Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Has Kernel-EX been abandoned?
603 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul
Jun 6, 2018, 5:44:31 PM6/6/18
to
Jerome Tews wrote:
> Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted. The
> last one was in 2011. Or am I looking in the wrong place? The site that
> I went to is on Sourceforge.
>
> From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
> the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work. Because of
> this, I plan to cancel my internet service at the end of this month. I
> will have to resort to using my smartphone at WIFI spots from now on,
> because I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating
> systems.
>
I think you should view the problem from
another perspective.
Browsers are bloated.
The designers insist on using a GPU-based
approach to browser design. This idea is
actually inherited from SmartPhones.
Your SmartPhone is perfect for this. It has
a modern GPU, to share the rendering duties.
A Win98 machine, chances are the video card
is too old to support hardware acceleration
of what the browser wants to do.
The fallback code path, uses the CPU. Now the
CPU is doing two jobs (as the browser is only
half as efficient as it used to be).
I was going to tell you that "there are 500 OSes
out there" and to try one. But then it occurred
to me that the browser is the root of the problem.
The "minimum OS" to run a browser should:
1) Support multiple cores (Firefox and Chroms
can fork four processes for example.)
2) Support modern accelerated graphics standards.
(In a comic coincidence today, Apple has deprecated
OpenGL on their platform. Just to prove to users
how obsolete their kit is. This is what happens
when software monkeys drive platform design.)
To continue to run a desktop browser, that
tells you how to "rebuild from the bottom up".
More than one thing needs to be modernized.
If I was still using dialup networking today, I'd
be paying $60 for a POTS phone (the dialup fee would
be separate). Instead, I pay a total of $52 per month,
for ADSL on a dry line, plus VOIP for phone services
(no POTS). The reason I have options here, is because
we have actual competition. In one part of the country,
they offer rural people WISP for wireless Internet,
as an alternative to dialup. And once the 5000 satellite
constellations are in orbit, we'll no longer have
this Internet logjam for rural people. Some day, everyone
will have options. And that's the other part of a
successful browsing experiences - meeting a minimum
download rate (so you can watch a video on a web page).
Kernel-EX isn't going to solve the worlds problems.
Rewarding browser designers to make their stuff run
on old hardware, that might work. Do you think
paying $1000.00 for a browser would be enough
to cover it ? I'm not even sure the software
designers care - you see, the boss gave each
of them a 20 core computer to develop on.
They don't know what slow is...
Paul
> Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted. The
> last one was in 2011. Or am I looking in the wrong place? The site that
> I went to is on Sourceforge.
>
> From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
> the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work. Because of
> this, I plan to cancel my internet service at the end of this month. I
> will have to resort to using my smartphone at WIFI spots from now on,
> because I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating
> systems.
>
I think you should view the problem from
another perspective.
Browsers are bloated.
The designers insist on using a GPU-based
approach to browser design. This idea is
actually inherited from SmartPhones.
Your SmartPhone is perfect for this. It has
a modern GPU, to share the rendering duties.
A Win98 machine, chances are the video card
is too old to support hardware acceleration
of what the browser wants to do.
The fallback code path, uses the CPU. Now the
CPU is doing two jobs (as the browser is only
half as efficient as it used to be).
I was going to tell you that "there are 500 OSes
out there" and to try one. But then it occurred
to me that the browser is the root of the problem.
The "minimum OS" to run a browser should:
1) Support multiple cores (Firefox and Chroms
can fork four processes for example.)
2) Support modern accelerated graphics standards.
(In a comic coincidence today, Apple has deprecated
OpenGL on their platform. Just to prove to users
how obsolete their kit is. This is what happens
when software monkeys drive platform design.)
To continue to run a desktop browser, that
tells you how to "rebuild from the bottom up".
More than one thing needs to be modernized.
If I was still using dialup networking today, I'd
be paying $60 for a POTS phone (the dialup fee would
be separate). Instead, I pay a total of $52 per month,
for ADSL on a dry line, plus VOIP for phone services
(no POTS). The reason I have options here, is because
we have actual competition. In one part of the country,
they offer rural people WISP for wireless Internet,
as an alternative to dialup. And once the 5000 satellite
constellations are in orbit, we'll no longer have
this Internet logjam for rural people. Some day, everyone
will have options. And that's the other part of a
successful browsing experiences - meeting a minimum
download rate (so you can watch a video on a web page).
Kernel-EX isn't going to solve the worlds problems.
Rewarding browser designers to make their stuff run
on old hardware, that might work. Do you think
paying $1000.00 for a browser would be enough
to cover it ? I'm not even sure the software
designers care - you see, the boss gave each
of them a 20 core computer to develop on.
They don't know what slow is...
Paul
Computer Nerd Kev
Jun 6, 2018, 7:12:42 PM6/6/18
to
Jerome Tews <jert...@nomail.com> wrote:
> Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted. The
> last one was in 2011. Or am I looking in the wrong place? The site that
> I went to is on Sourceforge.
I've never run Kernel-Ex, but I think it's no surprise that it
> Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted. The
> last one was in 2011. Or am I looking in the wrong place? The site that
> I went to is on Sourceforge.
would have been abandoned by now.
> From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
> the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work. Because of
> this, I plan to cancel my internet service at the end of this month. I
> will have to resort to using my smartphone at WIFI spots from now on,
> because I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating
> systems.
a light weight browser and just put up with some websites not working
properly, it may still be usable most of the time.
"Off By One" is a newer (than the rest) light browser with win98
support:
http://www.offbyone.com/offbyone/index.htm
I run Dillo in Linux, which is a similar thing but Windows
versions won't work with native win98 (might be worth trying it
with KernelEx). Generally the only time I need to switch to a
mainstream browser is when a website requires a log-in (and
various scripts running in the background to handle it), but
even then a few well designed websites still work.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 6, 2018, 8:46:34 PM6/6/18
to
In message <j7eghdloulknhvqme...@4ax.com>, Jerome Tews
I'd not call XP and 7 "latest" - XP support ended some years ago.
Basically, XP and 7 are where '98 and XP were a few years ago. XP is
still usable with the internet, with work, though it's getting harder; 7
is fine.
What's your _reason_ for giving up? You should get a perfectly usable 7
machine for not very much; an XP almost for nothing, though good ones
are maybe now beginning to get rarity value.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
<jert...@nomail.com> writes:
>Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted. The
>last one was in 2011. Or am I looking in the wrong place? The site that
>I went to is on Sourceforge.
Wouldn't surprise me.
>Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted. The
>last one was in 2011. Or am I looking in the wrong place? The site that
>I went to is on Sourceforge.
