Bill in Co wrote:

Why do I not see Firefox 2.0.0.20 in that list?

Because you have a reading problem. He already said he had tried
Firefox 3.5x, which supercedes 2.0 by a LOT.

What he said was somewhat confusing.

Firefox 3.x won't run under win-98 without KernelEx, so if he was
running FF 3.5 then he'd have to be using KernelEx, and if he was
running Kex then he could be running much more recent versions of FF way
beyond 3.5x.

But he goes on to say this:

=======
I know there is Opera, but I have strongly disliked that browser dating
back to the 1990's, to present, and the latest versions dont run in
Win98.
=======

Which is only true if you don't have Kex. I can run Opera 12.02 (August
30/2012) on a Win-98 system with Kex. The most current version of Opera
is 12.14 (Feb 2/2013) - which might or might not run under win-98 with
Kex (I haven't bothered to update mine).

Did you actually read through his post?

Yes - and now you know that there are inconsistencies in his story and
claims. Especially that FF 2.0.0.20 is not a useful / capable browser -
even in 2013.