Jody Thornton

I was able to get SeaMonkey v2.9 running as supported under Windows 2000 (so no KernelEx or anything like that). I can't remember offhand what Gecko revision that is, so I don't know what the comparable version of Firefox is.

So just how stable is Windows 2000 with PAE enabled? Will it work well with 8 gb of RAM? I only thought Server Datacenter Edition supported PAE mode. If I boot a 4 gb system without PAE, and then run a browser and mail app; then I boot an equivalent system with PAE and 8 gb of RAM (using the same apps), will there be a performance hit?

And these included CURRENT updates for IE 5? Yes This I have to check out. So what are the oldest browser/OS combinations supported? (I'm at work so I can't check)

Plenty of reading...when I arrive home from work, I'll try it.

And these included CURRENT updates for IE 5?

Where in heck are you getting updates for Windows 2000, let alone Internet Explorer 5x? The updates should have ended in July 2010.

I can respect that, but how long will Opera v10.10 be able to render these pages properly? Plus, I want to render pages properly, not just passably. I suppose XP will be able to support Seamonkey builds for awhile. I can only hope. But at least I have a migration path with either Vista or Windows 7, if that's not the case. As for the person I previously corresponded with regarding Seamonkey vs K-Meleon, I ran K-Meleon v1.6 and 1.7 alphas with one of the several add-ons and user-agent strings. And without proper HTML 5 support, Google Images doesn't work quite right. So even K-Meleon isn't a modern option really. It's too bad too, because I really liked K-Meleon.

Hi dencorso: I was setting up an old machine for my superintendent's brother. He was wanting a machine just use for six months while he saved up to get a new one. He had a Pentium III 400 MHz CPU. I upped it from 256 MB to 512 MB of RAM, and installed a clean copy of Windows ME on it. I used the unofficial SP for Windows ME and the Revolutions Pack v9 to modernize the interface somewhat. For browsing, I installed Seamonkey v1.1.19 (which as far as I know, was the last release to work with Win9x from 2010). And still, there were SO MANY sites that just do not render properly. It may be a small thing, but when I load Google, the two search buttons should be side by side; not one on top of each other and stretched out. Facebook doesn't work properly. Many sites leave the top part of the page blank, leaving you to scroll down to see the actual page. I could go on, but you get the idea. Sure, the OS is lickety-split fast, and the browser loads quickly. But the rendering issues of supported browsers are too much of an issue for most people (and even though I'm usually quite tolerant, I'm fast becoming one of those who just want the site to work). And what of banking online? The site has to be secure, and I would only trust a modern browser to do that. Which means Win9x is simply out. Sadly that will soon mean Windows 2000 as well. As for my being fixated on ensuring I'm on a supported system, once Windows XP goes the way of the operating system graveyard, the browser vendors will stop releasing for XP as well. So I'll need to use Vista or higher; just to have access to a current browser on Microsoft Windows. Is that not correct?

I wonder if it would be easier to setup one with only post-SP3 updates. Everyone should be able to get SP3 on to their installation (SP2 for us x64 folk). Would that not be more productive? Why stock all of the original Post-RTM updates when one service pack will take care of that need?

I placed a thread on the Windows XP x64 forum probing the latter question. I think that updates for the x64 version of Windows Server 2003 would need to repackaged in order to be used for Windows XP x64. But it would be great to use the OS until July 2015. On my second machine, I was using regular 32-bit Windows XP as a simple file server, but I since changed over to Windows Server 2003 so that I could have an additional year of extended phase support. Hopefully, there is a way I could do the same with Windows XP x64. Failing that, I plan to move to Windows Vista x64 Ultimate Edition (my DVD has SP2 integrated) to take me to 2017.

I wrote one to five years for my vote. To be honest though, three of those years were using Windows 3.1 as a Win-OS/2 session. 16-bit apps ran great under OS/2. (Edit: Apparently from reading the thread, I'm not alone. There are other Win-OS/2 users too.)

