What kind of browser for Windows 98?
P@trick
has done fine, but now because of whatever improvements
have been made it will no longer show most maps, or the
weather. I like using an older version of Netscape 7.1 because
of the personal toolbar. Is it possible that I could once again
view maps and weather if I start using a later browser? I tried
the latest version of Firefox but was told it would not run on
my system. Is there an older version that would run using
Windows 98, and if so is it likely that it would be any sort of
an improvement? I didn't see an option to download older
versions at Mozilla, so where could I download one if it might
do some good?
Thanks for any help!
Conor
says...
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Paul
How about the Opera browser ?
http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/386/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_browser
Paul
JD
Hi there you Can probably find a browser that works for you here
www.oldversion.com
However I would highly recommend updating your Computer to a more modern
PC with a new OS (XP, Vista, etc) or at the very least give Linux a try
(www.ubuntu.com will probably suite your needs just fine) Windows 98 was
and still is a terrible OS it will be badly insecure on the net not to
mention slow and temperamental.
JD
Mike Easter
> I'm using an old PC with Windows 98 on it.
> I tried
> the latest version of Firefox but was told it would not run on
> my system.
You can run FF3 with KernelEx.
> Is there an older version that would run using
> Windows 98, and if so is it likely that it would be any sort of
> an improvement?
You can run FF2 without any supplement. You can run K-Meleon which is
based on the same Gecko engine as FF.
You can run Opera.
> I didn't see an option to download older
> versions at Mozilla, so where could I download one if it might
> do some good?
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html Download Firefox
2.0.0.20
http://x86.neostrada.pl/KernelEx/ KernelEx is an Open Source
compatibility layer with an aim to allow running Windows 2000/XP-only
applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft Windows Millennium
operating systems.
http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/ K-Meleon is an extremely fast,
customizable, lightweight web browser based on the Gecko layout engine
developed by Mozilla which is also used by Firefox.
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
> I'm using an old PC with Windows 98 on it.
What exactly is the hardware, cpu & ram?
--
Mike Easter
Jeff Strickland
<P@trick.> wrote in message
news:7vol051heu95hgpes...@4ax.com...
If the CIA was forcing you to use 98, the Obama Administration would have
them investigated for torturing you.
James D. Andrews
"JD" <No.R...@sorry.com> wrote in message
news:4a0b1392$0$26978$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
With each new generation of Windows OSs, users increasingly trash older OSs.
This will always be the case. When Win95 came along, Win 3... sucked. When
98 came along, 95 sucked. The only exception to this rule was Vista. When
Vista came along, Vista sucked.
Many of us did just fine using older generation OSs and older computers. I
only upgraded to a P3 two years ago, and I ran Win ME. I LOVED ME (<---
that looks funny). However, upgrades are being forced upon us regardless of
our desires. When MS dropped support for 98 (and subsequently, ME), so did
my ISP, and suddenly I no longer had Internet. I was forced to upgrade to
XP.
I've more or less gotten the hang of XP now. There are still things here
or there I don't like, but I've gotten used to it. Perhaps more secure than
previous generations (supposedly), but much more tempermental.
Although I don't agree with the above trash talk and I don't share the
sentiment that older is garbage, I do agree it's time to upgrade, like it or
not. You'll find fewer and fewer capabilities with your older system.
Though much better systems are available, if money is an issue, there are
the Wally World specials. It's better to spring for $300 for a low-end
P4-equiv. with Windows and some software loaded, than pump out $90 for the
Windows upgrade and still not have a fast enough processor and sufficient
RAM to play games.
Some alternate browser versions are suggested, but in the long run, these
will be quick fixes.
Good luck!
Woof
JD
>
> With each new generation of Windows OSs, users increasingly trash older OSs.
> This will always be the case. When Win95 came along, Win 3... sucked. When
> 98 came along, 95 sucked. The only exception to this rule was Vista. When
> Vista came along, Vista sucked.
I was not saying Win9x is trash Because its older, I was pointing out
that windows 9x Is no longer supported, has many bugs and no real
security, if you are using this on the internet esp for internet banking
or purchasing this is a very bad idea
> Many of us did just fine using older generation OSs and older computers. I
> only upgraded to a P3 two years ago, and I ran Win ME. I LOVED ME (<---
> that looks funny). However, upgrades are being forced upon us regardless of
> our desires. When MS dropped support for 98 (and subsequently, ME), so did
> my ISP, and suddenly I no longer had Internet. I was forced to upgrade to
> XP.