>
>From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
>the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work. Because of
>this, I plan to cancel my internet service at the end of this month. I
>will have to resort to using my smartphone at WIFI spots from now on,
>because I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating
>systems.
>
Microsoft aren't going to be bothered by your decision (-:.
>From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
>the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work. Because of
>this, I plan to cancel my internet service at the end of this month. I
>will have to resort to using my smartphone at WIFI spots from now on,
>because I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating
>systems.
>
I'd not call XP and 7 "latest" - XP support ended some years ago.
Basically, XP and 7 are where '98 and XP were a few years ago. XP is
still usable with the internet, with work, though it's getting harder; 7
is fine.
What's your _reason_ for giving up? You should get a perfectly usable 7
machine for not very much; an XP almost for nothing, though good ones
are maybe now beginning to get rarity value.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
98 Guy
Jun 6, 2018, 9:05:55 PM6/6/18
to
Jerome Tews wrote:
> Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted.
What a bunch of bone-headed responses to this question. I'm surprised
> Has Kernel-EX been abandoned? I am not seeing any updates posted.
this group has dumbed down so much.
KernelEx has always been a special project centered in the win-98
section of msfn.org.
https://msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-9xme/
I see that as of right now (9 pm EST) that MSFN is down. But when it's
up, have a look in the "member projects" sub-forum in the above forum.
As for win-98 not being a usable OS on the web today, I continue to use
it with Firefox 2.0.0.20 as my primary browser (with scripting turned
off and with considerable use of select blocking add-ons as well as
hosts file entries).
When I have to, I will use Opera 12.02 (usable on win-98 with KernelEx).
The KernelEx version I'm using dates to 2/24/2017 (4.05.2016.17) but I
think newer versions are available. Also many kstubs options too.
My primary win-98 pc is based on Pentium 4, 2.8 ghz, with several SATA
hard drives (500 gb, 750 gb and 1.5 tb). Win-98 has no problems using
such large SATA hard drives by the way. My system also has 2 gb of ram,
and win-98 can see and use all of it (because of a certain well-known
hack).
Paul
Jun 6, 2018, 11:19:11 PM6/6/18
to
web browsing end.
1) Web standards were made complicated, as a barrier
to entry. The initial things that needed to be done
to make a web page, weren't that complicated.
2) The developers bloat the browser until it runs slow
on their 20-core computer. Then they release it to
everyone else as their "fastest yet".
3) It takes a hundred people plus, to make a dent in
browser development. Two well-meaning people in a
basement somewhere, aren't going to edit half the
files in the browser source, and correct all the
privacy trampling or performance destroying stuff.
One build tree I downloaded here, had 600,000 files
in it, a lot of which will be test benches. This
isn't something that two people can even read from
end to end, let alone edit.
If no one will make a decent browser, and "forking"
efforts don't have the manpower to make a difference,
then you'd better find something else to do with
your Win98 machine. I bet you can still edit Word
files on it just fine - using an editor from the same
era as Win98.
I've run Win98 on my Core2 at 3GHz (one core only),
and sure it screams. But all it would take is one
of those stinking advertising Javascript files
to throw that processor into a tight loop while running
a modern browser, and there'd be no cycles left for
anything else. The first thing you'd need to do,
is change the scheduling model, so a single
Javascript can't do that. I'm not aware of any
browser design that "solves the Javascript problem".
The web sites have us by the short and curlys.
As long as large organizations and standards bodies
controlled by them, are working against us, what hope
is there ? Being able to view a small percentage of
sites, is that an option ? What good is that ?
Would I have been able to place an online order
today, if I'd had one hand tied behind my back ?
Paul
JJ
Jun 7, 2018, 12:07:20 AM6/7/18
to
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:48:40 -0500, Jerome Tews wrote:
>
> From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
> the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work.
If you need to access rich multimedia sites, then yes. Otherwise, no.
>
> From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
> the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work.
While most sites force users to use the latest browser, some of them can
still work with older browsers by fooling the site's scripts using browser
identification spoofing, and new browser feature emulation scripts.
R.Wieser
Jun 7, 2018, 4:30:26 AM6/7/18
to
Jerome,
> I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating systems.
Have you ever thought of using XP(sp3) ?
And for that matter, what about W7 ? As long as you disable its update
mechanism (used to poisson it with telemetry and forced updates to W10) I've
been told it is quite nice OS to work with.
And pardon me, but the way you are putting it ("the *latest* crap operating
systems") makes me wonder if you are maybe considering Win98 to be crap too
... <whistle> :-)
In that case, why don't you, for being able to browse the web, take a look
at the different flavo(u)rs of Linux ?. Most of them run browsers pretty
well. Ubuntu for one is rather easy to install. Even has a "live cd"
option (no installing needed), which wil also run off of an USB stick (with
an option to remember settings and stuff).
And by the way: I've been using 98se until late last year, when the
motherboard died. If it would not have I would most likely still be using
it today*. With possibly a Raspberry Pi next to it to be able to keep
browsing the web (cat pictures needing SSL encryption ? You *got* to be
joking me ... - Nope, they're not. :-( ).
*currently using XPsp3. Lets see if it will service me for the next 20
years. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
> I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating systems.
And for that matter, what about W7 ? As long as you disable its update
mechanism (used to poisson it with telemetry and forced updates to W10) I've
been told it is quite nice OS to work with.
And pardon me, but the way you are putting it ("the *latest* crap operating
systems") makes me wonder if you are maybe considering Win98 to be crap too
... <whistle> :-)
In that case, why don't you, for being able to browse the web, take a look
at the different flavo(u)rs of Linux ?. Most of them run browsers pretty
well. Ubuntu for one is rather easy to install. Even has a "live cd"
option (no installing needed), which wil also run off of an USB stick (with
an option to remember settings and stuff).
And by the way: I've been using 98se until late last year, when the
motherboard died. If it would not have I would most likely still be using
it today*. With possibly a Raspberry Pi next to it to be able to keep
browsing the web (cat pictures needing SSL encryption ? You *got* to be
joking me ... - Nope, they're not. :-( ).
*currently using XPsp3. Lets see if it will service me for the next 20
years. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Computer Nerd Kev
Jun 7, 2018, 7:59:14 AM6/7/18
to
98 Guy <9...@guy.c0m> wrote:
>
> As for win-98 not being a usable OS on the web today, I continue to use
> it with Firefox 2.0.0.20 as my primary browser (with scripting turned
> off and with considerable use of select blocking add-ons as well as
> hosts file entries).
