BenoitRen

Looks like I'm Debian Linux... The description is about right.

This statement is a bit misleading. The rendering engine and its libraries are coded in C++. However, much of the code that drives the user interface is done with JavaScript. XUL stands for XML User Language. It is an XML-based language to describe user interfaces. It's not JavaScript + XML, though I can see where the confusion might come from, because XUL interfaces have hooks to JavaScript. Incorrect. SeaMonkey uses XUL and JavaScript too. However, unlike the Firefox developers who tend to rip out a lot of C++ code to rewrite it in JavaScript every other major release, SeaMonkey has less of its interface behaviour coded in JavaScript. You're probably confusing it with the migration to toolkit, which is something entirely different. K-Meleon uses the same rendering back-end as Firefox and SeaMonkey, but its interface is not made in XUL. Instead, it's native Windows code. This leads to a more responsive user interface and faster start-up, but with the sacrifice of cross-platform portability and less flexible extensions support. K-Meleon runs pretty well on Win9x (though the latest release has issues on my Win95 system). Safari probably doesn't. People who switch to SeaMonkey have sometimes noted that it seems to consume less memory. This could be because the interface doesn't use as much JavaScript, and better coding. The SeaMonkey team has a long history of porting Firefox code to SeaMonkey, which more often than not they had to fix first because it had problems that the Firefox hippies didn't take note of or slacked off on. Like outright bugs, or bad performance because of low quality code.

No, it doesn't add prefetching, control over max. pipe-lineing requests etc. Those preferences already exist. Look in about:config.

Many here, me included, already know about this driver. Nathan Lineback must be pleased that it serves people so well.

That extension doesn't really add anything. It just changes some of Firefox' preferences.

Which just proves that it's not the greatest OS ever that everyone should have. Especially when it doesn't offer anything we want to offset the system requirements. The fact is that GNU/Linux, a recent OS that still gets updated, will work fine on the proposed system. Windows Vista is just bloated. Too bad your LCD monitor will look like s*** on resolutions other than its native one. CRTs aren't obsolete at all. Yeah, until the next upgrade, that is. Perpetual upgrade cycle.

Aha you disabled part of the OS to get it to run fine. Nope, not 1995. Windows 95 was dramatically different compared to Windows 3.1, introducing 32-bits, a revamped interface, etc. Anyway, yes it's the same argument for the other years. If it wasn't, the argument wouldn't have much point, now would it? Great going, Sherlock. You don't even try to refute the argument. Windows Vista is WinXP with some new bells and whistles. WinXP itself is Windows 2000 + eye candy + ClearType (only useful on LCDs) + better hyper-threading support.

I did some testing. I installed with the batch file. When I plugged in the HDD, it still used the SanDisk drivers, so I thought it didn't help. But then, while uninstalling the drivers, I also deleted the key for "USB Mass Storage Port". So I tried again, and this time I could specifiy the driver path. I just pointed at the Program Files directory I had let the extractor put it at before. Weirdly enough it asked me to reboot after identifying it as "USB Mass Storage Interface". After reboot there were two entries for it: the previous one and "USB Mass Storage Device". But it still didn't work. Unplugged, plugged it back in, now only "USB Mass Storage Device" appeared. I took a look at the HDD with my brother's laptop, and it's an NTFS drive. Ack. I tried my USB stick, but it got identified as "USB Mass Storage Port", and no drive appeared in My Computer. Looking at Control Panel > System I saw it had a problem. I don't remember exactly what I did at this point. I think I deleted the entry in the register, and tried again, and asked me to reboot this time. I said No and saw that the device had a problem. I figured that it was because I hadn't rebooted yet. Rebooted, still no drive, still a problem. At this point I uninstalled the whole package and pointed Windows again at the drivers I got from Nathan Lineback. My USB stick works fine again.

My brother's laptop came with Windows Vista Basic. It had better specs than the minimum required specs, most notably 1 GB of RAM. Yet it was slow as molasses. Not to mention it took more than a half hour just to boot for the first time. Inexcusable. What kind of crap is that? You haven't clarified exactly what makes Vista the top OS. What great functionality warrants the increased system requirements? Aha! No, we bash it because it's yet another edition of Windows that has increased system requirements for no apparent reason other than eye candy. This is Microsoft's way of keeping up the perpetual upgrade cycle. 1. Release new edition of Windows with a couple more features that doesn't run well hardware unless meeting high system requirements. 2. Get all new systems sold with new version of Windows. 3. Cut off support for old version. 4. Watch as people buy new PCs because the newer version won't run on their older ones. 5. PROFIT! 6. GOTO 1.

I had the same symptoms with that colour setting, so I guess the problem is in the driver. I didn't have a problem setting it to 32-bit, though.

Nice! I need to know, though: what do I do if this doesn't go well? What files/reg keys to delete/modify?

This has been proved wrong countless times. This is true for the interface. However, the rendering back-end is entirely in C++.

This poll is broken and unfair. First, it's broken because we are forced to pick a choice in the "If you do use Vista" question. Secondly, it's unfair because Windows 95 isn't mentioned where the rest of the Windows OSs are. By the way, you forgot one option: "it's slow as molasses".

I didn't know what I could do from DOS to fix things. I spoke too soon. Next time Windows booted normally, though suddenly Windows would exit when I clicked the Settings tab of the Display Properties. I then tried switching to the NV version, and that works a little better. All colour settings work, except for 16-bits, which looks weird. There is still no hardware acceleration, though; redrawing is slow. I would use Catalyst if there was a version of it that worked under Windows 95 that also supports my Radeon 9250.

It was too good to be true. I tried those drivers, and now my secondary Windows 95 PC gets stuck in a BSOD loop on boot. I can't get into Safe Mode because of too much RAM. I guess system.ini gets ignored.

I PMed Tihiy more than a week ago, but he/she didn't reply, even though he/she has posted yesterday. Bad Tihiy.

Yes, you did. You said running IE6 was not a serious threat, and then you present the use of software to mitigate threats by IE6. Firefox is generally safe from threats. At least if you disable plug-ins, because those have their own sandbox that Firefox can't do anything about.

Incorrect. Any application can be run on pretty much every setup, it will just take longer to load and have sluggish performance. For example, Windows XP runs on a 66 Mhz CPU.

You just defeated your own argument. Moreover, the web browser is crap, having notoriously bad support for web standards.

You're thinking of Windows 3.1. Windows 98 is quite a different beast.

Microsoft's minimum requirements have never been accurate. Not even close. XP runs like crap on 233 Mhz. And don't you run that "disable services/eye candy" argument by me. The minimum requirements are for the default install, and default settings are important, and part of the OS experience.

You shouldn't even need those programs. You need to practice good security. Which, for a start, means not using IE, but a recent browser that's actually updated and more secure. What for? Just so you can run anti-malware programs? That's silly. Not to mention that Windows Vista is a recipe for disaster.

That's wrong. Win98 SE isn't as stable because it has IE integrated. NT4 isn't suited for games at all.

The goal was Windows 95. I know it works on Windows 98 SE. The last Catalyst for Win98 SE is 6.2.

I finally got my hands on a Catalyst 4.2 driver for Win9x/ME. However, as usual, there is confusion regarding what "Win9x" means. Idiots stamp Win9x even when it's only compatible with Win98 and WinME. Then people who do know note it as being compatible with Win95. Yeah, the driver didn't work. I guess that's the end of this exercise. Unless Tihiy's driver works on Windows 95 too. Seriously, all this driver s*** is a load of crock. The companies sell HARDWARE. Release some decent drivers, AND publish specificiations and technical info so people can create their own drivers. What the hell is there to lose? We get the drivers for free anyway.