I think supporting a product for over 10 years is more than enough,
However I do agree with you on forced upgrades, but then again I did
also suggest a free alternative that was not only more secure but would
run on older hardware, you didn't seriously like Windows ME did you?
that barley even worked it was even slower and more buggy than windows
9x, Why people never used windows 2000 then amazes me, that was a pretty
decent OS.
> I've more or less gotten the hang of XP now. There are still things here
> or there I don't like, but I've gotten used to it. Perhaps more secure than
> previous generations (supposedly), but much more tempermental.
Windows XP claimed to be the most secure version of windows ever at the
time, however I was the least secure version it was so bad they had to
make Service pack 2 which is nearly a whole different OS than the one
they released.
> Although I don't agree with the above trash talk and I don't share the
> sentiment that older is garbage, I do agree it's time to upgrade, like it or
> not. You'll find fewer and fewer capabilities with your older system.
Seriously how can anyone say Windows 9x was a good OS, I said it then I
say it now, it has nothing to do with the fact that it is "older" (I was
using WORKBENCH on an amiga before I went to PC's and that was better
than windows 9x lol)
If you use your PC for any length of time get a newer machine (and newer
OS), It's a better and more productive experience for yourself.
JD
a1e...@verizon.net
I am using Firefox 2.0, Netscape 9.0 and Opera 9.23 on Windows 98SE.
They work fine on The Weather Channel.
Netscape 9.0 requires a separate down load of two files, MSVCP71.DLL
and msvcr71.dll. Do not ask me why the filenames use differing cases.
Good luck.
Herbert
Peter
What sites exactly are you getting checking maps and weather from. I
have a win98SE comp here and can access most sites without any problems
using both IE and Opera.
--
Pete Ives
Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email
tony sayer
<No.R...@sorry.com> scribeth thus
I'd second that, try Linux or if you can get hold of a copy WIN 200 pro
that was, and still is, a very good operating system
I was glad to see the back of WIN 98 it really was a doggie;!...
As to browser Firefox .. good stable and free:))..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<jamesd...@att.net> scribeth thus
Wine ME was like the human virus of the same name;!..
> However, upgrades are being forced upon us regardless of
>our desires. When MS dropped support for 98 (and subsequently, ME), so did
>my ISP, and suddenly I no longer had Internet. I was forced to upgrade to
>XP.
WIN 2000 was about the best they did.. 98 was shite..
For most else LINUX:)...
>
>I've more or less gotten the hang of XP now. There are still things here
>or there I don't like, but I've gotten used to it. Perhaps more secure than
>previous generations (supposedly), but much more tempermental.
>
>Although I don't agree with the above trash talk and I don't share the
>sentiment that older is garbage, I do agree it's time to upgrade, like it or
>not. You'll find fewer and fewer capabilities with your older system.
>
>Though much better systems are available, if money is an issue, there are
>the Wally World specials. It's better to spring for $300 for a low-end
>P4-equiv. with Windows and some software loaded, than pump out $90 for the
>Windows upgrade and still not have a fast enough processor and sufficient
>RAM to play games.
>
>Some alternate browser versions are suggested,
Yep .. Firefox is the one of choice now:))..
>but in the long run, these
>will be quick fixes.
>
>Good luck!
>
>Woof
>
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
sandy58
Try Firefox 2.0 and/or Opera?
sandy58
Found this. I hope it helps.
Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.18
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0.0.18/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%202.0.0.18.exe
James D. Andrews
>>
SNIP
> I was not saying Win9x is trash Because its older, I was pointing out that
> windows 9x Is no longer supported, has many bugs and no real security, if
> you are using this on the internet esp for internet banking or purchasing
> this is a very bad idea
>
Yes, you're right, it's best not to use the older system for modern shopping
and banking. That comes under one of the main reasons that it's become time
for that upgrade.
So, what do you recommend to people on fixed incomes now faced with forced
upgrades? Save for the basic 1+GHz pre-loaded with Vista? Buy the XP SP2
Upgrade to 98/ME? Can Vista or Win 7 even run on old P2s?
>
> I think supporting a product for over 10 years is more than enough,
> However I do agree with you on forced upgrades, but then again I did also
> suggest a free alternative that was not only more secure but would run on
> older hardware, you didn't seriously like Windows ME did you? that barley
> even worked it was even slower and more buggy than windows 9x, Why people
> never used windows 2000 then amazes me, that was a pretty decent OS.