Found a copy to install onto v3.1 (it looks like Outlook 97 running in Windows NT 3.51). However there is no POP support right out of the box. Interesting to observe anyhow.

I tried the Gavotte RAMDisk and PAE with 32-bit XP initially too. However, I found that XP gave a performance hit. PAE/RAMDisk worked fine when I only used the remaining 512 mb of RAM (of my 4 gb). But once I enabled PAE/RAMDisk with 7 gb of RAM, there was a definite slow down. 64-bit XP Pro is a MUCH more elegant solution.

In a year from now (when extended phase support dies out for my Windows XP x64 Edition), I plan to install Windows Vista x64 Utimate Edition. I have ran a test install for a couple of weeks. I find that, except for the boot logo and Weclome Screen taking twice a long to load, I have managed to tweak Vista x64 to the point that it's besically as fast as XP in Basic Mode, once the desktop appears. In fact it runs REALLY well! I am using an HP xw8200 Workstation with 7 GB of RAM, and two Xeon CPUs at 3.66 GHz.

Is there a better forum where I could have posted this question? I mean no disrepect, but I just want to find out more about these legacy products. This thread has reached a dead end here.

I vote for Seamonkey. It renders modern pages the same as Firefox, thanks to it's Gecko engine revisions. But it's simpler like Netscape was. Seamonkey would be a good bet for MaxImRecoil (except for tabbing which never will, nor should go away.) I run an unofficial x64 build of Seamonkey v2.15 on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It makes for a WONDERFUL, yet simple browsing experience.

I am running Seamonkey 2. 13.1 (x64 experimental) on Windows XP x64 Edition (and using an experimental x64 plugin for SumatraPDF). The x86 version of Seamonkey works great on x64 too, and I use the 32-bit version on my older XP notebook PC (running 32-bit)

I'm on 2.13. When I get home, I'll give you a link to the x64 experimental build.

Some good points jaclaz. I did want to challenge a couple of them with my experiences (not to be argumentative at all, but just to provide my own experiences. For running a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS, I would find it is usually snappier. I am running an experiental x64 build of Seamonkey, and it seems to render slightly more quickly than an x86 build on 32-bit XP. Outlook 2003 (an x86 app) should be slower on WinXP x64 since it's running on WOW emulation. But I wonder if more memory access allows more cache allocation to a 32-bit app (perhaps that may offset the speed dcrease from running in an emulation layer, is that possible?) I have found using PAE mode memory access on Windows Server 2003 creates a noticeable performance hit, compared to accessing more memory with an x64 OS. Just some thoughts.

The Gecko engine on v1.7 is old though (I thought it was v1.9, no?) I really liked K-Meleon and I tried some 1.7/1.6 rebuilds that worked better (without a working passowrd manager though). I am just concerned that I'll adopt K-Meleon as my daily driver, and then not be able to render pages sooner than I think. Whereas now, I am running Seamonkey, which is VERY lightweight and has an up to date Gecko engine. It works GREAT!

I must be very lucky. I have an HP xw8200 (with two Xeon CPUs) that works flawlessly with Windows XP x64 Edition. Now I am not a gamer, and I don't run too much fringe software, but I have a GREAT user experience with this OS. I understand the compatibility and driver issues, but if you can get past them, I think Windows XP x64 Edition makes for a terrific and VERY stable OS. Am I wrong folks?

Wow! This was a doosie. It really must be hard to find...lol.

I have 7 GB of RAM installed so I finally decided to turn off paging. Taking this step does not hugely impact performance, but it does cut down on fragmentation.

I still prefer Microsoft Office 2003. It is much more contemporary looking the Office 97. But it still adheres to the rest of your desktop appearance. Office 2007 and 2010 use their own skinning and you can't change appearance as easily, or as consistently (kinda like Google chrome; another offender in this area)

Hi Folks: I understand that Exchange Server v5.5 included a 16-bit client for Microsoft Outlook, in addition to a client for DOS based computers. My question is, does any one have any screenshots of these applications? The curiosity is killing me, and I'd love to see what these applications looked like.