BenoitRen

Yeah, the WinTricks driver is known around here.

M()zart, clearly you didn't read my post just above yours.

...Which 32 GB barrier?

Because Win98SE has IE integrated in its shell, making it unpleasant to work with for some (like me). As for an nLited WinXP SP3, that thing will crawl on older computers.

That's actually quite slow.

Yes, it is.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing an OS API used by programs with a rendering model. When you are making a program, you can emulate the missing API with your own logic. Such a thing is not possible when it comes to CSS and the DOM. Either the feature exists, or it isn't there. IE's numerous renderings bugs don't compare to the bugs of the Windows API. Programs can detect versions and work around it. For web pages, you have to resort to hacks, browser-specific stylesheets (IE conditional comments, anyone?), or other undesirable work-arounds. Again, please spare us the horrors and use another web browser engine. Any other one. I don't care what web browser you use, as long as it's not IE(-based). One problem with that; .NET 2.0 doesn't run on Windows 95.

No, it is not. It still has the dozens of rendering bugs and lacks a lot of CSS and DOM support. It's just a different shell. Please upgrade to an up-to-date web browser and spare us the horrors of IE6. There's no good excuse.

Windows 3.11 was the turning point. The succeeding versions of Windows are just an evolution of that.

Windows 98SE looks like Windows 95 with oversized toolbars and a web browser rammed through its head. So the only true Windows is Windows 95! See where this is going?

An ATI Radeon 9200 should fulfill all your non-gaming needs, really. If you have problems with sites that have a lot of images, it's not the card's fault.

Most digital cameras do indeed act as a flash drive when interracting with a computer. There should be no problem.

Win98's doors are closed by default.

That's the end of 2007, so it's only 1 year ago.

PROBLEMCHYLD, please do not use BMP files on the web! They are HUGE! Use PNG instead.

Is this issue still being looked after? I always have to login again when I return using a saved link to one of the board's forums. In fact, it seems that when I use a link on a page that doesn't know about login, I get logged out again.

As far as I know, the decision to use *A or *W APIs is decided at compilation time with a flag.

As we all know, Firefox 2.0 has reached End-of-life status with the release of Firefox 2.0.0.20, and users of Firefox 2.0 are encouraged to move to Firefox 3.0. However, to most the fate of SeaMonkey 1.1 and Thunderbird 2.0 is still unclear, and there is no newer version to migrate to. I'm here to clear that up. SeaMonkey 1.1 and Thunderbird 2.0 will still get security and stability updates. This will continue until some time after the release of SeaMonkey 2.0 and Thunderbird 3.0. Currently SeaMonkey 2.0 is slated for mid-2009. I don't know when Thunderbird 3.0 will be released, but it should be at about the same time.

There were talks of SeaMonkey 2.0 using Gecko 1.8 if the transition from the XPFE to toolkit infastructure would take too long. As it is now, the transition is mostly complete, so 2.0 will use Gecko 1.9. When installed, SeaMonkey doesn't take up that much space than Firefox. In fact, it takes less than Firefox and Thunderbird combined. The reason for the large difference between the Firefox installer and the SeaMonkey installer is due to the fact that the Firefox installer uses 7zip compression. SeaMonkey's installer is based on older XPFE code, so it uses regular ZIP compression. Using 7zip, the SeaMonkey installer should be between 7 and 8 MB in size.

You don't really need an anti-virus to stay on Win98. I haven't used one on this Win95 PC for years.

I tried all that already. It was compiled with the -v option (otherwise it would say it didn't have memory to load the symbol table). I tried fiddling with the Exception settings, but if it wasn't "stopped on exception throw", it was an error about accessing memory it shouldn't. I tried again, and it's a little better about the exceptions this time. Placed a watch on ftex and cr, and put a breakpoint at the if statement. Looks like the assembler I was seeing is Windows code, not part of my executable. cr: struct _charrange {11, 13} ftex: struct _findtextexa {{11, 13}, :0040CE64, {-1, -1}} Hmm. The range where the text is found is {-1, -1}. Now with RichEdit 1.0. Strangely enough, it didn't raise any exceptions this time. cr: struct _charrange {12, 14} ftex: struct _findtextexa {{12, 14}, :0040CE60, {12, 14}} Looks like a bug with RichEdit 3.0, because if different text is selected, the struct containing information about the find operation is also {-1, -1}.

Java is not the same thing as JavaScript!

Actually, it sounds like the real issue is browser sniffing, in your case. I'd contact them about it.

Oh please. The ACID3 test means close to nothing. Also, these tests are only partly an indicator of web standards support. A web browser can pass ACID2 and still have abysmal web standards support.

I've tried to use Turbo Debugger 5.5. Every time I enter a character into the RichEdit it whines "Stopped on exception throw" and shows me a wall of assembly. Right-clicking on it reveals a menu with one of the choices being "Show source code", but it doesn't do anything. I've tried tracing through it, but I haven't figured out how to make it trace immediately after inputting a character.