Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Highest Adobe Reader with KernelEx
23 views
Skip to first unread message
98 Guy
May 11, 2013, 1:40:11 PM5/11/13
to
jaugu...@verizon.net wrote:
> When I tried to install V6 (AdobeRdr60_enu_full.exe), there was a
> "recomposing" process then I was informed that I needed IE 5.01 or
> later. Note: I use FireFox V3.6 with KernelEx installed.
Doesn't matter what browser you normally use.
Does your system have IE 5.01 or 5.5?
Win-98se comes built-in with IE 5.01 - unless you do a bone-head thing
and remove it (ie win-98 lite).
My default pdf reader is adobe acrobat 6.0.2 (I believe there are
updates that will go to 6.0.4 or 6.0.5). Every PDF file that I download
or otherwise encounter will give a bogus warning that it probably won't
render properly with reader 6, but after dismissing the warning it will
nonetheless render perfectly fine.
In other words, acrobat reader 6 is far more compatible with PDF files
in existance today than you think.
And - adobe reader 6 is far LESS vulnerable to PDF exploits as well.
> When I tried to install V6 (AdobeRdr60_enu_full.exe), there was a
> "recomposing" process then I was informed that I needed IE 5.01 or
> later. Note: I use FireFox V3.6 with KernelEx installed.
Doesn't matter what browser you normally use.
Does your system have IE 5.01 or 5.5?
Win-98se comes built-in with IE 5.01 - unless you do a bone-head thing
and remove it (ie win-98 lite).
My default pdf reader is adobe acrobat 6.0.2 (I believe there are
updates that will go to 6.0.4 or 6.0.5). Every PDF file that I download
or otherwise encounter will give a bogus warning that it probably won't
render properly with reader 6, but after dismissing the warning it will
nonetheless render perfectly fine.
In other words, acrobat reader 6 is far more compatible with PDF files
in existance today than you think.
And - adobe reader 6 is far LESS vulnerable to PDF exploits as well.
white....@gmail.com
Jun 14, 2013, 9:58:30 PM6/14/13
to
time to upgrade to something with an nt kernel - something that doesn't suck. or can your dinosaur of a PC only handle 9x?
98 Guy
Jun 14, 2013, 11:30:49 PM6/14/13
to
The loser known as white danielr @ gmail.com used improper usenet
message composition style by unnecessarily full-quoting:
> get with the times grandpa
>
> time to upgrade to something with an nt kernel -
> something that doesn't suck. or can your dinosaur
> of a PC only handle 9x?
For one thing, you're a fool and a loser for using google-groups to post
to usenet. Shows just what a dork nubie you are. Is everyone in Plano
Texas as dumb as you are?
Second, the slowest PC I run win-98 on has a 2.2 ghz P4 cpu, the fastest
is a CORE2 3.46 ghz. You make a fool of yourself with your assumption
that win-98 can only run on 10-year-old PC hardware.
Third, go look up KernelEx - an NT API compatibility layer which gives
win-98 the ability to run a lot of WIN32 NT code - such as JAVA, Flash,
VLC media player, Opera, Firefox, and a lot of other current software.
Fourth, go look up Secunia's database of security issues and
vulnerabilities for Win-98, Win-XP and Windows 7. Anyone running an
NT-based OS during the years 2002 through 2006 was a fool because NT was
so vulnerable to being hacked.
message composition style by unnecessarily full-quoting:
> get with the times grandpa
>
> time to upgrade to something with an nt kernel -
> something that doesn't suck. or can your dinosaur
> of a PC only handle 9x?
to usenet. Shows just what a dork nubie you are. Is everyone in Plano
Texas as dumb as you are?
Second, the slowest PC I run win-98 on has a 2.2 ghz P4 cpu, the fastest
is a CORE2 3.46 ghz. You make a fool of yourself with your assumption
that win-98 can only run on 10-year-old PC hardware.
Third, go look up KernelEx - an NT API compatibility layer which gives
win-98 the ability to run a lot of WIN32 NT code - such as JAVA, Flash,
VLC media player, Opera, Firefox, and a lot of other current software.
Fourth, go look up Secunia's database of security issues and
vulnerabilities for Win-98, Win-XP and Windows 7. Anyone running an
NT-based OS during the years 2002 through 2006 was a fool because NT was
so vulnerable to being hacked.
0 new messages