>
I had virtually no problems working with ME until MS pulled the plug. To be
honest, I didn't have many problems with 98 during its time. Both loaded
quicker on my systems than XP. Most problems that occurred were easy to
fix. But I suppose you're right, 10 years is long enough for support.
What bothers me about forced upgrades of an OS is that it often (not always)
requires forced upgrades of older software. I have several programs that I
use frequently that I still have from W95. I even have some DOS-run.
Honest! I miss some of those that didn't survive the transition. I don't
like it when I'm no longer able to use a particular program because MS says
so. Maybe I'm just finicky.
I don't know why W2000 didn't go over bigger. I think it was promoted less
for a public market and more for business aspects. And common people for
the most part are reluctant to change. I know I am. Once I become
comfortable working with something, I don't want to rush out and get the
next best thing or such. For one, like many consumers, I just can't afford
to run out and replace everything every year or two. With businesses, it's
more necessary to keep up with each advance. That's probably why 2000 went
over in the business sector but not so much in the private.
SNIP SNIP
>
> Windows XP claimed to be the most secure version of windows ever at the
> time, however I was the least secure version it was so bad they had to
> make Service pack 2 which is nearly a whole different OS than the one they
> released.
>
With XP, I developed my philophy of don't trust MS OS until SP2. I may be
the last to play with the new system this way, but at least most of the bugs
are worked out by then. Also of note is that MS will make claims to each
new system being better than its predecessor - necessary for marketing.
> Seriously how can anyone say Windows 9x was a good OS, I said it then I
> say it now, it has nothing to do with the fact that it is "older" (I was
> using WORKBENCH on an amiga before I went to PC's and that was better than
> windows 9x lol)
Amiga? Hmmm. I think I remember those, poofy hairdos, synthesizer pop :)
> If you use your PC for any length of time get a newer machine (and newer
> OS), It's a better and more productive experience for yourself.
>
> JD
It all comes down to what you use your machine for. If its little more than
a $500-$1500 game of solitaire and word processor, an upgrade isn't
necessary. If you need to surf the net quickly and do business on-line or
want to play modern games, obviously the upgrade is necessary. And, of
course, a lot of newer equipment demands XP or later to operate. It's not
easy to find a printer that will work with pre-XP anymore.
Woof
Mike Easter
> "JD"
>> if you are using this on the internet esp for internet
>> banking or purchasing this is a very bad idea
> Yes, you're right, it's best not to use the older system for modern
> shopping and banking. That comes under one of the main reasons that
> it's become time for that upgrade.
You can shop and bank securely with W98 and you can shop and bank
insecurely with Vista/Win7 or the newest linux distro.
> So, what do you recommend to people on fixed incomes now faced with
> forced upgrades? Save for the basic 1+GHz pre-loaded with Vista? Buy
> the XP SP2 Upgrade to 98/ME? Can Vista or Win 7 even run on old P2s?
All of the old Win98 machines I have around here also run one modern linux
distro or another perfectly well, in fact on all of my W98s, I have a
choice of which linux distro I like the best, not just the 'slimmest'.
However, I have also run W98 on some primitive machines that I wouldn't
want to run linux because it would require too much nongraphical
configuration.
--
Mike Easter
JD
>
> Yes, you're right, it's best not to use the older system for modern shopping
> and banking. That comes under one of the main reasons that it's become time
> for that upgrade.
>
> So, what do you recommend to people on fixed incomes now faced with forced
> upgrades? Save for the basic 1+GHz pre-loaded with Vista? Buy the XP SP2
> Upgrade to 98/ME? Can Vista or Win 7 even run on old P2s?
As you say further down the Thread, if the computer does what you need
then its fine no reason to upgrade really (other than a better
experience and more secure (hopefully))
The problem lies in the fact that Microsoft needs to produce a new OS
every 3-5 years for revenue and PC shops also need this because that's
what helps to sell new computers.
I've been following news on Windows 7, and apparently it will run on
older pc without much problems its not as bloated as vista, many people
have Windows 7 loaded onto "netbooks" you know those cheap low spec
laptop replacements designed for surfing etc (typical spec is a sub 1Ghz
CPU with 512 to 1GB of memmory)
I will be installing Windows 7 RC1 64 bit on a test machine later on
tonight.
