Is there any browser left for Win98se?

With the html 5, I'm constantly getting script errors in the browsers I
have been using, namely K-Meleon, Netscape, and Seamonkey. I quit using
IE years ago, and know that IE6 is the last version for 98. (which was
always crap). I found a browser called Flock, and found out it wont run
in Win98, nor will Chrome. The only one that still works halfway well,
is Firefox 3.x, but even it seems to choke on some websites.
What else is there?

Yes, 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.

Is there anything left?

Win98 workd just fine for all my other needs, it's just that there dont
seem to be any browser that works properly anymore....

I'm not about to change my OS. I really can not stand any of the newer
MS OSs. Maybe the time has come to just abandon the web, and only use
email and usenet. The web has become pretty much a huge advertisment
anyhow, and it seems that facebook has become most of the web, which I
want no part of.... But there are still times I do find the web useful
for looking up something....

In message ,
writes:
With the html 5, I'm constantly getting script errors in the browsers I
have been using, namely K-Meleon, Netscape, and Seamonkey. I quit using
IE years ago, and know that IE6 is the last version for 98. (which was
always crap). I found a browser called Flock, and found out it wont run
in Win98, nor will Chrome. The only one that still works halfway well,
is Firefox 3.x, but even it seems to choke on some websites.
[]
I'm not about to change my OS. I really can not stand any of the newer
MS OSs. Maybe the time has come to just abandon the web, and only use
email and usenet. The web has become pretty much a huge advertisment
anyhow, and it seems that facebook has become most of the web, which I
want no part of.... But there are still times I do find the web useful
for looking up something....

I suppose you could limit your browsing to the sites you know will work.
(I guess, in practice, you're having to do that anyway.)

XP can be made to look, feel, and behave a lot like '9x - takes a little
work, but once done, you'd not know you're on XP (except for the greater
reliability and more things working).

Can '9x do VMs (virtual machines)? That might be an option if it can.
(Or of course dual-booting, but with that it's tedious to switch back
and forth. With VMs, you can.) I know a lot of people who are using VMs
the other way round, as a way to be able to run things that run under XP
but not 7, and they mostly seem to be happy. If it can't, I guess you
could run '9x in a VM under 7 or 8 (or I think XP); going to 7 or 8
would probably mean new hardware though, and even XP might, depending on
what you've got. (IMO XP SP3 needs at least 3/4 of a G of RAM; IME going
from 1G to 2G made little difference. Also a bit more disc space for the
OS: I keep my OS and software separate from my data, and the OS/software
partition has reached almost 19G, though that's after several years.
Probably a processor over 1 GHz helps too, though the RAM will make far
more difference and a slightly slower processor might still be OK.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change
[via Penny Mayes )]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:51:40 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message ,
writes:
With the html 5, I'm constantly getting script errors in the browsers I
have been using, namely K-Meleon, Netscape, and Seamonkey. I quit using
IE years ago, and know that IE6 is the last version for 98. (which was
always crap). I found a browser called Flock, and found out it wont run
in Win98, nor will Chrome. The only one that still works halfway well,
is Firefox 3.x, but even it seems to choke on some websites.
[]
I'm not about to change my OS. I really can not stand any of the newer
MS OSs. Maybe the time has come to just abandon the web, and only use
email and usenet. The web has become pretty much a huge advertisment
anyhow, and it seems that facebook has become most of the web, which I
want no part of.... But there are still times I do find the web useful
for looking up something....

I suppose you could limit your browsing to the sites you know will work.
(I guess, in practice, you're having to do that anyway.)

XP can be made to look, feel, and behave a lot like '9x - takes a little
work, but once done, you'd not know you're on XP (except for the greater
reliability and more things working).

Can '9x do VMs (virtual machines)? That might be an option if it can.
(Or of course dual-booting, but with that it's tedious to switch back
and forth. With VMs, you can.) I know a lot of people who are using VMs
the other way round, as a way to be able to run things that run under XP
but not 7, and they mostly seem to be happy. If it can't, I guess you
could run '9x in a VM under 7 or 8 (or I think XP); going to 7 or 8
would probably mean new hardware though, and even XP might, depending on
what you've got. (IMO XP SP3 needs at least 3/4 of a G of RAM; IME going
from 1G to 2G made little difference. Also a bit more disc space for the
OS: I keep my OS and software separate from my data, and the OS/software
partition has reached almost 19G, though that's after several years.
Probably a processor over 1 GHz helps too, though the RAM will make far
more difference and a slightly slower processor might still be OK.)

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure at all what you mean about VMs
(virtual machines).

I do have Win2000 dual booted, but I only use it for my portable USB
backup drives, which I could not get to work in 98. Its a pain to keep
rebooting between the two, and since I can not get Thunderbird to work
for both OSs, (without getting duplicate emails), I have to go to 98 for
email. I dont mind 2000 too much, but I still lose the native Dos,
which I still use. I never tried to see what browsers work in 2000
because I only use 98 for the internet due to the email problem. I can
run Agent for both, and share the same installation.

