Discussion:
Wiindows Updates -- Part 1, Win98 Gold
(too old to reply)
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-23 03:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.

There are two major difficulties in this experiment. First, you can't get to
Windows Updates using Win98 Gold right out of the box. It requires a minimum
of IE 5.01; secondly, Internet Explorer is further an issue because which
updates you are offered depends in great part on what version of IE you have
installed. But it's very difficult to say, "Ignore the IE Updates and only
focus on the non-IE updates," since IE is an integral part of Windows 9x,
especially since the advent of IE 5. A similar issue applies to Windows
Media Player. In a similar vein, many updates that were previously offered
to Win98 users have been made obsolete by newer versions. For instance,
there is no IE 5 version of any kind offered at Windows Updates these days,
only IE6SP1. Thus, the only IE Updates I see before installing IE 6.1 are
those offered to IE 5.01.

In short, there are no simple answers to the questions posed -- no single
answer to the question, "How many updates (and which) were offered to Win98
Gold that were subsumed into Win98SE," because SE included IE 5.01 and WMP
6.4 (I think), thus obviating all IE4 and earlier WMP updates. So, I will do
my best to chronicle and document the steps I'm taking and let others decide
what's important to them. Note: I did *not* return to the bad old days and
peruse the Corporate Updates site for pre-IE5 Updates. Someone else can do
that. I do recall at one time being an expert jockey of said site, but my
mind is fragile these days...

First thing I did was to install Windows 98 Gold (MSDN version which is
essentially the same as retail.) I installed all optional components. I then
installed Service Pack 1, which includes the following:
--Both Y2K Updates
--Active Accessibility update
--Q189591 Computer Does Not Resume To Recognize USB Device From Standby
--Q222600 Bulk Transfer URLs Can Specify More Than 64 Bytes
--Q220586 Computer with Plug and Play Network Adapter Is Not Found (only
affects Win98 systems that were upgraded from Win95)
--Q178979 System Policy to Require Validation by Network May Not Work
--Q216641 Computer Hangs After 49.7 Days
--Q216565 New Dialing Rules for Spain and Italy Require TAPI Update

I did *not* install any Service Packs for IE 4.1 or patches depending on IE4
or it's SPs. Q234680, for instance, is a patch to OE 4SP2.

I then installed IE 5.01, all optional components selected except specific
languages in the Multi-language section. Now I'm able to access Windows
Updates. Upon doing so, there are seven Optional and 20 Critical Updates
offered. One, of course, is IE6SP1. In earlier times, that one would have
been some earlier version of IE. (Note: The Criticals list is mostly in
reverse chronological order because that's the way Windows Updates lists
them.)

-----Optional Components-----
--DirectX 9.0c End-User Runtime
--Registration Wizard Update
--Microsoft .NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0

--------Critical Updates--------
--IE6.1 Note: Because this is offered, no other updates for IE 5.01 are
offered.
--Security Update, February 14, 2002 (note: this is MS02-009)
--Security Update for Windows 98 (KB891711)
--Security Update for Windows 98 (KB891781)
--823559: Security Update for Microsoft Windows
--816093: Security Update for Microsoft Virtual Machine (Microsoft VM)
--814078: Security Update (Microsoft JScript version 5.1, Windows 98 and
Windows NT 4.0)
--Q329414: Security Update (MDAC 2.1)
--Q329115: Security Update (Windows 98)
--Windows Share Level Password Update
--Q323172 Security Update (Windows 98)
--Q323255 Security Update (Windows 98)
--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (note: this is MS00-029)
--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (note: this is MS00-017)
--Q320920 Security Update (Windows Media Player 6.4)
--Security Update 2, November 29, 1999 (note: this is MS99-052
--Security Update November 12, 1999 (note: this is MS99-049)
--Security Update March 7, 1999 (note: the Security Bulletin for this was
updated to MS02-14)
--Security Update November 20, 2001 (note: this is MS01-056)
--Security Update April 2, 2001 (note: this is MS01-017)

Next, without installing any of the above Updates, I installed the Microsoft
Windows Security Update CD. Upon returning to Windows Updates, I discover
the following:

Optional Updates: The same seven optional updates are offered as before.
While the Security CD included DirectX9, it wasn't the latest version,
DirectX 9.0c. An additional thirty-four Updates are offered, all of them
Language Support.

Critical Updates: 10 are offered, of which

--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
--908519 (a recently discovered networking issue, "Embedded Web Font
Vulnerability", that affects all 9x and NT systems.)
--904706 (DX 9)
--896358 (HTML Help vulnerability)
--888113 (Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX vuln.)
--816093 (Security Update for Microsoft Virtual Machine)

That last one for VM is the only one remaining from the previous list. The
rest are either more recently discovered vulnerabilities or are patches to
the software installed by the Security CD.

I then installed all ten Critical Updates. Upon returning to Windows
Updates, no further Critical Updates are offered. The same seven optional
Updates are offered. I then installed DirectX 9.0c (which must be installed
separately.) Upon returning to Windows Updates, no further Critical Updates
were offered. I proceeded to install the remaining six Optional Updates.

Returning to Windows Updates yet again, I find two additional Critical
Updates.
--873374 (GDI+ Detection Tool -- Why I wasn't offered this earlier, I don't
know.)
--.NET Framework SP1

I installed both, and ran the GDI+ Detection tool. It seemed to say that I
had some kind of vulnerability, but I found no useful remedies, nor am I
sure what app it was flagging. This is a clean install. Anyway, after
installing the .NET Framework SP1, that was it. No more Updates offered.

Now, there remains at least one variation to try: What happens when I
install the Security CD right after installing WIn98. Are *all* of the
earlier issues I patched with most of Windows 98 Service Pack 1 covered?
Furthermore, there is WIn98SE to research, and finally, we'll see if we can
positively identify the specific patches from Win98 Gold that were subsumed
into SE -- besides the IE-specific ones. Stay tuned...
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
PA Bear
2006-02-23 06:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Related: GAry, does WU still offer Windows Critical Update Notification
utility (KB224420)?
--
~PA Bear
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
<snip>
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-23 08:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0 is in the list of Optional Updates.
Not sure about the KB number, but I can check if you want me to.

Get your requests in quick, I'm returning this machine to service on Friday.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by PA Bear
Related: GAry, does WU still offer Windows Critical Update Notification
utility (KB224420)?
--
~PA Bear
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
<snip>
winner5+63
2006-02-23 20:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Hello!
Glad to read you again GAry. Question/confusion--I have what is indicated as
a successful download of WCU notification 4.0 (4/19/2005), but on manually
checking on my installation history printout, there was a failure to download
on 1/18/06 (twice). What gives? Also, on attempting to be scanned for
updates, I got an error# 0x800c0008. I sent a report. PS: I removed the
automatic update because it seemed to interfere with my pointer/program
(every five minutes).
--
mejp
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0 is in the list of Optional Updates.
Not sure about the KB number, but I can check if you want me to.
Get your requests in quick, I'm returning this machine to service on Friday.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by PA Bear
Related: GAry, does WU still offer Windows Critical Update Notification
utility (KB224420)?
--
~PA Bear
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
Post by PA Bear
Post by Gary S. Terhune
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
Post by PA Bear
Post by Gary S. Terhune
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
<snip>
PA Bear
2006-02-23 23:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Windows Update Troubleshooter
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/troubleshoot/

1.Windows Update scan feature reaches 100%, and then displays "There are no
updates available at this
time" message. The log file contains error 0x800c0008 or 0x80072EE4.

2. Error 0x800A138F displayed during Scan, 0x800C00008 shows in Windows
Update.log

The above both reference Win2K and WinXP but try the fixes anyway.

More:

How to troubleshoot Windows Update, Microsoft Update, and Windows Server
Update Services installation issues:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=906602

1. See the "Need more help? Tell us what problem you are having" section of
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=ph;en-us;6527

2. You cannot install some updates or programs
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822798

3a. Check Windowsupdate.log (%windir%\Windowsupdate.log) for errors
associated with the download/install.

How to read the Windowsupdate.log file:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=902093

3b. Compare errors to those listed here:
http://inetexplorer.mvps.org/archive/windows_update_codes.htm and/or go to
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com > click on Help and Support link in left
pane > Solve problems on your own.

4. Windows Update Checklist:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/updtcl.htm

5. Windows Update-specific newsgroup:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/mi­crosoft.public.windowsupdate

Archive of Windows Update newsgroup:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), Aumha.org VSOP, DTS-L.org
Post by winner5+63
Hello!
Glad to read you again GAry. Question/confusion--I have what is indicated
as a successful download of WCU notification 4.0 (4/19/2005), but on
manually checking on my installation history printout, there was a
failure to download on 1/18/06 (twice). What gives? Also, on attempting
to be scanned for updates, I got an error# 0x800c0008. I sent a report.
PS: I removed the automatic update because it seemed to interfere with my
pointer/program (every five minutes).
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-24 20:14:36 UTC
Permalink
OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error 0x80072F05,
which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date is off
(it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which *is*
the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install of
Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first few times
I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs are
valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say what to
do about it!!

First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov. agencies,
99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think I need a
vacation!
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by PA Bear
Windows Update Troubleshooter
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/troubleshoot/
1.Windows Update scan feature reaches 100%, and then displays "There are no
updates available at this
time" message. The log file contains error 0x800c0008 or 0x80072EE4.
2. Error 0x800A138F displayed during Scan, 0x800C00008 shows in Windows
Update.log
The above both reference Win2K and WinXP but try the fixes anyway.
How to troubleshoot Windows Update, Microsoft Update, and Windows Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=906602
1. See the "Need more help? Tell us what problem you are having" section of
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=ph;en-us;6527
2. You cannot install some updates or programs
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822798
3a. Check Windowsupdate.log (%windir%\Windowsupdate.log) for errors
associated with the download/install.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=902093
http://inetexplorer.mvps.org/archive/windows_update_codes.htm and/or go to
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com > click on Help and Support link in left
pane > Solve problems on your own.
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/updtcl.htm
news://msnews.microsoft.com/mi­crosoft.public.windowsupdate
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsupdate
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), Aumha.org VSOP, DTS-L.org
Post by winner5+63
Hello!
Glad to read you again GAry. Question/confusion--I have what is indicated
as a successful download of WCU notification 4.0 (4/19/2005), but on
manually checking on my installation history printout, there was a
failure to download on 1/18/06 (twice). What gives? Also, on attempting
to be scanned for updates, I got an error# 0x800c0008. I sent a report.
PS: I removed the automatic update because it seemed to interfere with my
pointer/program (every five minutes).
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-24 21:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate revocation"
under the Security section.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error 0x80072F05,
which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date is off
(it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which *is*
the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install of
Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first few times
I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs are
valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say what to
do about it!!
First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov. agencies,
99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think I need a
vacation!
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
LAH
2006-02-26 13:14:48 UTC
Permalink
I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely no
difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate, disabled my
firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
thoughts?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate revocation"
under the Security section.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error 0x80072F05,
which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date is
off
Post by Gary S. Terhune
(it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which *is*
the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install of
Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first few
times
Post by Gary S. Terhune
I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs are
valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say what
to
Post by Gary S. Terhune
do about it!!
First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov. agencies,
99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think I
need
Post by Gary S. Terhune
a
Post by Gary S. Terhune
vacation!
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-26 17:16:26 UTC
Permalink
No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a "fix",
but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering some
ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have to
think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by LAH
I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely no
difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate, disabled my
firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
thoughts?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
revocation"
Post by Gary S. Terhune
under the Security section.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
0x80072F05,
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date is
off
Post by Gary S. Terhune
(it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which
*is*
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install of
Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first few
times
Post by Gary S. Terhune
I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs are
valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say what
to
Post by Gary S. Terhune
do about it!!
First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov. agencies,
99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think I
need
Post by Gary S. Terhune
a
Post by Gary S. Terhune
vacation!
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
PCR
2006-02-26 19:18:38 UTC
Permalink
I'd like to hear that, too. Also...

Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, & Win98SE comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on that? But, for FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a "fix",
| but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering some
| ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have to
| think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely no
| > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate, disabled my
| > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| > thoughts?
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
| > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| > revocation"
| > > under the Security section.
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| > 0x80072F05,
| > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date
| is
| > > off
| > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which
| > *is*
| > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install of
| > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first few
| > > times
| > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs
| are
| > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say
| what
| > > to
| > > > do about it!!
| > > >
| > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov. agencies,
| > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think I
| > need
| > > a
| > > > vacation!
| > > >
| > > > --
| > > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-26 19:31:58 UTC
Permalink
What did you do to screw up my indenting? (See below. Tried others and they
behave correctly.)

In Re Windows Updates, we're working on it.

As for clean installs of Windows 98 "Gold", you simply have to find a CD
copy, (or downloadable copy, which links have been posted in a few places),
of something 5.01 or later. Please note: There is no IE 5.1, only 5, 5.01
and 5.5. It's my understanding that 5.00.2614.3500, the version that came
with SE native, is the earliest version of the so-called 5.01. However, the
stand-alone CD and downloadable versions of 5.01(for Win98 Gold, WinNT,
etc.) are v. 5.00.3105.0106, and *that* one contains several updates since
5.00.2614.3500.

Are you beginning to see how impossible it is to establish any fixed set of
Updates that are available at major crossroads in Windows 98 history? It all
depends on what upgrade route of IE and WMP you happen to follow.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I'd like to hear that, too. Also...

Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, & Win98SE
comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on that? But, for
FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a "fix",
| but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering
some
| ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have to
| think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely no
| > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate, disabled
my
| > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| > thoughts?
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
| > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| > revocation"
| > > under the Security section.
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| > 0x80072F05,
| > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date
| is
| > > off
| > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which
| > *is*
| > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install
of
| > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first
few
| > > times
| > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs
| are
| > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say
| what
| > > to
| > > > do about it!!
| > > >
| > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
agencies,
| > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think
I
| > need
| > > a
| > > > vacation!
| > > >
| > > > --
| > > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
PCR
2006-02-26 20:21:40 UTC
Permalink
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| What did you do to screw up my indenting? (See below. Tried others and they
| behave correctly.)

I thought, when two are set to be QP at "OE, Tools menu, Options, Send tab, News Sending Format, bolt 'Plain Text', Plain Text button, bolt 'MIME"", they were unable to quote each other. However, I see I can quote you.

So, I don't know what it is! Others have begun to complain!

|
| In Re Windows Updates, we're working on it.

OK, then. It'll be a bit tougher to recommend a fresh install until then, though. We'll all begin to do over-installs!

|
| As for clean installs of Windows 98 "Gold", you simply have to find a CD
| copy, (or downloadable copy, which links have been posted in a few places),
| of something 5.01 or later. Please note: There is no IE 5.1, only 5, 5.01
| and 5.5. It's my understanding that 5.00.2614.3500, the version that came
| with SE native, is the earliest version of the so-called 5.01. However, the
| stand-alone CD and downloadable versions of 5.01(for Win98 Gold, WinNT,
| etc.) are v. 5.00.3105.0106, and *that* one contains several updates since
| 5.00.2614.3500.
|
| Are you beginning to see how impossible it is to establish any fixed set of
| Updates that are available at major crossroads in Windows 98 history? It all
| depends on what upgrade route of IE and WMP you happen to follow.

Can you request of MS an update tester not unlike Belarc Advisor to say whether all of them do get installed, no matter the specific path? Something like they already do at the site to determine whether they will offer one? Likely, they check a bunch of ISINSTALLED & such in the Registry for that.

|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| I'd like to hear that, too. Also...
|
| Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, & Win98SE
| comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on that? But, for
| FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
|
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| should things get worse after this,
| PCR
| ***@netzero.net
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a "fix",
| | but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering
| some
| | ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have to
| | think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely no
| | > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate, disabled
| my
| | > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| | > thoughts?
| | >
| | > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
| | > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| | > revocation"
| | > > under the Security section.
| | > >
| | > > --
| | > > Gary S. Terhune
| | > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | > >
| | > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| | > 0x80072F05,
| | > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date
| | is
| | > > off
| | > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which
| | > *is*
| | > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install
| of
| | > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first
| few
| | > > times
| | > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs
| | are
| | > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say
| | what
| | > > to
| | > > > do about it!!
| | > > >
| | > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
| agencies,
| | > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think
| I
| | > need
| | > > a
| | > > > vacation!
| | > > >
| | > > > --
| | > > > Gary S. Terhune
| | > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | > > >
| | > > >
| | > >
| | > >
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
|
|
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-26 20:42:13 UTC
Permalink
In re QP, I'll let you figure that one out.

In re "over-installing" -- that sucks. But wait for it...

In re your last, there are lots of services available for WIn2K and WinXP,
but I don't know of any that is trustworthy for Win9x. There are simply too
many variables, the most important of which is where the information is
stored. In WIn2K and XP the procedures are standardized (more or less). In
9x, the indicators are all over the place, plus there are simply too many
variables depending on what version of which component you have installed.
In short, it's an indecipherable mess.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| What did you do to screw up my indenting? (See below. Tried others and
they
| behave correctly.)

I thought, when two are set to be QP at "OE, Tools menu, Options, Send tab,
News Sending Format, bolt 'Plain Text', Plain Text button, bolt 'MIME"",
they were unable to quote each other. However, I see I can quote you.

So, I don't know what it is! Others have begun to complain!

|
| In Re Windows Updates, we're working on it.

OK, then. It'll be a bit tougher to recommend a fresh install until then,
though. We'll all begin to do over-installs!

|
| As for clean installs of Windows 98 "Gold", you simply have to find a CD
| copy, (or downloadable copy, which links have been posted in a few
places),
| of something 5.01 or later. Please note: There is no IE 5.1, only 5, 5.01
| and 5.5. It's my understanding that 5.00.2614.3500, the version that came
| with SE native, is the earliest version of the so-called 5.01. However,
the
| stand-alone CD and downloadable versions of 5.01(for Win98 Gold, WinNT,
| etc.) are v. 5.00.3105.0106, and *that* one contains several updates since
| 5.00.2614.3500.
|
| Are you beginning to see how impossible it is to establish any fixed set
of
| Updates that are available at major crossroads in Windows 98 history? It
all
| depends on what upgrade route of IE and WMP you happen to follow.

Can you request of MS an update tester not unlike Belarc Advisor to say
whether all of them do get installed, no matter the specific path? Something
like they already do at the site to determine whether they will offer one?
Likely, they check a bunch of ISINSTALLED & such in the Registry for that.

|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| I'd like to hear that, too. Also...
|
| Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, &
Win98SE
| comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on that? But,
for
| FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
|
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| should things get worse after this,
| PCR
| ***@netzero.net
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a
"fix",
| | but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering
| some
| | ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have
to
| | think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely
no
| | > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
disabled
| my
| | > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| | > thoughts?
| | >
| | > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab
in
| | > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| | > revocation"
| | > > under the Security section.
| | > >
| | > > --
| | > > Gary S. Terhune
| | > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | > >
| | > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| | > 0x80072F05,
| | > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my
time/date
| | is
| | > > off
| | > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid,
which
| | > *is*
| | > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
install
| of
| | > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first
| few
| | > > times
| | > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the
certs
| | are
| | > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't
say
| | what
| | > > to
| | > > > do about it!!
| | > > >
| | > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
| agencies,
| | > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I
think
| I
| | > need
| | > > a
| | > > > vacation!
| | > > >
| | > > > --
| | > > > Gary S. Terhune
| | > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | > > >
| | > > >
| | > >
| | > >
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
|
|
PCR
2006-02-26 21:26:08 UTC
Permalink
I don't know, I seem to find a Registry key for each critical update I've looked for thus far, three ISINSTALLEDs & one GDITool. Couldn't a script look for those for at least a bare Win98 & the three IEs or just IE6?

Certainly, MS does do it at the site!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:ek$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| In re QP, I'll let you figure that one out.
|
| In re "over-installing" -- that sucks. But wait for it...
|
| In re your last, there are lots of services available for WIn2K and WinXP,
| but I don't know of any that is trustworthy for Win9x. There are simply too
| many variables, the most important of which is where the information is
| stored. In WIn2K and XP the procedures are standardized (more or less). In
| 9x, the indicators are all over the place, plus there are simply too many
| variables depending on what version of which component you have installed.
| In short, it's an indecipherable mess.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | What did you do to screw up my indenting? (See below. Tried others and
| they
| | behave correctly.)
|
| I thought, when two are set to be QP at "OE, Tools menu, Options, Send tab,
| News Sending Format, bolt 'Plain Text', Plain Text button, bolt 'MIME"",
| they were unable to quote each other. However, I see I can quote you.
|
| So, I don't know what it is! Others have begun to complain!
|
| |
| | In Re Windows Updates, we're working on it.
|
| OK, then. It'll be a bit tougher to recommend a fresh install until then,
| though. We'll all begin to do over-installs!
|
| |
| | As for clean installs of Windows 98 "Gold", you simply have to find a CD
| | copy, (or downloadable copy, which links have been posted in a few
| places),
| | of something 5.01 or later. Please note: There is no IE 5.1, only 5, 5.01
| | and 5.5. It's my understanding that 5.00.2614.3500, the version that came
| | with SE native, is the earliest version of the so-called 5.01. However,
| the
| | stand-alone CD and downloadable versions of 5.01(for Win98 Gold, WinNT,
| | etc.) are v. 5.00.3105.0106, and *that* one contains several updates since
| | 5.00.2614.3500.
| |
| | Are you beginning to see how impossible it is to establish any fixed set
| of
| | Updates that are available at major crossroads in Windows 98 history? It
| all
| | depends on what upgrade route of IE and WMP you happen to follow.
|
| Can you request of MS an update tester not unlike Belarc Advisor to say
| whether all of them do get installed, no matter the specific path? Something
| like they already do at the site to determine whether they will offer one?
| Likely, they check a bunch of ISINSTALLED & such in the Registry for that.
|
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | I'd like to hear that, too. Also...
| |
| | Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, &
| Win98SE
| | comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on that? But,
| for
| | FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
| |
| |
| | --
| | Thanks or Good Luck,
| | There may be humor in this post, and,
| | Naturally, you will not sue,
| | should things get worse after this,
| | PCR
| | ***@netzero.net
| | "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | | No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a
| "fix",
| | | but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering
| | some
| | | ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have
| to
| | | think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
| | |
| | | --
| | | Gary S. Terhune
| | | MS MVP Shell/User
| | |
| | | "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| | | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | | > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely
| no
| | | > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
| disabled
| | my
| | | > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| | | > thoughts?
| | | >
| | | > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | | > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | | > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab
| in
| | | > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| | | > revocation"
| | | > > under the Security section.
| | | > >
| | | > > --
| | | > > Gary S. Terhune
| | | > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | | > >
| | | > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | | > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | | > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| | | > 0x80072F05,
| | | > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my
| time/date
| | | is
| | | > > off
| | | > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid,
| which
| | | > *is*
| | | > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
| install
| | of
| | | > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first
| | few
| | | > > times
| | | > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the
| certs
| | | are
| | | > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't
| say
| | | what
| | | > > to
| | | > > > do about it!!
| | | > > >
| | | > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
| | agencies,
| | | > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I
| think
| | I
| | | > need
| | | > > a
| | | > > > vacation!
| | | > > >
| | | > > > --
| | | > > > Gary S. Terhune
| | | > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | | > > >
| | | > > >
| | | > >
| | | > >
| | | >
| | | >
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-27 03:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Are you sure?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:e%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I don't know, I seem to find a Registry key for each critical update I've
looked for thus far, three ISINSTALLEDs & one GDITool. Couldn't a script
look for those for at least a bare Win98 & the three IEs or just IE6?