You must have trouble with the encryption protocols that Firefox V. 2
>
> As for win-98 not being a usable OS on the web today, I continue to use
> it with Firefox 2.0.0.20 as my primary browser (with scripting turned
> off and with considerable use of select blocking add-ons as well as
> hosts file entries).
didn't support and are now the only option when connecting to many
sites. My recent expenience loading pages in FF V. 2 has been constant
"unable to connect" windows when loading any mainstream website. I
guess your hosts file and "blocking add-ons" might lesson that, but
even the web servers that still let you use a FF V. 2 era encryption
protocol usually use more recent SSL certificates than those that
were bundled with FF V. 2, and adding new ones manually triggered
another bug for me, which stopped the pages loading altogether.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 7, 2018, 11:03:58 AM6/7/18
to
In message <pfaqf0$1k99$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
square corners and equal-size minimise, maximise, and close buttons, and
the Start menu's more like XP's than 7's. I have Classic Shell. (I went
without it for several weeks, intending to try to learn/accept the New
Way of doing things, but got too frustrated at one point, and haven't
missed anything I may have "lost" since - well, a
what's-making-startup-slow utility might not be working properly, but I
so rarely reboot that it doesn't matter.)
(-:! [I know I could make that invisible by setting both ends the same,
but the processing would still be there, just doing nothing.]
yet another way of doing things. Well, not too old - only 58 - but at a
point where time spent on such learning weighs heavier than it once did.
still be on XPSP3. (I'm glad it did force me to change though - not
because of the change to 7-32, but because this is a much more powerful
machine, and - although I don't do a _lot_ of things where that actually
matters _much_ - it _is_ nicer not to have to wait quite so much.)
>it today*. With possibly a Raspberry Pi next to it to be able to keep
>browsing the web (cat pictures needing SSL encryption ? You *got* to be
>joking me ... - Nope, they're not. :-( ).
I suspect it's not the (original - they've signed away their rights, in
all probability) owners of the cat pictures that are imposing the SSL
encryption, but the sites they're using to share them, which want to use
it so they know who's accessing them, for data mining purposes. I hate
such sites - not so much for the data mining (they've got to cover their
costs somehow), but mainly because they make the page cluttered (and
incompatible with older or restricted browsers).
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
John
ignorance of the past. - Hilary Mantel, first Reith Lecture 2017
<add...@not.available> writes:
>Jerome,
>
>> I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating systems.
>
>Have you ever thought of using XP(sp3) ?
>
>And for that matter, what about W7 ? As long as you disable its update
>mechanism (used to poisson it with telemetry and forced updates to W10) I've
>been told it is quite nice OS to work with.
>
My W7 looks like a cross between XP and '98: well, the windows have
>Jerome,
>
>> I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating systems.
>
>Have you ever thought of using XP(sp3) ?
>
>And for that matter, what about W7 ? As long as you disable its update
>mechanism (used to poisson it with telemetry and forced updates to W10) I've
>been told it is quite nice OS to work with.
>
square corners and equal-size minimise, maximise, and close buttons, and
the Start menu's more like XP's than 7's. I have Classic Shell. (I went
without it for several weeks, intending to try to learn/accept the New
Way of doing things, but got too frustrated at one point, and haven't
missed anything I may have "lost" since - well, a
what's-making-startup-slow utility might not be working properly, but I
so rarely reboot that it doesn't matter.)
>
>And pardon me, but the way you are putting it ("the *latest* crap operating
>systems") makes me wonder if you are maybe considering Win98 to be crap too
>... <whistle> :-)
Well, even '98 has the IMO unnecessary frill of graded-colour title bars
>And pardon me, but the way you are putting it ("the *latest* crap operating
>systems") makes me wonder if you are maybe considering Win98 to be crap too
>... <whistle> :-)
(-:! [I know I could make that invisible by setting both ends the same,
but the processing would still be there, just doing nothing.]
>
>In that case, why don't you, for being able to browse the web, take a look
>at the different flavo(u)rs of Linux ?. Most of them run browsers pretty
>well. Ubuntu for one is rather easy to install. Even has a "live cd"
>option (no installing needed), which wil also run off of an USB stick (with
>an option to remember settings and stuff).
>
(I know I'm not the person you were addressing but) I'm too old to learn
>In that case, why don't you, for being able to browse the web, take a look
>at the different flavo(u)rs of Linux ?. Most of them run browsers pretty
>well. Ubuntu for one is rather easy to install. Even has a "live cd"
>option (no installing needed), which wil also run off of an USB stick (with
>an option to remember settings and stuff).
>
yet another way of doing things. Well, not too old - only 58 - but at a
point where time spent on such learning weighs heavier than it once did.
>
>And by the way: I've been using 98se until late last year, when the
>motherboard died. If it would not have I would most likely still be using
I'm in a similar position with XP/7; if the netbook hadn't died I'd
>And by the way: I've been using 98se until late last year, when the
>motherboard died. If it would not have I would most likely still be using
still be on XPSP3. (I'm glad it did force me to change though - not
because of the change to 7-32, but because this is a much more powerful
machine, and - although I don't do a _lot_ of things where that actually
matters _much_ - it _is_ nicer not to have to wait quite so much.)
>it today*. With possibly a Raspberry Pi next to it to be able to keep
>browsing the web (cat pictures needing SSL encryption ? You *got* to be
>joking me ... - Nope, they're not. :-( ).
all probability) owners of the cat pictures that are imposing the SSL
encryption, but the sites they're using to share them, which want to use
it so they know who's accessing them, for data mining purposes. I hate
such sites - not so much for the data mining (they've got to cover their
costs somehow), but mainly because they make the page cluttered (and
incompatible with older or restricted browsers).
>
>*currently using XPsp3. Lets see if it will service me for the next 20
>years. :-)
Same here for 7-32-with-classic-shell (-:
>*currently using XPsp3. Lets see if it will service me for the next 20
>years. :-)
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
History is not the past. It is the method we have evolved of organising our
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
ignorance of the past. - Hilary Mantel, first Reith Lecture 2017
R.Wieser
Jun 7, 2018, 1:43:17 PM6/7/18
to
John,
> (I know I'm not the person you were addressing but) I'm too old to learn
> yet another way of doing things.
With me its mostly not a question of getting older (we're of almost the same
age), but simply never really having had the urge to drop something which
still works good enough for me for something which might-or-might-not have
the same capabilities (read: I most likely need to re-acquire both software
and hardware for - if possible that is ...).
> although I don't do a _lot_ of things where that actually matters _much_ -
> it _is_ nicer not to have to wait quite so much.
Same here. Though much of the problem there is that I'm simply chugging
thru much more data (regardless of it being game or webpage related) than I
was doing in my DOS days ...
> I suspect it's not the (original - they've signed away their rights, in
> all probability) owners of the cat pictures that are imposing the SSL
> encryption, but the sites they're using to share them,
As far as I can tell most of it is Googles doing: If you do not use HTTPS
your website will be ranked much lower, and thus pretty-much unfindable
using their search engine.
