Is there any browser left for Win98se?

[TY...@no.com]

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....

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <ici0i8tr7ultfmr9k...@4ax.com>, TY...@no.com
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 (ma...@pmail.net)]

[TY...@no.com]

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.

[philo]

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

[98 Guy]

TY...@no.com wrote:

> With the html 5, I'm constantly getting script errors in the
> browsers I have been using, namely K-Meleon, Netscape, and
> Seamonkey.

Why do I not see Firefox 2.0.0.20 in that list?

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 here:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex/
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/

The only requirement is that it requires a Microsoft Unicode layer
update for win-98, which can be downloaded from here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060707030141/http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/7/5/b75eace3-00e2-4aa0-9a6f-0b6882c71642/unicows.exe

I run win-98se with KernelEx, and my primary browser is Firefox
2.0.0.20. One other aspect to my system that I modify from time to time
are the entries in my HOSTS file. I am quite agressive at blocking
ad-servers, click-trackers, web-metrics track-back servers, and other
server elements that I find do not contribute anything to my web-surfing
experience, and even slow it down. This includes all references to
twitter and Fecebook (I am not a user of either one of those pieces of
garbage). I block these web-page elements by disabling their servers in
the HOSTS file. So, for example, I don't see commercials when viewing
episodes of TV shows online.

I don't run AV software - becuase (either by design or by luck) win-98
is simply not as vulnerable to web-based threats as the NT-line of
Windows. One side effect of agressivly blocking many of those nuisance
servers is that they are the source of many web-based threats when they
get hacked. This confuses a lot of people because they think it's the
website that they were viewing that was the cause of this or that
infection, when in fact it was one of those other servers.

I have posted many articles and answers here in these win-98 newsgroups
about solving web-surfing and general usage issues with win-98 - I
suggest you look them up. This includes hardware and large hard-drive
support.

[98 Guy]

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.

[Robert Macy]

I use Opera 9.64 on Win98 and can visit/view most websites. I've even
gotten downloaded videos from youtube that friends tell me they
couldn't get a copy of, only view real time. A few of the very
'pesky' new websites won't work, like those requiring MS Silverlight,
but I fire up the WinXP system every few months to get that info. But
day to day, Opera.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <e181i8l1n2s2fhrif...@4ax.com>, TY...@no.com
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
(m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998

[philo]

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

[Bill in Co]

98 Guy wrote:
> TY...@no.com wrote:
>
>> With the html 5, I'm constantly getting script errors in the
>> browsers I have been using, namely K-Meleon, Netscape, and
>> Seamonkey.
>
> 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. Did you actually read through his
post?

[98 Guy]

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.

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <e181i8l1n2s2fhrif...@4ax.com>, TY...@no.com
> 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.

[Bill in Co]

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. :-)

[Computer Nerd Kev]

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.

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

[dadiOH]

TY...@no.com 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


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

[98 Guy]

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 shit 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.

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:57:27 -0000, Robert Macy <robert...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 16, 8:20 pm, TY...@no.com 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

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:01:58 -0000, Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you>
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.
>


--

[Bill in Co]

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 shit 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.

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:27:25 -0000, dadiOH <dad...@invalid.com> wrote:

> TY...@no.com 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
>

I doubt brothersoft know anything other than keyword placement.
>

S4 upward has html5 support; but can it run on w98? Unlikely; it's a fork
of Chrome that never supported W98.

[98 Guy]

Bill in Co wrote:

> > 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.

If he did, then he could have tried Firefox 10.0.2 (at least). Instead
all he claimed was 3.5.

> By "too limited", I meant the bigger picture, not necessarily the
> "inherent" limitations of the OS:

Win-98 is inherently a WIN32 OS. What it lacks are the API functions
that have been added to the NT line, and many of the more useful ones
are being replicated by KernelEx, with new ones being added via "stubs".

> I can't even install several good (and even older) fundamental
> audio and video restoration apps

> Heck, even something as good as the near oldest version of Adobe
> Audition (which improved on Cool Edit Pro) can't be used,

I've just spent about 15 minutes trying to locate old versions of Adobe
Audition for download - which I can't find.

What I can find are various versions of CoolEdit Pro:

http://www.oldversion.com/windows/cool-edit-pro/

I downloaded "Cool Edit Pro 2000 1.1" and installed it, then I installed
the "Cool Edit Pro 2000 Audio Cleanup plug-in 1.1".

After installing the plugin and running CoolEdit, it opens and loads the
wav file "solace.wav" (from the movie "The Sting" ?) - a 10 second piano
clip that contains pops. I fool around with the Transform -> Noise
Reduction -> Click/Pop eliminator, and I remove the pops, and when I
play the clip I can't hear them.

So at this point I've satisfied myself that I can perform some basic
level of audio restoration. What else you do, and what this version of
Cool Edit can or can't do, I don't know.

I could spend a couple of hours downloading this:

Adobe Audition CS6 v5.0.2 build 7 LS7

http://avaxhome.ws/software/software_type/multimedia/Audio_Editing/edi3212.html

From here:

http://depositfiles.com/folders/IOOO7XHN9

And then follow the instructions to get the hack/crack working, but
that's too much work just to (possibly) prove to you that I can run the
latest version of Audition under win-98.

My cursory searching for the earliest versions of Audition (released in
August 2003) indicates that it was compatible with Windows 98. And even
if it wasn't, it would almost certainly be able to run under Win-98 with
Kex using "win-2000 compatibility" mode.

> and there is nothing available that is installable on W98 that
> can do all it can do.

Have you tried to install what you have (presumably some version of
Adobe Audition) on a win-98 system with Kex?

> 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.

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've stated here MANY TIMES that win-9x/me got a bad rap because it was
pushed out to consumers at a time when computing hardware was in a
horrible state. Hard drives did not auto-correct for errors, the new
AGP bus was still being worked out, video card drivers were buggy - and
on and on. By the time XP came out for the general consumer, the
hardware standards were raised far beyond what Microsoft called for with
Win-98.

> > Far too many games played with user accounts, rights, ownerships
> > and permissions. I enjoy not having to deal with that shit on
> > Win-98.
>
> I have Administrator access to everything as the sole user,
> so that seems to be a non issue for me

Try to edit the hosts file on a win-7 computer. It's an agonizing
process - even if you ARE the administrator.

> > > And the limited USB and SATA support.

I notice that you had nothing to say about my comments about USB and
SATA support...

[98 Guy]

Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

> 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.

There's no reason to be running win-98 on "hardware from that era".

Heck, even I never ran windows-98 on anything less than an 800 mhz P3
with 256 mb ram and 64 mb AGP video card.

My current win-98 systems are based on socket 478 P4 (2.8 ghz) and
socket 775 Celeron D (3.46 ghz) with 1.5 TB sata hard drives.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

My 98SElite system has a 400 MHz processor and 128M RAM; for the very
restricted uses I have for it, it runs fine. (That use is mainly
downloading, so it does go online; it has Firefox 2.x [not KernelEx,
though I have played with that].)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!