Certainly, MS does do it at the site!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:ek$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| In re QP, I'll let you figure that one out.
|
| In re "over-installing" -- that sucks. But wait for it...
|
| In re your last, there are lots of services available for WIn2K and WinXP,
| but I don't know of any that is trustworthy for Win9x. There are simply
too
| many variables, the most important of which is where the information is
| stored. In WIn2K and XP the procedures are standardized (more or less). In
| 9x, the indicators are all over the place, plus there are simply too many
| variables depending on what version of which component you have installed.
| In short, it's an indecipherable mess.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | What did you do to screw up my indenting? (See below. Tried others and
| they
| | behave correctly.)
|
| I thought, when two are set to be QP at "OE, Tools menu, Options, Send
tab,
| News Sending Format, bolt 'Plain Text', Plain Text button, bolt 'MIME"",
| they were unable to quote each other. However, I see I can quote you.
|
| So, I don't know what it is! Others have begun to complain!
|
| |
| | In Re Windows Updates, we're working on it.
|
| OK, then. It'll be a bit tougher to recommend a fresh install until then,
| though. We'll all begin to do over-installs!
|
| |
| | As for clean installs of Windows 98 "Gold", you simply have to find a CD
| | copy, (or downloadable copy, which links have been posted in a few
| places),
| | of something 5.01 or later. Please note: There is no IE 5.1, only 5,
5.01
| | and 5.5. It's my understanding that 5.00.2614.3500, the version that
came
| | with SE native, is the earliest version of the so-called 5.01. However,
| the
| | stand-alone CD and downloadable versions of 5.01(for Win98 Gold, WinNT,
| | etc.) are v. 5.00.3105.0106, and *that* one contains several updates
since
| | 5.00.2614.3500.
| |
| | Are you beginning to see how impossible it is to establish any fixed set
| of
| | Updates that are available at major crossroads in Windows 98 history? It
| all
| | depends on what upgrade route of IE and WMP you happen to follow.
|
| Can you request of MS an update tester not unlike Belarc Advisor to say
| whether all of them do get installed, no matter the specific path?
Something
| like they already do at the site to determine whether they will offer one?
| Likely, they check a bunch of ISINSTALLED & such in the Registry for that.
|
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | I'd like to hear that, too. Also...
| |
| | Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, &
| Win98SE
| | comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on that? But,
| for
| | FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
| |
| |
| | --
| | Thanks or Good Luck,
| | There may be humor in this post, and,
| | Naturally, you will not sue,
| | should things get worse after this,
| | PCR
| | ***@netzero.net
| | "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | | No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a
| "fix",
| | | but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm
gathering
| | some
| | | ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I
have
| to
| | | think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
| | |
| | | --
| | | Gary S. Terhune
| | | MS MVP Shell/User
| | |
| | | "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| | | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | | > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely
| no
| | | > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
| disabled
| | my
| | | > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| | | > thoughts?
| | | >
| | | > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | | > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | | > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab
| in
| | | > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| | | > revocation"
| | | > > under the Security section.
| | | > >
| | | > > --
| | | > > Gary S. Terhune
| | | > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | | > >
| | | > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | | > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | | > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| | | > 0x80072F05,
| | | > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my
| time/date
| | | is
| | | > > off
| | | > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid,
| which
| | | > *is*
| | | > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
| install
| | of
| | | > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the
first
| | few
| | | > > times
| | | > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the
| certs
| | | are
| | | > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't
| say
| | | what
| | | > > to
| | | > > > do about it!!
| | | > > >
| | | > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
| | agencies,
| | | > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I
| think
| | I
| | | > need
| | | > > a
| | | > > > vacation!
| | | > > >
| | | > > > --
| | | > > > Gary S. Terhune
| | | > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | | > > >
| | | > > >
| | | > >
| | | > >
| | | >
| | | >
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|
PCR
2006-02-27 19:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Well, I guess, a comparison of what was offered to you & what I've got would say. If I have more than 20, something is amiss!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Are you sure?
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:e%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| I don't know, I seem to find a Registry key for each critical update I've
| looked for thus far, three ISINSTALLEDs & one GDITool. Couldn't a script
| look for those for at least a bare Win98 & the three IEs or just IE6?
|
| Certainly, MS does do it at the site!
|
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| should things get worse after this,
| PCR
| ***@netzero.net
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:ek$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | In re QP, I'll let you figure that one out.
| |
| | In re "over-installing" -- that sucks. But wait for it...
| |
| | In re your last, there are lots of services available for WIn2K and WinXP,
| | but I don't know of any that is trustworthy for Win9x. There are simply
| too
| | many variables, the most important of which is where the information is
| | stored. In WIn2K and XP the procedures are standardized (more or less). In
| | 9x, the indicators are all over the place, plus there are simply too many
| | variables depending on what version of which component you have installed.
| | In short, it's an indecipherable mess.
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | | What did you do to screw up my indenting? (See below. Tried others and
| | they
| | | behave correctly.)
| |
| | I thought, when two are set to be QP at "OE, Tools menu, Options, Send
| tab,
| | News Sending Format, bolt 'Plain Text', Plain Text button, bolt 'MIME"",
| | they were unable to quote each other. However, I see I can quote you.
| |
| | So, I don't know what it is! Others have begun to complain!
| |
| | |
| | | In Re Windows Updates, we're working on it.
| |
| | OK, then. It'll be a bit tougher to recommend a fresh install until then,
| | though. We'll all begin to do over-installs!
| |
| | |
| | | As for clean installs of Windows 98 "Gold", you simply have to find a CD
| | | copy, (or downloadable copy, which links have been posted in a few
| | places),
| | | of something 5.01 or later. Please note: There is no IE 5.1, only 5,
| 5.01
| | | and 5.5. It's my understanding that 5.00.2614.3500, the version that
| came
| | | with SE native, is the earliest version of the so-called 5.01. However,
| | the
| | | stand-alone CD and downloadable versions of 5.01(for Win98 Gold, WinNT,
| | | etc.) are v. 5.00.3105.0106, and *that* one contains several updates
| since
| | | 5.00.2614.3500.
| | |
| | | Are you beginning to see how impossible it is to establish any fixed set
| | of
| | | Updates that are available at major crossroads in Windows 98 history? It
| | all
| | | depends on what upgrade route of IE and WMP you happen to follow.
| |
| | Can you request of MS an update tester not unlike Belarc Advisor to say
| | whether all of them do get installed, no matter the specific path?
| Something
| | like they already do at the site to determine whether they will offer one?
| | Likely, they check a bunch of ISINSTALLED & such in the Registry for that.
| |
| | |
| | | --
| | | Gary S. Terhune
| | | MS MVP Shell/User
| | |
| | | "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| | | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | | I'd like to hear that, too. Also...
| | |
| | | Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, &
| | Win98SE
| | | comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on that? But,
| | for
| | | FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
| | |
| | |
| | | --
| | | Thanks or Good Luck,
| | | There may be humor in this post, and,
| | | Naturally, you will not sue,
| | | should things get worse after this,
| | | PCR
| | | ***@netzero.net
| | | "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | | news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | | | No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a
| | "fix",
| | | | but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm
| gathering
| | | some
| | | | ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I
| have
| | to
| | | | think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
| | | |
| | | | --
| | | | Gary S. Terhune
| | | | MS MVP Shell/User
| | | |
| | | | "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| | | | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | | | > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely
| | no
| | | | > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
| | disabled
| | | my
| | | | > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| | | | > thoughts?
| | | | >
| | | | > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | | | > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | | | > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab
| | in
| | | | > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| | | | > revocation"
| | | | > > under the Security section.
| | | | > >
| | | | > > --
| | | | > > Gary S. Terhune
| | | | > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | | | > >
| | | | > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | | | > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | | | > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| | | | > 0x80072F05,
| | | | > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my
| | time/date
| | | | is
| | | | > > off
| | | | > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid,
| | which
| | | | > *is*
| | | | > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
| | install
| | | of
| | | | > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the
| first
| | | few
| | | | > > times
| | | | > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the
| | certs
| | | | are
| | | | > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't
| | say
| | | | what
| | | | > > to
| | | | > > > do about it!!
| | | | > > >
| | | | > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
| | | agencies,
| | | | > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I
| | think
| | | I
| | | | > need
| | | | > > a
| | | | > > > vacation!
| | | | > > >
| | | | > > > --
| | | | > > > Gary S. Terhune
| | | | > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | | | > > >
| | | | > > >
| | | | > >
| | | | > >
| | | | >
| | | | >
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|
mae
2006-02-27 18:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Well most Oems included it after March 99 and one came in the mail from
someone every month until 2000. My first v. was 5.00.2314 and at some
number it became 5.1 and then 5.1sp1 and 5.1sp2. I just looked and one
of 5.00.2919.6307 was called 5.1. I have a list of all somewhere as well
as all updates since August 98.
Plus Microsoft offered the CD so I don't think anyone could not have
one.
They released builds for 98,98se,ME.2k, Office, NT, etc. See KB164539.
Someday I might reinstall '98 as I have no idea what it looked like.
--
mae

"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I'd like to hear that, too. Also...

Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, &
Win98SE comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on
that? But, for FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a
"fix",
| but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm
gathering some
| ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I
have to
| think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely
no
| > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
disabled my
| > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| > thoughts?
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab
in
| > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| > revocation"
| > > under the Security section.
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| > 0x80072F05,
| > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my
time/date
| is
| > > off
| > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid,
which
| > *is*
| > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
install of
| > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the
first few
| > > times
| > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the
certs
| are
| > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't
say
| what
| > > to
| > > > do about it!!
| > > >
| > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
agencies,
| > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I
think I
| > need
| > > a
| > > > vacation!
| > > >
| > > > --
| > > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > > >
PCR
2006-02-27 19:31:09 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure how to see what I would get, if I were to fresh install Win98SE from my .cabs. Maybe...?...

My IExplore.exe is v.6.00.2800.1106 now.

SE's WIN98_45.CAB
04-23-1999 10:22:00p A--- 78,272 iexplore.exe v.5.00.2614.3500

That's somewhere between your first & your last. By Terhune's mad experimentation, could be you & I will not find a friendly Windows Update with our versions! He's driving them nuts, & they are beginning to ban early versions!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"mae" <***@notemail.msn.com> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Well most Oems included it after March 99 and one came in the mail from
| someone every month until 2000. My first v. was 5.00.2314 and at some
| number it became 5.1 and then 5.1sp1 and 5.1sp2. I just looked and one
| of 5.00.2919.6307 was called 5.1. I have a list of all somewhere as well
| as all updates since August 98.
| Plus Microsoft offered the CD so I don't think anyone could not have
| one.
| They released builds for 98,98se,ME.2k, Office, NT, etc. See KB164539.
| Someday I might reinstall '98 as I have no idea what it looked like.
| --
| mae
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| I'd like to hear that, too. Also...
|
| Did you say you cannot access Windows Update with less than IE 5, &
| Win98SE comes with IE 5.1? Therefore, there is no problem with SE on
| that? But, for FE & Gold folk, how do they overcome it?
|
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| should things get worse after this,
| PCR
| ***@netzero.net
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a
| "fix",
| | but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm
| gathering some
| | ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I
| have to
| | think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| | > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely
| no
| | > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
| disabled my
| | > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
| | > thoughts?
| | >
| | > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab
| in
| | > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
| | > revocation"
| | > > under the Security section.
| | > >
| | > > --
| | > > Gary S. Terhune
| | > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | > >
| | > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
| | > 0x80072F05,
| | > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my
| time/date
| | is
| | > > off
| | > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid,
| which
| | > *is*
| | > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
| install of
| | > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the
| first few
| | > > times
| | > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the
| certs
| | are
| | > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't
| say
| | what
| | > > to
| | > > > do about it!!
| | > > >
| | > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
| agencies,
| | > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I
| think I
| | > need
| | > > a
| | > > > vacation!
| | > > >
| | > > > --
| | > > > Gary S. Terhune
| | > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | > > >
|
LAH
2006-02-26 22:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Tried the update this afternoon and it worked fine! It must have been a
problem on Microsoft's part as nothing was changed on my end between this
morning and this afternoon. Go figure?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a "fix",
but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering some
ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have to
think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by LAH
I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely no
difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate, disabled my
firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
thoughts?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
revocation"
Post by Gary S. Terhune
under the Security section.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
0x80072F05,
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date
is
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
off
Post by Gary S. Terhune
(it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which
*is*
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh install of
Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first few
times
Post by Gary S. Terhune
I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs
are
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say
what
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
to
Post by Gary S. Terhune
do about it!!
First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov. agencies,
99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I think I
need
Post by Gary S. Terhune
a
Post by Gary S. Terhune
vacation!
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
LAH
2006-02-27 14:24:41 UTC
Permalink
I guess I spoke too soon. This morning (2/27) while on the Internet I
received a critical update notice. However, when I tried to update I got
the same error as previously. Perhaps the folks at Microsoft are not
morning people. :^)
Post by LAH
Tried the update this afternoon and it worked fine! It must have been a
problem on Microsoft's part as nothing was changed on my end between this
morning and this afternoon. Go figure?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a "fix",
but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering
some
Post by Gary S. Terhune
ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have to
think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by LAH
I just encountered the same problem - this after years of absolutely no
difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
disabled
Post by LAH
my
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by LAH
firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail. Any
thoughts?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced tab in
Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's certificate
revocation"
Post by Gary S. Terhune
under the Security section.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get error
0x80072F05,
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
which according to the troubleshooter means either that my time/date
is
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
off
Post by Gary S. Terhune
(it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is invalid, which
*is*
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
install
Post by LAH
of
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the first
few
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
times
Post by Gary S. Terhune
I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure the certs
are
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page doesn't say
what
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
to
Post by Gary S. Terhune
do about it!!
First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
agencies,
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by LAH
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!! I
think
Post by LAH
I
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by LAH
need
Post by Gary S. Terhune
a
Post by Gary S. Terhune
vacation!
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
mae
2006-02-27 17:39:20 UTC
Permalink
I saw those reports, tested, and got same, a first for me.
It seems a problem making secure connection to software update catalog.
I was confident of my settings, but rechecked everything.
Without making any changes, the next visit produced no errors,
I will try again to see what happens - likely just a temp. server err.

Is this like your error:
Went to WU, then when clicking either the catalog or scan:
Windows Update Error:
Windows Update has encountered an error. This may be due to a
discrepancy in your computer's time setting.
Send error number to Microsoft (0x800C0008)
Time is correct as I am -6GMT.
And in the log:
2006-02-24 19:04:22 01:04:22 Success IUENGINE Determining
machine configuration
2006-02-24 19:04:36 01:04:36 Error IUENGINE Querying
software update catalog from
https://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/getmanifest.asp (Error
0x800C0008)
--
mae

"LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| I guess I spoke too soon. This morning (2/27) while on the Internet I
| received a critical update notice. However, when I tried to update I
got
| the same error as previously. Perhaps the folks at Microsoft are not
| morning people. :^)
|
| "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| news:***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > Tried the update this afternoon and it worked fine! It must have
been a
| > problem on Microsoft's part as nothing was changed on my end between
this
| > morning and this afternoon. Go figure?
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:eN7O$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > > No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on
a
| "fix",
| > > but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm
gathering
| > some
| > > ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I
have
| to
| > > think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered
bug.
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > "LAH" <***@somewhere.net> wrote in message
| > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| > > > I just encountered the same problem - this after years of
absolutely
| no
| > > > difficulties before. I unchecked the publisher's certificate,
| disabled
| > my
| > > > firewall and antivirus, checked the time and date to no avail.
Any
| > > > thoughts?
| > > >
| > > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > Nevermind. I figured it out -- sort of. Need to go to Advanced
tab
| in
| > > > > Internet Options and uncheck "Check for publisher's
certificate
| > > > revocation"
| > > > > under the Security section.
| > > > >
| > > > > --
| > > > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > > > >
| > > > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > > > news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > > > > > OK, I'm having my own problem with Windows Update. I get
error
| > > > 0x80072F05,
| > > > > > which according to the troubleshooter means either that my
| time/date
| > > is
| > > > > off
| > > > > > (it isn't) or that one or another Root Certificate is
invalid,
| which
| > > > *is*
| > > > > > the case: The "No Liability" cert is expired in 2004 (fresh
| install
| > of
| > > > > > Win98SE, though I can't understand why I didn't get this the
first
| > few
| > > > > times
| > > > > > I tried.) So, the so-called "Resolution" is to...Make sure
the
| certs
| > > are
| > > > > > valid. Well, they aren't, but the damned t-shooter page
doesn't
| say
| > > what
| > > > > to
| > > > > > do about it!!
| > > > > >
| > > > > > First I spend three hours on the telephone with various gov.
| > agencies,
| > > > > > 99.99% of which was on menus and hold muzak, and now this!!
I
| think
| > I
| > > > need
| > > > > a
| > > > > > vacation!
| > > > > >
| > > > > > --
| > > > > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > > > > MS MVP Shell/User
Dan
2006-02-27 04:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary S. Terhune
No. Further experimentation shows that I only happened to luck on a "fix",
but it's a thoroughly unsatisfactory one for most people. I'm gathering some
ammunition to present to a competent authority tomorrow, Monday. I have to
think it's a server-side tweak, or possibly some date-triggered bug.
I recently had to change my time in the time clock but I thought it was
just due to the fact that I had changed time zones. I also got this
error on Microsoft Windows Update. After I readjusted the clock the
Windows Update site worked fine.
Dan
2006-02-24 06:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by winner5+63
Hello!
Glad to read you again GAry. Question/confusion--I have what is indicated as
a successful download of WCU notification 4.0 (4/19/2005), but on manually
checking on my installation history printout, there was a failure to download
on 1/18/06 (twice). What gives? Also, on attempting to be scanned for
updates, I got an error# 0x800c0008. I sent a report. PS: I removed the
automatic update because it seemed to interfere with my pointer/program
(every five minutes).
WCU notification 4.0 is junk. I say this because it was scanning my
computer every five minutes or so to check and see if there was a
critical update. It is the one Windows 98SE update along with the
multi-language features that I do not use.
Rick Chauvin
2006-02-23 20:38:15 UTC
Permalink
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl

[...]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
IE 6.1 :) we wish there was an IE 6.1 coming for 9x, and
no doubt your meaning is these above are for IE6.0 SP1

Rick
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-24 02:42:08 UTC
Permalink
You caught me. I was being sloppy. Indeed, what's offered to Win98/98SE is
IE 6 SP1.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Rick Chauvin
[...]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
IE 6.1 :) we wish there was an IE 6.1 coming for 9x, and
no doubt your meaning is these above are for IE6.0 SP1
Rick
Rick Chauvin
2006-02-24 23:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary S. Terhune
You caught me. I was being sloppy. Indeed, what's offered to Win98/98SE
is IE 6 SP1.
I hope you know I wasn't being picky about it, and my note was just a
polite fyi. I have to admit though at first you had me thinking and
briefly looking for an IE 6.1 that I has missed somehow :)

Rick
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Rick Chauvin
[...]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
IE 6.1 :) we wish there was an IE 6.1 coming for 9x, and
no doubt your meaning is these above are for IE6.0 SP1
Rick
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-25 00:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Alas, it ain't gonna happen, (8-(
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Rick Chauvin
Post by Gary S. Terhune
You caught me. I was being sloppy. Indeed, what's offered to Win98/98SE
is IE 6 SP1.
I hope you know I wasn't being picky about it, and my note was just a
polite fyi. I have to admit though at first you had me thinking and
briefly looking for an IE 6.1 that I has missed somehow :)
Rick
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Rick Chauvin
[...]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
IE 6.1 :) we wish there was an IE 6.1 coming for 9x, and
no doubt your meaning is these above are for IE6.0 SP1
Rick
MEB
2006-02-24 06:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Please continue,, this WILL be important to anyone still running 98.

You have my utmost attention..

<<copy and paste into Word>>>
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
There are two major difficulties in this experiment. First, you can't get to
Windows Updates using Win98 Gold right out of the box. It requires a minimum
of IE 5.01; secondly, Internet Explorer is further an issue because which
updates you are offered depends in great part on what version of IE you have
installed. But it's very difficult to say, "Ignore the IE Updates and only
focus on the non-IE updates," since IE is an integral part of Windows 9x,
especially since the advent of IE 5. A similar issue applies to Windows
Media Player. In a similar vein, many updates that were previously offered
to Win98 users have been made obsolete by newer versions. For instance,
there is no IE 5 version of any kind offered at Windows Updates these days,
only IE6SP1. Thus, the only IE Updates I see before installing IE 6.1 are
those offered to IE 5.01.
In short, there are no simple answers to the questions posed -- no single
answer to the question, "How many updates (and which) were offered to Win98
Gold that were subsumed into Win98SE," because SE included IE 5.01 and WMP
6.4 (I think), thus obviating all IE4 and earlier WMP updates. So, I will do
my best to chronicle and document the steps I'm taking and let others decide
what's important to them. Note: I did *not* return to the bad old days and
peruse the Corporate Updates site for pre-IE5 Updates. Someone else can do
that. I do recall at one time being an expert jockey of said site, but my
mind is fragile these days...
First thing I did was to install Windows 98 Gold (MSDN version which is
essentially the same as retail.) I installed all optional components. I then
--Both Y2K Updates
--Active Accessibility update
--Q189591 Computer Does Not Resume To Recognize USB Device From Standby
--Q222600 Bulk Transfer URLs Can Specify More Than 64 Bytes
--Q220586 Computer with Plug and Play Network Adapter Is Not Found (only
affects Win98 systems that were upgraded from Win95)
--Q178979 System Policy to Require Validation by Network May Not Work
--Q216641 Computer Hangs After 49.7 Days
--Q216565 New Dialing Rules for Spain and Italy Require TAPI Update
I did *not* install any Service Packs for IE 4.1 or patches depending on IE4
or it's SPs. Q234680, for instance, is a patch to OE 4SP2.
I then installed IE 5.01, all optional components selected except specific
languages in the Multi-language section. Now I'm able to access Windows
Updates. Upon doing so, there are seven Optional and 20 Critical Updates
offered. One, of course, is IE6SP1. In earlier times, that one would have
been some earlier version of IE. (Note: The Criticals list is mostly in
reverse chronological order because that's the way Windows Updates lists
them.)
-----Optional Components-----
--DirectX 9.0c End-User Runtime
--Registration Wizard Update
--Microsoft .NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
--------Critical Updates--------
--IE6.1 Note: Because this is offered, no other updates for IE 5.01 are
offered.
--Security Update, February 14, 2002 (note: this is MS02-009)
--Security Update for Windows 98 (KB891711)
--Security Update for Windows 98 (KB891781)
--823559: Security Update for Microsoft Windows
--816093: Security Update for Microsoft Virtual Machine (Microsoft VM)
--814078: Security Update (Microsoft JScript version 5.1, Windows 98 and
Windows NT 4.0)
--Q329414: Security Update (MDAC 2.1)
--Q329115: Security Update (Windows 98)
--Windows Share Level Password Update
--Q323172 Security Update (Windows 98)
--Q323255 Security Update (Windows 98)
--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (note: this is MS00-029)
--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (note: this is MS00-017)
--Q320920 Security Update (Windows Media Player 6.4)
--Security Update 2, November 29, 1999 (note: this is MS99-052
--Security Update November 12, 1999 (note: this is MS99-049)
--Security Update March 7, 1999 (note: the Security Bulletin for this was
updated to MS02-14)
--Security Update November 20, 2001 (note: this is MS01-056)
--Security Update April 2, 2001 (note: this is MS01-017)
Next, without installing any of the above Updates, I installed the Microsoft
Windows Security Update CD. Upon returning to Windows Updates, I discover
Optional Updates: The same seven optional updates are offered as before.
While the Security CD included DirectX9, it wasn't the latest version,
DirectX 9.0c. An additional thirty-four Updates are offered, all of them
Language Support.
Critical Updates: 10 are offered, of which
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
--908519 (a recently discovered networking issue, "Embedded Web Font
Vulnerability", that affects all 9x and NT systems.)
--904706 (DX 9)
--896358 (HTML Help vulnerability)
--888113 (Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX vuln.)
--816093 (Security Update for Microsoft Virtual Machine)
That last one for VM is the only one remaining from the previous list. The
rest are either more recently discovered vulnerabilities or are patches to
the software installed by the Security CD.
I then installed all ten Critical Updates. Upon returning to Windows
Updates, no further Critical Updates are offered. The same seven optional
Updates are offered. I then installed DirectX 9.0c (which must be installed
separately.) Upon returning to Windows Updates, no further Critical Updates
were offered. I proceeded to install the remaining six Optional Updates.
Returning to Windows Updates yet again, I find two additional Critical
Updates.
--873374 (GDI+ Detection Tool -- Why I wasn't offered this earlier, I don't
know.)
--.NET Framework SP1
I installed both, and ran the GDI+ Detection tool. It seemed to say that I
had some kind of vulnerability, but I found no useful remedies, nor am I
sure what app it was flagging. This is a clean install. Anyway, after
installing the .NET Framework SP1, that was it. No more Updates offered.
Now, there remains at least one variation to try: What happens when I
install the Security CD right after installing WIn98. Are *all* of the
earlier issues I patched with most of Windows 98 Service Pack 1 covered?
Furthermore, there is WIn98SE to research, and finally, we'll see if we can
positively identify the specific patches from Win98 Gold that were subsumed
into SE -- besides the IE-specific ones. Stay tuned...
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
<<SAVED>>>
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-25 00:22:49 UTC
Permalink
OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
(MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates. Here's
what I found:

Optional Updates (8):
--DirectX 9.0c
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
--Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
--Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
--Media Player 9 Series

Critical Updates (14):
--IE 6 SP1
--Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
patch.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
--Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
--Share Level Password vuln.
--Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
--MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
Shell)
--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing vuln)
--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
--Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and Fragmented
IGMP package)

At this point, I installed IE 6SP1, to see if any of the other Updates were
also taken care of.