>
> I had virtually no problems working with ME until MS pulled the plug. To be
> honest, I didn't have many problems with 98 during its time. Both loaded
> quicker on my systems than XP. Most problems that occurred were easy to
> fix. But I suppose you're right, 10 years is long enough for support.
>
> What bothers me about forced upgrades of an OS is that it often (not always)
> requires forced upgrades of older software. I have several programs that I
> use frequently that I still have from W95. I even have some DOS-run.
> Honest! I miss some of those that didn't survive the transition. I don't
> like it when I'm no longer able to use a particular program because MS says
> so. Maybe I'm just finicky.
>
This is no real problem on a modern PC If I had old software I wanted or
needed to run I'd Just set up a virtual machine for that particular OS
and install/Run the programs I require, there's even a compatibility
mode built into XP and newer OS's so you can run the program as if it
was a 95,98/me,NT4 or 2000
> I don't know why W2000 didn't go over bigger. I think it was promoted less
> for a public market and more for business aspects. And common people for
> the most part are reluctant to change. I know I am. Once I become
> comfortable working with something, I don't want to rush out and get the
> next best thing or such. For one, like many consumers, I just can't afford
> to run out and replace everything every year or two. With businesses, it's
> more necessary to keep up with each advance. That's probably why 2000 went
> over in the business sector but not so much in the private.
Windows 2000 was a great OS, Many offices still use it, I'm quite the
opposite of yourself I love upgrading getting new PC gear every chance I
get, it is quite expensive tho, but on the other hand I fix loads of
pc's and that gives me more cash to spend on more gear lol
Currently Running a Qaud core 8GB ram (1033MHZ Ram), 8GB Ram drive for
OS (2x Gigabit I-Rams in Raid 0, A hard drive that uses RAM instead of
platters even puts the new Solid state drives in the shade) all the
optical drives are on SATA-II's also + Spinpoint 1GB drive for storage
HD4850 GFX etc, this things fast I can run 2 eve clients, transcode
video and copy a dvd at the same time and even brows the internet and it
wont go over 70% CPU
>
> With XP, I developed my philophy of don't trust MS OS until SP2. I may be
> the last to play with the new system this way, but at least most of the bugs
> are worked out by then. Also of note is that MS will make claims to each
> new system being better than its predecessor - necessary for marketing.
Always sensible to wait for a bit to see what problems are occurring
before getting the latest OS
> Amiga? Hmmm. I think I remember those, poofy hairdos, synthesizer pop :)
>
I think you are getting confused with the Atari
>
> It all comes down to what you use your machine for. If its little more than
> a $500-$1500 game of solitaire and word processor, an upgrade isn't
> necessary. If you need to surf the net quickly and do business on-line or
> want to play modern games, obviously the upgrade is necessary. And, of
> course, a lot of newer equipment demands XP or later to operate. It's not
> easy to find a printer that will work with pre-XP anymore.
>
I covered this bit way back at the top, Did some sniping to make the
thread more readable also
JD
JD
> You can shop and bank securely with W98 and you can shop and bank
> insecurely with Vista/Win7 or the newest linux distro.
>
Very good point.
its probably the users that cause most of the problems other than the
OS its self, however even the safest users security can be let down by a
poorly written program and that was the angle I was going for (as its no
longer supported, and bugs are still being found that filter down the
Windows versions chain)
:)
> However, I have also run W98 on some primitive machines that I wouldn't
> want to run linux because it would require too much nongraphical
> configuration.
>
While were on the Subject of OS's my favorate OS of all time is FreeBSD
not the most user friendly or best program for most users but i like its
simple design of minimal install and add the stuff you require.
JD
Robert Baer
some sites (notably MapQuest but not Goo-Gull), i have seen no
"security" problems.
In fact, i understand that most if not all of the hacks involving the
root are incapable of running because of the limited support of Win98SE
- which certainly NOT the case for the bloated XP and fat-on-fat ugly
Vista (and "seven" is worse in many ways: Borg 5th of 7?).
Speed? the boot time seems to be an order of magnitude faster than
those others - mainly due to the smaller size.
Temperamental? Roughly in the same ballpark as those mentioned.
Don Phillipson
news:7vol051heu95hgpes...@4ax.com...