> I hate such sites - not so much for the data mining (they've got to cover
> their costs somehow),
I can't say that I *hate* them. I've simply resorted to, by default,
denying all third-party content, which, besides killing 99%+ of all
advertising regardless of how its delivered, causes most every site to
become actually readable again. :-)
The people I have a strong dislike for are the spammers who pose as poor
website owners and than try to make me believe that I *owe* it to them to
oogle all crap they are, indirectly, shoveling towards my browser - but for
which they, at the same time, deny any responsibility for. I should be
choosing between allowing them to do whatever they want, or get off the web.
In return I give them the same choice. Somehow they do not seem to like
that. I have no idea why ... :-D
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
> (I know I'm not the person you were addressing but) I'm too old to learn
> yet another way of doing things.
age), but simply never really having had the urge to drop something which
still works good enough for me for something which might-or-might-not have
the same capabilities (read: I most likely need to re-acquire both software
and hardware for - if possible that is ...).
> although I don't do a _lot_ of things where that actually matters _much_ -
> it _is_ nicer not to have to wait quite so much.
thru much more data (regardless of it being game or webpage related) than I
was doing in my DOS days ...
> I suspect it's not the (original - they've signed away their rights, in
> all probability) owners of the cat pictures that are imposing the SSL
> encryption, but the sites they're using to share them,
your website will be ranked much lower, and thus pretty-much unfindable
using their search engine.
> I hate such sites - not so much for the data mining (they've got to cover
> their costs somehow),
denying all third-party content, which, besides killing 99%+ of all
advertising regardless of how its delivered, causes most every site to
become actually readable again. :-)
The people I have a strong dislike for are the spammers who pose as poor
website owners and than try to make me believe that I *owe* it to them to
oogle all crap they are, indirectly, shoveling towards my browser - but for
which they, at the same time, deny any responsibility for. I should be
choosing between allowing them to do whatever they want, or get off the web.
In return I give them the same choice. Somehow they do not seem to like
that. I have no idea why ... :-D
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Paul
Jun 8, 2018, 3:55:42 AM6/8/18
to
Jerome Tews wrote:
> prefer Win98. Anything prior to Win98 was lacking, but it was all new,
> so that can be expected. After XP came that miserable Vista. I have
> heard Win7 is good, I'd like to try it, but I am not gonna spend $100 or
> more for an obsolete OS. The real crap bagan with Win8.x and on to 10. I
> would not recommend that garbage to my worst enemy.
>
> And no, I do not do Linux. I have had my months of frustration with that
> lousy excuse for an OS. I am not willing to spend (waste) hundreds of
> hours trying to configure it, only to find out its still not gonna run
> properly and still lacks any decent software. I already did all of that,
> and I was glad to finally remove any and all traces of Linux from my
> home. Only once did I get a successful working install, which I sort of
> liked, despite the fact it still lacked compatible software with
> Windows. That was around 2010. A year later that flavor of linux was
> abandoned.
>
> I just want something that works and I dont have to piss with once it's
> installed. Win98 is the ONLY OS I have had that luck with. XP I have
> found needs to be reinstalled every 2 or 3 years or it gets real slow.
> That sucks!
>
> I have never had to reinstall 98. I have moved it several times to
> bigger hard drives and even to a different motherboard. Just add a few
> drivers and carry on. And I do still use some DOS too. I always liked
> DOS.
You need to work on getting Wifi at your place,
so you can use that smartphone browser in comfort.
Paul
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:30:16 +0200, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
> wrote:
>
>> And pardon me, but the way you are putting it ("the *latest* crap operating
>> systems") makes me wonder if you are maybe considering Win98 to be crap too
>> ... <whistle> :-)
>
> Wrong. Win98 is the ONLY OS I have ever loved. XP is ok, but I still
> wrote:
>
>> And pardon me, but the way you are putting it ("the *latest* crap operating
>> systems") makes me wonder if you are maybe considering Win98 to be crap too
>> ... <whistle> :-)
>
> prefer Win98. Anything prior to Win98 was lacking, but it was all new,
> so that can be expected. After XP came that miserable Vista. I have
> heard Win7 is good, I'd like to try it, but I am not gonna spend $100 or
> more for an obsolete OS. The real crap bagan with Win8.x and on to 10. I
> would not recommend that garbage to my worst enemy.
>
> And no, I do not do Linux. I have had my months of frustration with that
> lousy excuse for an OS. I am not willing to spend (waste) hundreds of
> hours trying to configure it, only to find out its still not gonna run
> properly and still lacks any decent software. I already did all of that,
> and I was glad to finally remove any and all traces of Linux from my
> home. Only once did I get a successful working install, which I sort of
> liked, despite the fact it still lacked compatible software with
> Windows. That was around 2010. A year later that flavor of linux was
> abandoned.
>
> I just want something that works and I dont have to piss with once it's
> installed. Win98 is the ONLY OS I have had that luck with. XP I have
> found needs to be reinstalled every 2 or 3 years or it gets real slow.
> That sucks!
>
> I have never had to reinstall 98. I have moved it several times to
> bigger hard drives and even to a different motherboard. Just add a few
> drivers and carry on. And I do still use some DOS too. I always liked
> DOS.
You need to work on getting Wifi at your place,
so you can use that smartphone browser in comfort.
Paul
Computer Nerd Kev
Jun 8, 2018, 4:07:30 AM6/8/18
to
Jerome Tews <jert...@nomail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 23:12:38 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
> I used to use that quite a lot. It does NOT load any httpS sites. At
> least 90% of all sites are now httpS. And every day more sittes are
> going with httpS.
Ah sorry, no I don't use it much.
It does say on the Overview page:
"Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) support provided by optional OpenSSL
libraries for secure navigation to https:// addresses."
Dillo-Win32 handles HTTPS, but I've tried and failed to run it
on Win98 without Kernel Ex.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/dillo-win32/
I don't use the internet on Win98 personally, my Win98 PC gets
booted to Linux for that (and it's where I'm typing from now).
>>I run Dillo in Linux, which is a similar thing but Windows
>>versions won't work with native win98 (might be worth trying it
>>with KernelEx). Generally the only time I need to switch to a
>>mainstream browser is when a website requires a log-in (and
>>various scripts running in the background to handle it), but
>>even then a few well designed websites still work.
>
> I use Firefox 3.x under Kernel-EX. Anything above that causes too many
> problems. Using Firefox 2.x or similar (K-meleon or Seamonkey) produce
> script errors every few seconds, repeatedly. In fact I have a weight
> that I sit on the enter key because I get tired of hitting that key 20,
> 50 or 100 times for every webpage. Or there are security errors. Trying
> to load a webpage these days is like going to war. I am no longer
> willing to cope with it.