Optional Updates (not including Language Packs) (9, not including Language
packs)
To the previous list, add .NET Framework. Not sure why this wasn't offered
last time, unless it has to do with the version of IE (see below.)

Critical Updates (22):
--905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
--837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
--833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
--908510 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln)
--896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
--888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (MS05-002 Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
--891781 (MS05-013 DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control vuln.)
--823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML converter vuln.)
--816093 (MS03-011 Microsoft VM vuln.)
--814078 (MS03-008 JScript 5.6 update)
--Q329414 (MSDAC 2.1 Update)
--Q329115 (Certificate Validation Flaw...)
--Windows Share Level Password Update
--Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Cert. Enrollment Component)
--Q323255 (Unchecked buffer in HTML Help)
--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (IP Fragment Reassembly issue)
--Security Update November 12, 1999 (File Access URL vuln.)
--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
Shell)
--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017 DOS Device in Path Name vuln.)
--Security Update 1, November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed Route Pointer and
Fragmented IGMP Packet)
--811630 (Puts HTML Help into Restricted Zone)

It would appear that only the following two patches from pre-IE6
installation were made unnecessary by first upgrading to IE 6SP1:
--Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
patch.)
--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing vuln)

OK, so I installed all of the above patches. Went back to Windows Update and
was offered the following Critical Updates:
--911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
--904706 (MS05-050 DirectX 9.0c patch)
--.NET Framework Service Pack 1)
--GDI+ detection tool

I installed all four, though the GDI+ Detection tool still frustrated me
until I figured out that whenever I've run into this during this experiment,
the GDI+ Detection tool ran before the .NET Framework SP1 was installed, and
that pre-SP1 .NET Framework is apparently one of the products that is
susceptible to the GDI+ vulnerability. I'll remember to install the SP1
*before* running the Detection tool next time. See if that fixes things.
Anyway, I went back to Windows Updates and no more Updates were offered.

Next on my list is to once again clean-install both OSes and then
immediately apply the entire Security Updates CD to each, then see what
remains to be gotten. Last of all, I'll discuss the various questions that
prompted this experiment in the first place. Once again, I must point out
that innumerable patches/updates were not part of this experiment since they
have earlier versions of DirectX, IE and WMP as their prerequisites,
versions which are no longer available. Yes, I could sort through my MSDN
and TechNet stuff and probably come up with a month-by-month chronology of
Updates, but I'm not going to. I'm just not that bored.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-25 03:51:56 UTC
Permalink
In Part 2, where I refer to --908510 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln) --,
that should be KB908519, not 908510.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
(MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates. Here's
--DirectX 9.0c
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
--Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
--Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
--Media Player 9 Series
--IE 6 SP1
--Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
patch.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
--Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
--Share Level Password vuln.
--Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
--MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
Shell)
--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing vuln)
--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
--Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and Fragmented
IGMP package)
At this point, I installed IE 6SP1, to see if any of the other Updates were
also taken care of.
Optional Updates (not including Language Packs) (9, not including Language
packs)
To the previous list, add .NET Framework. Not sure why this wasn't offered
last time, unless it has to do with the version of IE (see below.)
--905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
--837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
--833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
--908510 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln)
--896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
--888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (MS05-002 Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
--891781 (MS05-013 DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control vuln.)
--823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML converter vuln.)
--816093 (MS03-011 Microsoft VM vuln.)
--814078 (MS03-008 JScript 5.6 update)
--Q329414 (MSDAC 2.1 Update)
--Q329115 (Certificate Validation Flaw...)
--Windows Share Level Password Update
--Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Cert. Enrollment Component)
--Q323255 (Unchecked buffer in HTML Help)
--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (IP Fragment Reassembly issue)
--Security Update November 12, 1999 (File Access URL vuln.)
--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
Shell)
--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017 DOS Device in Path Name vuln.)
--Security Update 1, November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed Route Pointer and
Fragmented IGMP Packet)
--811630 (Puts HTML Help into Restricted Zone)
It would appear that only the following two patches from pre-IE6
--Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
patch.)
--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing vuln)
OK, so I installed all of the above patches. Went back to Windows Update and
--911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
--904706 (MS05-050 DirectX 9.0c patch)
--.NET Framework Service Pack 1)
--GDI+ detection tool
I installed all four, though the GDI+ Detection tool still frustrated me
until I figured out that whenever I've run into this during this experiment,
the GDI+ Detection tool ran before the .NET Framework SP1 was installed, and
that pre-SP1 .NET Framework is apparently one of the products that is
susceptible to the GDI+ vulnerability. I'll remember to install the SP1
*before* running the Detection tool next time. See if that fixes things.
Anyway, I went back to Windows Updates and no more Updates were offered.
Next on my list is to once again clean-install both OSes and then
immediately apply the entire Security Updates CD to each, then see what
remains to be gotten. Last of all, I'll discuss the various questions that
prompted this experiment in the first place. Once again, I must point out
that innumerable patches/updates were not part of this experiment since they
have earlier versions of DirectX, IE and WMP as their prerequisites,
versions which are no longer available. Yes, I could sort through my MSDN
and TechNet stuff and probably come up with a month-by-month chronology of
Updates, but I'm not going to. I'm just not that bored.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
PCR
2006-02-26 00:53:25 UTC
Permalink
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
| (MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates. Here's
| what I found:
|
| Optional Updates (8):
| --DirectX 9.0c
| --Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
| --Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
| --Euro Conversion Tool
| --Agent 2.0
| --Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
| --Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
| --Media Player 9 Series
|
| Critical Updates (14):

I coumt ONLY 12 or 13 in your list, but mostly 13!

| --IE 6 SP1
| --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| patch.)
| --891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
| --891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
| --816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| --Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| --Share Level Password vuln.
| --Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
| --MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
| --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| Shell)
| --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing vuln)
| --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
| --Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and Fragmented
| IGMP package)
|
| At this point, I installed IE 6SP1, to see if any of the other Updates were
| also taken care of.
|
| Optional Updates (not including Language Packs) (9, not including Language
| packs)
| To the previous list, add .NET Framework. Not sure why this wasn't offered
| last time, unless it has to do with the version of IE (see below.)

Is that this? When taken from the Catalog, it goes to...
E:\WU\Software\en\com_microsoft.windows98andwindows98secondedition\x86Win98\com_microsoft.Net_Framework_11_core_5795
..., NOT to one of the 3 IE folders. HOWEVER, clicking it's Readme, it says...
http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/rtf/en/5795.htm
.....Quote......
You must also be running Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.01 or later for all installations of the .NET Framework.
.....EOQ.........

So, you seem to be right about that.

|
| Critical Updates (22):
| --905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
| --837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
| --833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
| --908510 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln)
| --896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
| --888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
| --891711 (MS05-002 Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
| --891781 (MS05-013 DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control vuln.)
| --823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML converter vuln.)
| --816093 (MS03-011 Microsoft VM vuln.)
| --814078 (MS03-008 JScript 5.6 update)
| --Q329414 (MSDAC 2.1 Update)
| --Q329115 (Certificate Validation Flaw...)
| --Windows Share Level Password Update
| --Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Cert. Enrollment Component)
| --Q323255 (Unchecked buffer in HTML Help)
| --Security Update, May 19, 2000 (IP Fragment Reassembly issue)
| --Security Update November 12, 1999 (File Access URL vuln.)
| --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| Shell)
| --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017 DOS Device in Path Name vuln.)
| --Security Update 1, November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed Route Pointer and
| Fragmented IGMP Packet)
| --811630 (Puts HTML Help into Restricted Zone)
|
| It would appear that only the following two patches from pre-IE6
| installation were made unnecessary by first upgrading to IE 6SP1:
| --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| patch.)
| --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing vuln)
|
| OK, so I installed all of the above patches. Went back to Windows Update and
| was offered the following Critical Updates:
| --911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
| --904706 (MS05-050 DirectX 9.0c patch)
| --.NET Framework Service Pack 1)

I dimly recall this was offered to me one day, although I never did install Net Framework 1.1, which is still offered to me as an optional at the site. Yet, I can't find it by that name in my downloads from the Catalog or in my Installation History at the site. If offered as a critical, I took it.

| --GDI+ detection tool
|
| I installed all four, though the GDI+ Detection tool still frustrated me
| until I figured out that whenever I've run into this during this experiment,
| the GDI+ Detection tool ran before the .NET Framework SP1 was installed, and
| that pre-SP1 .NET Framework

I can't recall any GDI Detection shenanigan! I appear to have the tool...

Successful Wednesday, September 15, 2004 Microsoft GDI+ Detection Tool (KB873374) Web site

| is apparently one of the products that is
| susceptible to the GDI+ vulnerability. I'll remember to install the SP1
| *before* running the Detection tool next time. See if that fixes things.
| Anyway, I went back to Windows Updates and no more Updates were offered.
|
| Next on my list is to once again clean-install both OSes and then
| immediately apply the entire Security Updates CD to each, then see what
| remains to be gotten. Last of all, I'll discuss the various questions that
| prompted this experiment in the first place. Once again, I must point out
| that innumerable patches/updates were not part of this experiment since they
| have earlier versions of DirectX, IE and WMP as their prerequisites,
| versions which are no longer available. Yes, I could sort through my MSDN
| and TechNet stuff and probably come up with a month-by-month chronology of
| Updates, but I'm not going to. I'm just not that bored.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
| > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
| > how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
|
|
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-26 01:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Guess I'll have to do it again! Make sure of that count!

GDI+ Detection Tool is offered periodically, possibly only to systems that
have potentially buggy applications installed (mostly Office, but also .NET
Framework and the MS Digital Image Composer offerings) and runs during
install. If a vulnerability is detected, then you get a notice. I don't
believe you otherwise get any message to speak of.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
| (MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates.
Here's
| what I found:
|
| Optional Updates (8):
| --DirectX 9.0c
| --Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
| --Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
| --Euro Conversion Tool
| --Agent 2.0
| --Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
| --Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
| --Media Player 9 Series
|
| Critical Updates (14):

I coumt ONLY 12 or 13 in your list, but mostly 13!

| --IE 6 SP1
| --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| patch.)
| --891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
| --891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
| --816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| --Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| --Share Level Password vuln.
| --Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
| --MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
| --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| Shell)
| --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing
vuln)
| --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
| --Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and
Fragmented
| IGMP package)
|
| At this point, I installed IE 6SP1, to see if any of the other Updates
were
| also taken care of.
|
| Optional Updates (not including Language Packs) (9, not including Language
| packs)
| To the previous list, add .NET Framework. Not sure why this wasn't offered
| last time, unless it has to do with the version of IE (see below.)

Is that this? When taken from the Catalog, it goes to...
E:\WU\Software\en\com_microsoft.windows98andwindows98secondedition\x86Win98\
com_microsoft.Net_Framework_11_core_5795
..., NOT to one of the 3 IE folders. HOWEVER, clicking it's Readme, it
says...
http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/rtf/en/5795.htm
.....Quote......
You must also be running Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.01 or later
for all installations of the .NET Framework.
.....EOQ.........

So, you seem to be right about that.

|
| Critical Updates (22):
| --905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
| --837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
| --833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
| --908510 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln)
| --896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
| --888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
| --891711 (MS05-002 Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
| --891781 (MS05-013 DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control vuln.)
| --823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML converter vuln.)
| --816093 (MS03-011 Microsoft VM vuln.)
| --814078 (MS03-008 JScript 5.6 update)
| --Q329414 (MSDAC 2.1 Update)
| --Q329115 (Certificate Validation Flaw...)
| --Windows Share Level Password Update
| --Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Cert. Enrollment Component)
| --Q323255 (Unchecked buffer in HTML Help)
| --Security Update, May 19, 2000 (IP Fragment Reassembly issue)
| --Security Update November 12, 1999 (File Access URL vuln.)
| --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| Shell)
| --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017 DOS Device in Path Name vuln.)
| --Security Update 1, November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed Route Pointer and
| Fragmented IGMP Packet)
| --811630 (Puts HTML Help into Restricted Zone)
|
| It would appear that only the following two patches from pre-IE6
| installation were made unnecessary by first upgrading to IE 6SP1:
| --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| patch.)
| --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing
vuln)
|
| OK, so I installed all of the above patches. Went back to Windows Update
and
| was offered the following Critical Updates:
| --911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
| --904706 (MS05-050 DirectX 9.0c patch)
| --.NET Framework Service Pack 1)

I dimly recall this was offered to me one day, although I never did install
Net Framework 1.1, which is still offered to me as an optional at the site.
Yet, I can't find it by that name in my downloads from the Catalog or in my
Installation History at the site. If offered as a critical, I took it.

| --GDI+ detection tool
|
| I installed all four, though the GDI+ Detection tool still frustrated me
| until I figured out that whenever I've run into this during this
experiment,
| the GDI+ Detection tool ran before the .NET Framework SP1 was installed,
and
| that pre-SP1 .NET Framework

I can't recall any GDI Detection shenanigan! I appear to have the tool...

Successful Wednesday, September 15, 2004 Microsoft GDI+ Detection Tool
(KB873374) Web site

| is apparently one of the products that is
| susceptible to the GDI+ vulnerability. I'll remember to install the SP1
| *before* running the Detection tool next time. See if that fixes things.
| Anyway, I went back to Windows Updates and no more Updates were offered.
|
| Next on my list is to once again clean-install both OSes and then
| immediately apply the entire Security Updates CD to each, then see what
| remains to be gotten. Last of all, I'll discuss the various questions that
| prompted this experiment in the first place. Once again, I must point out
| that innumerable patches/updates were not part of this experiment since
they
| have earlier versions of DirectX, IE and WMP as their prerequisites,
| versions which are no longer available. Yes, I could sort through my MSDN
| and TechNet stuff and probably come up with a month-by-month chronology of
| Updates, but I'm not going to. I'm just not that bored.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
| > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
| > how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
|
|
PCR
2006-02-26 02:23:19 UTC
Permalink
I don't recall the GDI+ Detection Tool actually said anything. It was real quick, IIRC, just a blink on the screen. Very possibly I never was offered NET Framework Service Pack 1, having never taken Net Framework 1.1, though I seem to recall something.

Some day soon I may compare your lists to what I can detect I have taken from the site. Hopefully, there is a Registry key for each one, such as...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Updates\DataAccess\Q329414-21
IsInstalled 0x00000001 (1)

..., and maybe...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\GdiDetectionTool
GDITool 0x00000001 (1)

I see I don't have "Framework" in there, except in MRU lists! For Registry searching, best get something that makes it quick, though...

http://www.pcmag.com/
PCMag's "Registry Detective" (take "RegEdit+ too) is better than a naked
RegEdit search, because it will only find an item once, if there is a
"mirror" elsewhere. Also, it will find items in binary fields, which
RegEdit does not. Finally, it finds ALL matches in 10 seconds & puts
them ALL to the screen. There is a Details button for further
examination of the Key. The search criteria can be adjusted and narrowed
in various ways. There is a button to click that will get one into
RegEdit+ (or RegEdit) open to that Key. I only wish there were an easy
way to copy/post the Keys that were found in the search.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:eP$***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Guess I'll have to do it again! Make sure of that count!
|
| GDI+ Detection Tool is offered periodically, possibly only to systems that
| have potentially buggy applications installed (mostly Office, but also .NET
| Framework and the MS Digital Image Composer offerings) and runs during
| install. If a vulnerability is detected, then you get a notice. I don't
| believe you otherwise get any message to speak of.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
| | (MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates.
| Here's
| | what I found:
| |
| | Optional Updates (8):
| | --DirectX 9.0c
| | --Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
| | --Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
| | --Euro Conversion Tool
| | --Agent 2.0
| | --Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
| | --Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
| | --Media Player 9 Series
| |
| | Critical Updates (14):
|
| I coumt ONLY 12 or 13 in your list, but mostly 13!
|
| | --IE 6 SP1
| | --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| | patch.)
| | --891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
| | --891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
| | --816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| | --Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| | --Share Level Password vuln.
| | --Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
| | --MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
| | --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| | Shell)
| | --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing
| vuln)
| | --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
| | --Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and
| Fragmented
| | IGMP package)
| |
| | At this point, I installed IE 6SP1, to see if any of the other Updates
| were
| | also taken care of.
| |
| | Optional Updates (not including Language Packs) (9, not including Language
| | packs)
| | To the previous list, add .NET Framework. Not sure why this wasn't offered
| | last time, unless it has to do with the version of IE (see below.)
|
| Is that this? When taken from the Catalog, it goes to...
| E:\WU\Software\en\com_microsoft.windows98andwindows98secondedition\x86Win98\
| com_microsoft.Net_Framework_11_core_5795
| ..., NOT to one of the 3 IE folders. HOWEVER, clicking it's Readme, it
| says...
| http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3/static/rtf/en/5795.htm
| .....Quote......
| You must also be running Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.01 or later
| for all installations of the .NET Framework.
| .....EOQ.........
|
| So, you seem to be right about that.
|
| |
| | Critical Updates (22):
| | --905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
| | --837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
| | --833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
| | --908510 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln)
| | --896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
| | --888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
| | --891711 (MS05-002 Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
| | --891781 (MS05-013 DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control vuln.)
| | --823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML converter vuln.)
| | --816093 (MS03-011 Microsoft VM vuln.)
| | --814078 (MS03-008 JScript 5.6 update)
| | --Q329414 (MSDAC 2.1 Update)
| | --Q329115 (Certificate Validation Flaw...)
| | --Windows Share Level Password Update
| | --Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Cert. Enrollment Component)
| | --Q323255 (Unchecked buffer in HTML Help)
| | --Security Update, May 19, 2000 (IP Fragment Reassembly issue)
| | --Security Update November 12, 1999 (File Access URL vuln.)
| | --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| | Shell)
| | --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017 DOS Device in Path Name vuln.)
| | --Security Update 1, November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed Route Pointer and
| | Fragmented IGMP Packet)
| | --811630 (Puts HTML Help into Restricted Zone)
| |
| | It would appear that only the following two patches from pre-IE6
| | installation were made unnecessary by first upgrading to IE 6SP1:
| | --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| | patch.)
| | --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing
| vuln)
| |
| | OK, so I installed all of the above patches. Went back to Windows Update
| and
| | was offered the following Critical Updates:
| | --911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
| | --904706 (MS05-050 DirectX 9.0c patch)
| | --.NET Framework Service Pack 1)
|
| I dimly recall this was offered to me one day, although I never did install
| Net Framework 1.1, which is still offered to me as an optional at the site.
| Yet, I can't find it by that name in my downloads from the Catalog or in my
| Installation History at the site. If offered as a critical, I took it.
|
| | --GDI+ detection tool
| |
| | I installed all four, though the GDI+ Detection tool still frustrated me
| | until I figured out that whenever I've run into this during this
| experiment,
| | the GDI+ Detection tool ran before the .NET Framework SP1 was installed,
| and
| | that pre-SP1 .NET Framework
|
| I can't recall any GDI Detection shenanigan! I appear to have the tool...
|
| Successful Wednesday, September 15, 2004 Microsoft GDI+ Detection Tool
| (KB873374) Web site
|
| | is apparently one of the products that is
| | susceptible to the GDI+ vulnerability. I'll remember to install the SP1
| | *before* running the Detection tool next time. See if that fixes things.
| | Anyway, I went back to Windows Updates and no more Updates were offered.
| |
| | Next on my list is to once again clean-install both OSes and then
| | immediately apply the entire Security Updates CD to each, then see what
| | remains to be gotten. Last of all, I'll discuss the various questions that
| | prompted this experiment in the first place. Once again, I must point out
| | that innumerable patches/updates were not part of this experiment since
| they
| | have earlier versions of DirectX, IE and WMP as their prerequisites,
| | versions which are no longer available. Yes, I could sort through my MSDN
| | and TechNet stuff and probably come up with a month-by-month chronology of
| | Updates, but I'm not going to. I'm just not that bored.
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
| how
| | > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
| released,
| | > how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
| |
| |
|
|
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-26 19:46:54 UTC
Permalink
OK, I ran into that Windows Updates error (0x80072F89) with a clean install
of SE, just like the last three times (but not the first two times). But, I
installed IE 5.01 (v 5.00.3105.0106) and that let me into WU. *Now* what I
show is nine Optional (aka Recommended) Updates because this version now
accepts .NET Framework 1.1. And *twenty* Critical Updates! I won't bother to
list the Optionals again, but here's the twenty:

X--IE 6 SP1
--Security Update February 14, 2002 (IE 5.01)
X--891711
X--891781
--823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML Converter)
X--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
--814078 (MS03-008, JScript 5.1)
X--Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
--Q329115 (Certification Validation Flaw Could Enable Identity Spoofing)
X--Windows Share Level Password Update
--Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Certificate Enrollment)
X--Q323255 (Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help) Note: I misidentified this as
MS00-029 in the previous
X--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (MS00-029 IP Fragment Reassembly flaw)
--Q320920 (Updated WMP 6.4 Cumulative patch)
--Security Update, November 12, 1999 (File Access URL)
X--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (Unchecked Buffer in Windows Shell)
--Security Update, November 20, 2001 (WMP 6.4 .ASF Processor contains an
unchecked buffer)
X--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (Erroneous VeriSign-issued Certificates
Pose Spoofing Hazard)
X--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (DOS Device in Path Name)
X--Security Update, November 29, 1999 (Spoofed Route Pointer and Fragmented
IGMP Packet)

The "Eyedog" patch of Sept. 7, 1999 is no longer offered, as it was for a
clean install of SE. As noted above, I've made mistakes in previous posts. I
think I'm going to have to do this again, probably put the results on my
website. I got flustered by errors at Windows Updates and by other life
events.