> has done fine, but now because of whatever improvements
> have been made it will no longer show most maps, or the
> weather. I like using an older version of Netscape 7.1 because
> of the personal toolbar. Is it possible that I could once again
> view maps and weather if I start using a later browser? I tried
> the latest version of Firefox but was told it would not run on
> my system. Is there an older version that would run using
> Windows 98
Version 2 of Mozilla Firefox works well under Win98SE and can
be downloaded from
http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/2.0.0.16/releasenotes/
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
JD
> Well, i use Win98SE and NetScrape 7.2 and other than map probems on
> some sites (notably MapQuest but not Goo-Gull), i have seen no
> "security" problems.
> In fact, i understand that most if not all of the hacks involving the
> root are incapable of running because of the limited support of Win98SE
Hi there I don't want to beat on about security issues but (there's
always a but lol)
Rootkit's are not much of a problem on Win9x as there is no user level
security in place, everything runs as root (or ring 0)if a rootkit/worm
or other piece of malicious code is doing its job properly you would not
notice that's the whole point of them.
> - which certainly NOT the case for the bloated XP and fat-on-fat ugly
> Vista (and "seven" is worse in many ways: Borg 5th of 7?).
Yes code is getting bloated and I also dislike Windows vista, I dislike
the amount of version there are, 7 versions in total, all designed to
remove different amounts of cash from your wallet, that was a deciding
factor for me not purchasing or using vista, there should be 2 versions
at most 1 for business and 1 for home (and i don't mean like a home
version, Windows Business and Windows pro is the way I'd like it)
> Speed? the boot time seems to be an order of magnitude faster than
> those others - mainly due to the smaller size.
Speed that's a tricky one, Just taking the Operating system standpoint
if I put windows 9x on my pc it would be slow as it just cant handle,
large bandwidths, multiple cpu's/threading, Sata drivves etc.
> Temperamental? Roughly in the same ballpark as those mentioned.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one, if you don't
install a lot of software change hardware semi regularly then i can see
it not causing much problems for you, but 9x has caused me more grief
than i care to remember.
At the end of the day its your computer and you that's using it, I'm
just offering some advice (hopefully helpful)
JD
Peter
says...
> James D. Andrews wrote:
> > "JD"
>
> >> if you are using this on the internet esp for internet
> >> banking or purchasing this is a very bad idea
>
> > Yes, you're right, it's best not to use the older system for modern
> > shopping and banking. That comes under one of the main reasons that
> > it's become time for that upgrade.
>
> You can shop and bank securely with W98 and you can shop and bank
> insecurely with Vista/Win7 or the newest linux distro.
>
Seconded! I've had no problem doing both for many years on a W98 box.
Peter
says...
> Robert Baer wrote:
>
> > Well, i use Win98SE and NetScrape 7.2 and other than map probems on
> > some sites (notably MapQuest but not Goo-Gull), i have seen no
> > "security" problems.
> > In fact, i understand that most if not all of the hacks involving the
> > root are incapable of running because of the limited support of Win98SE
>
> Hi there I don't want to beat on about security issues but (there's
> always a but lol)
>
> Rootkit's are not much of a problem on Win9x as there is no user level
> security in place, everything runs as root (or ring 0)if a rootkit/worm
> or other piece of malicious code is doing its job properly you would not
> notice that's the whole point of them.
>
Is rootkit code the same, no matter the O/S in use? The way I see W98 -
perhaps incorrectly - is that no-one is going to bother to write
malicious code that will target an outdated O/S. They are going to
target XP or Vista. The security issues on Vista & XP are not going to
be the same on W98. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it? What
do you think?
tony sayer
<pete.ives...@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
I was very glad to see the back of it and its memory leaks when we moved
to WIN 2000 Pro .. and that still does all we -need-
We did have a PC here with Vista ... bib, big, mistake:(..
--
Tony Sayer
Jon Danniken
> I was very glad to see the back of it and its memory leaks when we moved
> to WIN 2000 Pro .. and that still does all we -need-
>
> We did have a PC here with Vista ... bib, big, mistake:(..
IMHO, Win2k was the best OS of the bunch. I have always regretted having to
move "up" to XP.
Jon
JD
>
> Is rootkit code the same, no matter the O/S in use? The way I see W98 -
> perhaps incorrectly - is that no-one is going to bother to write
> malicious code that will target an outdated O/S. They are going to
> target XP or Vista. The security issues on Vista & XP are not going to
> be the same on W98. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it? What
> do you think?
