i need ie6 for windows me

i need ie6

my e-mail is jasonharper5000@hotmail.com

may i have the IE6 win2k, please :)
yin.news@webterprise.net

May I please have the link for w2k as well? sectioneight@hotmail.com
Thanks!

ok i said it b4, but u ppl just dont listen. INTERNET EXPLORER 6 FOR WINDOWS ME ISNT ON THE SITE NO MORE!!!!!!! so please for the love of god or porn or whatever, stop fricken askin me for it for this OS! i have it for WINDOWS 2000 ONLY.

Ok im done. :)

Can you send me the location?

jewens1@home.com

Could you send me the link to IE6 for W2K, appreciate'cha

my e-mail is jasonharper5000@hotmail.com
i have windows me
thanks

fruitpithemagician@yahoo.com
Please email link for Win2k, thanks.

www.buy.com

don't show your ignorance here. go buy win2k if you want it.

Heh heh you might want to read his subject. He wants the download link of IE 6 and he needs it for the win2k version. Doesnt actually mean he is looking for Win2k. :)

Hehehe yeah tell me about it, I wouldn't go to www.buy.com to buy IE 6, I thought it was free and part of Windows, as M$ says it is, why go buy it.

lol i wouldnt buy ANYTHING when i can get it for free on the web anyway :)

and thats all i got to say on the matter :P

Neowin.net
I posted a while back a conversion for the IE5.0 and up toolbar it is achieved using Microgarden with our bitmaps strechted across the toolbar it uses virtually no memory (as it only skins the toolbar) the conversion I have actually replaces the toolbar to exactly the same one used on IE6 WinXP build 2428
you can find this here: http://www.neowin.net/reviews/op_luna.shtml

not only can you skin the IE toolbar, but there is a pack that will change windows to look like XP too, if your interested..

It's better than installing a (un-stable) beta version of IE - Windows Update blocking, form errors, 6.0

hope this helps,
Steve
http://www.neowin.net

can u post the wallpaper of Luna too?It'll make it complete.

This dont work for IE 6 beta. :P all it does is put the icon on my toolbar and when i click it, nothing happends, so i couldnt add the skin. oh well. another week or so and ill have next version with it skinned allready hopefully.

the link ive been emailing for the ie6 version for winme is now invalid. (dont ask me i dont know either), however, win2k link still works. anyway, public preview beta is due out march 16th(ish) so just grab that, cuz it SHOULD be compatible with winme. if u got win2k, and dont have the link, then by all means, email me still, but i will ignore all requests for the winme/98/nt4 builds.

cheers

Please email me the link for IE 6 for Win2k. Anything is better than IE 5.5 SP1 which brings up Dr. Watson almost every session. Hope your link is still valid.

Thanks,

Marty Felker (martinfelker@hotmail.com)

Im running IE6 build #4211 and it works fine. I know where to get IE6 4211 for windows ME stand alone too. Big deal. However, I really do hope that the actual public beta and final versions do include the funky new icons like in windows XP.

Not only would it be a welcome change to a plain boring broswer, but hell, the graphics in IE4, IE5 and the current win2k/winme builds just SUCK.

Oh yeah if u want a link to download email me at anarkii@start.com.au and ill send u guys links. *ill check email like once in 12 hours or something so dont cry if i dont reply right away*

Okay thats my 2 cents.

Okay where can i find a copy of IE6.0 For windows Me, Please help me out. Email Me KMDaly@mediaone.net or IM Maddoggjr86 on AIM. Thanks. :)

Please send to me! My email is zoology@mail.com

Thanks!

There was no link to a Win Me version at the place the dude sent me...thanks anyway.

e-mail me how to download ie 6.0
my e-mail is jasonharper5000@hotmail.com

I was very dissapointed in IE6 for win2K and Im sure the same for 98/ME, It was nice and colorful at least in XP/Whistler. Id stick with 5.5 for now.