[Bill in Co]

98 Guy wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> If he did, then he could have tried Firefox 10.0.2 (at least). Instead
> all he claimed was 3.5.
>
>> By "too limited", I meant the bigger picture, not necessarily the
>> "inherent" limitations of the OS:
>
> Win-98 is inherently a WIN32 OS. What it lacks are the API functions
> that have been added to the NT line, and many of the more useful ones
> are being replicated by KernelEx, with new ones being added via "stubs".
>
>> I can't even install several good (and even older) fundamental
>> audio and video restoration apps
>
>> Heck, even something as good as the near oldest version of Adobe
>> Audition (which improved on Cool Edit Pro) can't be used,
>
> I've just spent about 15 minutes trying to locate old versions of Adobe
> Audition for download - which I can't find.

It can be a challenge, but can reward those who persevere. (Note: 15
minutes doesn't qualify as perseverance :-). But you may be able to find a
cheap OEM version online, if you were so inclined. But if you're not into
audio that much, it probably isn't worth it.

> What I can find are various versions of CoolEdit Pro:
>
> http://www.oldversion.com/windows/cool-edit-pro/
>
> I downloaded "Cool Edit Pro 2000 1.1" and installed it, then I installed
> the "Cool Edit Pro 2000 Audio Cleanup plug-in 1.1".
>
> After installing the plugin and running CoolEdit, it opens and loads the
> wav file "solace.wav" (from the movie "The Sting" ?) - a 10 second piano
> clip that contains pops. I fool around with the Transform -> Noise
> Reduction -> Click/Pop eliminator, and I remove the pops, and when I
> play the clip I can't hear them.

And it does a fair job at that. But CEP also lacks FSE (frequency space
editing), as I've already mentioned. But its click and pop removal tools
are just fair - there are much better dedicated ones (but not for W98).

> So at this point I've satisfied myself that I can perform some basic
> level of audio restoration. What else you do, and what this version of
> Cool Edit can or can't do, I don't know.

Frequency space editing, and a much better job at removing noise and clicks
and pops (with some other software, and some special restoration plug-ins
for the newer versions of Sound Forge, et al, that won't install on W98).

> I could spend a couple of hours downloading this:
>
> Adobe Audition CS6 v5.0.2 build 7 LS7

I wouldn't bother with that bloatware.
Besides which, you'd waste your time, as you've never get it to install on
W98. The newer versions of Adobe Audition are truly bloatware.

> http://avaxhome.ws/software/software_type/multimedia/Audio_Editing/edi3212.html
>
> From here:
>
> http://depositfiles.com/folders/IOOO7XHN9
>
> And then follow the instructions to get the hack/crack working, but
> that's too much work just to (possibly) prove to you that I can run the
> latest version of Audition under win-98.

And you can't, anyway. You won't even be able to get Adobe Audition 1.5 to
install. (BTDT, even with your vaunted KernelEx). It's a "no go".

> My cursory searching for the earliest versions of Audition (released in
> August 2003) indicates that it was compatible with Windows 98.

Adobe Audition 1.0, possibly; Adobe Audition 1.5 and above, no way.
Even with your much touted KernelEx, the installer balks, no matter what
compatibility mode or options you select. BTDT.

> And even
> if it wasn't, it would almost certainly be able to run under Win-98 with
> Kex using "win-2000 compatibility" mode.

No BTDT, too. (Who said anything about these apps even being compatible
with Win2000? These apps are too new for both OSs.

>> and there is nothing available that is installable on W98 that
>> can do all it can do.
>
> Have you tried to install what you have (presumably some version of
> Adobe Audition) on a win-98 system with Kex?

As per above, yes. BTDT.

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

I don't think my computer AND the software apps I was playing with at that
time were ancient. They were all of the same vintage. So that's not it.

I did a LOT of experimentation in Win98, if you recall from the newsgroups,
including helping to track down that infamous Win98 windows explorer
"hanging" problem (when deleting a large number of files), which I resolved
by using two IE55 browse DLLs in place of the IE6 versions, if you recall).

> 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've stated here MANY TIMES that win-9x/me got a bad rap because it was
> pushed out to consumers at a time when computing hardware was in a
> horrible state. Hard drives did not auto-correct for errors, the new
> AGP bus was still being worked out, video card drivers were buggy - and
> on and on. By the time XP came out for the general consumer, the
> hardware standards were raised far beyond what Microsoft called for with
> Win-98.
>
>>> Far too many games played with user accounts, rights, ownerships
>>> and permissions. I enjoy not having to deal with that shit on
>>> Win-98.
>>
>> I have Administrator access to everything as the sole user,
>> so that seems to be a non issue for me
>
> Try to edit the hosts file on a win-7 computer. It's an agonizing
> process - even if you ARE the administrator.

I can edit the HOSTS file with ease on my XP computer. (Who was talking
about Win7? ICK)

>>>> And the limited USB and SATA support.
>
> I notice that you had nothing to say about my comments about USB and
> SATA support...

But none of that is as transparent and readily available as it is with
WinXP. Nothing much to add there: 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.

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <5122B352...@Guy.com>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> writes:
>> Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> There's no reason to be running win-98 on "hardware from that era".
>>
>> Heck, even I never ran windows-98 on anything less than an 800 mhz P3
>> with 256 mb ram and 64 mb AGP video card.
>>
>> My current win-98 systems are based on socket 478 P4 (2.8 ghz) and
>> socket 775 Celeron D (3.46 ghz) with 1.5 TB sata hard drives.
>
> My 98SElite system has a 400 MHz processor and 128M RAM; for the very
> restricted uses I have for it, it runs fine. (That use is mainly
> downloading, so it does go online; it has Firefox 2.x [not KernelEx,
> though I have played with that].)

I guess for email, that will work just fine. And maybe using EDLIN. :-)

[Computer Nerd Kev]

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.

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. Of course XP
makes a mess of this philosophy from the beginning, which is
why I use older Windows or Linux on the other machines I use.
I sometimes even go as far as DOS.

[TY...@no.com]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:16:53 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> 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 here:
>

I have used KernelEx for at least 3 years!

[TY...@no.com]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:03:52 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

>> > 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 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 wiht
KEX, from what I read. Over the years, I have never liked Opera. 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. I found it was the same thing I disliked years
ago. Even if I was to upgrade my OS, I wont use Opera again. As much
as I dislike IE, Opera was always far worse, and I'd rate it as the
worst browser available. Maybe it's just a personal thing, but the
problems with it exist.

On top of that, there seems to be little support for it. In a rating
website, where they rate browser preferences, Opera came in at the
bottom, (for the more popular browsers). The less popular were grouped
together in a category called "Other". That grouping was rated about
the same as Opera. (below)

I recall when Firefox was the most used browser. They sure have
dropped. Probably because they upgrade it far too fast and keep making
it more and more bloated. Not to mention not supporting older OSs. I
dont know what their last version was that would work on XP, but I bet
their latest dont. I hate bloat!

Here is the link
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser_engine
Dated: September 2012
Web browser usage.