>
Rootkit code exploits the Kernel debug commands that are built into the
OS they then install custom Dynamic Link Libraries (loaded in as device
drivers) which contains the malicious code/ back doors etc they require.
I really cant remember to be honest if win 98 has the same debug
commands but I would assume so.
As for writing malicious code for an outdated OS, probably not but there
are still bugs being found that affect all versions of windows from
Vista all the way down to 9x there was quite a famous one as an example,
happened a good few moths ago, there was a flaw in the way that windows
handled jpeg pictures, if code was specially crafted into a jpeg image
and opened on a windows machine it could execute code this affected all
versions of windows and there was a big ho-ha because Microsoft was not
going to fix the win9x bug just the xp and vista machines, but they
eventually issued a patch for all OS's
Last week there was a flaw in adobes acrobat reader that affects all
versions and all Operating systems including Linux and mac so it just
goes to show you that you have to keep things up to date.
But as was said on a previous post, its all down to the user really and
there surfing habits.
JPEG vuln (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/ms05-038.mspx)
Adobe reader problem
(http://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/2009/04/update_on_adobe_reader_issue.html)
JD
James D. Andrews
Did you get that from Freebyte, or Berkely (sp)?
JD
Berkley ofcoarse www.freebsd.org also Frenzy is a very good version that
runs from a CD good for troubleshooting etc
James D. Andrews
> James D. Andrews wrote:
>
>>
SNIP
>> So, what do you recommend to people on fixed incomes now faced with
>> forced upgrades? Save for the basic 1+GHz pre-loaded with Vista? Buy the
>> XP SP2 Upgrade to 98/ME? Can Vista or Win 7 even run on old P2s?
>
SNIP SNIP
> I've been following news on Windows 7, and apparently it will run on older
> pc without much problems its not as bloated as vista, many people have
> Windows 7 loaded onto "netbooks" you know those cheap low spec laptop
> replacements designed for surfing etc (typical spec is a sub 1Ghz CPU with
> 512 to 1GB of memmory)
>
> I will be installing Windows 7 RC1 64 bit on a test machine later on
> tonight.
>
I'll be interested in hearing you're results.
>> What bothers me about forced upgrades of an OS is that it often (not
>> always) requires forced upgrades of older software. I have several
>> programs that I use frequently that I still have from W95. I even have
>> some DOS-run. Honest! I miss some of those that didn't survive the
>> transition. I don't like it when I'm no longer able to use a particular
>> program because MS says so. Maybe I'm just finicky.
>>
>
> This is no real problem on a modern PC If I had old software I wanted or
> needed to run I'd Just set up a virtual machine for that particular OS and
> install/Run the programs I require, there's even a compatibility mode
> built into XP and newer OS's so you can run the program as if it was a
> 95,98/me,NT4 or 2000
>
>
Virtual machine beyond my scope. As for the XPs compatibility mode, it
still doesn't allow all old programs. Fortunately, it does allow one of my
most important programs, a cookbook set for Win 3.1/95. I use it quite
often. But some of my old video games didn't survive the jump.
> Windows 2000 was a great OS, Many offices still use it, I'm quite the
> opposite of yourself I love upgrading getting new PC gear every chance I
> get, it is quite expensive tho, but on the other hand I fix loads of pc's
> and that gives me more cash to spend on more gear lol
>
I'm a lower intermediate. I rebuild and fix older systems for people who
can't really afford computers, and solve the many operator-caused problems
for family and extended family.
> Currently Running a Qaud core 8GB ram (1033MHZ Ram), 8GB Ram drive for OS
> (2x Gigabit I-Rams in Raid 0, A hard drive that uses RAM instead of
> platters even puts the new Solid state drives in the shade) all the
> optical drives are on SATA-II's also + Spinpoint 1GB drive for storage
> HD4850 GFX etc, this things fast I can run 2 eve clients, transcode video
> and copy a dvd at the same time and even brows the internet and it wont go
> over 70% CPU
>
WOW. Can I have it when you're done? :)
>>
>> With XP, I developed my philophy of don't trust MS OS until SP2. I may
>> be the last to play with the new system this way, but at least most of
>> the bugs are worked out by then.
