11ryanc

Yes, older versions based around 3.x will work on 9x. However those builds are just straight up forks of Firefox 3, so compatibility wise you gain nothing. (Typing this off from 3.6.28)

Pale Moon is a good one, I've been using it on and off the past 2 years. But no, it doesn't support 9x for those wondering. I've tested it on Win2k and works great, assuming you have UUR. What I lean on a bit more is SeaMonkey though, paired with Sea Fox addon. I'm not sure anyone has been able to test it on 9x, but I can use it no problems on 2k and Vista.

Not that this would really be of much use to Windows 9x users, but I did partially find some workarounds to get Firefox 3.x more usable with things. Performed a User Agent Override with the following; Opera/9.80 (Firefox 3.6) Also installed Chrome View. I use basic Google HTML, triggered with Opera 8 UA. Facebook mostly works, DeviantART for the most part works except for backspace, my preferred search engines are alright etc. Some email services don't work out too well, however I have all my accounts synced into Thunderbird 3.1. Biggest problem so far is YouTube, which no matter what I do notifications and commenting system is broken for the past several months. But considering GooTube hates any non Chrome browser, doesn't really matter to me. I'm still waiting for YouTube to a Chrome exclusive product. So basically it's all about a game of luck with browser User Agents, and having a secondary later browser for when you hit rock bottom. So far my experience has been smooth reinstalling Firefox 3.6.28 back on here, with the exception of YouTube. Firefox 3.x and Opera pre-12 where simply the best. This new Chrome fad is really getting old to me.

The Rolling Stones

How would one go about compiling this?

I too posess the installer file. It's about 307 MB in size. So it does appear to be an offline image, 10 and older was from my usage. Looks like VMware has thsir stuff sealed up tight.

Well VMware does claim to have support for Windows Server 2008 on their support page, though it doesn't specify wheather or not it needs R2+. Wouldn't hurt to try using Application Verifier, and trick the installer into believing you are using Windows Server. Server2k8 is just Vista's server counterpart. I doubt it would work, but it just might. Same method applies, vice versa. In the long run support is becoming a problem though. Drivers typically aren't too much of a fuss to get modded for Vista, but enterprise software is. Even Vegas 13 dropped us out. Yes I do wish somebody here was generous enough to "work wonders" with Vista, as seen with Win2k and Win9x. lol

Sure , possibly Ubuntu jaclaz Unity, yuck.. XFCE and KDE all the way

... and you have also a Vista license "lying around", and you have not a 7 license "lying around" ... jaclaz If the machine that's old wouldn't Linux make a viable choice? Just say'n

From Vista itself! People hated it. Were they all wrong ? By the time they got used to it, 7 came out (which as you all say is just the same as Vista, just better), Seven had an other advantage; it came out on hardware that was twice as powerfull, and that's why people did not hate it. Saying that Vista is a viable choice for many today is like saying XP SP2 is a viable choice. I don't hate Vista, I don't hate SP2, it simply wouldn't come to my mind to use them unless it was already installed on a machine, but that would not be "a choice". Cheers. Well that's your opinion and I respect that. But as a whole it's safe to say it is a usable OS. Both have positive and negative sides to them. I still prefer Vista for various reasons. Yes your absolutely right there, by the time Windows 7 was out it was pre-installed on machines double the specs of that in 2007. Better hardware, identical OS, everybody falls in love with it.