Chrome 29.03%
IE 22.54%
Firefox 19.26%
Safari 15.59% (only for Apple computers)
Android 4.59%
Opera 4.53%
other 4.46%

[TY...@no.com]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:54:07 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> 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. But that dont 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.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <si96i8pfikjq04eeg...@4ax.com>, TY...@no.com
writes:
[]

>I recall when Firefox was the most used browser. They sure have
>dropped. Probably because they upgrade it far too fast and keep making
>it more and more bloated. Not to mention not supporting older OSs. I
>dont know what their last version was that would work on XP, but I bet
>their latest dont. I hate bloat!

[]
Currently 18.0.2, which is working fine on XP.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I am the person for whom 'one size fits all' never fits. - Chris McMillan in
UMRA, 2011-11-12

[TY...@no.com]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 05:27:25 -0500, "dadiOH" <dad...@invalid.com> wrote:

>TY...@no.com 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.

[Bill in Co]

TY...@no.com wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:54:07 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> 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).

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

+On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:30:18 -0000, Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you>
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.

[philo]

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

[98 Guy]

TY...@no.com 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).

[98 Guy]

TY...@no.com 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.

[98 Guy]

TY...@no.com 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 here:

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

Or this:

Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.17

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

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:22:16 -0000, Bill in Co
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> 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 there: 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!

[Bill in Co]

Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

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.

[Bill in Co]

98 Guy wrote:
> TY...@no.com 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.

[Bill in Co]

98 Guy wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> If he did, then he could have tried Firefox 10.0.2 (at least). Instead
> all he claimed was 3.5.
>
>> By "too limited", I meant the bigger picture, not necessarily the
>> "inherent" limitations of the OS:
>
> Win-98 is inherently a WIN32 OS. What it lacks are the API functions
> that have been added to the NT line, and many of the more useful ones
> are being replicated by KernelEx, with new ones being added via "stubs".
>
>> I can't even install several good (and even older) fundamental
>> audio and video restoration apps
>
>> Heck, even something as good as the near oldest version of Adobe
>> Audition (which improved on Cool Edit Pro) can't be used,
>
> I've just spent about 15 minutes trying to locate old versions of Adobe
> Audition for download - which I can't find.

Why don't you try another good alternative, which you can find on the Sony
downloads site - an older version of the excellent audio editor, Sound
Forge.

Try Sound Forge version 7, and see if you can get KernelEx to allow it to be
installed. I'll be impressed if you can, and you'll also see a great audio
editor (probably the best in terms of actual usage).

[98 Guy]

Bill in Co wrote:

> LOL. Good point. But I'd make the suggestion to some holdouts

> that it just might be worth the migration.

From a practical standpoint, there are people that are win-98 users that
have their original CD (or can download win-98 from several torrent,
which I'd be glad to post here if asked).

Trying to install win-XP, for someone that either doesn't have an XP cd
(or product key) is a huge barrier (although I have about 4 dozen
"virgin" XP System Builder product keys in my possession...)

> As I mentioned, you can't even install something as good as the
> old and excellent Adobe Audition 1.5 (its best version)

If you tell me where to obtain that version, I'd be willing to try to
see if I can make it work under win-98.

If you have that version, compress the CD in a password-protected set of
RAR files and upload it to a file-locker of your choice (I've used
fileden in the past). If you do that, I'll post a throw-away e-mail
address you can send the password and a link to the rar files so that
only I will be able to download and try to install the software.

You can sign up for a throw-away e-mail address at hushmail.com to send
me the info. I won't be able to see where your e-mail is coming from.

I'll report back here my results.

Are you game?

[98 Guy]

Bill in Co wrote:

> Try Sound Forge version 7, and see if you can get KernelEx to allow
> it to be installed. I'll be impressed if you can, and you'll also
> see a great audio editor (probably the best in terms of actual usage).

If you post a working link to the software, I'll download and (try to)
install it.

I don't want to waste my time on a big website like Sony's just to chase
a bunch of download links around in a circle...

[Bill in Co]

98 Guy wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> LOL. Good point. But I'd make the suggestion to some holdouts
>> that it just might be worth the migration.
>
> From a practical standpoint, there are people that are win-98 users that
> have their original CD (or can download win-98 from several torrent,
> which I'd be glad to post here if asked).
>
> Trying to install win-XP, for someone that either doesn't have an XP cd
> (or product key) is a huge barrier (although I have about 4 dozen
> "virgin" XP System Builder product keys in my possession...)
>
>> As I mentioned, you can't even install something as good as the
>> old and excellent Adobe Audition 1.5 (its best version)

[At least with the versions of KernelEx I've used].

> If you tell me where to obtain that version, I'd be willing to try to
> see if I can make it work under win-98.

I searched for "Adobe Audition 1.5" (as a phrase in Google) and came up with
a few sites, some of which were deadends. But some weren't. Here are a
couple of links:

http://www.filecrop.com/adobe-audition-1.5-free-full-version.html
(showing several possibilities)

http://www.edusoft4vn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122449
(it's a RAR file)

It took me all of about 20 minutes to find them.

> If you have that version, compress the CD in a password-protected set of
> RAR files and upload it to a file-locker of your choice (I've used
> fileden in the past). If you do that, I'll post a throw-away e-mail
> address you can send the password and a link to the rar files so that
> only I will be able to download and try to install the software.
>
> You can sign up for a throw-away e-mail address at hushmail.com to send
> me the info. I won't be able to see where your e-mail is coming from.
>
> I'll report back here my results.
>
> Are you game?

See above. The second link works for sure, as I tried clicking on it.

[Bill in Co]

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/download/updates/soundforgefamily

It took me all of 2 minutes to find this link using a good Google search, as
follows:

"sony sound forge updates"

Try "Sound Forge 7.0." (NOT Audio Studio, which is stripped down).

(Version 6.0 already works in Win98, but it's a bit too dated, but better
than nothing. Versions 7 and above are NO-GOs for Win98, at least when I
tried KernelEx - you can't get past the installer).

[Computer Nerd Kev]

On 19 Feb 2013, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

>> 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)

Well compared to the RAM usage for my Explorer, that would
still be quite a saving! However it also depends on what theme
you use, and I modified the "step.rc" config file so that the
JayOS theme wouldn't load six of the modules I didn't use,
further saving RAM.

It also depends if you've looked at items in the "Programs"
menu (or whatever you choose to call it). eg. I've only used
my program shortcuts on the Start menu so far this run, so
LiteStep is using 9.5MB RAM.

[TY...@no.com]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:42:49 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

>TY...@no.com 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?
>

Because it wont run in Win98. I tried to run FF4.x and that would not
run, so I know 10 wont run for sure.

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

Ver 10.x is the last ver meant for Win98. Either way, I dont want
Opera. Just dont like it! I still have ver 10.x installed, but it's
just there as a last resort, and it may be removed soon. I try ot get
rid of unused software to save drive space.

>
>> 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 upgraded it about a year ago. Not sure which version I have. How do
I find out? Is there a way to show the version number?

[TY...@no.com]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:29:39 -0600, philo�ｿｽ <philo@priv cy.not> wrote:

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

I have it installed. Its small so I just leave it. I've rarely ever
found pages to load properly with it. Does it work at all now with the
newer webpages? I normally used to only use on sites that I thought
might have malware. But I dont generally use those sites anyhow. As
far as I know, it dont load scripts, and many sites insist on Java
Script these days or they wont load at all. I normally keep JS disabled
because of the risks.