First, 5.5 SUCKS, second, IE6 for Win2k will probably be the same exact thing as IE6 for XP, with all the colorfulness of the new personal bar (unfortunatly, I liked the old way better).

Ummm, if IE6 on Millennium is any indication, you're dead wrong CPU. The shiny happy toolbar looks to be Whistler only.

If you say so LC.

I was very dissapointed in IE6 for win2K and Im sure the same for 98/ME, It was nice and colorful at least in XP/Whistler. Id stick with 5.5 for now.

Having seen the internal KB that the ActiveWin site is referring to, the mass media has misconstrued what it means when MS says "no full or typical setup options" in the win2k version of IE6. That means exactly the same as IE5.5 for Win2k, that there is just one install, the win2k install. This will put on the browser, scripting support, and OE6. There are no choices for updating java, core fonts, extra fonts, etc. Nothing to see here, move along folks...

Hi! Does anyone know what kind of Java support will be built into IE6? Will it incorporate a Microsoft JVM at all? Of course, you could download it. But for Java developers it is little help if Java capabilities can not be assumed into the browsers they develop for.

I think Java comes very weakened from the Ms trial. How do you see it for developers?.
Thanks

Who cares. Java is a smoldering pile of poop and has proven rubbish by ActiveX

When was java proven rubbish by ActiveX? Sure Java Applets didn't take over every single web page on the planet like everyone thought they would.....but ActiveX? come on, for web related stuff ActiveX is a hunk of junk to be blunt.

actually there are alot of things built on ActiveX that people use everyday that they never recognize as a typical ActiveX control. People think ActiveX they think Java Applet/Flash Animation. ActiveX can seemlessly intregrate into a web page and simply provide data to that page as in a DSO (very many examples of XML doing this with DataIslands). Likewise Java does some things that can be transparent to the user but it's less prevelent because the things people typically want to do with Java is applets as in GUI Menu/navigation/image manipulation and games. ActiveX from my experience is used in more mundane tasks.

Java has come under harsh criticism by many in the industry for failing to meet it's marketing hype especially in the browser arena. Applets are simply a failure in most peoples eyes hence Sun's s*** to push more server side implementations of Java which is really it's strong side. ActiveX on the other hand has been downplayed by MS even though they still develop manner features to take advantage of the underlying technology.

I totally agree, the only thing you really see java applets being used for these days is ticker type applications on web pages. And that's fine, you pick the best/easiest to use tool for the job. A ticker application can be done in Flash as well, but the fact you don't often (if at all) see that, says something. As for ActiveX being downplayed by Microsoft? Please the only reason MS pushed ActiveX was to try and compete with Java Applets. And then they didn't bother with it ebcause they saw the popularity of applets sinking. Yet you don't see very many 'visual elements' (trying to be broad here) on web pages that are active-x controls. And once again the fact most people choose to use java over activex once again should tell you something.

ActiveX hasen't really been downplayed by Microsoft, simply rebranded. Like many MS technologies their names are driven as much by the marketing department as the technology itself. ActiveX has been been renamed to COM/COM+ or DCOM if you want...well thats not the whole truth but close enough. For anyone developing on NT/W2K for the web you can be certain they are using ActiveX. The entire ASP object model is encapsulated into 6 different objects (COM or ActiveX objects, your pick). With their new .NET platform Microsoft is now establishing their entire runtime architecture on a derivitive of COM+.

As far as Java's use in the mainstream web, I think it was actually hindered by DHTML rather then ActiveX or even Flash. Most Java applets simply offered some very simple user interface inhancement that is now easily handled with DHTML. Other fancy animations, are more easily authored with Flash leaving Java as a "if I can't do it any other way" technology. When it comes to business, time is money and its just a lot easier to do something without Java then with it, at least on the client side.

It seems a little odd to me that they would release IE6 as stand alone for the older 98 and NT 4, but not for 2000 or ME. So they leave off 95, fine. But, I don't like the idea that my Win 2000 installation won't be able to upgrade to IE6 even through at this point it is the newest version of Windows out. (other than ME, but the article doesn't include that in the list of Windows versions that will have a stand alone version of IE6.