>
> None of this security crap was ever needed with the old (simple)
> websites. Now they add so much crap to sites that they apparently need
> all of that. I am no longer willing to deal with it.
Yes most often web developers just do it because they can,
unfortunately.
HTTP Web proxy services offer a sort of solution, though there
are new problems introduced by using them too.
http://applepieproxy.xyz/
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 23:12:38 +0000 (UTC), n...@telling.you.invalid
> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>Jerome Tews <jert...@nomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
>>> the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work. Because of
>>> this, I plan to cancel my internet service at the end of this month. I
>>> will have to resort to using my smartphone at WIFI spots from now on,
>>> because I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating
>>> systems.
>>
>>It depends on what you mean by usable. If you disable scripts or use
>>a light weight browser and just put up with some websites not working
>>properly, it may still be usable most of the time.
>>
>>"Off By One" is a newer (than the rest) light browser with win98
>>support:
>>http://www.offbyone.com/offbyone/index.htm
>>
> Have you actually tried to use Offbyone lately?
>>
>>> From what I am seeing, Win98 has finally become completely unusable for
>>> the internet. There are no longer any browsers that work. Because of
>>> this, I plan to cancel my internet service at the end of this month. I
>>> will have to resort to using my smartphone at WIFI spots from now on,
>>> because I refuse to use any of Microsoft's latest crap operating
>>> systems.
>>
>>It depends on what you mean by usable. If you disable scripts or use
>>a light weight browser and just put up with some websites not working
>>properly, it may still be usable most of the time.
>>
>>"Off By One" is a newer (than the rest) light browser with win98
>>support:
>>http://www.offbyone.com/offbyone/index.htm
>>
> I used to use that quite a lot. It does NOT load any httpS sites. At
> least 90% of all sites are now httpS. And every day more sittes are
> going with httpS.
Ah sorry, no I don't use it much.
It does say on the Overview page:
"Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) support provided by optional OpenSSL
libraries for secure navigation to https:// addresses."
Dillo-Win32 handles HTTPS, but I've tried and failed to run it
on Win98 without Kernel Ex.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/dillo-win32/
I don't use the internet on Win98 personally, my Win98 PC gets
booted to Linux for that (and it's where I'm typing from now).
>>I run Dillo in Linux, which is a similar thing but Windows
>>versions won't work with native win98 (might be worth trying it
>>with KernelEx). Generally the only time I need to switch to a
>>mainstream browser is when a website requires a log-in (and
>>various scripts running in the background to handle it), but
>>even then a few well designed websites still work.
>
> problems. Using Firefox 2.x or similar (K-meleon or Seamonkey) produce
> script errors every few seconds, repeatedly. In fact I have a weight
> that I sit on the enter key because I get tired of hitting that key 20,
> 50 or 100 times for every webpage. Or there are security errors. Trying
> to load a webpage these days is like going to war. I am no longer
> willing to cope with it.
>
> None of this security crap was ever needed with the old (simple)
> websites. Now they add so much crap to sites that they apparently need
> all of that. I am no longer willing to deal with it.
Yes most often web developers just do it because they can,
unfortunately.
HTTP Web proxy services offer a sort of solution, though there
are new problems introduced by using them too.
http://applepieproxy.xyz/
R.Wieser
Jun 8, 2018, 5:41:07 AM6/8/18
to
Jerome,
> Win98 is the ONLY OS I have ever loved. XP is ok, but I still
> prefer Win98.
Oh. ok.
So, you are considering using XP instead of throwing the baby away with the
bathwater (disconnecting from the web altogether - even if it is usefull to
you) ?
> And no, I do not do Linux.
I did not try to suggest that. I suggested you could be running a
"stand-alone" webbrowser which, instead of being installed ontop of Windows,
would be installed ontop of Linux.
You know, like running a backup program from a dedicated, bootable CD. You
could/would not care less what it uses as its OS (Linux most likely :-) ),
as long as it does its job. Consider my suggestion to be of the same
level.
I mentioned a Raspberry Pi for a reason: With its "noobs" install (copy the
install file onto a microSD, plug it in a Pi, power it up, wait 15 minutes
(only the first time mind you) and you're good to go) it allows you to get
on the web with a minimum ammount of fuss. And its cheap enough to keep
*next* to your Win98 machine (a KVM switch would come in handy though).
> I just want something that works and I dont have to piss with
> once it's installed.
Well, there you go ! :-)
And yes, I've done the above (as a test to see if it would work). Because I
ran W98se on my main machine (until recently) and already had problems with
sites becoming unreachable because I could not update the browsers
encryption package anymore.
And besides being able to stay online and reach all the websites again the
Pi would also function as a kind of sandbox and a means to easily restore it
to clean working state again in case of any malware slipping thru (simply
wiping the microSD and copy the install file on it once more)
> XP I have found needs to be reinstalled every 2 or 3 years
> or it gets real slow. That sucks!
Did you leave the updating mechanism enabled ? Well, what did you expect
than ? :-)
Also, how much software did you, over time, install and "remove" ? Care to
take a guess to how much got left behind and as a result bugged your system
down ? Or how many of those non-removed installations, because of their
"must be running" updating mechanisms (looking at you, HP), having been
slowing down the OS ? How many system-tray icons did you have ?
See, I've got an XP machine here for over 10 years (bought as a gaming
machine, next to my 98se), and can't say that I've noticed such slowing
down.
... But I'm not really known for my "oh, lets install that software and see
what it does!" enthusiasm. Rather the opposite actually. :-)
> I have never had to reinstall 98. I have moved it several times
> to bigger hard drives and even to a different motherboard.
I've alse been moving to bigger harddisks over time. And yes, a simple
transfer of the system partition to the new drive never failed. But the
few times I switched to a new motherboard I opted to also re-instal the OS
partition. Simply because a) I did not want to carry any driver cruft from
the old board over to the new one. b) I saw it as a good time to get rid of
(and I mean *fully* rid of) other software that I did not use anymore.
And as I have had my OS on its own partition (seperate from the data) for as
long as I can remember that was always rather easy to do. Ofcourse, having
stored all driver and other software packages for the current machine in a
special backup folder always made that rather easy to do.
> And I do still use some DOS too. I always liked DOS.
Me too. In fact, I've still got a working DOS 5.x machine connected to my
KVM.
Both DOS and W98 made it easy to talk with the outside world (thru direct
access of RS232 and/or printer-port pins). Under XP I can still install a
driver which gives me direct control of them.
Under later versions of the hardware and/or OS ? You need to stick some
kind of specialized HID module into the USB port and hope its compatible
with what you want to do - hardware *and* driver wise.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
> Win98 is the ONLY OS I have ever loved. XP is ok, but I still
> prefer Win98.
So, you are considering using XP instead of throwing the baby away with the
bathwater (disconnecting from the web altogether - even if it is usefull to
you) ?
> And no, I do not do Linux.
"stand-alone" webbrowser which, instead of being installed ontop of Windows,
would be installed ontop of Linux.
You know, like running a backup program from a dedicated, bootable CD. You
could/would not care less what it uses as its OS (Linux most likely :-) ),
as long as it does its job. Consider my suggestion to be of the same
level.
I mentioned a Raspberry Pi for a reason: With its "noobs" install (copy the
install file onto a microSD, plug it in a Pi, power it up, wait 15 minutes
(only the first time mind you) and you're good to go) it allows you to get
on the web with a minimum ammount of fuss. And its cheap enough to keep
*next* to your Win98 machine (a KVM switch would come in handy though).
> I just want something that works and I dont have to piss with
> once it's installed.
And yes, I've done the above (as a test to see if it would work). Because I
ran W98se on my main machine (until recently) and already had problems with
sites becoming unreachable because I could not update the browsers
encryption package anymore.
And besides being able to stay online and reach all the websites again the
Pi would also function as a kind of sandbox and a means to easily restore it
to clean working state again in case of any malware slipping thru (simply
wiping the microSD and copy the install file on it once more)
> XP I have found needs to be reinstalled every 2 or 3 years
> or it gets real slow. That sucks!
than ? :-)
Also, how much software did you, over time, install and "remove" ? Care to
take a guess to how much got left behind and as a result bugged your system
down ? Or how many of those non-removed installations, because of their
"must be running" updating mechanisms (looking at you, HP), having been
slowing down the OS ? How many system-tray icons did you have ?
See, I've got an XP machine here for over 10 years (bought as a gaming
machine, next to my 98se), and can't say that I've noticed such slowing
down.
... But I'm not really known for my "oh, lets install that software and see
what it does!" enthusiasm. Rather the opposite actually. :-)
> I have never had to reinstall 98. I have moved it several times
> to bigger hard drives and even to a different motherboard.
transfer of the system partition to the new drive never failed. But the
few times I switched to a new motherboard I opted to also re-instal the OS
partition. Simply because a) I did not want to carry any driver cruft from
the old board over to the new one. b) I saw it as a good time to get rid of
(and I mean *fully* rid of) other software that I did not use anymore.
And as I have had my OS on its own partition (seperate from the data) for as
long as I can remember that was always rather easy to do. Ofcourse, having
stored all driver and other software packages for the current machine in a
special backup folder always made that rather easy to do.
> And I do still use some DOS too. I always liked DOS.
KVM.
Both DOS and W98 made it easy to talk with the outside world (thru direct
access of RS232 and/or printer-port pins). Under XP I can still install a
driver which gives me direct control of them.
Under later versions of the hardware and/or OS ? You need to stick some
kind of specialized HID module into the USB port and hope its compatible
with what you want to do - hardware *and* driver wise.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Paul
Jun 9, 2018, 5:11:41 AM6/9/18
to
Jerome Tews wrote:
> I would if I could, but living in a rural area has no means to get WIFI.
> At least not affordably. I have two options. My dialup modem, which just
> dont cut it anymore with the bloated websites these days. -OR- Pay
> around $130 per month for satellite, which includes the TV and the
> Internet. First off, I dont want the TV. I watch the daily news to get
> the weather reports. I can do that on my antenna. I dont watch any other
> tv. Second, I am retired and on a small fixed income. $130 per month is
> NOT doable. I recall the government speaking of getting the internet to
> rural people. Apparently that was just the usual govt. promises that
> never happen.
>
> Having poor or no internet is the price we pay to live in the country,
> but I would not live in a city for any reason.The farmers around here
> dont even know what the internet is, for the most part. I just talked to
> my neighbor yesterday about this. He was having problems with some sort
> of seed distribution valve on his tractor, and told me he would have to
> contact the manufacturer to find out how to fix it. I told him to go on
> the internet and google the make and model of his tractor. He looked at
> me like I was an alien from another planet and said "I dont know how to
> do any of the stuff". I think that explains why we dont have and will
> never get high speed internet around here. There are probably 5 people
> who want it, and I am one of them five. I'll take a wild guess that 4
> more exist within a 20 mile radius.
The price comes down when there is competition.
We even have that problem in this country, where some
areas of the country have real competition, and people
get offers of "double their monthly cap at no extra cost"
on cellphone data. In other areas, there are no deals
like that.
Keep your eyes open for alternative sources of Internet.
WISP is one way to do it. Even if over-subscribed,
WISP will deliver more tha dialup rates. And can probably
manage to be a few bucks less than your $130 deal, if
there are enough users.
It needs spectrum though, and with the buying up of all
the 900MHz, there might not be any good frequencies for WISP.
When Musk gets his satellites up there, your price will
drop. But that'll get done, roughly around the same point
in time they perfect self-driving cars. It'll take a long
time to launch 5000 satellites, even if they're small ones.
One reason those satellites are going to be a good deal,
is they aren't geosynchronous, and the latency is closer
to terrestrial values, than to geosynchronous values.
Paul
> At least not affordably. I have two options. My dialup modem, which just
> dont cut it anymore with the bloated websites these days. -OR- Pay
> around $130 per month for satellite, which includes the TV and the
> Internet. First off, I dont want the TV. I watch the daily news to get
> the weather reports. I can do that on my antenna. I dont watch any other
> tv. Second, I am retired and on a small fixed income. $130 per month is
> NOT doable. I recall the government speaking of getting the internet to
> rural people. Apparently that was just the usual govt. promises that
> never happen.
>
> Having poor or no internet is the price we pay to live in the country,
> but I would not live in a city for any reason.The farmers around here
> dont even know what the internet is, for the most part. I just talked to
> my neighbor yesterday about this. He was having problems with some sort
> of seed distribution valve on his tractor, and told me he would have to
> contact the manufacturer to find out how to fix it. I told him to go on
> the internet and google the make and model of his tractor. He looked at
> me like I was an alien from another planet and said "I dont know how to
> do any of the stuff". I think that explains why we dont have and will
> never get high speed internet around here. There are probably 5 people
> who want it, and I am one of them five. I'll take a wild guess that 4
> more exist within a 20 mile radius.
The price comes down when there is competition.
We even have that problem in this country, where some
areas of the country have real competition, and people
get offers of "double their monthly cap at no extra cost"
on cellphone data. In other areas, there are no deals
like that.
Keep your eyes open for alternative sources of Internet.
WISP is one way to do it. Even if over-subscribed,
WISP will deliver more tha dialup rates. And can probably
manage to be a few bucks less than your $130 deal, if
there are enough users.
