Is there any browser left for Win98se?

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 05:27:25 -0500, "dadiOH" wrote:

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?

Maybe Safari?
http://safari.brothersoft.com/safari-win98.html

The oldest version listed on that page is 3.0. For system requirements,
it says XP is the minimum OS required.

wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:54:07 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

Blue screens are the result of trying to run win-98 on ancient hardware
with buggy drivers with 32 mb of ram.

If you've ever installed and run win-98 on any hardware circa 2004 and
later (with 2 ghz P4 CPU with at least 256 mb of ram and a decent Nvidia
or ATI video card) you too would experience trouble-free operation.

I cant remember the last time I got a blue screen. My hardware is from
2000. It's a 1ghz proc with 512m RAM. What I do get on occasion is a
problem where Explorer crashes when I start moving files around in large
numbers.

I'm not sure if that's related to the infamous, large number of files
copying problem (hangup) in windows explorer, but if so, that was "resolved"
(as I mentioned earlier) with swapping out the two browse DLL files.

But that [doesn't] shut down the computer. I can still copy, paste
and move files. What also happens on occasion is that if I open too
many things, I get a major system slow-down, icons turn black, and my
memory/system useage goes way down. But this requires about 20 open
webpages, and a dozen other apps. I just need to shut down soem stuff
and everything is fine.

One way you can get some blue screens is to mess around with the system, by
installing or tweaking various programs, and finding some "issues" along the
journey. And this is *much* less common with XP, which tends to isolate
things in their own program space.

But if you just install a few programs, and leave it at that, you may not
run into as many issues. :-) But I tend to be a bit adventurous with
trying out different programs (and also tweaking the registry for some apps,
as need be).

+On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:30:18 -0000, Computer Nerd Kev
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2013, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

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).

Well as I look now, LiteStep is using 11.5MB RAM. I just fired
up explorer (been a long time since I did that last) and after
opening a file manager window and closing it a couple of times
it was sitting hapilly at ~39MB. Mind you as I said before, I
was having quite a bit of trouble with Explorer (I think it
would suddenly go to 100% CPU usage or something like that),
so it may not be the healthiest example.

I did dl Litestep, but it seemed to take a similar amount of RAM to
explorer (c. 15M)


Perhaps I'm a bit overly sensitive to RAM use, but I like a
minimal background resource usage so that I leave as much
power as possible for the programs I want to use

I agree, keep it small!

[]


I sometimes even go as far as DOS.

Happy Days.


--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

On 02/19/2013 01:07 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:16:53 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:


Why do I not see Firefox 2.0.0.20 in that list?

I have Firefox 3.x installed. It works best of all the browsers I use,
but it's always been the slowest browser to load. K-Meleon always
loaded almost instantly, and had a few features that FF lacks, which I
liked. I still use K-Meleon for weather maps and sites that I know work
on it.


I suggest that you obtain and install a Win-98 API-extender /
compatibility layer developed by a group of enthusiasts called
"KernelEx". This allows Win-98 to run many applications that require
Win-2k or XP, such as many recent versions of Firefox and Opera, as
well as the most recent versions of VLC media player, Java JRE 6, and
Adobe Flash player.

KernelEx can be downloaded from he


I have used KernelEx for at least 3 years!




If you want a very fast (though extremely minimal) browser, then use
OffByOne.

As to Opera, I also hated it when it first came out
but now use it occasionally on my Linux machine and it works fine.
The newsreader portion loads horribly slow though, too slow to use. It
has a lot of features I like but I don;t use it

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

wrote:

Why do I not see Firefox 2.0.0.20 in that list?

I have Firefox 3.x installed.

Why haven't you tried a more recent version of Firefox then? Such as
10?

And why have you claimed that you can't run a more recent version of
Opera? You should have at least tried version 12.

I have used KernelEx for at least 3 years!

There was an important change to KernelEx a few years ago. If you have
any version of KernelEx 3.x, you are strongly advised to replace it with
the most recent version (4.5.2).

wrote:

I used Opera back when I was running Windows 3.x, installed versions
such as 4, 5 and 8 over the years in win95 and 98, and recently
installed ver 10.63, which is the last one that will work on Win98
with KEX, from what I read.