>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
>

Maybe it's more stable in linux. Not so in windows.

I only use Agent for newsgroups. I never seen a need for anything else.
I often wish those packaged browsers would allow to not install the
newsreader part or email part. I dont need either\ and actually prefer
to keep them all separate.

[TY...@no.com]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:13:54 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

>TY...@no.com 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)

Ver 9 it appears. Isn't that the last one that works on 98?

>
>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

Will this help improve scripting on other browsers besides IE? I
removed IE entirely, many years ago.

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

This looks like a great list of info. Thanks

>Or this:
>
>Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.17
>
>http://www.htasoft.com/u98sesp/

It says for Win98lite. I dont have the lite version.

[TY...@no.com]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:48:01 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

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

I dont understand you.....
You know I'm running Win98se.
Why do you keep repeating over and over to install Firefox 10 (or any
newer version). You claim to be using Win98, and you know darn well
that FF 2.x is the last version to work on w98se WITHOUT Kernal Ex and
FF 3.x is the last version to work WITH Kernal Ex.

I tried FF 4.x and it would not work. If ver 4.x dont work, ver 10
surely wont work. I dont have XP!

Unless you want me to install it on my Win2000 dual boot partition.
Maybe it will work there.... I dont know?????
But I rarely even boot to w2000. It's only purpose is for my USB
portable hard drives which are for backups. It's installed with the
bare minimum, all the included games, wallpapers, and other unneeded
shit is gone.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <512388A2...@Guy.com>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> writes:
[post marked as keep - lots of useful links there]

>Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.17
>
>http://www.htasoft.com/u98sesp/

I downloaded it. My AV says that U98SESP3.EXE contains TR/Dropper.Gen,
whatever that is.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <512388A2...@Guy.com>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> writes:
> [post marked as keep - lots of useful links there]
>> Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.17
>>
>> http://www.htasoft.com/u98sesp/
>
> I downloaded it. My AV says that U98SESP3.EXE contains TR/Dropper.Gen,
> whatever that is.

I think it's a trojan, and not a virus, but you can probably look it up via
Google. I seem to recall having seen something similar before. But as to
how harmful it *really* is - that's a whole nother story. (To wit: I think
many aren't, but several have code fragments or signatures that are tagged
as being suspicious based on similar tags in files that truly bad)

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 05:56:10 -0000, <TY...@no.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:29:39 -0600, philo <philo@priv%0E%0Ecy.not>

> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you want a very fast (though extremely minimal) browser, then use
>> OffByOne.
>>
> I have it installed. Its small so I just leave it. I've rarely ever
> found pages to load properly with it. Does it work at all now with the
> newer webpages? I normally used to only use on sites that I thought
> might have malware. But I dont generally use those sites anyhow. As
> far as I know, it dont load scripts, and many sites insist on Java
> Script these days or they wont load at all. I normally keep JS disabled
> because of the risks.
>
>> 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

Yes, I also find it slow to load; but I have several groups and a lot of
old posts.

>> has a lot of features I like but I don;t use it
>>
> Maybe it's more stable in linux. Not so in windows.
>

Working fine here (though I admit I'm on XP).

> I only use Agent for newsgroups. I never seen a need for anything else.
> I often wish those packaged browsers would allow to not install the
> newsreader part or email part. I dont need either\ and actually prefer
> to keep them all separate.

Yup, once you get used to one NG Reader, it's hard to move.

[98 Guy]

TY...@no.com wrote:

> > > I have Firefox 3.x installed.
> >
> > Why haven't you tried a more recent version of Firefox then?
> > Such as 10?
>
> Because it wont run in Win98. I tried to run FF4.x and that would
> not run, so I know 10 wont run for sure.
>

> You know I'm running Win98se.
> Why do you keep repeating over and over to install Firefox 10 (or
> any newer version). You claim to be using Win98, and you know darn
> well that FF 2.x is the last version to work on w98se WITHOUT Kernal
> Ex and FF 3.x is the last version to work WITH Kernal Ex.

Look.

Why are you being an ass here?

I've told you plenty of times that KernelEx will allow you to run
versions of Firefox higher than 3 or 3.5.

KernelEx will allow you to run Firefox 3.6.28 with no issues, and
versions 8.01 or 9.0 with a few issues. Some have gotten version 10 to
run.

I've told you that Kex will allow you to run versions of Opera higher
than 10 (like 11 and 12) but you want to be a stubborn ass and not even
try newer versions of Opera.

> > And why have you claimed that you can't run a more recent version
> > of Opera? You should have at least tried version 12.
>
> Ver 10.x is the last ver meant for Win98.

What do you want?

Forget what was "meant" for win-98. Today, in the year 2013, you do
what you can. You use what others have created. That means you use
KernelEx to the best of it's ability. That means you go beyond the
"official" last versions of this or that.

> > 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 upgraded it about a year ago. Not sure which version I have.
> How do I find out? Is there a way to show the version number?

Do a file-search for the file KEXBASES.DLL (it should be in your
c:\windows\KernelEx directory). It should have a file-date of
11/14/2011. If you right-click on it, and select the Version tab, it
should show "4, 5, 12, 0". There should be a file in that directory
with the name "Release Notes.txt". It should start with this:

=========
KernelEx v4.5.2 by Xeno86
2011-11-14

(...)

* Now working: Mozilla Firefox 8.0
=========

Note how Firefox 8.0 is listed as being compatible / working.

> > What version of Adobe Flash do you have installed?
> >
> > (many websites use flash)
>
> Ver 9 it appears. Isn't that the last one that works on 98?

Again, you must let go of what is claimed to be the last official
version for win-98. Let go of that idea.

With KernelEx, I have Flash version 11.3.300.268 running just fine. The
most recent version is 11.6.602.168 and if I wanted I could simply go
out and obtain the most recent file (NPSWF32.dll) and copy it over this
current version.

> > (Windows scripting host 5.7)

>
> Will this help improve scripting on other browsers besides IE?
> I removed IE entirely, many years ago.

I can't say for sure, but I am sure that your removal of IE is
interferring or limiting some degree of web-compatibility for your other
browsers, and is most likely giving you jscript issues.

No matter how much you don't like the idea that Microsoft bundled or
tied IE into Windows 98, and no matter how good it makes you feel that
you've surgically removed IE from your computer, I've always thought it
was a dumb thing to do because it does break other aspects of your
computer's functionality, for no real gain.

> and FF 3.x is the last version to work WITH Kernal Ex.

Go and obtain Firefox version 3.6.28. Try it, see if you like it.

If you're more ambitious, try Firefox 8.0.1.

You might (or will) have issues with bookmarks and/or browsing history
under FF 8, but not with 3.6.28.

You will (I think) not have any Java functionality for any version of
Firefox 3.5 or higher. This is also true for Opera 10 (?) and higher.