I *think* the item that was missing from the previous list of Updates made
available right after a clean install of 98SE is the "November 12, 1999,
File Access URL" issue, or possibly Q323172.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User

"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
| (MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates.
Here's
| what I found:
|
| Optional Updates (8):
| --DirectX 9.0c
| --Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
| --Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
| --Euro Conversion Tool
| --Agent 2.0
| --Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
| --Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
| --Media Player 9 Series
|
| Critical Updates (14):

I coumt ONLY 12 or 13 in your list, but mostly 13!

| --IE 6 SP1
| --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| patch.)
| --891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
| --891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
| --816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| --Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| --Share Level Password vuln.
| --Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
| --MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
| --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| Shell)
| --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing
vuln)
| --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
| --Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and
Fragmented
| IGMP package)
dave xnet
2006-02-26 20:31:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:46:54 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune"
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, I ran into that Windows Updates error (0x80072F89) with a clean install
of SE, just like the last three times (but not the first two times). But, I
installed IE 5.01 (v 5.00.3105.0106) and that let me into WU. *Now* what I
show is nine Optional (aka Recommended) Updates because this version now
accepts .NET Framework 1.1. And *twenty* Critical Updates! I won't bother to
Thanks for the info. Any benefit to installing .Net ?
I know it's not really required unless you have software that needs
it, but I'm wondering if they're are any secondary benefits,
such as an update to core files that wouldn't be updated
otheriwise.

Dave
Post by Gary S. Terhune
X--IE 6 SP1
--Security Update February 14, 2002 (IE 5.01)
X--891711
X--891781
--823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML Converter)
X--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
--814078 (MS03-008, JScript 5.1)
X--Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
--Q329115 (Certification Validation Flaw Could Enable Identity Spoofing)
X--Windows Share Level Password Update
--Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Certificate Enrollment)
X--Q323255 (Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help) Note: I misidentified this as
MS00-029 in the previous
X--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (MS00-029 IP Fragment Reassembly flaw)
--Q320920 (Updated WMP 6.4 Cumulative patch)
--Security Update, November 12, 1999 (File Access URL)
X--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (Unchecked Buffer in Windows Shell)
--Security Update, November 20, 2001 (WMP 6.4 .ASF Processor contains an
unchecked buffer)
X--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (Erroneous VeriSign-issued Certificates
Pose Spoofing Hazard)
X--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (DOS Device in Path Name)
X--Security Update, November 29, 1999 (Spoofed Route Pointer and Fragmented
IGMP Packet)
The "Eyedog" patch of Sept. 7, 1999 is no longer offered, as it was for a
clean install of SE. As noted above, I've made mistakes in previous posts. I
think I'm going to have to do this again, probably put the results on my
website. I got flustered by errors at Windows Updates and by other life
events.
I *think* the item that was missing from the previous list of Updates made
available right after a clean install of 98SE is the "November 12, 1999,
File Access URL" issue, or possibly Q323172.
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-26 20:46:48 UTC
Permalink
In re .NET Framework: No, I know of no reason to install this other than to
support .NET apps. Of course, .NET apps are becoming rather ubiquitous, and
my idea is that if your system has the space and power, you might as well
install it and be ready for that next downloaded app. It's fairly large, and
those on Dial-Up might rather be ready ahead of time, instead of having to
battle the Gods when some app suddenly needs it.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by dave xnet
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:46:54 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune"
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, I ran into that Windows Updates error (0x80072F89) with a clean install
of SE, just like the last three times (but not the first two times). But, I
installed IE 5.01 (v 5.00.3105.0106) and that let me into WU. *Now* what I
show is nine Optional (aka Recommended) Updates because this version now
accepts .NET Framework 1.1. And *twenty* Critical Updates! I won't bother to
Thanks for the info. Any benefit to installing .Net ?
I know it's not really required unless you have software that needs
it, but I'm wondering if they're are any secondary benefits,
such as an update to core files that wouldn't be updated
otheriwise.
Dave
PCR
2006-02-26 20:59:18 UTC
Permalink
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\{14e380f0-c285-4faf-bbd9-29efec36d1af}
(Default) "Windows 98 Q323172 Update"
IsInstalled 0x00000001 (1)

Looks like I have that one, all right. So, could be there originally were 14 meant to be on that list. Now, I see, there are twenty. (Or should I go count?) Some day soon, I'll look for them all. Couldn't a Script be written for that, though, when you're done!?

| OK, I ran into that Windows Updates error (0x80072F89) with a clean install
| of SE, just like the last three times (but not the first two times). But, I
| installed IE 5.01 (v 5.00.3105.0106) and that let me into WU.

That is MORE troubling now. Once, you could get WU to work after just a fresh install of SE. It was just FE & Gold had to worry. Now, it took an IE Update even on top of SE before you could do it! Can't MS do something about that at the Windows Update site to make it a tad more predictable & friendly? Or is there a Registry tweak we can do to ensure success? Didn't you say you found an unpalatable way? Was that also to install IE 5.01?
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| OK, I ran into that Windows Updates error (0x80072F89) with a clean install
| of SE, just like the last three times (but not the first two times). But, I
| installed IE 5.01 (v 5.00.3105.0106) and that let me into WU. *Now* what I
| show is nine Optional (aka Recommended) Updates because this version now
| accepts .NET Framework 1.1. And *twenty* Critical Updates! I won't bother to
| list the Optionals again, but here's the twenty:
|
| X--IE 6 SP1
| --Security Update February 14, 2002 (IE 5.01)
| X--891711
| X--891781
| --823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML Converter)
| X--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| --814078 (MS03-008, JScript 5.1)
| X--Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| --Q329115 (Certification Validation Flaw Could Enable Identity Spoofing)
| X--Windows Share Level Password Update
| --Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Certificate Enrollment)
| X--Q323255 (Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help) Note: I misidentified this as
| MS00-029 in the previous
| X--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (MS00-029 IP Fragment Reassembly flaw)
| --Q320920 (Updated WMP 6.4 Cumulative patch)
| --Security Update, November 12, 1999 (File Access URL)
| X--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (Unchecked Buffer in Windows Shell)
| --Security Update, November 20, 2001 (WMP 6.4 .ASF Processor contains an
| unchecked buffer)
| X--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (Erroneous VeriSign-issued Certificates
| Pose Spoofing Hazard)
| X--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (DOS Device in Path Name)
| X--Security Update, November 29, 1999 (Spoofed Route Pointer and Fragmented
| IGMP Packet)
|
| The "Eyedog" patch of Sept. 7, 1999 is no longer offered, as it was for a
| clean install of SE. As noted above, I've made mistakes in previous posts. I
| think I'm going to have to do this again, probably put the results on my
| website. I got flustered by errors at Windows Updates and by other life
| events.
|
| I *think* the item that was missing from the previous list of Updates made
| available right after a clean install of 98SE is the "November 12, 1999,
| File Access URL" issue, or possibly Q323172.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
| | (MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates.
| Here's
| | what I found:
| |
| | Optional Updates (8):
| | --DirectX 9.0c
| | --Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
| | --Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
| | --Euro Conversion Tool
| | --Agent 2.0
| | --Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
| | --Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
| | --Media Player 9 Series
| |
| | Critical Updates (14):
|
| I coumt ONLY 12 or 13 in your list, but mostly 13!
|
| | --IE 6 SP1
| | --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| | patch.)
| | --891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
| | --891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
| | --816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| | --Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| | --Share Level Password vuln.
| | --Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
| | --MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
| | --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| | Shell)
| | --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing
| vuln)
| | --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
| | --Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and
| Fragmented
| | IGMP package)
|
|
PCR
2006-02-26 21:07:09 UTC
Permalink
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\{b2bd81e0-979d-11d3-8000-0090276c5e3a}
ComponentID "W98_FileAccess_3306"
IsInstalled 0x00000001 (1)

I can't quote myself, either.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\{14e380f0-c285-4faf-bbd9-29efec36d1af}
(Default) "Windows 98 Q323172 Update"
IsInstalled 0x00000001 (1)

Looks like I have that one, all right. So, could be there originally were 14 meant to be on that list. Now, I see, there are twenty. (Or should I go count?) Some day soon, I'll look for them all. Couldn't a Script be written for that, though, when you're done!?

| OK, I ran into that Windows Updates error (0x80072F89) with a clean install
| of SE, just like the last three times (but not the first two times). But, I
| installed IE 5.01 (v 5.00.3105.0106) and that let me into WU.

That is MORE troubling now. Once, you could get WU to work after just a fresh install of SE. It was just FE & Gold had to worry. Now, it took an IE Update even on top of SE before you could do it! Can't MS do something about that at the Windows Update site to make it a tad more predictable & friendly? Or is there a Registry tweak we can do to ensure success? Didn't you say you found an unpalatable way? Was that also to install IE 5.01?
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| OK, I ran into that Windows Updates error (0x80072F89) with a clean install
| of SE, just like the last three times (but not the first two times). But, I
| installed IE 5.01 (v 5.00.3105.0106) and that let me into WU. *Now* what I
| show is nine Optional (aka Recommended) Updates because this version now
| accepts .NET Framework 1.1. And *twenty* Critical Updates! I won't bother to
| list the Optionals again, but here's the twenty:
|
| X--IE 6 SP1
| --Security Update February 14, 2002 (IE 5.01)
| X--891711
| X--891781
| --823559 (MS03-023 Buffer Overrun in HTML Converter)
| X--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| --814078 (MS03-008, JScript 5.1)
| X--Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| --Q329115 (Certification Validation Flaw Could Enable Identity Spoofing)
| X--Windows Share Level Password Update
| --Q323172 (Flaw in Digital Certificate Enrollment)
| X--Q323255 (Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help) Note: I misidentified this as
| MS00-029 in the previous
| X--Security Update, May 19, 2000 (MS00-029 IP Fragment Reassembly flaw)
| --Q320920 (Updated WMP 6.4 Cumulative patch)
| --Security Update, November 12, 1999 (File Access URL)
| X--Security Update, March 7, 2002 (Unchecked Buffer in Windows Shell)
| --Security Update, November 20, 2001 (WMP 6.4 .ASF Processor contains an
| unchecked buffer)
| X--Security Update, April 2, 2001 (Erroneous VeriSign-issued Certificates
| Pose Spoofing Hazard)
| X--Security Update, March 17, 2000 (DOS Device in Path Name)
| X--Security Update, November 29, 1999 (Spoofed Route Pointer and Fragmented
| IGMP Packet)
|
| The "Eyedog" patch of Sept. 7, 1999 is no longer offered, as it was for a
| clean install of SE. As noted above, I've made mistakes in previous posts. I
| think I'm going to have to do this again, probably put the results on my
| website. I got flustered by errors at Windows Updates and by other life
| events.
|
| I *think* the item that was missing from the previous list of Updates made
| available right after a clean install of 98SE is the "November 12, 1999,
| File Access URL" issue, or possibly Q323172.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | OK, here's the results from Windows 98SE. I first clean-installed Win98SE
| | (MSDN), installed a couple of drivers, then visited Windows Updates.
| Here's
| | what I found:
| |
| | Optional Updates (8):
| | --DirectX 9.0c
| | --Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
| | --Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
| | --Euro Conversion Tool
| | --Agent 2.0
| | --Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
| | --Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
| | --Media Player 9 Series
| |
| | Critical Updates (14):
|
| I coumt ONLY 12 or 13 in your list, but mostly 13!
|
| | --IE 6 SP1
| | --Security Update, September 7, 1999 (MS99-032, the so-called "eyedog"
| | patch.)
| | --891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
| | --891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
| | --816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
| | --Q329414 (MDAC 2.1)
| | --Share Level Password vuln.
| | --Q323255 (MS00-029Unchecked Buffer in HTML Help)
| | --MS99-049 IP Fragment Reassembly patch
| | --Security Update, March 7, 2002 (MS02-014 Unchecked buffer in Windows
| | Shell)
| | --Security Update, April 2, 2001 (MS01-017 Erroneous Verisign spoofing
| vuln)
| | --Security Update, March 17, 2000 (MS00-017)
| | --Security Update November 29, 1999 (MS99-038 Spoofed pointer and
| Fragmented
| | IGMP package)
|
|
Bill
2006-02-25 00:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
What is the security CD? Bill
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-25 00:51:29 UTC
Permalink
It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
asking, the program has since been discontinued -- they probably ran out of
CDs. The package also included a year's free installation of ETrust
Antivirus (and possibly their Firewall, also.) The Security CD includes IE
6.0 SP1, WMP 9, DX 9, etc. for systems that can handle them, and all
critical updates through the end of 2003 for all Microsoft desktop systems
since Win98 Gold -- 98, 989SE, ME, 2K and XP.

I need to talk to the powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
What is the security CD? Bill
PA Bear
2006-02-25 01:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Ooo, I dunno 'bout that. Check with Brian and perhaps Jerry Bryant and/or
Steve Reynolds, especially IN RE Life Cycle.

Rumor had it that the CD was still available via the Order Desk but I've
never been able to confirm it.

In the United States, contact the Microsoft Order Desk at the following
phone number:

(800) 360-7561, Monday through Friday, 5:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Pacific
Time

In Canada, contact the Canadian Microsoft Order Desk at the following phone
number:

(800) 933-4750, Monday through Friday, 5:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Pacific
Time
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), Aumha.org VSOP, DTS-L.org
Post by Gary S. Terhune
It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
asking, the program has since been discontinued -- they probably ran out
of CDs. The package also included a year's free installation of ETrust
Antivirus (and possibly their Firewall, also.) The Security CD includes IE
6.0 SP1, WMP 9, DX 9, etc. for systems that can handle them, and all
critical updates through the end of 2003 for all Microsoft desktop systems
since Win98 Gold -- 98, 989SE, ME, 2K and XP.
I need to talk to the powers that be and see if we can't permission to
post an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
Bill
2006-03-02 04:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary S. Terhune
It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to the
powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
Post by Gary S. Terhune
an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the slackers
who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to download
it?
Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
Post by Bill
What is the security CD? Bill
Gary S. Terhune
2006-03-02 15:09:24 UTC
Permalink
I'll keep you posted, Bill (which Bill are you?) But no, there has been no
response as of this morning. More than a few vacations going on, IIRC.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to the
powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
Post by Gary S. Terhune
an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the slackers
who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to download
it?
Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
Post by Bill
What is the security CD? Bill
PCR
2006-03-02 18:26:40 UTC
Permalink
He is Boston Bill, BUT Colorado has put him on his list as Bill in Ma!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| I'll keep you posted, Bill (which Bill are you?) But no, there has been no
| response as of this morning. More than a few vacations going on, IIRC.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| news:***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > > It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
| > > asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to
| the
| > powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
| > > an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
| >
| > Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the slackers
| > who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to download
| > it?
| > Bill
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > > >
| > > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates.
| Like
| > > how
| > > > > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
| > > released,
| > > >
| > > > What is the security CD? Bill
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
Bill
2006-03-03 00:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Bill in Ma??? Sounds kind of oedipal! Maybe Pa Bear should stay away.
Boston Bill
"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
He is Boston Bill, BUT Colorado has put him on his list as Bill in Ma!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| I'll keep you posted, Bill (which Bill are you?) But no, there has been no
| response as of this morning. More than a few vacations going on, IIRC.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| news:***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > > It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
| > > asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to
| the
| > powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
| > > an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
| >
| > Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the
slackers
| > who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to
download
| > it?
| > Bill
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > > >
| > > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates.
| Like
| > > how
| > > > > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
| > > released,
| > > >
| > > > What is the security CD? Bill
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
Bill in Co.
2006-03-03 04:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Why don't you put it in your account name, so it's automatically threaded
with your name (in OE: Tools, Accounts, News, Properties, General, User
Information Name). Might make it less confusing, since there are so many
Bill's in here!
Post by Bill
Bill in Ma??? Sounds kind of oedipal! Maybe Pa Bear should stay away.
Boston Bill
He is Boston Bill, BUT Colorado has put him on his list as Bill in Ma!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
Post by Gary S. Terhune
I'll keep you posted, Bill (which Bill are you?) But no, there has been no
response as of this morning. More than a few vacations going on, IIRC.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to the
powers that be and see if we can't permission to post an ISO
somewhere --
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the slackers
who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to download
it?
Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Bill
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
What is the security CD? Bill
Bill
2006-03-03 03:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Could someone send me an e-mail and tell me why you deleted my post?
It was only a small play on words, I wasn't being mean or hurtful(if anyone
got trashed it was me). I don't understand? People make jokes in here all
the time, why was mine considered uncool or politically incorrect by the
powers that be? I don't know where else to send this so I'm just going to
post it. Please talk to me! Boston Bill
"PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
He is Boston Bill, BUT Colorado has put him on his list as Bill in Ma!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| I'll keep you posted, Bill (which Bill are you?) But no, there has been no
| response as of this morning. More than a few vacations going on, IIRC.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| news:***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > > It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
| > > asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to
| the
| > powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
| > > an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
| >
| > Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the
slackers
| > who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to
download
| > it?
| > Bill
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > > >
| > > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates.
| Like
| > > how
| > > > > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
| > > released,
| > > >
| > > > What is the security CD? Bill
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
AlmostBob
2006-03-03 05:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Post deleted by a bot, no by a "You"

microsoft terms of use say in legalese
"microsoft reserve the right to control their servers in any way they see
fit."
your innoffensive post might only offend 1/1000 people, but the MS news
servers are accessible to all 6 billion people in the world. Thats 6 million
offended people
Your innoffensive post is removed, thats 1 offended people
6000000:1, you lose
try rephrase your innoffensive post so that it contains no words that MS
bots will trigger delete on
its surprising how well you can express yourself (or how offensive you can
be) without using 'those' words
and its more fun too
--
-
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://security.kolla.de
AVG free antivirus http://www.grisoft.com
Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx
Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.activescan.com
Panda online AntiSpyware Scan
http://www.pandasoftware.com/virus_info/spyware/test/
Catalog of removal tools (1)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Catalog of removal tools (2)
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?CID=40387
Trouble Shooting guide to Windows http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before
use
Grateful thanks to the authors/webmasters
_
Post by Bill
Hi, Could someone send me an e-mail and tell me why you deleted my post?
It was only a small play on words, I wasn't being mean or hurtful(if anyone
got trashed it was me). I don't understand? People make jokes in here all
the time, why was mine considered uncool or politically incorrect by the
powers that be? I don't know where else to send this so I'm just going to
post it. Please talk to me! Boston Bill
He is Boston Bill, BUT Colorado has put him on his list as Bill in Ma!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
| I'll keep you posted, Bill (which Bill are you?) But no, there has been no
| response as of this morning. More than a few vacations going on, IIRC.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
|
| >
| > > It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
| > > asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to
| the
| > powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
| > > an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
| >
| > Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the slackers
| > who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to download
| > it?
| > Bill
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > >
| > > >
| > > > > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates.
| Like
| > > how
| > > > > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
| > > released,
| > > >
| > > > What is the security CD? Bill
| > > >
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|
PCR
2006-03-03 21:29:04 UTC
Permalink
I certainly WOULDN'T delete your post, Bill! The only one's I do delete are advertisements & certain posts with exceptionally foul language. It could be an MS robot did it, as AlmostBob said-- or maybe PA Bear. I don't know! But Bear DOES often complain of crossposting & such! Also, if you select any post & accidentally hit the Delete key, that post will disappear. Careful with that Delete key! I may have deleted an entire NG once!

One thing: I DO believe, if you do as Colorado suggests & change your Account Name, you will not see your posts with the prior name, when you... "OE, View menu, Current View, Show replies to my messages". But it probably is worth it for the distinction! One Bill is not as good as another-- but I'm not saying which!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
***@netzero.net
"Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:O4j1Y%***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Hi, Could someone send me an e-mail and tell me why you deleted my post?
| It was only a small play on words, I wasn't being mean or hurtful(if anyone
| got trashed it was me). I don't understand? People make jokes in here all
| the time, why was mine considered uncool or politically incorrect by the
| powers that be? I don't know where else to send this so I'm just going to
| post it. Please talk to me! Boston Bill
| "PCR" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| He is Boston Bill, BUT Colorado has put him on his list as Bill in Ma!
|
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| should things get worse after this,
| PCR
| ***@netzero.net
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:%***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | I'll keep you posted, Bill (which Bill are you?) But no, there has been no
| | response as of this morning. More than a few vacations going on, IIRC.
| |
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS MVP Shell/User
| |
| | "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| | news:***@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| | >
| | > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| | > > It's a CD that was issued by Microsoft in February, 2004. Free for the
| | > > asking, the program has since been discontinued -- > I need to talk to
| | the
| | > powers that be and see if we can't permission to post
| | > > an ISO somewhere -- or did we already try that, PaBear? Anyone?
| | >
| | > Have you spoken with the powers that be? Any chance that we(the
| slackers
| | > who didn't even know about it, let alone get it) might be able to
| download
| | > it?
| | > Bill
| | > >
| | > > --
| | > > Gary S. Terhune
| | > > MS MVP Shell/User
| | > >
| | > > "Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message
| | > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| | > > >
| | > > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| | > > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| | > > > > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates.
| | Like
| | > > how
| | > > > > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
| | > > released,
| | > > >
| | > > > What is the security CD? Bill
| | > > >
| | > > >
| | > >
| | > >
| | >
| | >
| |
| |
|
|
mae
2006-03-03 06:57:31 UTC
Permalink
I'll post the contents, then you can download the files from the catalog.
I will put in another thread so these replies don't become so long.
--
mae

"Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
|
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
| > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
|
| What is the security CD? Bill
|
mae
2006-03-04 21:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Oh well, just keep in same thread.
--------------------------------------------------------
The below were on the Security Update CD for 98/98SE:
If anyone notes I copied wrong, just correct.