This comp has a 1ghz processer and 500m of Ram, which is the limit.
I have XP on a laptop comp, I tried to make it look like 98, but it's
still full of crap that I dislike. But that machine is only for use
when I travel for WIFI, so I never have to look at it the rest of the
time. I suppose I could use it at home for the web, but I find laptops
are a pain to use because I hate those small keyboards, built in mice
and small screens. I know all that stuff can be plugged in to a USB
port, but that gets tedious too, and that laptop has a small hard drive
and not much power either.

I have no interest in any MS OS above XP at all, and dont intend to buy
another computer. If I was forced to buy another comp, it would be a
Macintosh, because I hate all the bloated OSs that MS has created. 98
was the last decent OS they made, and I'm trying to stick with it. For
my needs, 98 does everything I need, except for this new web crap.
Honestly, I see no difference on the websites so I dont know what that
change to HTML 5 was even for. I do think most of the commercial
websites, particularly news media sites are far too cluttered and take
too long to load compared to the old sites. But bloat seems to be the
name of the game these days.

In message ,
writes:
[]
Thanks for the info. I'm not sure at all what you mean about VMs
(virtual machines).

On 7 and 8 (I'm not sure about XP and Vista), a Virtual Machine is a
piece of software - more or less like any other piece of software - that
gives you a simulation of a PC, with which you can do most things -
including installing an operating system of choice (for which you have
to buy a licence! Well, one of the more expensive flavours of W7 comes
with a free XP licence for use in this way). One of the newsgroups I
take is for a piece of software (Turnpike) that won't run on the 64-bit
versions of 7 and 8; quite a few of those there are running VMs on their
7 machines in order to continue running it.

The VM can access the drives, network, and so on of the host machine;
however, you can also switch between the VM (and whatever - operating
system and software - it is running) and other software running on the
host machine, just as with any other piece of software.

I don't know if '9x can implement VMs. Your hardware, sadly, couldn't, I
think.

I do have Win2000 dual booted, but I only use it for my portable USB
backup drives, which I could not get to work in 98. Its a pain to keep
rebooting between the two, and since I can not get Thunderbird to work
for both OSs, (without getting duplicate emails), I have to go to 98 for

I think some people have managed that; I don't think I've heard mention
of it for that particular combination (2000/98), but I think I've heard
of it being used with XP and another OS. It is fiddly though. I think
the portable version may be of help there.
[]
This comp has a 1ghz processer and 500m of Ram, which is the limit.

(By limit I take it you mean you can't add more RAM.) I don't think the
processor would be a problem - this is only a 1.6 - but the RAM would be
a bit minimal even for XP SP2; for SP3 it would be painful. (I currently
seem to have 834M in use.)

I have XP on a laptop comp, I tried to make it look like 98, but it's
still full of crap that I dislike. But that machine is only for use
when I travel for WIFI, so I never have to look at it the rest of the
time. I suppose I could use it at home for the web, but I find laptops
are a pain to use because I hate those small keyboards, built in mice
and small screens. I know all that stuff can be plugged in to a USB
port, but that gets tedious too, and that laptop has a small hard drive
and not much power either.

Does it have less than 3/4 M of RAM (and if so, can you up it)?

I have no interest in any MS OS above XP at all, and dont intend to buy

Well, I don't wish to move on from XP; I just keep an eye on the later
versions (except Vista) as (a) I might eventually have to and (b) I
support friends and relations who have them.

another computer. If I was forced to buy another comp, it would be a
Macintosh, because I hate all the bloated OSs that MS has created. 98

I fear you might find even recent Mac OS is more bloated than it once
was ... )-:

was the last decent OS they made, and I'm trying to stick with it. For
my needs, 98 does everything I need, except for this new web crap.

You are certainly in the right newsgroup. 98Guy will help you! To me,
keeping '98 going as a main OS seems hard work, like using a
vintage/veteran car for the daily commute: it can be done, but takes a
lot of effort, and you don't have some things that everyone else
considers standard. (I'm going to experience the same, more and more, as
XP dies the same way '9x did.)

Honestly, I see no difference on the websites so I dont know what that
change to HTML 5 was even for. I do think most of the commercial
websites, particularly news media sites are far too cluttered and take
too long to load compared to the old sites. But bloat seems to be the
name of the game these days.