[TY...@no.com]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:56:26 -0700, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>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).
>

Everything I have as far as old software *IS* everything I need. I dont
even like the new software, it's all bloatware. Even Agent for these
newsgroups turned into a major bloat. I still use ver 2.x and it's all
I need. I spent the first ten years of having a computer, learning how
to use the damn thing and learning all the software. In the middle of
all of that I had to change from Dos to Windows, and sort of learn all
over, then went from Win3.x to Win9.x. In the middle of all of that I
had to switch from using BBSs to the internet, which was pretty crude in
the early days. Around the time Win98 came around, I finally had a
computer that actually could be used to do productive things, after all
those years spend during the turmoil of the early days and all the
changes.

If I kept up with MS and other software companies, and kept upgrading,
I'd never have a productive machine. Which to me means why even have a
computer. The kids these days mostly only have computers which to them
are toys. They play games and use their nauseating facebook to waste
lots of time, and an upgrade means spending a few hours reinstalling
their games and tweaking their facebook. For me, it would take months
to reinstall everything, and there are a few if not many pieces of old
software that may not run on XP and up. Not to mention some of the real
old software I may no longer have the install disks for them.

It's just like a very old Windows 3.x program that I used regularly, and
it was a one of a kind program, refused to work in Win98. I needed that
program bad. For the last 12 years Ive had to drag out the old 386 with
Windows 3.11, plug in all the cables for monitor and keyboard printer
etc, and run the program. Oddly enough, not too long ago, I discovered
that it will run in Win2000. Weird!

Anyhow, my point is this. I'd rather spend a few hours here and there
adding Kernal Ex, modifying drivers, and other stuff to keep Win98
working, than spend months reinstalling everything, and many more months
trying to relearn how to use all the new crap that I never wanted
anyhow.

In my opinion, there has only been two useful improvements in MS OSs
since Win98se. 1. Much better USB support. 2. Allowing much larger Hard
drives. Other than that, what have they improved? Just added lots of
bloat, which slows down every faster CPU to the same speed the older
ones had before all the bloat.

There is no reason that I have to upgrade. This is not a game machine
or toy. It's used for productivity and general internet use. There is
nothing that XP has to offer me. Win2000 asists me in the event I cant
get drivers for some USB device, and 2000 is just the bloatless version
of XP anyhow.

It's just the goddamn web that has become an issue with their bloated
websites filled with scripts and flash crap. (None of which is needed).
So, it's not my needs that have changed, it's just that I'm being forced
to change by the damn web.

Here is the joke of the whole matter, and the last laugh will be on the
idiots who make all that bloated shit. There was recently an article on
TV. They said that the time is coming where the internet is going to
slow way down. They said in a year from now, it may be less than half
as fast as now. The reason is because of all the mobile devices using
the web, all the social media sites, and most of all, the excessive
amount of videos being used...... The reason, is that there simply is
not enough air space to run all this stuff, and a large percentage of
data is send over the air. I guess the joke will be on them.....

It's like I was looking for a little car repair info and found a website
that had what I needed. But, they only had it in video form.....
I'm on dialup, it took me 2 hours to download the damn video. When it
was done, I ended up with a video that could have been explained in one
short paragraph, with 2 or 3 photos to show the parts. In other words,
200K of text and photos, versus a 25 meg video.

I guess you could say I jumped off the bus. That's the upgrade bus and
all the bloat they seem to thing I want (and dont). Win98 was the peak
of perfection for MS. WinME was a flop, and Win2000 was the beginning
of their downfall, although 2000 was still tolerable. XP was nothing
more than a severely bloated Win2000. Vista was another flop, and I
wont even go near anything beyond that....

My computer is a tool that gets used. The kids that use them as toys
can spend all their money upgrading, only to make MS wealthy to be able
to play their games and send more useless crap to Facebook. I dont buy
a new hammer everytime someone makes one with a fancier handle. I like
my old simple one. I wont be buying new computers or operating systems
either. I like my old one.

[TY...@no.com]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:04:11 -0700, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>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.

Can you give me more info on this please! What files, where do I get
the replacements, etc....

[Axel Berger]

TY...@no.com wrote:
> In other words,
> 200K of text and photos, versus a 25 meg video.

Well said, all of it. As to the bit above, it's not the download I mind
but having to endure the video. I can skim text at a glance and find an
read only the relevant bits, but I have to sit through the boredom of
all of the video. This whole culture is going illiterate and people who
read are becoming such a minute minority, nobody bothers to cater for
them any more.

The web was nice while it lasted.

[Bill in Co]

The way we solved the problem (where explorer hangs up when deleting a large
number of files) was to replace the "browselc.dll" and "browseui.dll"
versions installed by IE6 with the versions installed by IE5.5 (and reboot).

I'm not sure where you can find them online (but I think they are out
there), but someone here might know. Or, if you still have a IE5.5
Microsoft CD, you could probably extract them out of one of its cabinet
files. The browse DLL file version numbers you want would be 5.50 xxxx.

However, if you never had IE6 on your computer, then this may not be your
problem. But you could check the versions you have in the windows\system
folder (right click and get the version number) and see what it says.

[Bill in Co]

Hear! Hear!
Like most things, it got overused and abused, and dumbed down for the
masses. How many store clerks can even make change anymore without a
register? Maybe two?

[Bill in Co]

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I just got stuck with some apps
needing WinXP, and also the mess you pointed out with the web requirements
nowadays.

WinXP isn't quite so bad once you get it tamed down and customized.

As for reinstalling apps: I didn't do that. I simply used "PC Mover" to
move all my stuff over from the Win98SE computer to the WinXP computer.
There was no way I was going to reinstall everything. And the transition
went pretty well (only a few apps needing "touching up" or reinstalls).

[98 Guy]

Bill in Co wrote:

> The way we solved the problem (where explorer hangs up when deleting
> a large number of files) was to replace the "browselc.dll" and
> "browseui.dll" versions installed by IE6 with the versions installed
> by IE5.5 (and reboot).

Bill is essentially correct.

This issue (explorer hangs when moving / copying / deleting many files)
was discussed in this newsgroup back in April/May 2011.

The roots of this solution can be traced back at least as far as a
thread here in this newsgroup in Dec. 2005. The participants of that
thread were Ivan B�tora, Ron Badour, and Rick Chauvin. As mentioned in
that thread, Chris Quirke had published a description and solution on
this page in April 2005:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm

Quirke mentions an even earlier reference and solution (by Frank Provo)
here:

http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm

My browser tells me that that page dates to October 2003.

Frank provides these links (still working) for browseui.dll and
browselec.dll:

http://www.frankprovo.com/browseui.dll (5.50.4807.2300)
http://www.frankprovo.com/browselc.dll (5.50.4807.2300)

I have no idea if those are the most recent (or last) IE 5.5 versions.
I myself have version 6.00.2800.1106 in my Windows/System directory (so
I have not implimented this fix). The original Windows-98se version is
5.00.2314.1000. I'm actually using version 6.00.2800.2007
(xpsp2.100414-1536) of browseui.dll.

Many people seem to agree that moving the most up-to-date IE6 version of
those files (the versions you have there right now) into C:\PROGRAM
FILES\INTERNET EXPLORER (so they are available for use by IE) and then
copy the above 5.50 versions to C:\Windows\System (for use by the OS).
You'll have to do that last part while in DOS mode.


