Cusser wrote:Stop waffling about unrelated things.
I just answered a posting pretending to give the ultimate reason. I told him how to fix this bug, as told in the same MS document he linked to. In the meantime I found another document noteworthy for those still using Win9x, NT or maybe also current windows, you never know ;-)
<a href="http://www.grc.com/su-bondage.htm">Link: <b>Network Bondage</b></a> has a tutorial about fixing this without use of external means.
A lot of answers in this thread was ' waffling about unrelated things'.
The first answer not to be disputed was <a href="http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=401271&postdays=0&postorder=asc&postsperpage=15&start=37">Link: <b>msvcrt8 dependancy</b></a>
Cusser wrote:Vulnerabilities in current (or even vaguely recent) operating systems can still be detected and fixed.
you mean browser manufacturers have to work around some bugs of the OS.
Cusser wrote:Windows 98 is not going to get the same treatment.
I never expected that, and I didn't hear much about vulnerabilities in Win9x, I heard a lot of vulns in IE.
Cusser wrote:The reason to stop supporting Windows 98 is because it's a financial black hole to bother doing so. It costs money, wastes developer time (fiddling with old APIs so that new things work on the older OSes) and gives no major rewards. If you want to step up and do it for free, there are people out there who'll help you succeed. If not, posting stuff about XP vulnerabilities isn't going to help.
It doesn't cost money, if nobody wants to get paid. Did people get paid for doing win98 software at mozilla.org? I didn't hear that someone would like to do the job, paid or unpaid. Fiddling with old APIs may cost time, but as I understood, they didn't have to be created, they have been removed. The retreat was done in an unorderd way, after win9x performance was broken in some unrelated bugs. I'm not a mozilla developer, I'm used to writing real-time software without having an OS, so I don't know about the innards of Windows. The retreat could have been done in a better way, but as nobody steps up to reimplement it, that doesn't care.
But people have been told multiple times, that Win9x was unsupported for Firefox3 only. Now gerv wants to kill it on Firefox2 also.
<a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2006/06/drop_windows_9xme_support.html">Drop Windows 9x/ME Support For Firefox 2</a>
<a href="http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox2/Requirements#Platform_Support">Firefox2/Requirements - Platform Support</a>
I don't want to discuss anymore, ifn't somebody comes up with another fancy argument I doubt about.
And thank you, Cusser, for bringing mostly technical arguments.
herman