I've yet to understand where all this negativity towards Vista comes from. Yes I understand how horrible it must have been in it's early release, in fact I've been there before. Ended up back on XP at the time (this was in 2008). Yet here I am perfectly content with it today. This probably the third Vista machine I've owned now and I have not yet found any major complications. As if every complaint about it is either outdated, or just a flat out myth. I've seen people today, in 2014 complain about how Vista takes up "half" their hard drives. Well yes it can easily fill up a 30 gig thumb drive, and so can Windows 7 along with any other semi modern OS, yes even Linux in some cases. Think KDE is light? Think again. I would love to see Vista cluster any modern HDD, mainly because it's simply not possible. The typical size hard drive for a personal computer usually isn't even under 200 GB, in most cases probably higher. And yes I know what your getting at next, fragmentation. Well if my cheap 180 gig drive from an HP Compaq 6500 can run stable for nearly a year I've used it with little to no fragmentaion, well just how bad could it possible be? UAC is complete crap and everybody knows that, disable and move on with your life. Even though toned down in Windows 7, it's still a nuisance and often breaks. Aside from that Windows 7 is WORST with administrative persomissions for power users. Windows 7 enforces stricter policies on taking control over registry items etc. The shell of the OS, bulky? Umm ok. I don't see how as it's close to both XP and 7, but ok. I find giant taskbar buttons and forced Explorer Auto Arrange pretty bulky Vista is no end all be all of OSes, and I'm not trying to stress that it is. But in short it still is a viable, practical system despite it's biased reputation.

I've been using Vista a few years now, truthfully I can't complain about it. Well right off the back I can tell you Windows Update and UAC are hell, both optional services of course. It's not a light OS no, and MS pushing something like this to OEMs back in 2007 was just flat out asinine. But as said in this post, Windows 7 would have suffered the same fate as well as it's system requirements are nearly identical. Both truthfully scream 4 gigs or more for best performance, though 7 does a bit better with 2. No hate towards Windows 7 intended, but I avoid it because: - Advanced searching tools are complete crap - It forces Auto Arrange within Explorer windows - Libraries are forced even on single user accounts, creating 2 directories to have to access just to get to the same media. - It parks processor cores while in use for AMD FX machines, causing degraded performance. (Hotfix is available) That's of course just personal preference. I believe both are usable OSes, and both a big upgrade from XP. Found myself content with Manjaro/Arch Linux as well, but compatibility has me booted back to Windows within a week

Very well said.

So probably a long time debatable subject, but in the end which would most agree is the better runner for video playback. Advantages/disadvantages to either side? I know HTML doesn't have to be used with plugins, and it's better cross platform. But are there any significant advantages to the end user on a desktop setup performance and stability wise? I will point out YouTube playback for me has been running better using the optional HTNL5 video player (forced in Chrome). Just curious to see some view points on the matter

Hi all. Wondering if anybody's had any luck getting around OS checks using XP or Vista. I know PS CS6 was the last to support Windows XP, and even though it mentioned nothing of Vista worked under it as well. However I decided to put it to the test and see if the newest release of CC would install on my Vista install. Installer launched and made it past a few stages, but as soon as it got to the part where it identifies OS it just refused to go any further. Not that much a disappointment to me as I rarely use Adobe products anyways, and if anything prefer to use Fireworks for most of my work. So moving onto Vegas Pro. Starting with 12x it demands 64-bit architectures, and presumably Vista+. However their latest release completely refuses to work on Windows Vista despite being more than capable. I doubt enough was changed to truly make it not work on that OS, just a pure OS cap supposedly. I'm sure with some precision even XP x64 could run some of this stuff. Lastly Windows XP software wise seems to be alright still. Same with Vista. Just slowly starting to diminish, mostly in the area of commercial software. Despite being a semi-modern OS these co's just don't want their software to work on it. Not sure why XP x64 is so abandoned either.... Just wondering what all that choose to remain with XP do for these sort of things. Could perhaps provide some insight as I use Vista. Any info would be appreciated. -Thanks

I would like to link the Videos folder to my Vista Start Menu. In the past I have done similar tasks before via reg key replacing the Run dialogue with Search, so I am assuming something similar could be done adding My Videos/Videos? Seen tutorials online before on substituting the Games Explorer with Vids, but that too is something that I commonly use. So don't see any benefit there in my case. If anything Printers is something I'd probably least need, so I'm looking into perhaps replacing that in favor of Videos. Any ideas on how this can be done?