Here is what I wrote at the time (April 2011):

======================

The fix for this problem used to involve obtaining the IE 5.5 version of
browseui.dll and browselc.dll. The best solution available at present
is this:

Unofficial Win 9x Explorer Lockups With IE 5.xx/6.xx update (SHELL98):

http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE (1)

which installs Shell32.dll v. 4.72.3812.634, and the Unofficial Win 9x
Stack Corruption, 98KRNLUP:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/98KRNLUP.EXE (2)

which installs Krnl386.exe v. 04.10.00.2000, and then RLoew's Free
Unofficial KERNEL32 2GiB Seek Bug Patch:

http://rloew.limewebs.com/Programs/KERNEL32.ZIP (3)

which installs a patched Kernel32.dll v. 4.10.0.2225 and superseeds the
Anonymous Patcher's COPY2GB:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/COPY2GB.EXE

All 3 patches are needed for good system stability. And if you use
KernelEx, you should uninstall it, apply these patches and then
re-install it. Adding the latest Windows Explorer:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/EXPLOR98.EXE

is also a good idea, although not mandatory, AFAIK.

Shell98 is part of the Unofficial Service Pack 3 beta 4:

http://www.htasoft.com/w98se_post_usp4.php

On a slightly related subject, back in July last year, Bill said this:

> I seem to recall having issues with files larger than 2 GB
> with some programs, too, even with Win98SE.

To which I responded:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=318293

=========
Windows 98 Explorer Cannot Copy Large Files

Symptoms:

When you use Windows Explorer to copy a file that has a size of 2
gigabytes (2 GB, or 2,147,483,648 bytes) or larger, the file copy
process does not work, and you receive an error message that is similar
to the following error message:

Error: Cannot create or replace "file name.xxx". The parameter is
incorrect.

Cause:

This problem can occur because of a problem in the versions of the
Shell32.dll file that are included with Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second
Edition. The root cause is a generic file operation which is used by the
shell in Windows 95/98 and Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 which interprets
values that are greater than 2 GB as negative numbers. The problem was
eliminated as part of many changes to the newer shell that comes from
Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 used by Microsoft Windows 2000 and
Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me).

On Windows 98, the Shell32.dll file originates as part of Internet
Explorer version 4.0. On Windows 98 Second Edition, Shell32.dll
originates from Internet Explorer 4.01 Service Pack 2.

Workaround:

To work around this problem, copy the files by using the COPY command
from a command prompt.

Status:

Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products
that are listed at the beginning of this article.

This problem was corrected in Windows Millennium Edition, Windows 2000,
and Windows XP.

Installing a newer version of Internet Explorer does not resolve this
problem, because later versions of Internet Explorer don't update
Shell32.dll on any platform except Windows 2000 and Windows Me.
===============

A win-98 patch was created a few years ago -> COPY2GB.EXE

The COPY2GB patched kernel32.dll v. 4.10.0.2226 is based on Microsoft's
hotfix kernel32.dll v. 4.10.0.2225 (from KB320798). Copy2gb.exe can be
obtained from here:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/COPY2GB.EXE

Some people usually add the Unofficial Win 9x Stack Corruption
(98KRNLUP.EXE) which installs Krnl386.exe v. 04.10.00.2000, and SHELL98
(Win 9x Explorer Lockups With IE 5.xx/6.xx update) which installs
Shell32.dll v. 4.72.3812.634.

http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE
http://www.mdgx.com/files/98KRNLUP.EXE

This .2000 version is based on Windows 98/98 SE Cursor + Icon Handling
Security Vulnerability Fix (Q891711 / KB891711.EXE). This .2000 patch
of KRNL386.EXE prevents a rare, but then very often fatal case of stack
corruption when certain KERNEL APIs are called. The only connection to
KB891711/Q891711/U891711 is that these 16-bit binaries call at least one
of those KERNEL APIs. However, many of the serious problems people
reported with KB891711.EXE 4.10.2222 were most likely caused by a buffer
overflow condition on the 16-bit stack of KB891711.EXE. The problems
that still occured with KB891711.EXE 4.10.2223 but were much, much less
common, were most likely caused by the stack corruption bug in
KRNL386.EXE.

[98 Guy]

TY...@no.com wrote:

> In my opinion, there has only been two useful improvements in
> MS OSs since Win98se.
>
> 1. Much better USB support.

That has been fixed for a few years now.

Maximus Decim Native USB ver.3.6

----------------
* Native (without installation of additional drivers for each type)
support USB flash drives, digital photo and videocameras and other
similar devices.

* Universal Stack USB 2.0 (without installation of additional drivers
for each chipsets) with uninstall.

1. Remove ALL drivers USB flash drives.
2. Remove ALL drivers USB 2.0 controllers.
3. Remove ALL USB 1.1 and 2.0 controllers and devices.
4. Remove ALL unknown devices.
5. Install NUSB 3.6 and reboot.
6. After detection new USB 1.1 and 2.0 controllers (if it will occur)
too it is necessary to reboot.
---------------

Download link:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/6/15/3316408/nusb36e.rar

File is password protected. Password = "a" (no quotes).

> 2. Allowing much larger Hard drives.

Windows 98 does not have problems with large hard drives.

If your computer has integrated SATA controller on the motherboard, and
if the motherboard has socket-478 intel CPU, then Win-98 drivers will be
available for the SATA controller that will allow you to connect hard
drives up to 2tb in size and use them under windows 98.

If your computer does not have integrated SATA controller, then you can
spend $15 and buy a dual-port PCI sata adapter card. There will be
win-98 drivers available for the card, and once installed you can
connect sata hard drives up to 2tb in size to your win-98 system.

[who where]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:57:30 -0700, "Bill in Co"
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>How many store clerks can even make change anymore without a
>register? Maybe two?

I'd like to meet them.

I frequently hand over notes plus coin for a transaction, with the aim
of lightening my coin load and to result in an even dollar change
(e.g. $15.40 for a $13.40 transaction amount). Some get confused,
others hand me back my 40c and then give me $1.60 ....

[Bill in Co]

98 Guy wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> The way we solved the problem (where explorer hangs up when deleting
>> a large number of files) was to replace the "browselc.dll" and
>> "browseui.dll" versions installed by IE6 with the versions installed
>> by IE5.5 (and reboot).
>
> Bill is essentially correct.
>
> This issue (explorer hangs when moving / copying / deleting many files)
> was discussed in this newsgroup back in April/May 2011.

Way, way, before that, even. Now going back almost a decade.

> The roots of this solution can be traced back at least as far as a
> thread here in this newsgroup in Dec. 2005. The participants of that

> thread were Ivan Bútora, Ron Badour, and Rick Chauvin. As mentioned in

> that thread, Chris Quirke had published a description and solution on
> this page in April 2005:
>
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/bexp1.htm
>
> Quirke mentions an even earlier reference and solution (by Frank Provo)
> here:
>
> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
>
> My browser tells me that that page dates to October 2003.
>
> Frank provides these links (still working) for browseui.dll and
> browselec.dll:
>
> http://www.frankprovo.com/browseui.dll (5.50.4807.2300)
> http://www.frankprovo.com/browselc.dll (5.50.4807.2300)
>
> I have no idea if those are the most recent (or last) IE 5.5 versions.
> I myself have version 6.00.2800.1106 in my Windows/System directory (so
> I have not implimented this fix). The original Windows-98se version is
> 5.00.2314.1000. I'm actually using version 6.00.2800.2007
> (xpsp2.100414-1536) of browseui.dll.
>
> Many people seem to agree that moving the most up-to-date IE6 version of
> those files (the versions you have there right now) into C:\PROGRAM
> FILES\INTERNET EXPLORER (so they are available for use by IE) and then
> copy the above 5.50 versions to C:\Windows\System (for use by the OS).
> You'll have to do that last part while in DOS mode.