Certainly agree with you there. Falling memory/hard disc prices, and
increasing computing power, cause lazy programming (including of web
pages) to negate their advantages. Just to demonstrate that, a few
months ago I hand-coded an HTML page that had just the word "red" in red
and the word "yellow" in yellow - a hundred to two hundred bytes, if
that, and that only because I like to set out my code neatly. I tried
doing the same thing in Word, and saved it as HTML, to show someone -
and even though I was expecting it, I was flabbergasted at the size of
the result. (And that isn't even HTML 5.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni Vidi Visa [I came, I saw, I did a little shopping] - Mik from S+AS Limited
), 1998

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
writes:
[]
Thanks for the info. I'm not sure at all what you mean about VMs
(virtual machines).

On 7 and 8 (I'm not sure about XP and Vista), a Virtual Machine is a
piece of software - more or less like any other piece of software - that
gives you a simulation of a PC, with which you can do most things -
including installing an operating system of choice (for which you have
to buy a licence! Well, one of the more expensive flavours of W7 comes
with a free XP licence for use in this way). One of the newsgroups I
take is for a piece of software (Turnpike) that won't run on the 64-bit
versions of 7 and 8; quite a few of those there are running VMs on their
7 machines in order to continue running it.

The VM can access the drives, network, and so on of the host machine;
however, you can also switch between the VM (and whatever - operating
system and software - it is running) and other software running on the
host machine, just as with any other piece of software.

I don't know if '9x can implement VMs. Your hardware, sadly, couldn't, I
think.

I think having to use a VM, however, is a bit of a PIA though (as compared
to NOT having to do so (which is readily the case by just sticking with XP).
More below.

I do have Win2000 dual booted, but I only use it for my portable USB
backup drives, which I could not get to work in 98. Its a pain to keep
rebooting between the two, and since I can not get Thunderbird to work
for both OSs, (without getting duplicate emails), I have to go to 98 for

I think some people have managed that; I don't think I've heard mention
of it for that particular combination (2000/98), but I think I've heard
of it being used with XP and another OS. It is fiddly though. I think
the portable version may be of help there.
[]
This comp has a 1ghz processer and 500m of Ram, which is the limit.

(By limit I take it you mean you can't add more RAM.) I don't think the
processor would be a problem - this is only a 1.6 - but the RAM would be
a bit minimal even for XP SP2; for SP3 it would be painful. (I currently
seem to have 834M in use.)

If he were going to use a VM (ugh) I'd think he'd need at least 1 GB, and
preferably 2 GB. So that's out (for him).

I have XP on a laptop comp, I tried to make it look like 98, but it's
still full of crap that I dislike.

Doesn't have to be. Depends on how much work you're willing to put into it.
You just can't do it overnight, however.

But that machine is only for use
when I travel for WIFI, so I never have to look at it the rest of the
time. I suppose I could use it at home for the web, but I find laptops
are a pain to use because I hate those small keyboards, built in mice
and small screens. I know all that stuff can be plugged in to a USB
port, but that gets tedious too, and that laptop has a small hard drive
and not much power either.

Does it have less than 3/4 M of RAM (and if so, can you up it)?

I have no interest in any MS OS above XP at all, and dont intend to buy

Well, I don't wish to move on from XP; I just keep an eye on the later
versions (except Vista) as (a) I might eventually have to and (b) I
support friends and relations who have them.

another computer. If I was forced to buy another comp, it would be a
Macintosh, because I hate all the bloated OSs that MS has created. 98

I fear you might find even recent Mac OS is more bloated than it once
was ... )-:

I would think so too. I think that's a pipe dream. :-)
Besides, who wants a Mac? Talking about losing customization of the OS,
that one takes the cake. :-)

was the last decent OS they made, and I'm trying to stick with it. For
my needs, 98 does everything I need, except for this new web crap.

You are certainly in the right newsgroup. 98Guy will help you! To me,
keeping '98 going as a main OS seems hard work, like using a
vintage/veteran car for the daily commute: it can be done, but takes a
lot of effort, and you don't have some things that everyone else
considers standard. (I'm going to experience the same, more and more, as
XP dies the same way '9x did.)

Not only that (the "hard work" part), but you can't even install some of the
better audio and video restoration programs (amongst some others)!

Your choices are pretty limited with Win98 - and alas, KernelEx doesn't help
with many of them) - and are even getting a tad limited with XP, now.

But I can't see the day I'll be leaving XP. It's still more than capable
for everything I want and need (unlike 98SE, although that's still on my
backup computer). Then again, those on the Titantic ... couldn't see some
things, either.

On 18 Feb 2013, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

This comp has a 1ghz processor and 500m of Ram, which is
the limit.

(By limit I take it you mean you can't add more RAM.) I
don't think the processor would be a problem - this is only
a 1.6 - but the RAM would be a bit minimal even for XP SP2;
for SP3 it would be painful. (I currently seem to have 834M
in use.)

At the moment I'm running XP on a 1GHz machine with 512MB RAM
and it runs fine for general use (internet, word processing
(what shouldn't?), playing videos/music (unless it's online, I
always download it in that case)), I also use it for some video
work, though I can't claim it's ideal for that. This is my main
PC and I feel no need to upgrade the RAM, though I actually have
many 512MB sticks that could pair up to double my current
amount.