You are incorrect.

Opera version 10.63 is actually one of the last (or the last) versions
that you can install and run *WITHOUT* Kex.

Over the years, I have never liked Opera.

You're looking for web-browsing solutions for win-98.

You should at least try the most recent version of Opera. Otherwise -
what's the point of coming here and asking for help?

I dont like the way it looks, and worse it has always had problems
rendering pages corectly, as well as crashing more often than other
browsers. I only installed the ver 10.63 recently
thinking that maybe they had changed it.

That's an old version. Do yourself a favor and try version 12 of
Opera. And make sure you are running the latest version of Kex before
you try it.

And explain why you haven't tried a more recent version of Firefox, such
as 10.

wrote:

With the html 5, I'm constantly getting script errors in the
browsers I have been using

What version of Adobe Flash do you have installed?

(many websites use flash)

You might want to install this "unoffical" Windows Scripting Host 5.7
update:

================
Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME Microsoft Scripting Engines (MSE)
5.7 build 5.7.0.16535

http://www.mdgx.com/files/SCR579X.EXE

CAUTION:

In case you encounter errors while using Internet Explorer (IE), Outlook
Express (OE), Windows Media Player (WMP), Java Script (JS), VB Script
(VBS), HTML Application (HTA), HyperText Template (HTT), Compiled HTML
Help (CHM) or
other Scripting software (re)-install MSE 5.6:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/SCR569X.EXE

REQUIRED:

Requires MS Internet Explorer (IE) 5.5 SP2 or MS IE 6.0/6.0 SP1 already
installed!

More info:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/scr57.php
==================

If you're really hard-core into improving / tweaking your Windows 98
setup, you should look he

http://www.mdgx.com/upd98me.php#TOP

Or this:

Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.17

http://www.htasoft.com/u98sesp/

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:22:16 -0000, Bill in Co
wrote:

98 Guy wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:
[]

But none of that is as transparent and readily available as it is with
WinXP. Nothing much to add the if you want to spend a bunch of time
and energy trying to get it all to work well in W98, that's your call.
I'd
rather have it ALL available at the outset, as I've got enough other
things
to pursue. And I sure don't need ANY additional cards or other software
or
hardware support gimmicks to get it. And no add ons.

But this *is* a w98 group!

--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:22:16 -0000, Bill in Co
wrote:

98 Guy wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:
[]

But none of that is as transparent and readily available as it is with
WinXP. Nothing much to add the if you want to spend a bunch of time
and energy trying to get it all to work well in W98, that's your call.
I'd
rather have it ALL available at the outset, as I've got enough other
things
to pursue. And I sure don't need ANY additional cards or other software
or hardware support gimmicks to get it. And no add ons.

But this *is* a w98 group!

LOL. Good point. But I'd make the suggestion to some holdouts that it just
might be worth the migration, unless everything they have now (old software)
is all they need (although nowadays, even getting XP might be a problem).

I still like 98 (it's on the other computer), but not its limitations in
practice(in terms of what can be installed on it anymore, KernelEx
notwithstanding). And unfortunately KernelEx is only a "solution" for a
limited number of apps. As I mentioned, you can't even install something as
good as the old and excellent Adobe Audition 1.5 (its best version) for
audio rework, or Cyberlink PowerDirector, for video rework.

98 Guy wrote:
wrote:

Why do I not see Firefox 2.0.0.20 in that list?

I have Firefox 3.x installed.

Why haven't you tried a more recent version of Firefox then? Such as
10?

And why have you claimed that you can't run a more recent version of
Opera? You should have at least tried version 12.

Maybe he doesn't want Opera anyways.

I have used KernelEx for at least 3 years!

There was an important change to KernelEx a few years ago. If you have
any version of KernelEx 3.x, you are strongly advised to replace it with
the most recent version (4.5.2).

I wonder how "monumental" the change was, however.
It *would* be monumental if it could modify the installers of most other
programs to at least give a chance to be actually installed.