reason for keeping IE around.

Phil

You can remove IE by using IEradicator 2001 from LitePC's web site:
http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

I use this to remove IE whenever IE gets screwed up on my machines or if I am unable to un-install IE from Add/Remove programs. note that IEradicator does NOT remove all the IE files completely. It leaves a few of them so that other apps can work correctly.

pcalvert has got a point. better to create a separate SP (or more accurately a URP - update rollup pack) for IE6 SP1 instead of including IE6 SP1 updates into the 98se SP so that the 98se SP wont be so bloated.

[wizardofwindows]

people like using IE its familar and 99% ofwebpages display properly.Are there really many updates that pretent to 98se anyway since support ended.

[erpdude8]

wizardofwindows, on Sep 11 2006, 10:04 AM, said:

people like using IE its familar and 99% ofwebpages display properly.Are there really many updates that pretent to 98se anyway since support ended.

uh some people would BEG to DIFFER on what you said of liking IE, wizardofwindows. there ARE some people out there [I'm not one of them] that actually HATE IE and use non-IE browsers like Firefox, Mozilla or Opera. plus IE is much more vulnerable to security problems than Firefox/Mozilla/Opera

I only use IE to download some updates at Windows Update

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 13 September 2006 - 09:59 AM

[wizardofwindows]

i disagree epdude most newbies run ie cause its there only in a msfn forum would u find tech savy folks arguring over firefox vs opera.i use ie and most people dont care as long as they can surf.as far as security ill give u that ie sucks .but if u ask 10 people not from msfn what browser they use i bet 8 would say ie.

[CLASYS]

erpdude8, on Sep 11 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

pcalvert has got a point. better to create a separate SP (or more accurately a URP - update rollup pack) for IE6 SP1 instead of including IE6 SP1 updates into the 98se SP so that the 98se SP wont be so bloated.

Well, we went over this before:

There really isn't a need for superfluously separate packages to update 98SE. The objections only came up if there were unacceptable options. However, options different from the current scope of the SP as of 2.1a could become:

1) Do less - Don't even bother to check for IE 5.00 and update it, just ignore IE completely. Makes the package only insignificently less bloated than otherwise.

2) Do check for IE 5.00 and update if present - Baseline size for bloat of SP currently

3) Do check for other IE versions and update if they are present, NOT just for IE 5.00 - Adds insignificent bloat IF accomplished in conjunction with an optional .CAB module that contains all of the relevant updates to the version that might be updates. Clearly the "bloat" of checking for the option to do this is much smaller than the current "bloat" of actually updating IE 5.00 should it exist, etc.

Thus, there are no options that bloat anything, and everyone gets what they want. It could become a quaint tiny "bloat" to maintain the update for IE 5.00 if present, but the point is that no case can be made for not having the SP update all relevant versions of IE without providing ANY bloat. Just package it accordingly.

You can have a base add-on .CAB file for IE 5.00, and anyone could chose not to want it. The net effect is that the SP is slightly smaller when used for most of us who could care less about IE 5.00. For those who care, the total size is the same; they just have to also load a tiny file that would become static contents for the IE 5.00 that at this point will never have another update at all. Net effect is a small positive - future versions of the SP stay permanently otherwise slightly smaller and the few who want to have the IE 5.00 updated won't even need to load the tiny file again, since it would be a static optional small .cab or whatever file, etc.

But for the larger group of us that want an added IE option for their pet version, whichever that one is, making the SP be the master installer of all relevant updates is a far bigger win. Having to necessarily have an additional installation package or (URP) as you call it [are you also the URPman? ] becomes the "bloat" for some of us. [And if insisted upon, why not then create a stand-alone URP installer compatible with the add-on module that benefits the SP anyway? This way, all of us get what we want, etc.]

cjl