I think the problem is all the useless bloat M$ added to the
service packs (not that the original wasn't bloated enough).
Though on the other hand, I've been at work killing bits of XP I
don't like. Most notably (and memorably) I replaced Explorer
with "LiteStep" for window management and "Gyula's Navigator"
for file management. I run the JayOS Skin for LiteStep which is
much more 98ish than the XP "Classic" theme and _far_ more
customisable as well. I ended up doing the same thing to one of
my W98 machines too.

I now much prefer this set up than explorer. Though I think
Explorer's memory usage was one of the main reasons (along with
a bug that forced me to restart it all the time) for turning to
LiteStep originally. So perhaps I'm talking nonsense in saying
that the original XP runs fine on 512MB.

Still, you could always take my approach and shape XP to meet
your needs. It can be a bit of work though. Or just keep 98 and
avoid bloated websites, I use Firefox 3.6 with XP anyway and
rarely want to use a site it doesn't like.

--
__ __
#_ |\| | _#

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:01:58 -0000, Computer Nerd Kev
wrote:

On 18 Feb 2013, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

This comp has a 1ghz processor and 500m of Ram, which is
the limit.

(By limit I take it you mean you can't add more RAM.) I
don't think the processor would be a problem - this is only
a 1.6 - but the RAM would be a bit minimal even for XP SP2;
for SP3 it would be painful. (I currently seem to have 834M
in use.)

At the moment I'm running XP on a 1GHz machine with 512MB RAM
[]
Though on the other hand, I've been at work killing bits of XP I
don't like. Most notably (and memorably) I replaced Explorer
with "LiteStep" for window management and "Gyula's Navigator"
for file management. I run the JayOS Skin for LiteStep which is
much more 98ish than the XP "Classic" theme and _far_ more
customisable as well. I ended up doing the same thing to one of
my W98 machines too.

Thanks for those pointers.

Just what's bad about the explorer? My PC (1G RAM I admit) running
taskmanager shows the explorer task as using 16M. Not much compared with
65M for Iron (a de-googled version of Chrome).




I now much prefer this set up than explorer. Though I think
Explorer's memory usage was one of the main reasons (along with
a bug that forced me to restart it all the time) for turning to
LiteStep originally. So perhaps I'm talking nonsense in saying
that the original XP runs fine on 512MB.

Still, you could always take my approach and shape XP to meet
your needs. It can be a bit of work though. Or just keep 98 and
avoid bloated websites, I use Firefox 3.6 with XP anyway and
rarely want to use a site it doesn't like.



--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

On 02/16/2013 09:20 PM, wrote:
With the html 5, I'm constantly getting script errors in the browsers I
have been using, namely K-Meleon, Netscape, and Seamonkey. I quit using
IE years ago, and know that IE6 is the last version for 98. (which was
always crap). I found a browser called Flock, and found out it wont run
in Win98, nor will Chrome. The only one that still works halfway well,
is Firefox 3.x, but even it seems to choke on some websites.
What else is there?

Yes, 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.

Is there anything left?

Win98 workd just fine for all my other needs, it's just that there dont
seem to be any browser that works properly anymore....

I'm not about to change my OS. I really can not stand any of the newer
MS OSs. Maybe the time has come to just abandon the web, and only use
email and usenet. The web has become pretty much a huge advertisment
anyhow, and it seems that facebook has become most of the web, which I
want no part of.... But there are still times I do find the web useful
for looking up something....





Win98 is quite dead and even win2k is pretty limited in that Firefox 12
is the last version that will work.

XP is really your best bet if you stick with Microsoft.
I have my XP machine set for "best performance" and the GUI set to
classic. The desktop is virtually the same as it was with my old Win98
machine.


OTOH: You may want to give Linux a try

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

philo wrote:

Win98 is quite dead and even win2k is pretty limited in that
Firefox 12 is the last version that will work.

Your opinion is based on your limited ability to either modify / upgrade
the ancient hardware that your win-98 system was running on before you
bought your Win-7 computer.

On 02/17/2013 08:20 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
philo wrote:

Win98 is quite dead and even win2k is pretty limited in that
Firefox 12 is the last version that will work.

Your opinion is based on your limited ability to either modify / upgrade
the ancient hardware that your win-98 system was running on before you
bought your Win-7 computer.



Nope, never bought a computer in my life...I build them all ...
usually from whatever spare parts I manage to scrounge up

Don't use win7 either, switched to Linux as my full time OS a number of
years ago.

I still work on obsolete computers and have used kernelEx with win98.

Though at the time I used it, I could install whatever was the current
version of Firefox, the performance was so poor I decided it would be
senseless to continue.

I still maintain one Win2k machine though.

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686