Jul03-023 (823559) SU for Microsoft Windows HTML Converter
May03-017 (817787) WMP Skins Downloading (7.1)
Mar03-008 (814078) SU Windows Script Engine-Jscript 5.6
Feb03 (811630) Feb 06,2003 Critical Update -HTML Help

Nov02-050 (329115) SU Certificate Validation
Oct02-055 (323255) SU Windows Help Facility
Oct02-054 (329048) SU File Decompression Buffer Overflow (opt)
Aug02-048 (323172) SU Certificate Enrollment Control
Jul02-032 (320920) (v.2)SU Cumulative Rollup Patch WMP (7.1)
Apr02-006 (314147) SU SNMP Service Unchecked Buffer (IF enabled)
Mar02-014 q313829 SU, March 7,2002 (Windows Shell)

Dec01-059 (314941) CU Invalid UPnP Request (IF W98-98se ICS with XP)
Oct00-079 (274548) CU 04May01(v.2)"HyperTerm buffer overflow" (opt)
Oct00-073 (273727) CU Malformed NMPI Packet (IF IPX used)
Oct00-072 (273991) Windows Share Level Password Update
May00-029 (259728) SU, May 19,00 resolves "IP Fragment Reassembly"
Mar00-017 (256015) SU, Mar 17,00 "DOS Device in Path Name"
Jan00-005 (249973) SU, Jan 17,00 "Malformed RTF Control Word"

Nov99-034 (238453) Nov 29,99 SU1, SpoofedRoutePointer-FragmentedIGMP
Nov99-049 (245729) Nov 12,99 SU, File Access URL vulnerability
Sep99-033 (240163) SU TELNETUP: Malformed Telnet Argument
Sep99-032 q240308 SU "scriptlet.typlib"-"eyedog" AXvulnerability
-----------------
98only Windows 98 System Update (wucsp)
(232972) Contents of the Microsoft Windows 98 system
update
MS99-052 (168115) Nov 29,99 SU2, Legacy Credential Caching:NOT 98se
(191540) (VPN) Update for Windows 98 and DUN 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
Aug02 (326489) List of issues addressed in IE 6 SP1
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8
(828396) Release manifest for MDAC 2.8 (2.80.1022.3)
Windows Media Player 9 Series > for 98SE
(299321) Description and availability of WMP 7.1 > for 98
---------------------------------------------------------
Might also obtain this for that time period:
Apr03-011 (816093) SU Microsoft VM upgrades to v.3810 (NOT on CD)
------------------------------------------------------------
(I did not list these included on CD as outdated:
DirectX9b, WMP9 update,03 Cumulative Update for OE and IE.)
==============================================
--
mae

"Bill" <sutton-***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
|
| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
| > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
|
| What is the security CD? Bill
|
|
Bill
2006-03-04 23:45:13 UTC
Permalink
What was the official name for this CD? I tried looking for it on e-bay
with different permutations of microsoft windows security update CD but
found nothing. Boston Bill
Post by mae
Oh well, just keep in same thread.
--------------------------------------------------------
If anyone notes I copied wrong, just correct.
Jul03-023 (823559) SU for Microsoft Windows HTML Converter
May03-017 (817787) WMP Skins Downloading (7.1)
Mar03-008 (814078) SU Windows Script Engine-Jscript 5.6
Feb03 (811630) Feb 06,2003 Critical Update -HTML Help
Nov02-050 (329115) SU Certificate Validation
Oct02-055 (323255) SU Windows Help Facility
Oct02-054 (329048) SU File Decompression Buffer Overflow (opt)
Aug02-048 (323172) SU Certificate Enrollment Control
Jul02-032 (320920) (v.2)SU Cumulative Rollup Patch WMP (7.1)
Apr02-006 (314147) SU SNMP Service Unchecked Buffer (IF enabled)
Mar02-014 q313829 SU, March 7,2002 (Windows Shell)
Dec01-059 (314941) CU Invalid UPnP Request (IF W98-98se ICS with XP)
Oct00-079 (274548) CU 04May01(v.2)"HyperTerm buffer overflow" (opt)
Oct00-073 (273727) CU Malformed NMPI Packet (IF IPX used)
Oct00-072 (273991) Windows Share Level Password Update
May00-029 (259728) SU, May 19,00 resolves "IP Fragment Reassembly"
Mar00-017 (256015) SU, Mar 17,00 "DOS Device in Path Name"
Jan00-005 (249973) SU, Jan 17,00 "Malformed RTF Control Word"
Nov99-034 (238453) Nov 29,99 SU1, SpoofedRoutePointer-FragmentedIGMP
Nov99-049 (245729) Nov 12,99 SU, File Access URL vulnerability
Sep99-033 (240163) SU TELNETUP: Malformed Telnet Argument
Sep99-032 q240308 SU "scriptlet.typlib"-"eyedog" AXvulnerability
-----------------
98only Windows 98 System Update (wucsp)
(232972) Contents of the Microsoft Windows 98 system
update
MS99-052 (168115) Nov 29,99 SU2, Legacy Credential Caching:NOT 98se
(191540) (VPN) Update for Windows 98 and DUN 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
Aug02 (326489) List of issues addressed in IE 6 SP1
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8
(828396) Release manifest for MDAC 2.8 (2.80.1022.3)
Windows Media Player 9 Series > for 98SE
(299321) Description and availability of WMP 7.1 > for 98
---------------------------------------------------------
Apr03-011 (816093) SU Microsoft VM upgrades to v.3810 (NOT on CD)
------------------------------------------------------------
DirectX9b, WMP9 update,03 Cumulative Update for OE and IE.)
==============================================
--
mae
|
| > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
| > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
|
| What is the security CD? Bill
|
|
Gary S. Terhune
2006-03-05 01:23:50 UTC
Permalink
"Microsoft Windows Security Update CD"
"February 2004"

But you're not likely to find it on EBay since it was originally distributed
for free and those who got them would almost certainly either keep them or
throw or give them away.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Bill
What was the official name for this CD? I tried looking for it on e-bay
with different permutations of microsoft windows security update CD but
found nothing. Boston Bill
Post by mae
Oh well, just keep in same thread.
--------------------------------------------------------
If anyone notes I copied wrong, just correct.
Jul03-023 (823559) SU for Microsoft Windows HTML Converter
May03-017 (817787) WMP Skins Downloading (7.1)
Mar03-008 (814078) SU Windows Script Engine-Jscript 5.6
Feb03 (811630) Feb 06,2003 Critical Update -HTML Help
Nov02-050 (329115) SU Certificate Validation
Oct02-055 (323255) SU Windows Help Facility
Oct02-054 (329048) SU File Decompression Buffer Overflow (opt)
Aug02-048 (323172) SU Certificate Enrollment Control
Jul02-032 (320920) (v.2)SU Cumulative Rollup Patch WMP (7.1)
Apr02-006 (314147) SU SNMP Service Unchecked Buffer (IF enabled)
Mar02-014 q313829 SU, March 7,2002 (Windows Shell)
Dec01-059 (314941) CU Invalid UPnP Request (IF W98-98se ICS with XP)
Oct00-079 (274548) CU 04May01(v.2)"HyperTerm buffer overflow" (opt)
Oct00-073 (273727) CU Malformed NMPI Packet (IF IPX used)
Oct00-072 (273991) Windows Share Level Password Update
May00-029 (259728) SU, May 19,00 resolves "IP Fragment Reassembly"
Mar00-017 (256015) SU, Mar 17,00 "DOS Device in Path Name"
Jan00-005 (249973) SU, Jan 17,00 "Malformed RTF Control Word"
Nov99-034 (238453) Nov 29,99 SU1, SpoofedRoutePointer-FragmentedIGMP
Nov99-049 (245729) Nov 12,99 SU, File Access URL vulnerability
Sep99-033 (240163) SU TELNETUP: Malformed Telnet Argument
Sep99-032 q240308 SU "scriptlet.typlib"-"eyedog" AXvulnerability
-----------------
98only Windows 98 System Update (wucsp)
(232972) Contents of the Microsoft Windows 98 system
update
MS99-052 (168115) Nov 29,99 SU2, Legacy Credential Caching:NOT 98se
(191540) (VPN) Update for Windows 98 and DUN 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
Aug02 (326489) List of issues addressed in IE 6 SP1
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8
(828396) Release manifest for MDAC 2.8 (2.80.1022.3)
Windows Media Player 9 Series > for 98SE
(299321) Description and availability of WMP 7.1 > for 98
---------------------------------------------------------
Apr03-011 (816093) SU Microsoft VM upgrades to v.3810 (NOT on CD)
------------------------------------------------------------
DirectX9b, WMP9 update,03 Cumulative Update for OE and IE.)
==============================================
--
mae
|
| > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
| > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
|
| What is the security CD? Bill
|
|
MEB
2006-03-05 18:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Following mae's lead: Guess we are supposed to do this here... if not
appology is extended..

Apparently the cd Gary mentions contains many of the needed files if one
intends to stay at the base 98 level without installing IE 6.

Note to self: I do not have all the files from the cd..

COMPARED
Other 98 files saved to disk (see listings "RE: Windows Updates - Part 3" or
"Other or alternative updates" this group) without obvious IE 6 and OE,
which may be useful.

WMFADist - Windows Media Component Setup Application -
ProductVersion=7.00.00.1956 (may need to reset to base levels)

293818 - control update spoofed signatures - verisign issued two
certificates as Microsoft to non-Microsoft person (addressed in later
update?)

ticker.ocx - read KB293818

243450 - 03-03-00 IDE hard disk drives with large caches and newer/faster
processors (new versions esdi_506 to address these issues)

273017 - 09-19-00 Cache Write Delay (delay regs and ifsmgr.vxd version
4.10.2225) related to disk reads and writes failing with shut downs on
faster computers.

840315 - 7-12-2004 itss.dll version 5.2.3790.185 (IE 6 updates install
5.2.3790.309 (srv03_gdr.050413-1540))

888113 - 11-16-2004 hlink.dll version 5.2.3790.227 (srv03_qfe.040918-1553)
SPKey="W98" (compatability issue with plain 98?)

ie401dbg - 2/21/2003 activex scripting extender/debugger (basicly for
programmers or others interested)

scr56en - 09-16-2004 scripting update 5.6.0.8825,

SPEU - 12-15-98 - base files (useful for reset)

50comupd - 05-13-99 com update

870669 - 07-02-2004 ADODB.Stream object execute script from the Local
Machine
Zone (LMZ) fix (? necessary in plain 98 ?)

cc_pkg - checks installed components (MDAC)

o2ksr1a - Office 2000 Service release 1

dcom98 - 4.71.1015.0 (necessary for some programs to run or for reset)

vbrun60sp4 - 06-26-00 version 4.71.1015.0 - Visual Basic 6.0 Run-time Redist
Pack

js56men_01-16-03 version 5.50.4134.600 - jscript version 5.6.0.8513

vbs56mem 02-27-02 Windows Script version 5.6 vbscript 5.6.0.7426

INREG98 - "Inside the Microsoft Windows 98 Registry" Chapter 4 sections may
be missing from the companion CD-ROM; and files

AMDK6UPD - Win 95 update for AMD K6 (earliest "first run(pressing) CD" 98FE
may need
this)

wmfdist_2002 - Windows Media Component Setup Application 9.00.00.2980

InstMsiA - installer 2.0.2600.2

mcrepair - installer error fix (and other, such as Office 2000, Works and
Money)(caution when using, read KBs first which reference errors for which
this might be necessary)

870669 - 06-29-04 MDAC 2.8 security update - CAUTION calls IEVersion=
6.0.2800.1106 (install inf could possibly be rewritten?).
Post by mae
Oh well, just keep in same thread.
--------------------------------------------------------
If anyone notes I copied wrong, just correct.
Jul03-023 (823559) SU for Microsoft Windows HTML Converter
May03-017 (817787) WMP Skins Downloading (7.1)
Mar03-008 (814078) SU Windows Script Engine-Jscript 5.6
Feb03 (811630) Feb 06,2003 Critical Update -HTML Help
Nov02-050 (329115) SU Certificate Validation
Oct02-055 (323255) SU Windows Help Facility
Oct02-054 (329048) SU File Decompression Buffer Overflow (opt)
Aug02-048 (323172) SU Certificate Enrollment Control
Jul02-032 (320920) (v.2)SU Cumulative Rollup Patch WMP (7.1)
Apr02-006 (314147) SU SNMP Service Unchecked Buffer (IF enabled)
Mar02-014 q313829 SU, March 7,2002 (Windows Shell)
Dec01-059 (314941) CU Invalid UPnP Request (IF W98-98se ICS with XP)
Oct00-079 (274548) CU 04May01(v.2)"HyperTerm buffer overflow" (opt)
Oct00-073 (273727) CU Malformed NMPI Packet (IF IPX used)
Oct00-072 (273991) Windows Share Level Password Update
May00-029 (259728) SU, May 19,00 resolves "IP Fragment Reassembly"
Mar00-017 (256015) SU, Mar 17,00 "DOS Device in Path Name"
Jan00-005 (249973) SU, Jan 17,00 "Malformed RTF Control Word"
Nov99-034 (238453) Nov 29,99 SU1, SpoofedRoutePointer-FragmentedIGMP
Nov99-049 (245729) Nov 12,99 SU, File Access URL vulnerability
Sep99-033 (240163) SU TELNETUP: Malformed Telnet Argument
Sep99-032 q240308 SU "scriptlet.typlib"-"eyedog" AXvulnerability
-----------------
98only Windows 98 System Update (wucsp)
(232972) Contents of the Microsoft Windows 98 system
update
MS99-052 (168115) Nov 29,99 SU2, Legacy Credential Caching:NOT 98se
(191540) (VPN) Update for Windows 98 and DUN 1.3
--------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1
Aug02 (326489) List of issues addressed in IE 6 SP1
Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8
(828396) Release manifest for MDAC 2.8 (2.80.1022.3)
Windows Media Player 9 Series > for 98SE
(299321) Description and availability of WMP 7.1 > for 98
---------------------------------------------------------
Apr03-011 (816093) SU Microsoft VM upgrades to v.3810 (NOT on CD)
------------------------------------------------------------
DirectX9b, WMP9 update,03 Cumulative Update for OE and IE.)
==============================================
--
mae
|
| > Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
| > many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
|
| What is the security CD? Bill
|
|
Gary S. Terhune
2006-03-05 19:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Secondly,
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Following mae's lead: Guess we are supposed to do this here... if not
appology is extended..
This thread is entirely appropriate for discussion of Windows Updates and
the Security CD. It was your expansion into Hotfixes and other non-critical
Updates that I objected to.
Post by MEB
Apparently the cd Gary mentions contains many of the needed files if one
intends to stay at the base 98 level without installing IE 6.
Many, not all. Yes, it includes non-IE updates from the early years, but any
IE 5/5.01/5.5 updates are not included, since it also includes IE6. Nor are
pre-WMP9/7 updates (depending on version of Win98) offered. Nor are pre-DX 9
updates included, all because the only update offered for IE, WMP and
DirectX is to the latest version -- IE 6, WMP 9 or 7, and DX9.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
MEB
2006-03-06 06:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Okay, Gary..

Not to ride the point but something like "I installed the security cd ...
no surprises there" or something along those lines was mentioned..
Yet we have just addressed some of those surprises.. the cd parallels many
of the files I had noted..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Secondly,
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Following mae's lead: Guess we are supposed to do this here... if not
appology is extended..
This thread is entirely appropriate for discussion of Windows Updates and
the Security CD. It was your expansion into Hotfixes and other
non-critical
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Updates that I objected to.
Post by MEB
Apparently the cd Gary mentions contains many of the needed files if one
intends to stay at the base 98 level without installing IE 6.
Many, not all. Yes, it includes non-IE updates from the early years, but any
IE 5/5.01/5.5 updates are not included, since it also includes IE6. Nor are
pre-WMP9/7 updates (depending on version of Win98) offered. Nor are pre-DX 9
updates included, all because the only update offered for IE, WMP and
DirectX is to the latest version -- IE 6, WMP 9 or 7, and DX9.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Gary S. Terhune
2006-03-06 09:50:13 UTC
Permalink
IOW, there were no surprises from my point of view.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Okay, Gary..
Not to ride the point but something like "I installed the security cd ...
no surprises there" or something along those lines was mentioned..
Yet we have just addressed some of those surprises.. the cd parallels many
of the files I had noted..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Secondly,
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Following mae's lead: Guess we are supposed to do this here... if not
appology is extended..
This thread is entirely appropriate for discussion of Windows Updates and
the Security CD. It was your expansion into Hotfixes and other
non-critical
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Updates that I objected to.
Post by MEB
Apparently the cd Gary mentions contains many of the needed files if one
intends to stay at the base 98 level without installing IE 6.
Many, not all. Yes, it includes non-IE updates from the early years, but
any
Post by Gary S. Terhune
IE 5/5.01/5.5 updates are not included, since it also includes IE6. Nor
are
Post by Gary S. Terhune
pre-WMP9/7 updates (depending on version of Win98) offered. Nor are
pre-DX
Post by MEB
9
Post by Gary S. Terhune
updates included, all because the only update offered for IE, WMP and
DirectX is to the latest version -- IE 6, WMP 9 or 7, and DX9.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
MEB
2006-03-06 20:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Ah,, but you already knew what was on the cd, what was installed, what was
addressed.. to you and others which were aware, it was no surprise, to
others, perhaps, quite a surprise.

In an otherwise perfect presentation, issues remained unaddressed..

Let's address this variable from two different fictitious scenarios:

1. One pays to attend one of the numerous seminars Microsoft conducts across
the world.
The people attending sit patiently through the presentation, receive
whatever materials are offered, then they present their questions to the
speaker or speakers regarding issues which they may think need addressed.
Any flaws in presentation are raised by the attendees, which help to
finalize the presentation. Through these questions all attendees may better
determine the value of the product, service or other. Should these attendees
fail to address the pros and cons of the matter Microsoft is presenting no
one may make a truly informed decision.

2. As there are a number of "attorney shows" and "cop shows" on TV let's use
that, perhaps, more readily understood environment.
An issue is raised either by the investigators or in the court.
Material is presented by the party being investigated or prosecuted.
The opposing party or prosecutor then presents countering evidence, and/or
via cross-examination of the suspect/defendant's witness(es) establishes or
re-establishes (probable) cause to proceed [either the investigators or the
prosecutor before the court and/or jury].
Should the investigators/prosecutor(s) fail to do this. the matter remains
unanswered, and the suspect/defendant may be relieved or freed.

In either of these scenarios, should an issue remain unresolved, one can
hardly claim the matter has been attended to properly.
Relating this to your presentation, you provided "your part" of it in a well
defined and helpful manner. No one can fault you for that.

Numerous others were attending/observing, yet had failed to raise issues.
Others attending, such as myself, had questions concerning this cdrom and
what it addressed. The question was raised and remained unanswered.
To compel an answer, I presented materials relevant to the situation, yet
without explanation. Think "discovery" and "preliminary evidence/materials".
Through this presentation, the questions were finally answered.
Moreover, the present names of (most of) these updates on the cdrom, are
now a matter of this record; included with yours.

Thereby, through the few of us who actively participated in this, we have
provided useful information relevant to the update/upgrade process involved,
the system issues affected, and a data base of information. Moreover, we
have now finalized the aspects involved with that update/upgrade process
which was the theme of your presentations.

I'm now satisfied (pending future activities), that "A Peoples' Counsel
effort at informing the people" pursuant this issue can be placed.
Do we all agree?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
IOW, there were no surprises from my point of view.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Okay, Gary..
Not to ride the point but something like "I installed the security cd ...
no surprises there" or something along those lines was mentioned..
Yet we have just addressed some of those surprises.. the cd parallels many
of the files I had noted..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Secondly,
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Following mae's lead: Guess we are supposed to do this here... if not
appology is extended..
This thread is entirely appropriate for discussion of Windows Updates
and
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
the Security CD. It was your expansion into Hotfixes and other
non-critical
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Updates that I objected to.
Post by MEB
Apparently the cd Gary mentions contains many of the needed files if
one
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
intends to stay at the base 98 level without installing IE 6.
Many, not all. Yes, it includes non-IE updates from the early years, but
any
Post by Gary S. Terhune
IE 5/5.01/5.5 updates are not included, since it also includes IE6. Nor
are
Post by Gary S. Terhune
pre-WMP9/7 updates (depending on version of Win98) offered. Nor are
pre-DX
Post by MEB
9
Post by Gary S. Terhune
updates included, all because the only update offered for IE, WMP and
DirectX is to the latest version -- IE 6, WMP 9 or 7, and DX9.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Gary S. Terhune
2006-03-06 21:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Look, you seem to be missing my point entirely. My only desire is that this
thread remain strictly focused on Windows Updates and the Security Updates
CD (which *only* included material that was otherwise available from Windows
Updates.) My objection to your original post to this thread is that it
greatly expanded the subject matter, way beyond the topic of Windows
Updates. It's that simple. Why must you continue to argue, especially in
light of the lack of response to your original (other than my objection) and
the in light of the lack of response to your other post.

Pointed questions were asked regarding Windows Updates, which ones are
offered, which are subsumed, which are still necessary after installing the
Update CD, etc. I happened to be in a position to provide the answers. My
desire is to restrict the thread to that subject and that subject alone.
These threads last through the ages. When someone in 2008 goes searching for
how and what to install by way of Updates for Windows 98, I want then to be
able to find the thread and get some real, immediate, and clean information,
not a big mess of numbers with no reference as to what they are, and with
the understanding that they are universally applicable to all Win98 systems,
not a long laundry list of possibly useful tools and Hotfixes.

Do you simply not see the difference between my context and your lack
thereof? Thank you.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Ah,, but you already knew what was on the cd, what was installed, what was
addressed.. to you and others which were aware, it was no surprise, to
others, perhaps, quite a surprise.
In an otherwise perfect presentation, issues remained unaddressed..
1. One pays to attend one of the numerous seminars Microsoft conducts across
the world.
The people attending sit patiently through the presentation, receive
whatever materials are offered, then they present their questions to the
speaker or speakers regarding issues which they may think need addressed.
Any flaws in presentation are raised by the attendees, which help to
finalize the presentation. Through these questions all attendees may better
determine the value of the product, service or other. Should these attendees
fail to address the pros and cons of the matter Microsoft is presenting no
one may make a truly informed decision.
2. As there are a number of "attorney shows" and "cop shows" on TV let's use
that, perhaps, more readily understood environment.
An issue is raised either by the investigators or in the court.
Material is presented by the party being investigated or prosecuted.
The opposing party or prosecutor then presents countering evidence, and/or
via cross-examination of the suspect/defendant's witness(es) establishes or
re-establishes (probable) cause to proceed [either the investigators or the
prosecutor before the court and/or jury].
Should the investigators/prosecutor(s) fail to do this. the matter remains
unanswered, and the suspect/defendant may be relieved or freed.
In either of these scenarios, should an issue remain unresolved, one can
hardly claim the matter has been attended to properly.
Relating this to your presentation, you provided "your part" of it in a well
defined and helpful manner. No one can fault you for that.
Numerous others were attending/observing, yet had failed to raise issues.
Others attending, such as myself, had questions concerning this cdrom and
what it addressed. The question was raised and remained unanswered.
To compel an answer, I presented materials relevant to the situation, yet
without explanation. Think "discovery" and "preliminary
evidence/materials".
Post by MEB
Through this presentation, the questions were finally answered.
Moreover, the present names of (most of) these updates on the cdrom, are
now a matter of this record; included with yours.
Thereby, through the few of us who actively participated in this, we have
provided useful information relevant to the update/upgrade process involved,
the system issues affected, and a data base of information. Moreover, we
have now finalized the aspects involved with that update/upgrade process
which was the theme of your presentations.
I'm now satisfied (pending future activities), that "A Peoples' Counsel
effort at informing the people" pursuant this issue can be placed.
Do we all agree?
MEB
2006-03-07 07:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Okay, what ever, I'm done here for now, there are several months to go
before the issue becomes paramount.
Been real nice, see you in the future..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Look, you seem to be missing my point entirely. My only desire is that this
thread remain strictly focused on Windows Updates and the Security Updates
CD (which *only* included material that was otherwise available from Windows
Updates.) My objection to your original post to this thread is that it
greatly expanded the subject matter, way beyond the topic of Windows
Updates. It's that simple. Why must you continue to argue, especially in
light of the lack of response to your original (other than my objection) and
the in light of the lack of response to your other post.
Pointed questions were asked regarding Windows Updates, which ones are
offered, which are subsumed, which are still necessary after installing the
Update CD, etc. I happened to be in a position to provide the answers. My
desire is to restrict the thread to that subject and that subject alone.
These threads last through the ages. When someone in 2008 goes searching for
how and what to install by way of Updates for Windows 98, I want then to be
able to find the thread and get some real, immediate, and clean information,
not a big mess of numbers with no reference as to what they are, and with
the understanding that they are universally applicable to all Win98 systems,
not a long laundry list of possibly useful tools and Hotfixes.
Do you simply not see the difference between my context and your lack
thereof? Thank you.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Ah,, but you already knew what was on the cd, what was installed, what was
addressed.. to you and others which were aware, it was no surprise, to
others, perhaps, quite a surprise.
In an otherwise perfect presentation, issues remained unaddressed..
1. One pays to attend one of the numerous seminars Microsoft conducts
across
Post by MEB
the world.
The people attending sit patiently through the presentation, receive
whatever materials are offered, then they present their questions to the
speaker or speakers regarding issues which they may think need addressed.
Any flaws in presentation are raised by the attendees, which help to
finalize the presentation. Through these questions all attendees may
better
Post by MEB
determine the value of the product, service or other. Should these
attendees
Post by MEB
fail to address the pros and cons of the matter Microsoft is presenting no
one may make a truly informed decision.
2. As there are a number of "attorney shows" and "cop shows" on TV let's
use
Post by MEB
that, perhaps, more readily understood environment.
An issue is raised either by the investigators or in the court.
Material is presented by the party being investigated or prosecuted.
The opposing party or prosecutor then presents countering evidence,
and/or
Post by MEB
via cross-examination of the suspect/defendant's witness(es) establishes
or
Post by MEB
re-establishes (probable) cause to proceed [either the investigators or
the
Post by MEB
prosecutor before the court and/or jury].
Should the investigators/prosecutor(s) fail to do this. the matter
remains
Post by MEB
unanswered, and the suspect/defendant may be relieved or freed.
In either of these scenarios, should an issue remain unresolved, one can
hardly claim the matter has been attended to properly.
Relating this to your presentation, you provided "your part" of it in a
well
Post by MEB
defined and helpful manner. No one can fault you for that.
Numerous others were attending/observing, yet had failed to raise issues.
Others attending, such as myself, had questions concerning this cdrom and
what it addressed. The question was raised and remained unanswered.
To compel an answer, I presented materials relevant to the situation, yet
without explanation. Think "discovery" and "preliminary
evidence/materials".
Post by MEB
Through this presentation, the questions were finally answered.
Moreover, the present names of (most of) these updates on the cdrom, are
now a matter of this record; included with yours.
Thereby, through the few of us who actively participated in this, we have
provided useful information relevant to the update/upgrade process
involved,
Post by MEB
the system issues affected, and a data base of information. Moreover, we
have now finalized the aspects involved with that update/upgrade process
which was the theme of your presentations.
I'm now satisfied (pending future activities), that "A Peoples' Counsel
effort at informing the people" pursuant this issue can be placed.
Do we all agree?
MEB
2006-03-23 05:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Gary, this is not directed specifically to you, nor the entries of yours;
but the thread and the public, for installation purposes.

