In an effort to get its latest online offerings
to work for folks who are stuck with The World's Worst Browser[1],
Google is offering a fix for Internet Exploder.
cache 
of  http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180181.asp

The way they have made HTML5 and other 21st Century Web improvements
work with the browser that has the worst standards compliance is via a plug-in.
What the plug-in does is
substitute the WebKit HTML rendering engine used by Google's Chrome browser
in place of M$'s tired old Trident engine
and substitutes Google's V8 JavaScript rendering engine for M$'s sorry JScript engine.
(JavaScript rendering speeds improve by a huge factor.)
In this mode, all that is left of Internet Exploder is the User Interface.
(Since Chrome itself--i.e. the UI--won't work under Win9x, this is significant.)

You knew that M$ would never again pay the slightest attention to IE6.
Google, however, has made sure this works with even that decrepit old thing.

The big downside (if you're already using a Gecko/Mozilla browser)
is that WebKit/Chrome doesn't have the extension infrastructure that Gecko has.
This means no AdBlock, no NoScript,
nor none of the thousands of amazing tweaks that Firefox/SeaMonkey can have
that make the 'Net a less dreary place.


[1] If you can believe it, there are some corporations
who locked themselves into intranet apps that ONLY work with ActiveX
--and only the version of ActiveX that comes with IE6.
As such, they can't upgrade their browsers--not even a later version of IE.
Note also that you can only have ONE version of Internet Exploder
installed on any Windoze box.[2]  Truly stupid all around.

[2] Assuming no virtualizing software.

Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$) Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 8:47 pm Posted by Arminius (339 messages posted) Sooooo, is this update going to work on Win98? I would have been willing to try Google Chrome but those morons at Google decided not to support Win2000. I don't think they have a version to run on linux either. Your two previous threads on non-Win98 related topics were deleted. I wonder how long this one will last. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$) Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 11:50 pm Posted by bob wells (1636 messages posted) Not so fast there Bucko! Looks like the good news is fraught with less than good news. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4063 Too bad cause IE8 only runs for 15 seconds then crashes on my machine. Install/Uninstall X4. I bought the CD to avoid D/L on dialup. :-( :-0 Article indicates Chrome Frame is out for Developers. Not even Beta yet. http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180181.asp On Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 12:13 pm, gewg_ wrote: >In an effort to get its latest online offerings >to work for folks who are stuck with The World's Worst Browser[1], >Google is offering a fix for Internet Exploder. >cache >of http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/180181.asp > >The way they have made HTML5 and other 21st Century Web improvements >work with the browser that has the worst standards compliance is via a plug-in. >What the plug-in does is >substitute the WebKit HTML rendering engine used by Google's Chrome browser >in place of M$'s tired old Trident engine >and substitutes Google's V8 JavaScript rendering engine for M$'s sorry JScript engine. >(JavaScript rendering speeds improve by a huge factor.) >In this mode, all that is left of Internet Exploder is the User Interface. >(Since Chrome itself--i.e. the UI--won't work under Win9x, this is significant.) > >You knew that M$ would never again pay the slightest attention to IE6. >Google, however, has made sure this works with even that decrepit old thing. > >The big downside (if you're already using a Gecko/Mozilla browser) >is that WebKit/Chrome doesn't have the extension infrastructure that Gecko has. >This means no AdBlock, no NoScript, >nor none of the thousands of amazing tweaks that Firefox/SeaMonkey can have >that make the 'Net a less dreary place. > > >[1] If you can believe it, there are some corporations >who locked themselves into intranet apps that ONLY work with ActiveX >--and only the version of ActiveX that comes with IE6. >As such, they can't upgrade their browsers--not even a later version of IE. >Note also that you can only have ONE version of Internet Exploder >installed on any Windoze box.[2] Truly stupid all around. > >[2] Assuming no virtualizing software. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$) Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 1:45 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Arminius wrote: |Sooooo, is this update going to work on Win98? | As I mentioned, this is a browser plug-in. Those are specific to a browser (and sometimes even to a version of a browser) but NOT specific to an OS. The SeattlePI article to which I linked does mention IE6 specifically. ...and I actually sat on this story for several days until I saw that someone had mentioned IE6 specifically. |I would have been willing to try Google Chrome |but those morons at Google decided not to support Win2000. | "Google: The new M$". 8-( OTOH, see "Open Source", below. |I don't think they have a version to run on linux either. | WebKit / Google Chrome / this plug-in are all Open Source Software. There has been a Linux port of Chrome (outside of Google's efforts) since a couple of weeks after the first release (i.e. Google's Windoze-only effort). There is also the "Iron" fork of the codebase done by SRWare which elides all Chrome's annoyances and privacy issues: cache of http://forum.avast.com/index.php?action=printpage+topic=42079.0 ...but,yeah, Chrome's native UI doesn't work on Windoze earlier than XP. That is why I referred to the IE plug-in as *significant*. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$) Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) bob wells wrote: |Not so fast there Bucko! |Looks like the good news is fraught with less than good news. | ...and who is the source of this newsFUD? Why M$, of course--talking about browser security of all things --something about which Micros~1 are NOT experts. MSFT is grasping at any straw these days trying to appear relevant. The WebKit / Google Chrome projects are Open Source Software. I'll put OSS's security record up against M$'s any day: OSS's bugs typically get patched inside a week; OSS's security flaws typically get patched within HOURS. OTOH, if M$ even acknowledges a flaw--and actually writes a fix for it-- M$ then waits until Patch Tuesday of the following month to release it. ...and previous versions of Windoze products get squat for fixes. The increased "area" described in the FUD leaves this picture in my mind: A piece of Swiss cheese (IE) alongside a piece of cheddar that has a few pinpricks in it (WebKit/Chrome) The cheddar doesn't add significantly to the holey nature of the overall cheese picture. The fact is that by using the WebKit engine, you are *removing* M$'s Trident engine from the picture which is like overlaying a big part of the Swiss slice (and its holes) with the cheddar. Any time you use LESS of M$'s code, your security INCREASES. There's also no need to include a 2nd link to the FUD; it was mentioned in the article to which I linked. ...and you need to give some serious attention your bull$#!+ filter. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$) Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 2:31 pm Posted by bob wells (1636 messages posted) You posted the BS that needs filtering. Chrome Frame Crashed on install. Go back and read what you posted originally. Like this Google Frame was some fixit for IE. "Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$)" " You knew that M$ would never again pay the slightest attention to IE6. Google, however, has made sure this works with even that decrepit old thing." Your own BS you're disputing. EOS On Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm, gewg_ wrote: >bob wells wrote: >|Not so fast there Bucko! >|Looks like the good news is fraught with less than good news. >| >...and who is the source of this newsFUD? >Why M$, of course--talking about browser security of all things >--something about which Micros~1 are NOT experts. > >MSFT is grasping at any straw these days trying to appear relevant. > >The WebKit / Google Chrome projects are Open Source Software. >I'll put OSS's security record up against M$'s any day: >OSS's bugs typically get patched inside a week; >OSS's security flaws typically get patched within HOURS. > >OTOH, if M$ even acknowledges a flaw--and actually writes a fix for it-- >M$ then waits until Patch Tuesday of the following month to release it. >...and previous versions of Windoze products get squat for fixes. > >The increased "area" described in the FUD leaves this picture in my mind: >A piece of Swiss cheese (IE) >alongside a piece of cheddar that has a few pinpricks in it (WebKit/Chrome) >The cheddar doesn't add significantly >to the holey nature of the overall cheese picture. >The fact is that by using the WebKit engine, >you are *removing* M$'s Trident engine from the picture >which is like overlaying a big part of the Swiss slice (and its holes) with the cheddar. >Any time you use LESS of M$'s code, your security INCREASES. > > >There's also no need to include a 2nd link to the FUD; >it was mentioned in the article to which I linked. >...and you need to give some serious attention your bull$#!+ filter. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$) Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 3:23 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) bob wells wrote: |Chrome Frame Crashed on install. | My intuition is that, as an Internet Exploder advocate and user --though not a particularly adept one-- you have an infection that keeps the plug-in from installing properly. I also find it intriguing how you manage to constantly extrapolate *your* experiences across the wide range of Win98 users. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Finally, an update for IE6 (It's NOT from M$) Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm Posted by Arminius (339 messages posted) |"Google: The new M$". 8-( The larger companies are always the first to drop support for older OS's. The smaller companies seem to appreciate every customer they can get and support older OS's for longer. Heck, even the lone coder freeware apps support older OS's for longer than the large companies. [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum