A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is there any browser left for Win98se?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 18th 13, 12:27 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

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.
  #12  
Old February 18th 13, 06:48 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill in Co
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 701
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

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.


  #13  
Old February 18th 13, 07:01 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill in Co
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 701
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

98 Guy wrote:
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.


That doesn't prove he hasn't installed KernelEx; that's still an assumption
on your part. The fact that he mentioned using FF 3.5 implies he HAS
installed KernerEx, unless you know for a fact that FF 3.5 can be installed
without it, which I don't think is the case..

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.


Perhaps. Or perhaps he had a problem with some specific version he tried,
or he just made some assumptions about the newer versions.

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).


Well, there you go, as for another possibility. Maybe he tried that one.

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.


I'll raise you one, and state that using Win98 in 2013 - is a bit too
limited.
Well, maybe not for you, but it is for me and the stuff I want to do. Too
much software I can't install or run (even with KernelEx), and don't even
get me started on the limitations with the various browsers (regardless of
KernelEx, in many instances), and the whole direction that's heading And
the limited USB and SATA support. That said, I have it on my backup
computer, and it still gets some occasional use. :-)


  #14  
Old February 18th 13, 08:01 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Computer Nerd Kev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

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.

--
__ __
#_ |\| | _#
  #16  
Old February 18th 13, 03:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

Bill in Co wrote:

What he said was somewhat confusing.


That doesn't prove he hasn't installed KernelEx;


I wasn't trying to prove that he did, or didn't, install Kex - because
as I tried to show, his comments and claims about his experiences with
Firefox and Opera are conflicting.

The fact that he mentioned using FF 3.5 implies he HAS installed
KernerEx, unless you know for a fact that FF 3.5 can be installed
without it, which I don't think is the case..


I thought I made it clear in my last post that you can't install any
version of FF 3.x without having Kex.

"and the latest versions dont run in Win98"

Which is only true if you don't have Kex.


Perhaps.


No, it's true.

The last version of Opera that was fully supported on Windows 98/ME is
9.64 (March 2009). The 10.xx versions are generally stable without
KernelEX, except 10.5x and 10.60 (those versions have a bug). The bug
was fixed with version 10.61. You can't install / run version 11 and
higher without Kex.

I'll raise you one, and state that using Win98 in 2013 -
is a bit too limited. Well, maybe not for you,


I have access to Micro$oft technet and I have the CD's and license keys
for many different versions of Windows. Windows NT 4.1, Windows 2k, XP,
2003, etc. Server versions, all versions of 7 (home, premium, 32/64
bit, etc). I have PC's based on motherboards with 1 gb ram, Socket-775
Intel Pentiums (2.5 to 3.5 ghz).

If I found that win-98 was too limited, there is no financial or
technical barrier to start using some other version.

What I do find limiting is the direct access that the NT line of OS's
give me to files and settings. Far too many games played with user
accounts, rights, ownerships and permissions. I enjoy not having to
deal with that **** on Win-98.

and don't even get me started on the limitations with the various
browsers (regardless of KernelEx, in many instances),


The vast majority of commercial websites I visit, I visit to either read
something (a story linked off Drudge or Zerohedge for example) or watch
something (flash video). Firefox 2 will frequently mung up the
formatting of the page (the formatting of miscellaneous junk surrounding
the item of interest) but the items I want to read or the flash player
box that will show the video I want to watch will show up just fine.
That includes UStream and Youtube.

The sites that I do interact with (forums on various topics) are
rendered quite well with FF2, as are weather-related sites (real-time
doppler radar, satellite view, forcasts, etc). I will also have several
Forex graphs up on my screen at any given time (investing.com) and they
are rendered quite well - interactive java graphs actually.

I have no interest in twitter or fecebook, so I have no idea how those
garbage sites interact with win-98.

And the limited USB and SATA support.


Any USB thumb-drives that I've ever bought (from 512 mb to 32 gb) I can
plug in and use on my win-98 systems - without having to seek out and
install a driver for each one. And I would argue that the thumb drive
is going to be the most common type of USB device to be plugged into any
computer these days.

As for SATA support, you can walk into any big-box computer retailer,
even today, and buy a $15 PCI sata card that will be fully compatible
with win-98 and you will be able to connect and use any SATA hard drive
up to 2 tb in size.

Any motherboard with a socket 478 intel CPU that has integrated SATA
controller will be fully supported with drivers under windows 98. Even
a few boards with Socket 775 (with VIA chipset) will have SATA drivers
for win-98.

I have been connecting, formatting, and using SATA hard drives on my
win-98 systems since 2007, and I have written many posts here in this
newsgroup explaining and detailing my experiences. There is no "137 gb"
limitation when it comes to Windows-98 and SATA hard drives.
  #17  
Old February 18th 13, 09:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Stanley Daniel de Liver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:57:27 -0000, Robert Macy
wrote:

On Feb 16, 8:20 pm, wrote:
With the html 5,

[]

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.

[..]

I use Opera 9.64 on Win98 and can visit/view most websites.

[]

He already ruled that out. I doubt there's any HTML5 browsers being
written for W98, and even if there was one, I suspect that hardware from
that era would struggle.

--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question
  #18  
Old February 18th 13, 09:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Stanley Daniel de Liver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

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
  #19  
Old February 18th 13, 09:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill in Co
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 701
Default Is there any browser left for Win98se?

98 Guy wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

What he said was somewhat confusing.


That doesn't prove he hasn't installed KernelEx;


I wasn't trying to prove that he did, or didn't, install Kex - because
as I tried to show, his comments and claims about his experiences with
Firefox and Opera are conflicting.

The fact that he mentioned using FF 3.5 implies he HAS installed
KernerEx, unless you know for a fact that FF 3.5 can be installed
without it, which I don't think is the case..


I thought I made it clear in my last post that you can't install any
version of FF 3.x without having Kex.


Then he must have KernelEx installed.

"and the latest versions dont run in Win98"

Which is only true if you don't have Kex.


Perhaps.


No, it's true.

The last version of Opera that was fully supported on Windows 98/ME is
9.64 (March 2009). The 10.xx versions are generally stable without
KernelEX, except 10.5x and 10.60 (those versions have a bug). The bug
was fixed with version 10.61. You can't install / run version 11 and
higher without Kex.

I'll raise you one, and state that using Win98 in 2013 -
is a bit too limited. Well, maybe not for you,


I have access to Micro$oft technet and I have the CD's and license keys
for many different versions of Windows. Windows NT 4.1, Windows 2k,
XP, 2003, etc. Server versions, all versions of 7 (home, premium, 32/64
bit, etc). I have PC's based on motherboards with 1 gb ram, Socket-775
Intel Pentiums (2.5 to 3.5 ghz).

If I found that win-98 was too limited, there is no financial or
technical barrier to start using some other version.


By "too limited", I meant the bigger picture, not necessarily the "inherent"
limitations of the OS: I can't even install several good (and even older)
fundamental audio and video restoration apps, as I mentioned I wasn't
talking about games or Facebook (ugh). But those audio and video
restoration apps are essential for me for cleaning up such files for my own
use. (Most of the interesting stuff on YouTube needs "a bit" (cough) of
restoration work, if you want it in good shape).

NOTE: I'm not saying, or even implying, that those apps couldn't have been
written for W98, just that they weren't, so it's a non-issue. Heck, even
something as good as the near oldest version of Adobe Audition (which
improved on Cool Edit Pro) can't be used, and there is nothing available
that is installable on W98 that can do all it can do.

The other thing I don't miss about W98 was the (much) more frequent blue
screens (I mean, with all my varous software installations and
customizations), which I rarely see with XP.

What I do find limiting is the direct access that the NT line of OS's
give me to files and settings. Far too many games played with user
accounts, rights, ownerships and permissions. I enjoy not having to
deal with that **** on Win-98.


I have Administrator access to everything as the sole user, so that seems to
be a non issue for me (but I don't play games on the computer, so I don't
know about that).

and don't even get me started on the limitations with the various
browsers (regardless of KernelEx, in many instances),


The vast majority of commercial websites I visit, I visit to either read
something (a story linked off Drudge or Zerohedge for example) or watch
something (flash video). Firefox 2 will frequently mung up the
formatting of the page (the formatting of miscellaneous junk surrounding
the item of interest)


I don't want to deal with that, either. Egads. Too much Don Quixote
stuff.

but the items I want to read or the flash player
box that will show the video I want to watch will show up just fine.
That includes UStream and Youtube.

The sites that I do interact with (forums on various topics) are
rendered quite well with FF2, as are weather-related sites (real-time
doppler radar, satellite view, forcasts, etc). I will also have several
Forex graphs up on my screen at any given time (investing.com) and they
are rendered quite well - interactive java graphs actually.

I have no interest in twitter or fecebook, so I have no idea how those
garbage sites interact with win-98.

And the limited USB and SATA support.


Any USB thumb-drives that I've ever bought (from 512 mb to 32 gb) I can
plug in and use on my win-98 systems - without having to seek out and
install a driver for each one. And I would argue that the thumb drive
is going to be the most common type of USB device to be plugged into any
computer these days.

As for SATA support, you can walk into any big-box computer retailer,
even today, and buy a $15 PCI sata card that will be fully compatible
with win-98 and you will be able to connect and use any SATA hard drive
up to 2 tb in size.

Any motherboard with a socket 478 intel CPU that has integrated SATA
controller will be fully supported with drivers under windows 98. Even
a few boards with Socket 775 (with VIA chipset) will have SATA drivers
for win-98.

I have been connecting, formatting, and using SATA hard drives on my
win-98 systems since 2007, and I have written many posts here in this
newsgroup explaining and detailing my experiences. There is no "137 gb"
limitation when it comes to Windows-98 and SATA hard drives.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Win98se Browser problem Lawrence Albert General 1 January 2nd 06 02:15 PM
Browser hijacked - "about:blank" - "search for..." page hijacked my web browser. sergusha78 Internet 2 July 9th 04 03:15 AM
Browser hijacked: "search for..." page hijacked my web browser. HELP!!! sergusha78 Internet 2 July 7th 04 03:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.