Sorry to reopen this thread again, BUT, I had a chance to install the
security updates CD on a clean install of 98SE, and I note something which
may be of import.

The version of Windows shown after SecCD installation is Microsoft Windows
98 4.10.2222B, NOT the original 2222 installed without the IT/SO Security
CD-ROM, which Gary mentions he installs. The changes apparently are more
than merely a registry "version" change.

Searching through the installed Windows files AFTER the clean installation
(files checked) and Security CD-ROM installation (files checked), I noted
several system file versions were changed PRIOR to any further updates.
Apparently the CD installs some additional files as part of it's
use/installation.
It appears then, that this CD-ROM would be essential, or at least helpful
for installations/reinstallation of the 98 environment.

Sorry, I did not make a list of these changes (should have, maybe next
time), as I did not have the time to do so.

FOR PROPER INSTALLATIONS

To complete this installation PROPERLY, I had to wipe this update check;
install 98; install all the 98 programs to be used and their
updates/upgrades; install 98SE and any programs and their updates, driver
updates, etc. which could not be installed into the plain 98 environment;
install the Security CD and any updated drivers and updates which could not
be installed in plain 98SE; and then contact v4 to finish the updates (53
hours of installations, upgrades, and networking setups).
The reason this installation route is taken:
many older installers do NOT check for newer system files and overwrite the
newer files with old versions causing future problems. Proceeding in this
fashion, proper files/versions are maintained. Known problem installations
include QuickBooks, Quicken, Encarta 96, 98 Home Essentials, Office97, and
many older games (among numerous others). (Regretfully, I will have to do
this system installation again after support ends for Win98 and IE6 browser,
ugh, client's decision, not mine)

Hope this helps with any 98 installations and the intent of the original
thread(s).
Having addressed this, I will, once again, fade into the mist..


"Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
<<snip>>
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
Thereby, through the few of us who actively participated in this, we have
provided useful information relevant to the update/upgrade process
involved,
Post by MEB
the system issues affected, and a data base of information. Moreover, we
have now finalized the aspects involved with that update/upgrade process
which was the theme of your presentations.
<<snip>>
Gary S. Terhune
2006-03-23 07:53:57 UTC
Permalink
This will require study...
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Gary, this is not directed specifically to you, nor the entries of yours;
but the thread and the public, for installation purposes.
Sorry to reopen this thread again, BUT, I had a chance to install the
security updates CD on a clean install of 98SE, and I note something which
may be of import.
The version of Windows shown after SecCD installation is Microsoft Windows
98 4.10.2222B, NOT the original 2222 installed without the IT/SO Security
CD-ROM, which Gary mentions he installs. The changes apparently are more
than merely a registry "version" change.
Searching through the installed Windows files AFTER the clean
installation
Post by MEB
(files checked) and Security CD-ROM installation (files checked), I noted
several system file versions were changed PRIOR to any further updates.
Apparently the CD installs some additional files as part of it's
use/installation.
It appears then, that this CD-ROM would be essential, or at least helpful
for installations/reinstallation of the 98 environment.
Sorry, I did not make a list of these changes (should have, maybe next
time), as I did not have the time to do so.
FOR PROPER INSTALLATIONS
To complete this installation PROPERLY, I had to wipe this update check;
install 98; install all the 98 programs to be used and their
updates/upgrades; install 98SE and any programs and their updates, driver
updates, etc. which could not be installed into the plain 98 environment;
install the Security CD and any updated drivers and updates which could not
be installed in plain 98SE; and then contact v4 to finish the updates (53
hours of installations, upgrades, and networking setups).
many older installers do NOT check for newer system files and overwrite the
newer files with old versions causing future problems. Proceeding in this
fashion, proper files/versions are maintained. Known problem installations
include QuickBooks, Quicken, Encarta 96, 98 Home Essentials, Office97, and
many older games (among numerous others). (Regretfully, I will have to do
this system installation again after support ends for Win98 and IE6 browser,
ugh, client's decision, not mine)
Hope this helps with any 98 installations and the intent of the original
thread(s).
Having addressed this, I will, once again, fade into the mist..
<<snip>>
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
Thereby, through the few of us who actively participated in this, we
have
Post by MEB
Post by MEB
provided useful information relevant to the update/upgrade process
involved,
Post by MEB
the system issues affected, and a data base of information. Moreover, we
have now finalized the aspects involved with that update/upgrade process
which was the theme of your presentations.
<<snip>>
Gary S. Terhune
2006-03-06 09:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Yes, but many were not. As I previously noted, you listed a ton of downloads
without making any attempt to cross-reference them to the topic at hand,
without making any attempt to give them context. Yes, many if not most of
the Critical and Recommended downloads were included in your long list, but
a lot of totally extraneous, mostly unnecessary material was included also.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Okay, Gary..
Not to ride the point but something like "I installed the security cd ...
no surprises there" or something along those lines was mentioned..
Yet we have just addressed some of those surprises.. the cd parallels many
of the files I had noted..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Secondly,
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Following mae's lead: Guess we are supposed to do this here... if not
appology is extended..
This thread is entirely appropriate for discussion of Windows Updates and
the Security CD. It was your expansion into Hotfixes and other
non-critical
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Updates that I objected to.
Post by MEB
Apparently the cd Gary mentions contains many of the needed files if one
intends to stay at the base 98 level without installing IE 6.
Many, not all. Yes, it includes non-IE updates from the early years, but
any
Post by Gary S. Terhune
IE 5/5.01/5.5 updates are not included, since it also includes IE6. Nor
are
Post by Gary S. Terhune
pre-WMP9/7 updates (depending on version of Win98) offered. Nor are
pre-DX
Post by MEB
9
Post by Gary S. Terhune
updates included, all because the only update offered for IE, WMP and
DirectX is to the latest version -- IE 6, WMP 9 or 7, and DX9.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-25 04:54:14 UTC
Permalink
OK, in the first two parts of this thread, I went through the currently
available progression of Updates available at Windows Updates for Windows 98
Gold and for Windows 98 Second Edition. I then went back and clean-installed
both OSes (I'm using separate partitions), including all optional components
in both cases. I then immediately ran the Windows Security Updates CD on
each. (Noting that the default installation of IE 6 SP1 includes all
optional components except Language support and Additional Web Fonts. I
added in the Web Fonts option afterwards. I then went to Windows Updates and
noted which Updates are offered.)

-----------------Windows 98 Gold-------------

---Optional Updates---
--DirectX 9.0c End-User Runtime
--Registration Wizard Update
--Microsoft .NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0

---Critical Updates---
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
--908519 (a recently discovered networking issue, "Embedded Web Font
Vulnerability", that affects all 9x and NT systems.)
--904706 (DX 9)
--896358 (HTML Help vulnerability)
--888113 (Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX vuln.)
--816093 (Security Update for Microsoft Virtual Machine)

(Note that this is exactly the same list that I obtained during my first
experiment with Win98 Gold, indicating that none of the earlier updates I'd
installed before running the Security Updates CD are not covered by that
CD.)

After installing the above Optional and Critical Updates, the following were
made available. After installing them, no more Updates are offered.

-----Windows 98 Second Edition-----

---Optional Updates---
--DirectX 9.0c
--.NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
--Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
--Mapped Drives Shutdown Update

A slight change here from the previous experiment. .NET Framework is offered
because IE6 was installed by the SecUp CD. However, WMP 9 is no longer
offered because it was installed by the Updates CD.

---Critical Updates (11) ---
--905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
--837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
--833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
--911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
--908519 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln) (Note: There's a typo in Part 2
that lists this as 908510. Should be 908519)
--904706 (DX 9.0c Patch)
--896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
--888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)

After installing the above Optional and Critical Updates, the following were
made available. After installing them, no more Updates are offered.
--.NET 1.1 Update
--GDI+ Detection Tool (Note: Installing the .NET Framework patch did not
stop the GDI+ Detection Tool from suggesting that something on the machine
might be vulnerable. So I still don't know what it might be referring to
unless it's still the .NET Framework (even though patched) or Paint or
FrontPage Express.

Note that in neither OS are any additional Optional (Recommended) Updates
made available after installing the Security Updates CD. IOW, it has no
effect at all. Yes, the SecUp CD installs a DX9.0 version, but not version
9.0c, thus it isn't removed from the list by installing the CD. However, in
the case of Windows 98SE, WMP 9 is installed by the SecUp CD and is thus
removed from the Optional (Recommended) list. The latest version of WMP that
can be installed to Win98 Gold is WMP 7, and that is installed by the SecUp
CD, but strangely enough, it is never offered at Windows Updates, presumably
because no version of WMP was installed during the original installation so
no "update" is available.

OK, we'll come back and discuss whatever needs to be discussed tomorrow.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-25 05:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Note: In the previous, Part 3 of this series, I inadvertently left out some
of the final data on Win98 Gold -- what happens after I install all of the
Updates that are offered after installing the Security Update CD. There were
no surprises. On that last visit to Windows Updates, the patch to .Net
Framework, the GDI+ Detection Tool were the last items offered.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, in the first two parts of this thread, I went through the currently
available progression of Updates available at Windows Updates for Windows 98
Gold and for Windows 98 Second Edition. I then went back and
clean-installed
Post by Gary S. Terhune
both OSes (I'm using separate partitions), including all optional components
in both cases. I then immediately ran the Windows Security Updates CD on
each. (Noting that the default installation of IE 6 SP1 includes all
optional components except Language support and Additional Web Fonts. I
added in the Web Fonts option afterwards. I then went to Windows Updates and
noted which Updates are offered.)
-----------------Windows 98 Gold-------------
---Optional Updates---
--DirectX 9.0c End-User Runtime
--Registration Wizard Update
--Microsoft .NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
---Critical Updates---
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
--908519 (a recently discovered networking issue, "Embedded Web Font
Vulnerability", that affects all 9x and NT systems.)
--904706 (DX 9)
--896358 (HTML Help vulnerability)
--888113 (Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX vuln.)
--816093 (Security Update for Microsoft Virtual Machine)
(Note that this is exactly the same list that I obtained during my first
experiment with Win98 Gold, indicating that none of the earlier updates I'd
installed before running the Security Updates CD are not covered by that
CD.)
After installing the above Optional and Critical Updates, the following were
made available. After installing them, no more Updates are offered.
-----Windows 98 Second Edition-----
---Optional Updates---
--DirectX 9.0c
--.NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
--Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
--Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
A slight change here from the previous experiment. .NET Framework is offered
because IE6 was installed by the SecUp CD. However, WMP 9 is no longer
offered because it was installed by the Updates CD.
---Critical Updates (11) ---
--905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
--837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
--833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
--911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
--908519 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln) (Note: There's a typo in Part 2
that lists this as 908510. Should be 908519)
--904706 (DX 9.0c Patch)
--896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
--888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
After installing the above Optional and Critical Updates, the following were
made available. After installing them, no more Updates are offered.
--.NET 1.1 Update
--GDI+ Detection Tool (Note: Installing the .NET Framework patch did not
stop the GDI+ Detection Tool from suggesting that something on the machine
might be vulnerable. So I still don't know what it might be referring to
unless it's still the .NET Framework (even though patched) or Paint or
FrontPage Express.
Note that in neither OS are any additional Optional (Recommended) Updates
made available after installing the Security Updates CD. IOW, it has no
effect at all. Yes, the SecUp CD installs a DX9.0 version, but not version
9.0c, thus it isn't removed from the list by installing the CD. However, in
the case of Windows 98SE, WMP 9 is installed by the SecUp CD and is thus
removed from the Optional (Recommended) list. The latest version of WMP that
can be installed to Win98 Gold is WMP 7, and that is installed by the SecUp
CD, but strangely enough, it is never offered at Windows Updates, presumably
because no version of WMP was installed during the original installation so
no "update" is available.
OK, we'll come back and discuss whatever needs to be discussed tomorrow.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like how
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was released,
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
MEB
2006-02-25 08:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Let me say thanks again, this will be helpful to all who are still involved
with 98.

I note something rather strange, which is somewhat related (for
comparison), when I un-installed then re-installed IE 6 SP1.

Though I had conscientiously applied all patches/fixes from Microsoft since
the last clean install in 2003, many of the prior updates were unregistered
as having been installed.
44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more needed
which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from local
files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I still
can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.

Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update site,
or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?

Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Note: In the previous, Part 3 of this series, I inadvertently left out some
of the final data on Win98 Gold -- what happens after I install all of the
Updates that are offered after installing the Security Update CD. There were
no surprises. On that last visit to Windows Updates, the patch to .Net
Framework, the GDI+ Detection Tool were the last items offered.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
OK, in the first two parts of this thread, I went through the currently
available progression of Updates available at Windows Updates for
Windows
Post by Gary S. Terhune
98
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Gold and for Windows 98 Second Edition. I then went back and
clean-installed
Post by Gary S. Terhune
both OSes (I'm using separate partitions), including all optional
components
Post by Gary S. Terhune
in both cases. I then immediately ran the Windows Security Updates CD on
each. (Noting that the default installation of IE 6 SP1 includes all
optional components except Language support and Additional Web Fonts. I
added in the Web Fonts option afterwards. I then went to Windows Updates
and
Post by Gary S. Terhune
noted which Updates are offered.)
-----------------Windows 98 Gold-------------
---Optional Updates---
--DirectX 9.0c End-User Runtime
--Registration Wizard Update
--Microsoft .NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
---Critical Updates---
--905915 (IE 6.1)
--837009 (OE 6.1)
--833989 (IE 6.1)
--908519 (a recently discovered networking issue, "Embedded Web Font
Vulnerability", that affects all 9x and NT systems.)
--904706 (DX 9)
--896358 (HTML Help vulnerability)
--888113 (Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format vuln.)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX vuln.)
--816093 (Security Update for Microsoft Virtual Machine)
(Note that this is exactly the same list that I obtained during my first
experiment with Win98 Gold, indicating that none of the earlier updates
I'd
Post by Gary S. Terhune
installed before running the Security Updates CD are not covered by that
CD.)
After installing the above Optional and Critical Updates, the following
were
Post by Gary S. Terhune
made available. After installing them, no more Updates are offered.
-----Windows 98 Second Edition-----
---Optional Updates---
--DirectX 9.0c
--.NET Framework version 1.1
--Windows Critical Update Notification 4.0
--Internet Explorer Navigation Sound Update
--Euro Conversion Tool
--Agent 2.0
--Windows IDE Hard Drive Cache Package (Win98SE-specific)
--Mapped Drives Shutdown Update
A slight change here from the previous experiment. .NET Framework is
offered
Post by Gary S. Terhune
because IE6 was installed by the SecUp CD. However, WMP 9 is no longer
offered because it was installed by the Updates CD.
---Critical Updates (11) ---
--905915 (Cumulative Update for IE 6SP1)
--837009 (Cumulative Update for OE 6SP1)
--833989 (MS04-028 IE 6SP1 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing -- GDI+)
--911565 (MS06-005 Media Player 9 patch)
--908519 (MS06-002 Embedded Web Fonts vuln) (Note: There's a typo in
Part
Post by Gary S. Terhune
2
Post by Gary S. Terhune
that lists this as 908510. Should be 908519)
--904706 (DX 9.0c Patch)
--896358 (MS05-026 HTML Help vuln.)
--888113 (MS05-015 Hyperlink Object Library vuln.)
--891711 (Cursor & Icon Format)
--891781 (DHTML Editing Component ActiveX Control)
--816093 (MS Virtual Machine)
After installing the above Optional and Critical Updates, the following
were
Post by Gary S. Terhune
made available. After installing them, no more Updates are offered.
--.NET 1.1 Update
--GDI+ Detection Tool (Note: Installing the .NET Framework patch did not
stop the GDI+ Detection Tool from suggesting that something on the machine
might be vulnerable. So I still don't know what it might be referring to
unless it's still the .NET Framework (even though patched) or Paint or
FrontPage Express.
Note that in neither OS are any additional Optional (Recommended) Updates
made available after installing the Security Updates CD. IOW, it has no
effect at all. Yes, the SecUp CD installs a DX9.0 version, but not version
9.0c, thus it isn't removed from the list by installing the CD. However,
in
Post by Gary S. Terhune
the case of Windows 98SE, WMP 9 is installed by the SecUp CD and is thus
removed from the Optional (Recommended) list. The latest version of WMP
that
Post by Gary S. Terhune
can be installed to Win98 Gold is WMP 7, and that is installed by the
SecUp
Post by Gary S. Terhune
CD, but strangely enough, it is never offered at Windows Updates,
presumably
Post by Gary S. Terhune
because no version of WMP was installed during the original installation
so
Post by Gary S. Terhune
no "update" is available.
OK, we'll come back and discuss whatever needs to be discussed tomorrow.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Several people have asked recently about various Windows Updates. Like
how
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
many have been issued since the Windows Updates Security CD was
released,
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by Gary S. Terhune
how many of Win98 Gold's patches were subsumed into Win98SE, etc.
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-25 15:47:07 UTC
Permalink
1. Most of the updates that did not need to be reinstalled were probably
subsumed into the "Cumulative Updates", or the process of uninstalling IE6
did not uninstall the updates that are "missing".

2. Which version of Windows are you running and which version of WMP are you
looking for? You say you can't download them -- do you see them at Windows
Updates but they fail to install? Or you don't see them at Windows Updates?

3. I wouldn't particularly trust Belarc Advisor. I don't trust any of those
things to be up to date and accurate. My guess is that most of your
discrepancies derive from #1, above.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Let me say thanks again, this will be helpful to all who are still involved
with 98.
I note something rather strange, which is somewhat related (for
comparison), when I un-installed then re-installed IE 6 SP1.
Though I had conscientiously applied all patches/fixes from Microsoft since
the last clean install in 2003, many of the prior updates were
unregistered
Post by MEB
as having been installed.
44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more needed
which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from local
files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I still
can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update site,
or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
winner5+63
2006-02-25 17:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Hello!!!
The phrase "by design" keeps tugging at the little sanity that I have left.
I give up! Thank you, and happy hunting. Hope to see you in another version
of Windows or Apple.
--
mejp
Post by Gary S. Terhune
1. Most of the updates that did not need to be reinstalled were probably
subsumed into the "Cumulative Updates", or the process of uninstalling IE6
did not uninstall the updates that are "missing".
2. Which version of Windows are you running and which version of WMP are you
looking for? You say you can't download them -- do you see them at Windows
Updates but they fail to install? Or you don't see them at Windows Updates?
3. I wouldn't particularly trust Belarc Advisor. I don't trust any of those
things to be up to date and accurate. My guess is that most of your
discrepancies derive from #1, above.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Let me say thanks again, this will be helpful to all who are still
involved
Post by MEB
with 98.
I note something rather strange, which is somewhat related (for
comparison), when I un-installed then re-installed IE 6 SP1.
Though I had conscientiously applied all patches/fixes from Microsoft
since
Post by MEB
the last clean install in 2003, many of the prior updates were
unregistered
Post by MEB
as having been installed.
44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more needed
which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from local
files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I
still
Post by MEB
can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update
site,
Post by MEB
or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
MEB
2006-02-26 10:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Media player version - 9.00.00.3250
OS - 98SE

I don't trust Belarc either (and NEVER online since it does collect cd key
and registration info),, however, when a critical update came through I
would install it from the update site (or IT or corporate)(used to get the
notifications about the "fix" via email), then (usually) download it to disc
for future use. Comparing the "installed" to the downloaded files confirmed
that Belarc was probably right. I had 45 files downloaded to the 98 updates
folder.
But then that security CD you mentioned may contain several of those
updates no longer offered on the update site.

In addition, I noted that several of the files were removed from the
catalog for download a year or so (maybe sooner, might not have noticed)
after being installed. And the listings have shrunk over the last 8 or 10
months. Hopefully later cumulative fixes do take care of those issues. There
were a few hh changes which may have been finalized.
Though, if I had to guess, Microsoft only has the MOST crucial available
now.

As for the inability to update "on site" I have decided not to worry about
it any more. The site checks my system, and from either the catalog or the
download page, when the install or choice is made, zip, stalled, nada.. been
through dozens of supposed fixes, darn near trashed the system with some of
them,, now back to a semi stable system again, so best to just leave it
alone.... as long as I can find a link to the files shown that I need
somewhere.
So, again, anyone have the direct link to this player update?