That's a good point which I forgot to mention. (Actually, I think only one
of those two IE6 browse DLLs was needed there, but it doesn't hurt).

> Here is what I wrote at the time (April 2011):
>
> ======================
>
> The fix for this problem used to involve obtaining the IE 5.5 version of
> browseui.dll and browselc.dll. The best solution available at present
> is this:

Just a comment on that. I seem to recall just trying to that newer Shell98
file, and it did not solve my windows explorer hanging problem, whereas
swapping the two browse DLLs - did. I think I even mentioned this in those
old discussions, but I can't recall now for sure (this was nearly a decade
ago).

[Bill in Co]

The "good" news (if you can call it that) is that we all have a limited
lifetime to have to endure more of this increasing ignorance. Hmmm, maybe
changing the municipal water supply would help? :-)

[TY...@no.com]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:44:36 +0100, Axel Berger <Axel....@Gmx.De>
wrote:

Yea, 2/3 of the video was watching the guy hunt for the correct socket,
then watching him turn the ratchet for the entire threads. At least tv
shows like "This Old House", the guy has all his needed tools right
there, and they skip parts of things like sawing a sheet of plywood in
half, or applying all the nails.

>The web was nice while it lasted.

I said the same thing!
I still liked the old Geocities. Everyone had a little simple web page
expressing themselves, and it was pretty well organized by topic. That
sure beats this facebook crap!

[TY...@no.com]

Ok, I'm not being an ass, I just did not understand. I do have the
latest KEX installed. KernelEx v4.5.2.

I then downloaded FF 10, installed it and it just kept locking up even
after several reboots, and a reinstall of KEX from a different download.

After reading some online info about KEX, I found it said it was made
for FF 8. I went to an old-apps site, and got FF 8. FF 8.0 is working
real well, and seems stable. The only issue I have had with it, is that
it keeps asking me to check for upgrades everytime I open it, and in the
settings I have all boxes unchecked for "check for upgrades". But I
suppose I can live with that slight annoyance.

I also have FF 3.6.28. installed in another partition. I already had
that. I did find out that I can not load both at the same time, and
both are using the same PROFILES folder in C:\WINDOWS\APPLICATION
DATA\MOZILLA\FIREFOX. Because of that, some of my extensions are
conflicting. I'm guessing that a person just can not have two
installations of FF in the same OS. If FF 8.0 keeps working well, I'll
probably just remove the FF 3.6.28. But I want to play with it a little
more first.

As for Opera, I may try a newer version, but I still dont like the
program itself. However, when I'm bored I'll probably try it. The
worst that can happen is that I waste an hour or more downloading it (on
dialup). but I usually just let things download when I'm sleeping.

-----

That reminds me, is there any piece of freeware that will disconnect a
modem dialup connection after X hours? In other words, If my download
will take 7:20, I'd like the computer to automatically disable the modem
after something like 8 hours (allowing a little extra time if the
interent is running slow.) Thereason for this, is because I often wake
up and leave for work and forget to sdhut off the modem, or I may go to
shut it off and find there is still 20 minutes left to download. Either
way, the modem is tying up my home phone all day long, and no one can
leave me a message that they called.

[98 Guy]

Bill in Co wrote:

> I searched for "Adobe Audition 1.5" (as a phrase in Google) and came
> up with a few sites, some of which were deadends. But some weren't.
> Here are a couple of links:
>
> http://www.filecrop.com/adobe-audition-1.5-free-full-version.html
>

> http://www.edusoft4vn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122449

Ok, so I downloaded Audition 1.5 and it won't install as-is.

I used 7-zip to extract the files from the installer and got the MSI
file out of it. It still won't install. I then used Orca to modify the
msi file and removed some conditions, and then I got it to install.

It has specific conditions to not install on win-9x/me, as well as
win-2k with SP less than 2.

After installation, when I run it the first time, it asks what drive to
use for temp files, but after that it just closes when I run it. No
error messages. So this looks like a dead end.

What about Audition 1.0? Some people seem to think that it runs under
win-9x/me.

> Try "Sound Forge 7.0." (NOT Audio Studio, which is stripped down).
>
> (Version 6.0 already works in Win98, but it's a bit too dated, but
> better than nothing. Versions 7 and above are NO-GOs for Win98,

> at least when I ried KernelEx - you can't get past the installer).
>
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/download/updates/soundforgefamily

I'll try that next.

[Bill in Co]

98 Guy wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> I searched for "Adobe Audition 1.5" (as a phrase in Google) and came
>> up with a few sites, some of which were deadends. But some weren't.
>

> Ok, so I downloaded Audition 1.5 and it won't install as-is.
>
> I used 7-zip to extract the files from the installer and got the MSI
> file out of it. It still won't install. I then used Orca to modify the
> msi file and removed some conditions, and then I got it to install.
>
> It has specific conditions to not install on win-9x/me, as well as
> win-2k with SP less than 2.

I wonder why, too.

> After installation, when I run it the first time, it asks what drive to
> use for temp files, but after that it just closes when I run it. No
> error messages. So this looks like a dead end.

Well, that is indeed interesting. Fascinating, that it would die out like
that.

> What about Audition 1.0? Some people seem to think that it runs under
> win-9x/me.

Possibly, since it was the first adoption of Cool Edit Pro, before Adobe
really started getting into it. But AA version 1.5 (and above) offered
additional features and improvements over 1.0.

>> Try "Sound Forge 7.0." (NOT Audio Studio, which is stripped down).
>>
>> (Version 6.0 already works in Win98, but it's a bit too dated, but
>> better than nothing. Versions 7 and above are NO-GOs for Win98,
>> at least when I ried KernelEx - you can't get past the installer).
>>
>> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/download/updates/soundforgefamily
>
> I'll try that next.

Good luck with that, but, who knows. Sound Forge is an outstanding (albeit
primarily 2 track) audio editor.

[philo]

Ace Explorer


Google for it

[98 Guy]

philo wrote:

> Ace Explorer
>
> Google for it

At one time, this website was working: http://aceexplorer.com/

But it doesn't work any more (it's a place-holder now).

The Wayback machine indicates the site went defunct between July and
October last year. I can see why.

From here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120701195306/http://aceexplorer.com/

We have this:

===============================
Get a Free Copy of Ace Explorer!

Surf the Web Faster! This Advanced Browser was built for speed. You will
have fewer crashes and lockups with this browser. World class
engineering and design - this browser is the best on the planet! Rock
solid performance - includes memory enhancer that outperforms all other
browsers in it's class. Best of all it is 100% Free - No Adware, No
Popups, No Spyware - just one great browser for you to enjoy!