IE 6 runs fine on Windows 2000

I'm guessing that they were reporting minimum requirements. After all they didn't list 98SE but I'm pretty sure it is supported.

Just goes to show you that Microsoft makes it impossible to own your computer for more than 5 years.

If you're still using Windows 95 you don't need IE6, IE5 is just fine for Win95, at this point IE6 is just adding more support for other media features that are in the newer versions of Windows "specially in WinXP". Sence Win95 isn't ment or sometimes able to do some of these new things then why should they make IE6 for it? In any case they only support 2 "new" version OS's at one time. Till now that has been 9x and NT. But now that they are finally gonna kill 9x they will only support 98 and 2k/XP, even NT4 is slowlly getting worked out, notice it said NT4 with SP6a. thats almost the same as Win2k.. code wise.

Windows NT 4.0 SP6a is almost the same code-wise as Windows 2000? What kinda wild crack are you smoking and where can I pick some up? I would -love- to be absolutely detached from reality like you :)

Your comment reeks with ignorance. What other company supports OSes for 5+ years?

You're the one who's on crack, buddy. Windows 2000 is just like Windows NT? Umm, yeah, except for the support for USB devices, DirectX 8 (NT only supported DirectX 3), Plug and Play, Power Management, the addition of ActiveDirectory, support for FAT32 and multiple monitors. Yeah, other than that, it's just like Windows NT 4.0.

Oh, and in other news Windows ME is just like Windows 3.11....

Windows 2000 is way more stable then Windows NT4 ever was or will be.

IBM does. They support 20 year old mainframe systems ... But I'd rather have new systems with more features than an ancient system that's going to be supported but not advanced.

Well...I meant consumer OSes.

Hey! guys were can I get a hold of IE6? An realy I'm currently running 5.5, is 6 really all the much more benefitial? What really have they changed in it? please mail me guys..

n.conceicao@sympatico.ca

thank you

If you claim that NT and Win2K are alike you speak out of ignorance.. I run 12 NT Servers and 4 Win2K servers.. They are nothing alike. Win2K is 30 times more stable and the professional version with DirectX 8 supports games.. Anyhow.. Its not even worth arguing..

IBM's AS/400 is an ancient system, but that doesn't mean it is outdated. You forget that some companies are running Lotus Domino server on it, or run their webpages on it. It's an ancient system with modern capabilities. Oh I forgot to mention.. For such an old system, it's rocksolid stable. Stable only Microsoft can dream of...

Sethb, who are you replying to? Y2K Fox did not say anything about them being alike. It was GP who said that.

ignorance, what do you think win2k is?
it is WinNT, vbg.
Microsoft Windows NT 5.0
(i know what you meant, you wording was wrong, (jokeingly)

Hrm... well then sherlock, I imagine that's who he is intending to reply to. Obviously the threading isn't right, but you figured it out so bravo! :-)

"notice it said NT4 with SP6a. thats almost the same as Win2k.. code wise." Thats what i said... "ALMOST THE SAME" I didn't say they are, its a fact that Win2k is NT5.0 like ajsaragosa pointed out. If you want to be stupid and say its nothing like NT4 because it has USB support and DX7 then thats saying windows 98 is nothing like Windows 95 because it has newer features 95 dosn't... And you say i'm smocking crack.

He intended to reply to Y2kFox because he made reference to the "crack" Y2kFox mentioned. But obviously he misread what Y2kFox said.

Actually, they are barely the same at all.

Win2k is based on NT, but it's a completly rebuilt kernel.

Everyone knows that Windows 2000 is BASED on Windows NT, haven't you ever seen the Windows 2000 splash screen during boot? Your comment implies that SP6a makes Windows NT 4 "almost the same code-wise as Windows 2000." This is not the case - you're half correct :)

Do you know how much an AS/400 costs? I should bloody well hope it's stable for the price.