BTW: did anyone remind Microsoft that they still need to issue a patch to
fix the missing files issues after installing IE 6 SP1 BEFORE they end
support, or are they going to try to brazen it out.. I did, after all,
document some of the major errors "ground work" for them..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
1. Most of the updates that did not need to be reinstalled were probably
subsumed into the "Cumulative Updates", or the process of uninstalling IE6
did not uninstall the updates that are "missing".
2. Which version of Windows are you running and which version of WMP are you
looking for? You say you can't download them -- do you see them at Windows
Updates but they fail to install? Or you don't see them at Windows Updates?
3. I wouldn't particularly trust Belarc Advisor. I don't trust any of those
things to be up to date and accurate. My guess is that most of your
discrepancies derive from #1, above.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Let me say thanks again, this will be helpful to all who are still
involved
Post by MEB
with 98.
I note something rather strange, which is somewhat related (for
comparison), when I un-installed then re-installed IE 6 SP1.
Though I had conscientiously applied all patches/fixes from Microsoft
since
Post by MEB
the last clean install in 2003, many of the prior updates were
unregistered
Post by MEB
as having been installed.
44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more needed
which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from local
files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I
still
Post by MEB
can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update
site,
Post by MEB
or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-26 17:23:47 UTC
Permalink
As far as I can tell, all they've done is clean up the list. Many, many
Updates are subsumed into Cumulative Updates or made obsolete by later
versions of IE, WMP, etc. No, you can't patch your IE 5.5 -- your only
option is to upgrade to IE6 -- and that might be a shame for some folks, but
it's fully logical from MS's point of view.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
In addition, I noted that several of the files were removed from the
catalog for download a year or so (maybe sooner, might not have noticed)
after being installed. And the listings have shrunk over the last 8 or 10
months. Hopefully later cumulative fixes do take care of those issues. There
were a few hh changes which may have been finalized.
Though, if I had to guess, Microsoft only has the MOST crucial available
now.
As for the inability to update "on site" I have decided not to worry about
it any more. The site checks my system, and from either the catalog or the
download page, when the install or choice is made, zip, stalled, nada.. been
through dozens of supposed fixes, darn near trashed the system with some of
them,, now back to a semi stable system again, so best to just leave it
alone.... as long as I can find a link to the files shown that I need
somewhere.
So, again, anyone have the direct link to this player update?
BTW: did anyone remind Microsoft that they still need to issue a patch to
fix the missing files issues after installing IE 6 SP1 BEFORE they end
support, or are they going to try to brazen it out.. I did, after all,
document some of the major errors "ground work" for them..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
1. Most of the updates that did not need to be reinstalled were probably
subsumed into the "Cumulative Updates", or the process of uninstalling IE6
did not uninstall the updates that are "missing".
2. Which version of Windows are you running and which version of WMP are
you
Post by Gary S. Terhune
looking for? You say you can't download them -- do you see them at Windows
Updates but they fail to install? Or you don't see them at Windows
Updates?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
3. I wouldn't particularly trust Belarc Advisor. I don't trust any of
those
Post by Gary S. Terhune
things to be up to date and accurate. My guess is that most of your
discrepancies derive from #1, above.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Let me say thanks again, this will be helpful to all who are still
involved
Post by MEB
with 98.
I note something rather strange, which is somewhat related (for
comparison), when I un-installed then re-installed IE 6 SP1.
Though I had conscientiously applied all patches/fixes from Microsoft
since
Post by MEB
the last clean install in 2003, many of the prior updates were
unregistered
Post by MEB
as having been installed.
44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more needed
which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from
local
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I
still
Post by MEB
can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update
site,
Post by MEB
or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
MEB
2006-02-27 06:34:57 UTC
Permalink
I would beg to differ with you on that. It seems the only files now offered
are security related, hence any needed system updates are not available.

PER saved local updates folder (note: a few are duplicate fixes, and this
only lists the ones presently "on disk", other "may be" saved on cdrom)

WMFADist.exe
243450USA8.EXE
245729US8.EXE
249863USA8_128.EXE
249973USA8.exe
256015USA8.EXE
259728USA8.EXE
273017USA8.EXE
273727USA8.EXE
273991USA8.EXE
274548USA8.EXE
314147USA8.EXE
314941USA8.EXE
323172USA8.EXE
323255USA8.EXE
329048USA8.EXE
329115USA8.EXE
811630USA8.EXE
823559USA8.EXE
840315USA8.EXE
888113USA8.EXE
908519FX.EXE
crlupd.exe
ie401dbg.exe
IE6.0sp1-KB823353-x86-ENU.exe
IE6.0sp1-KB833989-x86-ENU.exe
IE6.0sp1-KB834707-Windows-NT4sp6a-98-ME-x86-ENU.exe
IE6.0sp1-KB867801-x86-ENU.exe
IE6.0sp1-KB887797-Windows-NT4sp6a-98-ME-x86-ENU.exe
IE6.0sp1-KB889293-Windows-NT4sp6a-98-ME-x86-ENU.exe
IE6.0sp1-KB905915-Windows-98-ME-x86-ENU.exe
IE-KB903235-x86-ENU.exe
iuctl.cab
mdac_typ.exe
MSJavWU_8073687b82d41db93f4c2a04af2b34d.exe
OE6.0sp1-KB837009-x86-ENU.exe
q293818_crlupd.EXE
q313829.exe
scr56en.exe
SPEU.exe
ticker.ocx
vbs56men.exe
Windows98-KB891711-v2-ENU.EXE
Windows98-KB896358-EAR.EXE
Windows98-KB908519-ENU.EXE
Windows-KB870669-x86-ENU.exe
dotnetfx.exe
NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86.exe


OTHER tools or fixes

mcrepair.exe
InstMsiA.exe
50comupd.exe
Office97-KB830354-ENU.exe
security update 28 Windows-KB870669-x86-ENU.exe
MDAC_TYP.EXE2.8.EXE
ENU_Q832483_MDAC_x86_2_8.EXE
cc_pkg.exe
immc.exe
o2ksr1a.exe
ie6setup.exe
dcom98.exe
REGCLEAN.EXE
tweakui.exe
vbrun60sp4.exe
js56men_01-16-03.exe
jvm_3805.exe
98 zero admin kit.exe
INREG98.EXE
AMDK6UPD.EXE
GenuineCheck.exe
ie401dbg.exe
webdevaccess.exe
wmfdist_2002.exe


PER BELARC PRIOR TO un-install/re-install of IE 6 SP1
Installed Microsoft Hotfixes

.NETFramework [uninstalled/reinstalled to check for possible errors in or
caused by .net]
1.1
S867460
on 01/22/2006

DataAccess
Q318202
on 02/17/2005
Q329414-21
on 08/18/2004
Q903235
Q329414-25
on 11/15/2004
Q832483
on 12/10/2005
KB870669

DirectX
*KB904706

Internet Explorer
SP1 (SP1)
Q240308
Q313829
Q823353
Q833989
Q834707
Q867282
Q867801
Q889293
Q883939
Q889293
Q890923
Q891781
Q896688
Q903235

Win98.SE
*UPD238453
*UPD239887
*UPD256015
*UPD259728
*UPD260067
*UPD273017
*UPD273991
*UPDQ823559

Win98
*UPD245729
*UPD314941
*UPD323172
*UPD323255
*UPD329115
*UPD811630
*UPD888113
*UPD890175
*UPD891711
*UPD896358

Windows Media Player
*WM819639
*KB837272
*WM885492

Note that many of the SYSTEM updates are not available on Microsoft, nor do
I have them locally.
Which would appear to mean, that wiping a system (starting from scratch)
would leave these OS fixes unattended to.

As for the long term effect on any fresh install of 98SE,, ?? Obviously
those who do so will never have these system fixes once offered.
Post by Gary S. Terhune
As far as I can tell, all they've done is clean up the list. Many, many
Updates are subsumed into Cumulative Updates or made obsolete by later
versions of IE, WMP, etc. No, you can't patch your IE 5.5 -- your only
option is to upgrade to IE6 -- and that might be a shame for some folks, but
it's fully logical from MS's point of view.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
In addition, I noted that several of the files were removed from the
catalog for download a year or so (maybe sooner, might not have noticed)
after being installed. And the listings have shrunk over the last 8 or 10
months. Hopefully later cumulative fixes do take care of those issues.
There
Post by MEB
were a few hh changes which may have been finalized.
Though, if I had to guess, Microsoft only has the MOST crucial available
now.
As for the inability to update "on site" I have decided not to worry
about
Post by MEB
it any more. The site checks my system, and from either the catalog or
the
Post by MEB
download page, when the install or choice is made, zip, stalled, nada..
been
Post by MEB
through dozens of supposed fixes, darn near trashed the system with some
of
Post by MEB
them,, now back to a semi stable system again, so best to just leave it
alone.... as long as I can find a link to the files shown that I need
somewhere.
So, again, anyone have the direct link to this player update?
BTW: did anyone remind Microsoft that they still need to issue a patch to
fix the missing files issues after installing IE 6 SP1 BEFORE they end
support, or are they going to try to brazen it out.. I did, after all,
document some of the major errors "ground work" for them..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
1. Most of the updates that did not need to be reinstalled were probably
subsumed into the "Cumulative Updates", or the process of uninstalling
IE6
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
did not uninstall the updates that are "missing".
2. Which version of Windows are you running and which version of WMP are
you
Post by Gary S. Terhune
looking for? You say you can't download them -- do you see them at
Windows
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Updates but they fail to install? Or you don't see them at Windows
Updates?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
3. I wouldn't particularly trust Belarc Advisor. I don't trust any of
those
Post by Gary S. Terhune
things to be up to date and accurate. My guess is that most of your
discrepancies derive from #1, above.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Let me say thanks again, this will be helpful to all who are still
involved
Post by MEB
with 98.
I note something rather strange, which is somewhat related (for
comparison), when I un-installed then re-installed IE 6 SP1.
Though I had conscientiously applied all patches/fixes from Microsoft
since
Post by MEB
the last clean install in 2003, many of the prior updates were
unregistered
Post by MEB
as having been installed.
44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more
needed
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from
local
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I
still
Post by MEB
can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update
site,
Post by MEB
or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-28 01:24:36 UTC
Permalink
The patches you list are either already in my list (often under different
names or subsumed into later patches) or never belonged at Windows Updates
in the first place. You are arguing an entirely different context. I went
through the first couple of dozen and if they aren't already in my list,
they are not meant for Windows systems in general (only apply to
seldom-installed optional components like SNMP server) or are "Hotfixes",
patches that are usually only available by calling MS and explaining that
you have the specific conditions listed in the KB and that you need the
patch.

In short, your implication (or did you state it outright?) that Windows
Updates no longer has a lot of stuff that it used to is false. Anything that
is no longer available has been superceded.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I would beg to differ with you on that. It seems the only files now offered
are security related, hence any needed system updates are not available.
PER saved local updates folder (note: a few are duplicate fixes, and this
only lists the ones presently "on disk", other "may be" saved on cdrom)
MEB
2006-02-28 08:21:00 UTC
Permalink
I am sorry Gary, no offence was intended, not sure why everyone is so
touchy here...

I had already expressed my personal gratitude for your work and effort to
document this issue in public forum..
Nor was I arguing with you. We are supposedly addressing updates and
ramifications. Or rather, the thread was particularly ripe for this type of
discussion.

The point I extended was: That I had been directed to download these
particular files via notifications sent to me BY Microsoft in some form
(update site OR emailed notice), OR I had done so to fix some error from an
installation of one of the updates/fixes, again per Microsoft
recommendation.
Were some never part of the update service for the GENERAL PUBLIC? Perhaps,
but I was certainly notified.
Were they only for IT Professionals, or System Managers, or those who
specifically requested notification?
Then the natural question would be raised: Why was that environment
notified to install them and the general public was not notified or offered
them?

As for the general installation issues, unless and until Microsoft patches
the errors caused by the installation of IE 6 SP1, these security fixes
appear as gloss, insufficient (as of yet) to remedy the problems associated
with such installation.

In that light, when the true end comes for any support of 98, there will be
no real need to install or use Microsoft browsers, as the "security issues"
Microsoft is presently patching are related to that installation, NOT the
original OS. These are XP related fixes, not OS 98 fixes.

There will be no reason to use their Media player as there are several
hundred better products out there.

Perhaps no need to use Microsoft products at all for these older systems..
There are now rather nice versions of Linux which are constantly being
upgraded by the public, and supply a nice graphical environment, better
security, and numerous user programs.. and still run surprisingly well on
the older machines, with better memory management, lower overhead, less
bloat... And a new generation of second hand computer children that will
grow up using Linux instead of Microsoft.. (Then again, that was a cry heard
before which never came to pass, though there are now thousands of computers
RIPE for such installation and no reason not to..)

Moreover, Microsoft will certainly close themselves to further use by
several thousand people, both in the browser arena, and also their search
engine... perhaps a somewhat grievous error on their part as that will
impact their marketing of advertisements.. and this without addressing the
legal consequences..

I suppose the short is, that when the time comes to reinstall 98 I may NOT
install IE 6 SP1, and use, instead the older specifically "designed for 98"
files which worked so well before the installation of IE 6. With a different
browser, of course, as there will be no need to contact the update site
which requires it. The loss of .net will be an impact on the web based
applications I use, but there are programs which provide those same
functions without it.. I have already downloaded several in anticipation..

On a more practical side: The virus, worm, and Trojan writers will all be
keying upon XP and the newer versions (NT5 and above) of Microsoft products,
and forget about the limited base of 98 users.
Why?
Because that will take SPECIAL coding to attack the non-supported ancient
98 code environment, why bother. Not much "glamour" there.. {Let's see if we
can picture this: "Hey dudes, I wrote this nifty virus for 98 and it just
creamed them." ... "Oh really, so you trashed a couple thousand computers,,
big deal,, I trashed 2000 servers and a million computers before they caught
it. LOOOOOZZZZEEEERRR."}
Thereby, plain installed 98 has the potential to become one of the safest
OSs out there, in the long run. IF and only if one never installs IE 6 XP
based files..[pending of course the proper patching of the errors]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
The patches you list are either already in my list (often under different
names or subsumed into later patches) or never belonged at Windows Updates
in the first place. You are arguing an entirely different context. I went
through the first couple of dozen and if they aren't already in my list,
they are not meant for Windows systems in general (only apply to
seldom-installed optional components like SNMP server) or are "Hotfixes",
patches that are usually only available by calling MS and explaining that
you have the specific conditions listed in the KB and that you need the
patch.
In short, your implication (or did you state it outright?) that Windows
Updates no longer has a lot of stuff that it used to is false. Anything that
is no longer available has been superceded.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I would beg to differ with you on that. It seems the only files now
offered
Post by MEB
are security related, hence any needed system updates are not available.
PER saved local updates folder (note: a few are duplicate fixes, and this
only lists the ones presently "on disk", other "may be" saved on cdrom)
Gary S. Terhune
2006-02-28 18:08:50 UTC
Permalink
No offense taken, MEB, but my intention with this thread was to focus very
narrowly on Windows Updates. While many of the downloads you mention might
be valuable to individual users, they are not necessary to most users, and
in fact quite a few of them would be dangerous to a naive user's system.
Windows Updates is very specifically tailored such that only *very* safe,
fully tested patches that apply to *all*, or at least most Windows systems.
And, it may have been my mistake, but my impression was that you were
suggesting that many items that had once been offered at Windows Updates
were no longer there, which is the specific argument I was refuting. If that
wasn't the idea you were trying to put across, well, it's what I heard.
Again, I was, and am, totally focused on Windows Updates in this thread,
nothing broader. Personally, I'd rather the discussion in this thread
maintain that narrow focus in order to prevent confusion on the part of
average users who want to use this thread as a reference. Your piling on of
extraneous material, particularly without any detailed discussion of the
applicability of each download you name, just confuses things.

As for why you got notifications for so many of those downloads, there have
been a few different "Downloads Notification" programs and yes, their
intended target audience is IT professionals -- you get notification of all
kinds of *possibly* useful downloads and it's up to you to decide which ones
apply to which systems under your management. I get these notifications
myself. But it's irresponsible to suggest to average users that their
arsenal of patches and other useful tools is somehow lacking if they don't
have all the items you list. That simply isn't true. My 98 systems get by
just fine, and are as secure as 98 systems can be, without *any* of those
items you listed (other than those already offered at Windows Updates.) And
inappropriate patching can be just as damaging to a system as no patching at
all.

Might I suggest that you post your long list as a new thread, and add some
specifics to each item in the list, so that others might better determine
for themselves which of the items is one they should download and store for
possible current or future use. As an example, you list REGCLEAN. My own
opinion is that only those who are already intimately familiar with the
Registry and it's ways should use REGCLEAN, that it is potentially damaging
to a normal system if used incorrectly.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I am sorry Gary, no offence was intended, not sure why everyone is so
touchy here...
I had already expressed my personal gratitude for your work and effort to
document this issue in public forum..
Nor was I arguing with you. We are supposedly addressing updates and
ramifications. Or rather, the thread was particularly ripe for this type of
discussion.
The point I extended was: That I had been directed to download these
particular files via notifications sent to me BY Microsoft in some form
(update site OR emailed notice), OR I had done so to fix some error from an
installation of one of the updates/fixes, again per Microsoft
recommendation.
Were some never part of the update service for the GENERAL PUBLIC? Perhaps,
but I was certainly notified.
Were they only for IT Professionals, or System Managers, or those who
specifically requested notification?
Then the natural question would be raised: Why was that environment
notified to install them and the general public was not notified or offered
them?
As for the general installation issues, unless and until Microsoft patches
the errors caused by the installation of IE 6 SP1, these security fixes
appear as gloss, insufficient (as of yet) to remedy the problems associated
with such installation.
In that light, when the true end comes for any support of 98, there will be
no real need to install or use Microsoft browsers, as the "security issues"
Microsoft is presently patching are related to that installation, NOT the
original OS. These are XP related fixes, not OS 98 fixes.
There will be no reason to use their Media player as there are several
hundred better products out there.
Perhaps no need to use Microsoft products at all for these older systems..
There are now rather nice versions of Linux which are constantly being
upgraded by the public, and supply a nice graphical environment, better
security, and numerous user programs.. and still run surprisingly well on
the older machines, with better memory management, lower overhead, less
bloat... And a new generation of second hand computer children that will
grow up using Linux instead of Microsoft.. (Then again, that was a cry heard
before which never came to pass, though there are now thousands of computers
RIPE for such installation and no reason not to..)
Moreover, Microsoft will certainly close themselves to further use by
several thousand people, both in the browser arena, and also their search
engine... perhaps a somewhat grievous error on their part as that will
impact their marketing of advertisements.. and this without addressing the
legal consequences..
I suppose the short is, that when the time comes to reinstall 98 I may NOT
install IE 6 SP1, and use, instead the older specifically "designed for 98"
files which worked so well before the installation of IE 6. With a different
browser, of course, as there will be no need to contact the update site
which requires it. The loss of .net will be an impact on the web based
applications I use, but there are programs which provide those same
functions without it.. I have already downloaded several in anticipation..
On a more practical side: The virus, worm, and Trojan writers will all be
keying upon XP and the newer versions (NT5 and above) of Microsoft products,
and forget about the limited base of 98 users.
Why?
Because that will take SPECIAL coding to attack the non-supported ancient
98 code environment, why bother. Not much "glamour" there.. {Let's see if we
can picture this: "Hey dudes, I wrote this nifty virus for 98 and it just
creamed them." ... "Oh really, so you trashed a couple thousand computers,,
big deal,, I trashed 2000 servers and a million computers before they caught
it. LOOOOOZZZZEEEERRR."}
Thereby, plain installed 98 has the potential to become one of the safest
OSs out there, in the long run. IF and only if one never installs IE 6 XP
based files..[pending of course the proper patching of the errors]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
The patches you list are either already in my list (often under different
names or subsumed into later patches) or never belonged at Windows Updates
in the first place. You are arguing an entirely different context. I went
through the first couple of dozen and if they aren't already in my list,
they are not meant for Windows systems in general (only apply to
seldom-installed optional components like SNMP server) or are "Hotfixes",
patches that are usually only available by calling MS and explaining that
you have the specific conditions listed in the KB and that you need the
patch.
In short, your implication (or did you state it outright?) that Windows
Updates no longer has a lot of stuff that it used to is false. Anything
that
Post by Gary S. Terhune
is no longer available has been superceded.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I would beg to differ with you on that. It seems the only files now
offered
Post by MEB
are security related, hence any needed system updates are not available.
PER saved local updates folder (note: a few are duplicate fixes, and
this
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
only lists the ones presently "on disk", other "may be" saved on cdrom)
MEB
2006-03-01 01:31:43 UTC
Permalink
I understand completely, I have moved the response to a new thread