Opera 10.10 can't run youtube easily anymore, it's just all around glitchy. Opera 9.64 and 10.63 are ok for youtube. I prefer 10.63. Last time I checked Opera 11 seemed ok with YouTube. Not very fast though. Any ideas on getting extensions to install in previous Opera builds? Adblock is a must, especially on slower end computers running 98/ME.

Yeah, just feels like everything has become very bland these days moving on past the web 2.0 era. Here we are in the days of multi core processing, yet we have OSs like Windows 8 that mimic the behavior of a mobile device on a standard PC (Not saying that's entirely bad nor hating on 8x) Tablets are in desperate attempt to wipe out the wide use of the desktop PC, to some extent I guess would be more simplified. The cost is great though. Freedom of choice. That would force us to sacrifice our choice of OS and run whatever that device comes shipped with, hardware would be locked into whatever you buy it as. Just to many downsides, Moving along to web browsing, although enriched with new capabilities is lacking some of the most crucial, yet simplest of elements. A user friendly UI that has decent continuity with the host OS it is being used on. Basic elements like an informative status bar to report back the status of active loading WebPages, grouped buttons for ease of use in basic operations, even RSS. Can you believe such a basic feature like subscribing RSS feeds are so **** hard to come by in modern browsers? Sure they all pretty much come pre-packaged with such a minor and simple functionality, but access to it is so buried away from the GUI that you might as well just consider it removed. Lastly things have just become plain boring. From OSs starting to look as though they were designed by Fisher Price, watered down web browsers, even websites themselves. Uglier designs, slower rendering times due to massive amounts of scripting put into it (yet it still looks like ****). Google takes the lead for that. lol Still run a lot of older gen software on here actually. Lot of 2009-2010 era stuff. Google Earth 7 is so incredibly slow even with a fully upgraded machine it's downright pathetic, that resulted in me downgrading to version 5.0. Aka the BS free edition of Earth before it became bloated like the rest of Google's products. uTorrent 2.0 which is totally ad free and graphically more Vista/7 Aero themed. Skype 5 for obvious reasons. Must I really explain how awful 6x really is? Messenger I still really like, have that patched to continue logging in. Vegas, well no complaints with the latest Vegas Pro. Adobe I have mixed feelinsg about. I just stick to the CS3x/Macromedia editions of Adobe's suites. Web browing as of now. Pale Moon. Not as good as FF3, but better than anything else out there.

I love Firefox 3x, still have it installed under Vista. Can't really use it though. Really starting to show it's age. Almost no support for HTML5, sites and elements are starting to look sloppy, Not even most search engines work properly it's really a mess. To bad because it was truly the best version of Firefox imo. Back on topic. SeaMonkey + Seafox addon is a close representation of Firefox 3 and I think I believe I tested that under Windows ME using KernEX before with success. That would make a viable alternative if your still seeking a browser for 98/ME. Don't care much for SeaMonkey myself though. If anybody finds some way of making Firefox 3.6 more usable do let me know!

So I'm running IE7 + Google Chrome Frame 32.0 as a second browser on my Vista Business x64 install, and I'm wondering if there is anything I can do to make it more compatible? The issue I'm experiencing with GCF is it does NOT always render all webpages in the Chrome engine, only a selected amount. Sometimes, but rarely I can open something in IE using it's default Trident with little-no issues, sometimes layouts and elements come out choppy, other times it won't work at all. I tried following these instructions from AskVG to force GCF to render everything with no luck http://www.askvg.com/force-microsoft-internet-explorer-to-always-use-google-chrome-frame-to-open-urls/ I just kinda have mixed feelings about IE and Chrome. In short I like IE7's set of tools and UI with good Windows integration, but DESPISE Trident for being so incapable (in old IE anyways). Does anybody have any ideas or suggestions I could try? Already attempted to change the User Agent, let's just say that didn't come out too pretty... Again just a second browser, so no big deal either way

Did you install Service Pack 2? It's a rollup of bug list and performance enhancements, it is required to function properly on new hardware. Not even SP1 would work on an FX.