Here are some of the advanced features of Ace Explorer:

# Super fast browsing architecture!
# Built-in Popup Killer based on intelligent identification
# Ability to turn on/off Flash Animation
# Access to major search engines with Quick-Search Bar
# Integration with online translation engine and dictionaries
# Site Group: Open and save a collection of sites as a group
# ScriptPad: Built-in VBScript/Jscript/HTML/Text editor
# You can change the Skins to your color preference
# Rock solid performance over all other browsers

Copyright � 20122 Ace Explorer Browser
Advanced Search Technologies, Inc.

Download link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120701195306/http://aceexplorer.com/acesetup.exe
================================

Yes, it really does say "Copyright � 20122"

The file is about 2 mb in size. Unpacking it shows that most of the
files date to Jan/Feb 2004. The Internet Archive does indeed show
captures for this website going back to 2004 but not prior.

I can run the program from the directory where I unpacked it (did not
run the installer package).

On this site: http://html5test.com/index.html

It scores 26 out of 500. It claims that I'm running IE 6.0.

whatsmyuseragent.com says this:

============
Your User Agent String is:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Avant Browser)
============

I've tried running the Avant Browser in the past, but without much
success. This appears to be a re-branded creation based on an old
version of Avant. Avant is based on the Trident layout engine which is
the basis for Internet Explorer. You can look up more about Avant here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant_Browser

Something that is somewhat corny about this "Ace Explorer" is that
unless you purchase it, it runs for only 10 minutes per session. After
10 minutes, it starts flashing this warning message:

===============
The demo version of CustomBrowser only runs for 10 minutes in eash
session. It will quit now. You need to restart it to continue
evaluation.
================

So the reader is advised to pass on this "Ace Explorer" and (if so
interested) look into the Avant browser (some versions of which I
believe will run on win-98 with KernelEx - as this "Ace Explorer"
obviously did).

If we're on the topic of "odd-ball" or uncommon browers, you might also
look at these:

GhostFox. Possibly a hybred between IE and Gecko engine of the Mozilla
browsers.

http://www.ghostfox.org/

SlimBrowser 4.12

http://www.flashpeak.com/sbrowser/

Their FlashFTP also works with WinMe and 98. FreeBrowser also works
with WinMe and 98, but they added a spyware search bar with it.

Cayman browser

http://www.caymanbrowser.com/

[Joy Beeson]

By accident, I acquired a separate computer just for browsing the Web
and storing back-ups.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[TY...@no.com]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:20:30 -0500, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>
>By accident, I acquired a separate computer just for browsing the Web
>and storing back-ups.

If I had the desk space to have 2 computers, I'd probably just have one
with XP to only be used for the internet, and have all my other stuff on
my present W98 computer. But the only way to do that would mean having
to keep changing plugs to monitor, keybd, mouse, printer, etc.... Too
much hassle!

At least that way, I could bootup, and go right to my browser, and
completely ignore all the annoyances of XP, other than the slowness of
booting up and shutting down.

But there would also be the hassle of having to put everything I
download onto flash sticks, and transferring it to the other computer.
No Thnaks!

[Sanity Clause]

<TY...@no.com> wrote

> If I had the desk space to have 2 computers, I'd probably just have one
> with XP to only be used for the internet, and have all my other stuff on
> my present W98 computer. But the only way to do that would mean having
> to keep changing plugs to monitor, keybd, mouse, printer, etc.... Too
> much hassle!

Ummmmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch

[Auric__]

98 Guy wrote:

> If we're on the topic of "odd-ball" or uncommon browers, you might also
> look at these:
>
> GhostFox. Possibly a hybred between IE and Gecko engine of the Mozilla
> browsers.
>
> http://www.ghostfox.org/
>
> SlimBrowser 4.12
>
> http://www.flashpeak.com/sbrowser/
>
> Their FlashFTP also works with WinMe and 98. FreeBrowser also works
> with WinMe and 98, but they added a spyware search bar with it.
>
> Cayman browser
>
> http://www.caymanbrowser.com/

Hell, I use Off By One for lots of stuff:

http://www.OffByOne.com/

It only supports HTML 3.2 (and *only* http(s), not ftp or anything else), no
Flash (thank god), no modern Javascript tricks, etc. Good enough for Google,
though.

--
Why don't you let that cut under your nose heal?

[Computer Nerd Kev]

In microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion TY...@no.com wrote:

> But there would also be the hassle of having to put everything I
> download onto flash sticks, and transferring it to the other computer.
> No Thnaks!

Ummmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_FTP_server_software

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

[philo]

On 02/21/2013 08:25 PM, 98 Guy wrote:

> X

> Copyright � 20122 Ace Explorer Browser
>

oops sorry about that,

a long time to wait, glad to know win98 will still be used then

[Axel Berger]

TY...@no.com wrote:
> having to keep changing plugs to monitor, keybd, mouse,
> printer, etc.... Too much hassle!

There are cheap switches for the first three. As to the printer and
presuming the computers are networked anyway (you wouldn't browse with
out a router), I'd just save, print to file, or print to PDF while
browsing.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <5125771E...@Guy.com>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> writes:
>TY...@no.com wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, there has only been two useful improvements in
>> MS OSs since Win98se.
>>
>> 1. Much better USB support.
>
>That has been fixed for a few years now.
>
>Maximus Decim Native USB ver.3.6
>
>----------------
>* Native (without installation of additional drivers for each type)
> support USB flash drives, digital photo and videocameras and other
> similar devices.
>
>* Universal Stack USB 2.0 (without installation of additional drivers
> for each chipsets) with uninstall.
>
>1. Remove ALL drivers USB flash drives.
>2. Remove ALL drivers USB 2.0 controllers.
>3. Remove ALL USB 1.1 and 2.0 controllers and devices.
>4. Remove ALL unknown devices.
>5. Install NUSB 3.6 and reboot.
>6. After detection new USB 1.1 and 2.0 controllers (if it will occur)
> too it is necessary to reboot.

[]
Trouble is, doing steps 1 to 4 requires a considerable amount of faith
that the replacement really will work, especially if you're not sure
where you've put the hardware-specific drivers you're removing. (And I
know from experience that you _do_ have to remove them: I tried once
installing nusb _without_ removing the previous ones, and that [a]
didn't work [b] was one of the more difficult things to undo.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

so long, and thanks for all the fish. (Last message of dolphinkind to mankind
before the demolition of earth - from first series, fit the third.)

[Bill in Co]

You may not have to go through all that mess, or at least I didn't, by
simply using an older version of the generic USB mass storage driver,
nusb23e, for example. I saw that note (about first removing existing ones)
apply to the more updated versions, however. In fact, that was a major
determining factor for me in playing it safer by using that older version.

[zeez]

On Feb 19, 12:07 am, TY...@no.com wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:16:53 -0500, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> 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 slowestbrowserto 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 here:
>
> I have used KernelEx for at least 3 years!

I used it too before my Win98 machine died a year and a half ago.
Used it so I could still watch Hulu without
having to boot into Ubuntu.