> Always sensible to wait for a bit to see what problems are occurring
> before getting the latest OS
>
>
>> Amiga? Hmmm. I think I remember those, poofy hairdos, synthesizer pop
>> :)
>>
>
> I think you are getting confused with the Atari
>
Nah! Amiga was put out in mid-80s by Commodore to compete with the Mac and
IBM-PC. It was popular for "advanced" graphics and midi. A friend of mine
used it for his synthesizer. I went with the Commodore Colt PC-clone with
twin 5.25" floppy drives and spent hours playing Empire. OK. I'm feeling a
little old now.
>
> JD
Woof
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
I write this from a 500Mhz P-III box running W98se. I am using and
recommend that you try SeaMonkey V1.1.14. This is a functionally
direct descendant of NS7.1 which contains both a Web browser and
and Email and News client. You can download it from the Mozilla
site.
Note: The next version of SeaMonkey (V 2) will also no longer work
with W98. But supposedly will (supposedly the beta does) work with
one of the compatability extensions ...
You should subscribe to the mozilla.support.seamonkey newsgroup
on the news.mozilla.org news server. SM2 on W98+ has been discussed.
Anyway GOOGLE SeaMonkey ...
--
Rostyk
tre...@googlemail.com
the web brower that's the problem, it's the system.
Hope it helps you. For more information http://groups.google.com/group/trevor-hook
Regards,
Trevor
On May 13, 8:21 am, P@trick. wrote:
> I'm using an old PC with Windows 98 on it. Up until recently it
> has done fine, but now because of whatever improvements
> have been made it will no longer show most maps, or the
> weather. I like using an older version of Netscape 7.1 because
> of the personal toolbar. Is it possible that I could once again
> view maps and weather if I start using a laterbrowser? I tried
> the latest version of Firefox but was told it would not run on
> my system. Is there an older version that would run using
Don Phillipson
> I'm using an old PC with Windows 98 on it. Up until recently it
> has done fine, but now because of whatever improvements
> have been made it will no longer show most maps, or the
> weather. I like using an older version of Netscape 7.1 because
> of the personal toolbar. Is it possible that I could once again
> view maps and weather if I start using a laterbrowser? I tried
> the latest version of Firefox but was told it would not run on
> my system. Is there an older version that would run using
> Windows 98, and if so is it likely that it would be any sort of
> an improvement?
Under Win98SE I use and recommend Mozilla Firefox v.2.0.0.20
(the last issued for Win98) downloadable from
http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html
The most common limitation of Win98 seems to be PDF
documents. The last Adobe AcroRead for Win98 was v.6
and the software for XP now is up to v.8. Documents
created under later versions sometimes prompt in V.6
an error message that some components may not display:
but this has never yet prevented my reading anything I
wanted to see.
Ralph Laureen
> I'm using an old PC with Windows 98 on it. Up until recently it
> has done fine, but now because of whatever improvements
> have been made it will no longer show most maps, or the
> weather. I like using an older version of Netscape 7.1 because
> of the personal toolbar. Is it possible that I could once again
> view maps and weather if I start using a laterbrowser? I tried
> my system. Is there an older version that would run using
> Windows 98, and if so is it likely that it would be any sort of
> versions at Mozilla, so where could I download one if it might
> do some good?
>
> Thanks for any help!
Hey Why don't you try mozilla its one of the best browser here is the
link http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/personal.html
RobF
--
RobF
Address invalid
"Ralph Laureen" <ralphl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05ebc340-6bef-49af...@t16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
GEO
wrote:
>>Hey Why don't you try mozilla....
>Fire Fox won't install on Win 98. See system requirements.
>
Did anybody mention Seamonkey??
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/sitemap
Geo
Gemini-Aquarius7.com
You will find Affiliates: Wonderlabs Labs (oral Chelation - Good Variety of
Herbs) - CloudNine ( Anti-Aging products )
You will be able to subscribe to a Satellite web site to watch TV online -
or download from (movies all free)
Also a Canadian Company called Tiger Direct ( you will find a large variety
of Products)
"Ralph Laureen" <ralphl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:05ebc340-6bef-49af...@t16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Gemini-Aquarius7.com
You will find Affiliates: Wonderlabs Labs (oral Chelation - Good Variety of
Herbs) - CloudNine ( Anti-Aging products )
You will be able to subscribe to a Satellite web site to watch TV online -
or download from (movies all free)
Also a Canadian Company called Tiger Direct ( you will find a large variety
of Products)
Now, you can buy from Gemini-Aquarius7 Amazon Associate Store
"GEO" <M...@home.here> wrote in message
news:4a411855...@news.telus.net...