I know this project is now years out of date and discontinued, but has anybody tested it under Vista SP2 and conform it working stable? Just a little concerned since there is no way of uninstalling.

I'm actually about to buy an AMD APU PC soon, and it too is pre-loaded with Windows 8.1. Really never mind re-installing an OS on a new computer, but that Secure Boot just about makes it nearly impossible it would seem at first. I actually know a friend off YouTube who works at a computer shop, so he ran me down the list of instructions on how to downgrade 8 to Vista. Might as well share it here I guess, so this is what he told me. I've personally never tried this yet, so I can't confirm if ot works or not. Should though since he's done it multiple times where he works. If anybody knows of a simpler method, please share it. I too will be downgrading, or excuse me upgrading Windows 8.1 to Vista Ultimate SP2 "Step 1: Check the specs before you buy The PC you are looking for needs to have an NVIDIA Geforce GPU or a Radeon GPU in order to be compatible with Windows Vista. Once you've bought the PC you want, you might want to go ahead and download the drivers for your PC for Windows Vista. Step 2: Disable Windows 8 Secure Boot & Enable legacy support Watch this video on how to disable secure boot in Windows 8: Step 3: Delete all partitions You will need a Windows 7 or Windows 8 DVD for this step. Load up the Windows 7/8 install disc, and just go through the install until you get to the "Where do you want to install Windows?" screen, and delete all partitions, and then close out of the installation Step 4: Convert the GPT Partition to MBR You will also need to use the Windows 7/8 DVD for this step. Load up the Windows 7/8 DVD and select "Repair your Computer" then it will search for Windows installations. After it is done, click next. Then click "Open a command prompt window" In the command prompt, type diskpart and press enter. Next, Type list disk and press enter. Then, Type select disk 1, and press enter. Finally, Type convert mbr and press enter, and close out of the installation. Step 5: You're ready to install Windows Vista! Now you can perform the Vista installation as normal. After Vista is installed, install all the drivers you downloaded and you'll be good to go. NOTE: You might need to purchase an external DVD drive if Vista refuses to install to the MBR partition when using the DVD drive that came preinstalled with your PC. Notes: If ethrenet drivers will not work, Get a Cisco-Wifi USB stick and connect to the internet using Wifi instead of ethernet.".Also would like to add, you'll probably need SP2 slipstreamed on your iso in order for it even to install on the newer computer. That's how it was for using an AMD FX anyways, also Haswell. may have some issues with Vista as I've heard from some people. Have fun with Vista, aka one of Microsoft's last good OSs.

@ND22 -People hate on Vista way too much though man, SP2 runs very stable for me always has. But about support, I know a lot open source programs have good legacy support. But application support is still diminishing on Vista, even now. Any possible way to compatible launch something to run in a Windows 7 compatibility layer under Vista? I saw that done with Win2k using XP dll's. Any thoughts on that? I know Vista could probably run Server 2008 R1 updates after 2017, same kernel in both OSs

@Flasche -Did you really? That'a awesome , I have heard that Win2k is supoosedly more stable as a whole though. Tried it myself and it seems that way, although I've never used any good mods on XP before. I do love XP still, I think with proper mods and bottlenecks it could make a nice system still. And yeah I agree, lot of garbage loaded up on newer OSs. Though I still do love using Vista, lot of crap running in the background though. Same with Windows 7. I don't care much for 7 tbh though. Just feels like a lighter, stripped down version fo Vista. 2 issues: XP is just weeks from loosing support Vista is only 3 years from loosing support I know going down the road of unofficial support they both can have long futures ahead of them, question is how?.... Win2k is still kicking, who's to say XP and Vista can't be used for a while? By the way I see your still on ME, how does that perform for you? Personally never liked the 9x series at all, too unstable imo. But maybe it could be modded to run ok, I'm not sure. Just curious how it works for you.