Other or alternative Windows Updates
Post by Gary S. Terhune
No offense taken, MEB, but my intention with this thread was to focus very
narrowly on Windows Updates. While many of the downloads you mention might
be valuable to individual users, they are not necessary to most users, and
in fact quite a few of them would be dangerous to a naive user's system.
Windows Updates is very specifically tailored such that only *very* safe,
fully tested patches that apply to *all*, or at least most Windows systems.
And, it may have been my mistake, but my impression was that you were
suggesting that many items that had once been offered at Windows Updates
were no longer there, which is the specific argument I was refuting. If that
wasn't the idea you were trying to put across, well, it's what I heard.
Again, I was, and am, totally focused on Windows Updates in this thread,
nothing broader. Personally, I'd rather the discussion in this thread
maintain that narrow focus in order to prevent confusion on the part of
average users who want to use this thread as a reference. Your piling on of
extraneous material, particularly without any detailed discussion of the
applicability of each download you name, just confuses things.
As for why you got notifications for so many of those downloads, there have
been a few different "Downloads Notification" programs and yes, their
intended target audience is IT professionals -- you get notification of all
kinds of *possibly* useful downloads and it's up to you to decide which ones
apply to which systems under your management. I get these notifications
myself. But it's irresponsible to suggest to average users that their
arsenal of patches and other useful tools is somehow lacking if they don't
have all the items you list. That simply isn't true. My 98 systems get by
just fine, and are as secure as 98 systems can be, without *any* of those
items you listed (other than those already offered at Windows Updates.) And
inappropriate patching can be just as damaging to a system as no patching at
all.
Might I suggest that you post your long list as a new thread, and add some
specifics to each item in the list, so that others might better determine
for themselves which of the items is one they should download and store for
possible current or future use. As an example, you list REGCLEAN. My own
opinion is that only those who are already intimately familiar with the
Registry and it's ways should use REGCLEAN, that it is potentially damaging
to a normal system if used incorrectly.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I am sorry Gary, no offence was intended, not sure why everyone is so
touchy here...
I had already expressed my personal gratitude for your work and effort
to
Post by MEB
document this issue in public forum..
Nor was I arguing with you. We are supposedly addressing updates and
ramifications. Or rather, the thread was particularly ripe for this type
of
Post by MEB
discussion.
The point I extended was: That I had been directed to download these
particular files via notifications sent to me BY Microsoft in some form
(update site OR emailed notice), OR I had done so to fix some error from
an
Post by MEB
installation of one of the updates/fixes, again per Microsoft
recommendation.
Were some never part of the update service for the GENERAL PUBLIC?
Perhaps,
Post by MEB
but I was certainly notified.
Were they only for IT Professionals, or System Managers, or those who
specifically requested notification?
Then the natural question would be raised: Why was that environment
notified to install them and the general public was not notified or
offered
Post by MEB
them?
As for the general installation issues, unless and until Microsoft
patches
Post by MEB
the errors caused by the installation of IE 6 SP1, these security fixes
appear as gloss, insufficient (as of yet) to remedy the problems
associated
Post by MEB
with such installation.
In that light, when the true end comes for any support of 98, there
will
Post by Gary S. Terhune
be
Post by MEB
no real need to install or use Microsoft browsers, as the "security
issues"
Post by MEB
Microsoft is presently patching are related to that installation, NOT the
original OS. These are XP related fixes, not OS 98 fixes.
There will be no reason to use their Media player as there are several
hundred better products out there.
Perhaps no need to use Microsoft products at all for these older
systems..
Post by MEB
There are now rather nice versions of Linux which are constantly being
upgraded by the public, and supply a nice graphical environment, better
security, and numerous user programs.. and still run surprisingly well on
the older machines, with better memory management, lower overhead, less
bloat... And a new generation of second hand computer children that will
grow up using Linux instead of Microsoft.. (Then again, that was a cry
heard
Post by MEB
before which never came to pass, though there are now thousands of
computers
Post by MEB
RIPE for such installation and no reason not to..)
Moreover, Microsoft will certainly close themselves to further use by
several thousand people, both in the browser arena, and also their search
engine... perhaps a somewhat grievous error on their part as that will
impact their marketing of advertisements.. and this without addressing the
legal consequences..
I suppose the short is, that when the time comes to reinstall 98 I may
NOT
Post by MEB
install IE 6 SP1, and use, instead the older specifically "designed for
98"
Post by MEB
files which worked so well before the installation of IE 6. With a
different
Post by MEB
browser, of course, as there will be no need to contact the update site
which requires it. The loss of .net will be an impact on the web based
applications I use, but there are programs which provide those same
functions without it.. I have already downloaded several in
anticipation..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
On a more practical side: The virus, worm, and Trojan writers will all be
keying upon XP and the newer versions (NT5 and above) of Microsoft
products,
Post by MEB
and forget about the limited base of 98 users.
Why?
Because that will take SPECIAL coding to attack the non-supported ancient
98 code environment, why bother. Not much "glamour" there.. {Let's see
if
Post by Gary S. Terhune
we
Post by MEB
can picture this: "Hey dudes, I wrote this nifty virus for 98 and it just
creamed them." ... "Oh really, so you trashed a couple thousand
computers,,
Post by MEB
big deal,, I trashed 2000 servers and a million computers before they
caught
Post by MEB
it. LOOOOOZZZZEEEERRR."}
Thereby, plain installed 98 has the potential to become one of the safest
OSs out there, in the long run. IF and only if one never installs IE 6 XP
based files..[pending of course the proper patching of the errors]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
The patches you list are either already in my list (often under
different
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
names or subsumed into later patches) or never belonged at Windows
Updates
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
in the first place. You are arguing an entirely different context. I
went
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
through the first couple of dozen and if they aren't already in my list,
they are not meant for Windows systems in general (only apply to
seldom-installed optional components like SNMP server) or are
"Hotfixes",
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
patches that are usually only available by calling MS and explaining
that
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
you have the specific conditions listed in the KB and that you need the
patch.
In short, your implication (or did you state it outright?) that Windows
Updates no longer has a lot of stuff that it used to is false. Anything
that
Post by Gary S. Terhune
is no longer available has been superceded.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I would beg to differ with you on that. It seems the only files now
offered
Post by MEB
are security related, hence any needed system updates are not
available.
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
PER saved local updates folder (note: a few are duplicate fixes, and
this
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
only lists the ones presently "on disk", other "may be" saved on
cdrom)
MEB
2006-03-01 07:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Whoops, entered the new thread into this thread, oh gees, so times I
think.... well they say the first to go is the mind.. (Hey, kick my wheel
chair over here will ya youngster..)
Post by MEB
I understand completely, I have moved the response to a new thread
Other or alternative Windows Updates
Post by Gary S. Terhune
No offense taken, MEB, but my intention with this thread was to focus very
narrowly on Windows Updates. While many of the downloads you mention might
be valuable to individual users, they are not necessary to most users, and
in fact quite a few of them would be dangerous to a naive user's system.
Windows Updates is very specifically tailored such that only *very* safe,
fully tested patches that apply to *all*, or at least most Windows
systems.
Post by Gary S. Terhune
And, it may have been my mistake, but my impression was that you were
suggesting that many items that had once been offered at Windows Updates
were no longer there, which is the specific argument I was refuting. If
that
Post by Gary S. Terhune
wasn't the idea you were trying to put across, well, it's what I heard.
Again, I was, and am, totally focused on Windows Updates in this thread,
nothing broader. Personally, I'd rather the discussion in this thread
maintain that narrow focus in order to prevent confusion on the part of
average users who want to use this thread as a reference. Your piling on
of
Post by Gary S. Terhune
extraneous material, particularly without any detailed discussion of the
applicability of each download you name, just confuses things.
As for why you got notifications for so many of those downloads, there
have
Post by Gary S. Terhune
been a few different "Downloads Notification" programs and yes, their
intended target audience is IT professionals -- you get notification of
all
Post by Gary S. Terhune
kinds of *possibly* useful downloads and it's up to you to decide which
ones
Post by Gary S. Terhune
apply to which systems under your management. I get these notifications
myself. But it's irresponsible to suggest to average users that their
arsenal of patches and other useful tools is somehow lacking if they don't
have all the items you list. That simply isn't true. My 98 systems get by
just fine, and are as secure as 98 systems can be, without *any* of those
items you listed (other than those already offered at Windows Updates.)
And
Post by Gary S. Terhune
inappropriate patching can be just as damaging to a system as no
patching
Post by MEB
at
Post by Gary S. Terhune
all.
Might I suggest that you post your long list as a new thread, and add some
specifics to each item in the list, so that others might better determine
for themselves which of the items is one they should download and store
for
Post by Gary S. Terhune
possible current or future use. As an example, you list REGCLEAN. My own
opinion is that only those who are already intimately familiar with the
Registry and it's ways should use REGCLEAN, that it is potentially
damaging
Post by Gary S. Terhune
to a normal system if used incorrectly.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I am sorry Gary, no offence was intended, not sure why everyone is so
touchy here...
I had already expressed my personal gratitude for your work and effort
to
Post by MEB
document this issue in public forum..
Nor was I arguing with you. We are supposedly addressing updates and
ramifications. Or rather, the thread was particularly ripe for this type
of
Post by MEB
discussion.
The point I extended was: That I had been directed to download these
particular files via notifications sent to me BY Microsoft in some form
(update site OR emailed notice), OR I had done so to fix some error from
an
Post by MEB
installation of one of the updates/fixes, again per Microsoft
recommendation.
Were some never part of the update service for the GENERAL PUBLIC?
Perhaps,
Post by MEB
but I was certainly notified.
Were they only for IT Professionals, or System Managers, or those who
specifically requested notification?
Then the natural question would be raised: Why was that environment
notified to install them and the general public was not notified or
offered
Post by MEB
them?
As for the general installation issues, unless and until Microsoft
patches
Post by MEB
the errors caused by the installation of IE 6 SP1, these security fixes
appear as gloss, insufficient (as of yet) to remedy the problems
associated
Post by MEB
with such installation.
In that light, when the true end comes for any support of 98, there
will
Post by Gary S. Terhune
be
Post by MEB
no real need to install or use Microsoft browsers, as the "security
issues"
Post by MEB
Microsoft is presently patching are related to that installation, NOT
the
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
original OS. These are XP related fixes, not OS 98 fixes.
There will be no reason to use their Media player as there are several
hundred better products out there.
Perhaps no need to use Microsoft products at all for these older
systems..
Post by MEB
There are now rather nice versions of Linux which are constantly being
upgraded by the public, and supply a nice graphical environment, better
security, and numerous user programs.. and still run surprisingly well
on
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
the older machines, with better memory management, lower overhead, less
bloat... And a new generation of second hand computer children that will
grow up using Linux instead of Microsoft.. (Then again, that was a cry
heard
Post by MEB
before which never came to pass, though there are now thousands of
computers
Post by MEB
RIPE for such installation and no reason not to..)
Moreover, Microsoft will certainly close themselves to further use by
several thousand people, both in the browser arena, and also their
search
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
engine... perhaps a somewhat grievous error on their part as that will
impact their marketing of advertisements.. and this without addressing
the
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
legal consequences..
I suppose the short is, that when the time comes to reinstall 98 I may
NOT
Post by MEB
install IE 6 SP1, and use, instead the older specifically "designed for
98"
Post by MEB
files which worked so well before the installation of IE 6. With a
different
Post by MEB
browser, of course, as there will be no need to contact the update site
which requires it. The loss of .net will be an impact on the web based
applications I use, but there are programs which provide those same
functions without it.. I have already downloaded several in
anticipation..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
On a more practical side: The virus, worm, and Trojan writers will
all
Post by MEB
be
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
keying upon XP and the newer versions (NT5 and above) of Microsoft
products,
Post by MEB
and forget about the limited base of 98 users.
Why?
Because that will take SPECIAL coding to attack the non-supported
ancient
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
98 code environment, why bother. Not much "glamour" there.. {Let's see
if
Post by Gary S. Terhune
we
Post by MEB
can picture this: "Hey dudes, I wrote this nifty virus for 98 and it
just
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
creamed them." ... "Oh really, so you trashed a couple thousand
computers,,
Post by MEB
big deal,, I trashed 2000 servers and a million computers before they
caught
Post by MEB
it. LOOOOOZZZZEEEERRR."}
Thereby, plain installed 98 has the potential to become one of the
safest
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
OSs out there, in the long run. IF and only if one never installs IE 6
XP
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
based files..[pending of course the proper patching of the errors]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
The patches you list are either already in my list (often under
different
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
names or subsumed into later patches) or never belonged at Windows
Updates
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
in the first place. You are arguing an entirely different context. I
went
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
through the first couple of dozen and if they aren't already in my
list,
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
they are not meant for Windows systems in general (only apply to
seldom-installed optional components like SNMP server) or are
"Hotfixes",
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
patches that are usually only available by calling MS and explaining
that
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
you have the specific conditions listed in the KB and that you need
the
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
patch.
In short, your implication (or did you state it outright?) that
Windows
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Updates no longer has a lot of stuff that it used to is false.
Anything
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
that
Post by Gary S. Terhune
is no longer available has been superceded.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I would beg to differ with you on that. It seems the only files now
offered
Post by MEB
are security related, hence any needed system updates are not
available.
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
PER saved local updates folder (note: a few are duplicate fixes, and
this
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
only lists the ones presently "on disk", other "may be" saved on
cdrom)
MEB
2006-03-01 01:25:56 UTC
Permalink
referencing Re: Wiindows Updates -- Part 3, Security Updates CD -
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
per request by Gary

I had seen another list his downloads and thought it appropriate to list
others of apparent value to some who might need them. As for creating a
separate thread to specifically address those updates, I have attempted
discussions in two other threads which would or may have lead to such
explanations, to no avail [I did place the bait but got flamed instead]..
therefore, perhaps another party might do so.. I would, however, be willing
to put in my "two cents" in any discussion.
Moreover, the corporate site appears to be the only place to obtain many of
these files, and does provide explanation (so far, though I do recommend the
download of these files now rather than searching later for them for some
reason, only to find they are gone).
Having said that, I would also caution indiscriminate installation of these
files without a present need, or specifically if presently using IE 6. These
are, for the most part, "plain jane" 98 and SE files, and will severely
conflict with IE 6 if already installed.

re regclean: I also have found that REGCLEAN can cause problems, at times,
for some users. REGCLEAN can and does "reset" certain variables in the
registry which may conflict with other programs settings, registry settings,
or requirements. It is NEVER suggested for use unless as a last resort
attempted fix for very specific issues.

I also avoid listing registry modifications openly upon public forum,,
inappropriate modifications can be seriously damaging. Many see these
"fixes", think their system has the same problem (which it doesn't) and
cause more severe problems or conflicts.
Hence, in another thread "Re: rundll32.exe error", I suggested contact to
the party, with several of you regarding registry modifications, rather than
posting his answer, without explanation, openly there. I had hoped to have
the "experts" provide their knowledge of Microsoft's registry areas (could
we now say hives) for creation of a similar public data base in layman's
terms..
Granted, various MVPs and others have done so elsewhere or on their own
sites, but this would be an extremely valuable collected resource here. This
is, after all, the general discussions format. Sort of the last chance to
"pick the brains" of the "experts" before they drift off to XP and forget
the nuances associated with the 98/NT meld.

And for the last: I have stated an obvious occurrence. Microsoft
specifically declared they would no longer support or supply fixes for the
98 OS. They have done exactly as they stated. They no longer supply the old
files and fixes upon the update site. The only 98 "fixes" appear to be the
IDE fix, and a very few others. For any support, one MUST be using IE 6 (or
can one still access with 5.5) and have placed oneself in the "loop" of
security and other fixes pursuant the XP files installed thereof, e.g. they
are not supplying the necessary fixes for 98 and apparently Millennium which
would be needed if one had not installed these XP files via IE 6, else they
would still be listed, and one would not need to install IE 6 merely to
access the site. [It would be nice to see the processor (speed) fix posted
there though]

Along that same line: here is the "why" of interest in this security/fixes
updates CD to which you have referred, and you and I have discussed
elsewhere.
Does this supply some of the older necessary fixes which I have listed?
Could one use this CD after the "end" and have a reasonable system to use
for an extended period?
Alas, I can not reply with answer for myself and others, as I have yet to
obtained a copy; must have gotten lost in the mail. 8{%>
Post by Gary S. Terhune
No offense taken, MEB, but my intention with this thread was to focus very
narrowly on Windows Updates. While many of the downloads you mention might
be valuable to individual users, they are not necessary to most users, and
in fact quite a few of them would be dangerous to a naive user's system.
Windows Updates is very specifically tailored such that only *very* safe,
fully tested patches that apply to *all*, or at least most Windows systems.
And, it may have been my mistake, but my impression was that you were
suggesting that many items that had once been offered at Windows Updates
were no longer there, which is the specific argument I was refuting. If that
wasn't the idea you were trying to put across, well, it's what I heard.
Again, I was, and am, totally focused on Windows Updates in this thread,
nothing broader. Personally, I'd rather the discussion in this thread
maintain that narrow focus in order to prevent confusion on the part of
average users who want to use this thread as a reference. Your piling on of
extraneous material, particularly without any detailed discussion of the
applicability of each download you name, just confuses things.
As for why you got notifications for so many of those downloads, there have
been a few different "Downloads Notification" programs and yes, their
intended target audience is IT professionals -- you get notification of all
kinds of *possibly* useful downloads and it's up to you to decide which ones
apply to which systems under your management. I get these notifications
myself. But it's irresponsible to suggest to average users that their
arsenal of patches and other useful tools is somehow lacking if they don't
have all the items you list. That simply isn't true. My 98 systems get by
just fine, and are as secure as 98 systems can be, without *any* of those
items you listed (other than those already offered at Windows Updates.) And
inappropriate patching can be just as damaging to a system as no patching at
all.
Might I suggest that you post your long list as a new thread, and add some
specifics to each item in the list, so that others might better determine
for themselves which of the items is one they should download and store for
possible current or future use. As an example, you list REGCLEAN. My own
opinion is that only those who are already intimately familiar with the
Registry and it's ways should use REGCLEAN, that it is potentially damaging
to a normal system if used incorrectly.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I am sorry Gary, no offence was intended, not sure why everyone is so
touchy here...
I had already expressed my personal gratitude for your work and effort
to
Post by MEB
document this issue in public forum..
Nor was I arguing with you. We are supposedly addressing updates and
ramifications. Or rather, the thread was particularly ripe for this type
of
Post by MEB
discussion.
The point I extended was: That I had been directed to download these
particular files via notifications sent to me BY Microsoft in some form
(update site OR emailed notice), OR I had done so to fix some error from
an
Post by MEB
installation of one of the updates/fixes, again per Microsoft
recommendation.
Were some never part of the update service for the GENERAL PUBLIC?
Perhaps,
Post by MEB
but I was certainly notified.
Were they only for IT Professionals, or System Managers, or those who
specifically requested notification?
Then the natural question would be raised: Why was that environment
notified to install them and the general public was not notified or
offered
Post by MEB
them?
As for the general installation issues, unless and until Microsoft
patches
Post by MEB
the errors caused by the installation of IE 6 SP1, these security fixes
appear as gloss, insufficient (as of yet) to remedy the problems
associated
Post by MEB
with such installation.
In that light, when the true end comes for any support of 98, there
will
Post by Gary S. Terhune
be
Post by MEB
no real need to install or use Microsoft browsers, as the "security
issues"
Post by MEB
Microsoft is presently patching are related to that installation, NOT the
original OS. These are XP related fixes, not OS 98 fixes.
There will be no reason to use their Media player as there are several
hundred better products out there.
Perhaps no need to use Microsoft products at all for these older
systems..
Post by MEB
There are now rather nice versions of Linux which are constantly being
upgraded by the public, and supply a nice graphical environment, better
security, and numerous user programs.. and still run surprisingly well on
the older machines, with better memory management, lower overhead, less
bloat... And a new generation of second hand computer children that will
grow up using Linux instead of Microsoft.. (Then again, that was a cry
heard
Post by MEB
before which never came to pass, though there are now thousands of
computers
Post by MEB
RIPE for such installation and no reason not to..)
Moreover, Microsoft will certainly close themselves to further use by
several thousand people, both in the browser arena, and also their search
engine... perhaps a somewhat grievous error on their part as that will
impact their marketing of advertisements.. and this without addressing the
legal consequences..
I suppose the short is, that when the time comes to reinstall 98 I may
NOT
Post by MEB
install IE 6 SP1, and use, instead the older specifically "designed for
98"
Post by MEB
files which worked so well before the installation of IE 6. With a
different
Post by MEB
browser, of course, as there will be no need to contact the update site
which requires it. The loss of .net will be an impact on the web based
applications I use, but there are programs which provide those same
functions without it.. I have already downloaded several in
anticipation..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
On a more practical side: The virus, worm, and Trojan writers will all be
keying upon XP and the newer versions (NT5 and above) of Microsoft
products,
Post by MEB
and forget about the limited base of 98 users.
Why?
Because that will take SPECIAL coding to attack the non-supported ancient
98 code environment, why bother. Not much "glamour" there.. {Let's see
if
Post by Gary S. Terhune
we
Post by MEB
can picture this: "Hey dudes, I wrote this nifty virus for 98 and it just
creamed them." ... "Oh really, so you trashed a couple thousand
computers,,
Post by MEB
big deal,, I trashed 2000 servers and a million computers before they
caught
Post by MEB
it. LOOOOOZZZZEEEERRR."}
Thereby, plain installed 98 has the potential to become one of the safest
OSs out there, in the long run. IF and only if one never installs IE 6 XP
based files..[pending of course the proper patching of the errors]
Post by Gary S. Terhune
The patches you list are either already in my list (often under
different
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
names or subsumed into later patches) or never belonged at Windows
Updates
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
in the first place. You are arguing an entirely different context. I
went
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
through the first couple of dozen and if they aren't already in my list,
they are not meant for Windows systems in general (only apply to
seldom-installed optional components like SNMP server) or are
"Hotfixes",
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
patches that are usually only available by calling MS and explaining
that
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
you have the specific conditions listed in the KB and that you need the
patch.
In short, your implication (or did you state it outright?) that Windows
Updates no longer has a lot of stuff that it used to is false. Anything
that
Post by Gary S. Terhune
is no longer available has been superceded.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
I would beg to differ with you on that. It seems the only files now
offered
Post by MEB
are security related, hence any needed system updates are not
available.
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
PER saved local updates folder (note: a few are duplicate fixes, and
this
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
only lists the ones presently "on disk", other "may be" saved on
cdrom)
MEB
2006-02-27 06:41:51 UTC
Permalink
As an addendum of sorts... I noted several of you had a problem with update
site and time.. when I started my browser to check site stats I was taken to
update and found I was 57 seconds behind.. connecting with the atomic clock
and resetting.... still the same supposed time problem..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
As far as I can tell, all they've done is clean up the list. Many, many
Updates are subsumed into Cumulative Updates or made obsolete by later
versions of IE, WMP, etc. No, you can't patch your IE 5.5 -- your only
option is to upgrade to IE6 -- and that might be a shame for some folks, but
it's fully logical from MS's point of view.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
In addition, I noted that several of the files were removed from the
catalog for download a year or so (maybe sooner, might not have noticed)
after being installed. And the listings have shrunk over the last 8 or 10
months. Hopefully later cumulative fixes do take care of those issues.
There
Post by MEB
were a few hh changes which may have been finalized.
Though, if I had to guess, Microsoft only has the MOST crucial available
now.
As for the inability to update "on site" I have decided not to worry
about
Post by MEB
it any more. The site checks my system, and from either the catalog or
the
Post by MEB
download page, when the install or choice is made, zip, stalled, nada..
been
Post by MEB
through dozens of supposed fixes, darn near trashed the system with some
of
Post by MEB
them,, now back to a semi stable system again, so best to just leave it
alone.... as long as I can find a link to the files shown that I need
somewhere.
So, again, anyone have the direct link to this player update?
BTW: did anyone remind Microsoft that they still need to issue a patch to
fix the missing files issues after installing IE 6 SP1 BEFORE they end
support, or are they going to try to brazen it out.. I did, after all,
document some of the major errors "ground work" for them..
Post by Gary S. Terhune
1. Most of the updates that did not need to be reinstalled were probably
subsumed into the "Cumulative Updates", or the process of uninstalling
IE6
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
did not uninstall the updates that are "missing".
2. Which version of Windows are you running and which version of WMP are
you
Post by Gary S. Terhune
looking for? You say you can't download them -- do you see them at
Windows
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Updates but they fail to install? Or you don't see them at Windows
Updates?
Post by Gary S. Terhune
3. I wouldn't particularly trust Belarc Advisor. I don't trust any of
those
Post by Gary S. Terhune
things to be up to date and accurate. My guess is that most of your
discrepancies derive from #1, above.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
Post by MEB
Let me say thanks again, this will be helpful to all who are still
involved
Post by MEB
with 98.
I note something rather strange, which is somewhat related (for
comparison), when I un-installed then re-installed IE 6 SP1.
Though I had conscientiously applied all patches/fixes from Microsoft
since
Post by MEB
the last clean install in 2003, many of the prior updates were
unregistered
Post by MEB
as having been installed.
44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more
needed
Post by MEB
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from
local
Post by Gary S. Terhune
Post by MEB
files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I
still
Post by MEB
can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update
site,
Post by MEB
or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
mae
2006-02-27 17:49:23 UTC
Permalink
"MEB" <***@not ***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
|--snip-
| 44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more
needed
| which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
| update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from
local
| files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I
still
| can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
|
| Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update
site,
| or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
|
| Anyone have a direct link to the player update.

http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3-19990518/cabpool/WindowsMedia9-KB911565-Win9x-x86-ENU_8d1eeee2307201b8c45b3092eaa33f2.exe


| "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:eNY$***@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| >-snip
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| -snip
| > > "Gary S. Terhune" <***@mvps.org> wrote in message
| > > news:***@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| > > > Several people have asked recently about various Windows
Updates. Like
--snip
--
mae
MEB
2006-02-28 08:26:06 UTC
Permalink
mae, you truely are a sweet heart, thank you again for providing a link..

I'm sure you noticed I never did get the errors fixed,, tried but..
Thanks again for the input on that..
Post by mae
|--snip-
| 44 patches/fixes had been installed prior to removal (five more
needed
| which I could not get off of the update site, plus the newest player
| update)[so 50 total], 34 shown after reinstalling and updating (from
local
| files shown as needed on v4) (the Player update is still needed but I
still
| can't download). At least as shown by Belarc Advisor.
|
| Makes one wonder if Microsoft put all the files needed on the update
site,
| or are 16 updates/fixes no longer viable?
|
| Anyone have a direct link to the player update.
http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3-19990518/cabpool/WindowsMedia9-KB911565-Win9x-x86-ENU_8d1eeee2307201b8c45b3092eaa33f2.exe
Post by mae
| >-snip
| -snip
| > > > Several people have asked recently about various Windows
Updates. Like
--snip
--
mae
Loading...