It needs spectrum though, and with the buying up of all
the 900MHz, there might not be any good frequencies for WISP.
When Musk gets his satellites up there, your price will
drop. But that'll get done, roughly around the same point
in time they perfect self-driving cars. It'll take a long
time to launch 5000 satellites, even if they're small ones.
One reason those satellites are going to be a good deal,
is they aren't geosynchronous, and the latency is closer
to terrestrial values, than to geosynchronous values.
Paul
Paul
Jun 9, 2018, 6:21:00 AM6/9/18
to
Jerome Tews wrote:
>
> Please explain this in more detail. I know a Raspberry Pi is some sort
> of smartphone. (I think), but you lost me after that. I'd still need a
> WIFI signal, which I dont have.
I would solve the networking project first, and
then there will be plenty of time to entertain
new computers.
In Google, try
<name_of_your_town> WISP
and see if there are any WISP providers near you.
Paul
>
> Please explain this in more detail. I know a Raspberry Pi is some sort
> of smartphone. (I think), but you lost me after that. I'd still need a
> WIFI signal, which I dont have.
I would solve the networking project first, and
then there will be plenty of time to entertain
new computers.
In Google, try
<name_of_your_town> WISP
and see if there are any WISP providers near you.
Paul
R.Wieser
Jun 9, 2018, 6:43:27 AM6/9/18
to
Jerome,
> A dialup modem does not work on XP
It doesn't ? Strange, as googeling for "XP dial-up modem" shows quite a
number of websites explaining how to do it ... I would suggest you take
another look at it.
> Please explain this in more detail. I know a Raspberry Pi is
> some sort of smartphone
:-) Not quite. Its actually a single-board computer, more-or-less aimed
at electroncs hobbyists (amazon price: $35):
https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/
At the far right there you can see the ethernet socket, with just above it 4
USB2 sockets. The pins at the top are ment to connect ... whatever
electronics experiments you want to it (the individual pins are programmable
to be in or outputs). The connector top-ish-left is the microSD card
holder. The connector bottom-center is the HDMI video output, and the
black-and-white round connector right of it an extra audio output. The
connector at the bottom-left is the micro-usb power connector.
It also has wifi and bluetooth on board. The two black-and-white
vertically placed (on the image at the left left and between the HDMI and
audio connector) connectors allow you connect a touchscreen to it (to make
it a stand-alone computer), and a camera. Both supported by the OS!
Yep, quite the powerhouse for such a small board. :-)
> but you lost me after that. I'd still need a WIFI signal, which
> I dont have
Nope, you don't. You can directly plug an ethernet cable into it.
And before you think "but I only have a dial-up modem!", AFAIK you can get
W98 to be used as an internet gateway for another computer. In other
words, you could be dialing-up with W98se, and by connecting the Raspberry
Pi to it (using ethernet) it could go online too.
But to be honest, if you are in any way considering to use XP that would, I
think, be a far better (easier?) solution ...
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
P.s.
KVM = Keyboard, Video & Mouse switch. Handy if you have multiple
computers, but only place for a single monitor, mouse and keyboard on your
table. And currently KVMs all seem to be able to switch by pressing a few
keys on the keyboard itself (no need to touch the KVMs buttons)..
> A dialup modem does not work on XP
It doesn't ? Strange, as googeling for "XP dial-up modem" shows quite a
number of websites explaining how to do it ... I would suggest you take
another look at it.
> Please explain this in more detail. I know a Raspberry Pi is
> some sort of smartphone
at electroncs hobbyists (amazon price: $35):
https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/
At the far right there you can see the ethernet socket, with just above it 4
USB2 sockets. The pins at the top are ment to connect ... whatever
electronics experiments you want to it (the individual pins are programmable
to be in or outputs). The connector top-ish-left is the microSD card
holder. The connector bottom-center is the HDMI video output, and the
black-and-white round connector right of it an extra audio output. The
connector at the bottom-left is the micro-usb power connector.
It also has wifi and bluetooth on board. The two black-and-white
vertically placed (on the image at the left left and between the HDMI and
audio connector) connectors allow you connect a touchscreen to it (to make
it a stand-alone computer), and a camera. Both supported by the OS!
Yep, quite the powerhouse for such a small board. :-)
> but you lost me after that. I'd still need a WIFI signal, which
> I dont have
And before you think "but I only have a dial-up modem!", AFAIK you can get
W98 to be used as an internet gateway for another computer. In other
words, you could be dialing-up with W98se, and by connecting the Raspberry
Pi to it (using ethernet) it could go online too.
But to be honest, if you are in any way considering to use XP that would, I
think, be a far better (easier?) solution ...
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
P.s.
KVM = Keyboard, Video & Mouse switch. Handy if you have multiple
computers, but only place for a single monitor, mouse and keyboard on your
table. And currently KVMs all seem to be able to switch by pressing a few
keys on the keyboard itself (no need to touch the KVMs buttons)..
R.Wieser
Jun 9, 2018, 6:59:17 AM6/9/18
to
Jerome,
> What's 5 miles of wire..... Then again, I can get dialup.
> Why cant they at least have DSL. But I can answer that myself.
> It's because they are only interested in profit, not in services.
Not quite. Any length of cable will function as both a coil as well as a
capacitor, an effect which gets more pronounced the higher the frequency is
(in audio terms, a low-pass filter). As DSL uses higher frequencies (to be
able to deliver speed, but also to stay out of the audio spectrum - so that
DSL and your phone could be used at the same time) there would be no usable
signal left after those five miles.
(compare it with trying to pull a too much juice (amperes) over small wires.
The voltage would drop considerably, upto a point you could not even get a
lighbulb to glow ...)
Yep, even in my country our phone companies cannot (could not?) deliver DSL
to some houses in our *cities*, simply because they where to far away from
the DSL node points.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
> What's 5 miles of wire..... Then again, I can get dialup.
> Why cant they at least have DSL. But I can answer that myself.
> It's because they are only interested in profit, not in services.
Not quite. Any length of cable will function as both a coil as well as a
capacitor, an effect which gets more pronounced the higher the frequency is
(in audio terms, a low-pass filter). As DSL uses higher frequencies (to be
able to deliver speed, but also to stay out of the audio spectrum - so that
DSL and your phone could be used at the same time) there would be no usable
signal left after those five miles.
(compare it with trying to pull a too much juice (amperes) over small wires.
The voltage would drop considerably, upto a point you could not even get a
lighbulb to glow ...)
Yep, even in my country our phone companies cannot (could not?) deliver DSL
to some houses in our *cities*, simply because they where to far away from
the DSL node points.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
R.Wieser
Jun 9, 2018, 2:31:30 PM6/9/18
to
Jerome,
> It gets complicated. I tried hundreds of fixes over many years.
> It's out of my hands, or out of my house. Its a bad ISP. XP
> does connect, but I get 5 min of use before it quits. Called
> "spiral of death".
Ah, thataway. The only solution I know in regard to such a death spiral
(which sounds as the modem keep adjusting its baudrate as a response to
dropped packets) is to set it to a fixed (lowish) speed. But reading
you've tried a bunch of fixes I get the feeling you already tried that.
And it looks like the problem has shifted from an issue with the browser to
major issues with the connection itself. As paul (I think) already said
it, you would first need to solve those network problems before even
thinking of doing something about the browser.
> It's just not usable anymore, and thus beginning July 1, I am
> disconnecting.
:-) Yep, now I can understand that choice.
> Thanks for the explanation of the Raspberry. Sounds like a decent setup,
You're welcome.
> but still dont solve my lack of USABLE home internet.
Yup, it doesn't. I was (wrongly) assuming that your computer / computers
browser was the problem here, not the internet connection itself. :-(
I was almost going to suggest if you could not set some kind of CB
(sender/receiver) connection set up (with someone in town), but when I heard
about your reception problems with your phone (mountainous terrain?) I don't
really think you will be able to get a connection that way either.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
> It gets complicated. I tried hundreds of fixes over many years.
> It's out of my hands, or out of my house. Its a bad ISP. XP
> does connect, but I get 5 min of use before it quits. Called
> "spiral of death".
Ah, thataway. The only solution I know in regard to such a death spiral
(which sounds as the modem keep adjusting its baudrate as a response to
dropped packets) is to set it to a fixed (lowish) speed. But reading
you've tried a bunch of fixes I get the feeling you already tried that.
And it looks like the problem has shifted from an issue with the browser to
major issues with the connection itself. As paul (I think) already said
it, you would first need to solve those network problems before even
thinking of doing something about the browser.
> It's just not usable anymore, and thus beginning July 1, I am
> disconnecting.
:-) Yep, now I can understand that choice.
> Thanks for the explanation of the Raspberry. Sounds like a decent setup,
You're welcome.
> but still dont solve my lack of USABLE home internet.
Yup, it doesn't. I was (wrongly) assuming that your computer / computers
browser was the problem here, not the internet connection itself. :-(
I was almost going to suggest if you could not set some kind of CB
(sender/receiver) connection set up (with someone in town), but when I heard
about your reception problems with your phone (mountainous terrain?) I don't
really think you will be able to get a connection that way either.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Computer Nerd Kev
Jun 9, 2018, 7:05:26 PM6/9/18
to
>>Jerome Tews wrote:
>
> It claims I can get internet from a cell provider. WRONG. I cant even
> get a cellphone signal here. I have to drive (or walk) one half mile, to
> the top of the hill to make a call.
If you're not surrounded by mountains, there might be a chance that a
fixed directional antenna could give you phone signal. I used an old
aluminium cooking pot and a bit of copper wire to build a "canntenna"
suitable for the network frequencies used by my provider. You need
coax cable designed for high frequencies (RG58, I think) and a
connector to fit your internet modem. They were the only costs.
Of course suitable antennas can be bought as well, there's at
least one crowd over here in Australia that specialises in remote
area mobile broadband reception. That usually means there must be
countless such business in America. :)
>
> It claims I can get internet from a cell provider. WRONG. I cant even
> get a cellphone signal here. I have to drive (or walk) one half mile, to
> the top of the hill to make a call.
If you're not surrounded by mountains, there might be a chance that a
fixed directional antenna could give you phone signal. I used an old
aluminium cooking pot and a bit of copper wire to build a "canntenna"
suitable for the network frequencies used by my provider. You need
coax cable designed for high frequencies (RG58, I think) and a
connector to fit your internet modem. They were the only costs.
Of course suitable antennas can be bought as well, there's at
least one crowd over here in Australia that specialises in remote
area mobile broadband reception. That usually means there must be
countless such business in America. :)
Paul
Jun 9, 2018, 8:17:58 PM6/9/18
to
In the USA, they have 36000 foot service tariffed.
The rate might only end up being 1.5Mbit/sec, but
it's better than dialup.
Since the phone line already exists, the question
is how would you backhaul a digital signal from
a DSLAM. On my installation, that's a fiber optic
cable. If they can put in cell towers, there's
probably some sort of infrastructure they could
tap into.
My ADSL signal originally came directly from the CO, and
I got about 3Mbit/sec or so. Today, from the CO to my
street corner is fiber optic cable, and from the
corner to my house is ADSL. The rate can be higher
because the (analog portion) distance is short.
There's a speed versus distance graph here, if
you're ever wondering why your service sucks.
https://www.internode.on.net/residential/broadband/adsl/easy_broadband/performance/
And the signal level is way down in the dirt so to speak.
The red box at the bottom, stops at -57dB. If you look
at the layout inside the ADSL modem, that's why the
signal path from the DAA to the SOC is so carefully
laid out. And the thing is still pretty easy to tip
over (loss of sync), and all it takes is a decent
bit of noise on the AC power cable to the wall adapter,
to punch through to the analog portion inside the modem.
Paul
Computer Nerd Kev
Jun 9, 2018, 9:50:37 PM6/9/18
to
http://offbyone.com/offbyone/ob1_ssl_support.htm
But nevertheless, running it on XP, I can't seem to get HTTPS
pages to load even with the SSL libraries in C:\WINDOWS
\SYSTEM32. Perhaps it doesn't use TLS, which all the websites
require now, or its included certificates are all out of date.
One of the most annoying things about HTTPS is how all the
encryption systems age so quickly.
Paul
Jun 9, 2018, 10:36:49 PM6/9/18
to
Jerome Tews wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation of the Raspberry. Sounds like a decent setup,
> Thanks for the explanation of the Raspberry. Sounds like a decent setup,
> but still dont solve my lack of USABLE home internet.
Enter your ZIP code in here.
http://www.wispa.org/Directories/Find-a-WISP
Prices vary, so don't give up on it.
Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 10, 2018, 2:14:23 AM6/10/18
to
In message <p24ohdtp1spaqig13...@4ax.com>, Jerome Tews
<jert...@nomail.com> writes:
[]
[]
You will be missed. Perhaps you could keep on the free one, just for
usenet?
don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm"
<jert...@nomail.com> writes:
[]
>It's just not usable anymore, and thus beginning July 1, I am
>disconnecting. In all honesty, I can drive to town and use WIFI at the
[]
You will be missed. Perhaps you could keep on the free one, just for
usenet?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
don't want to hear. - Preface to "Animal Farm"
0 new messages