cc333

Perfect! That's exactly what I wanted to hear! Armed with this information, I shall now go install and update Office worry-free c

You can do that?! Can you install any 64-bit OSes? c

This is a potentially cumbersome solution, but what about getting an older PC, such as something from the Core2 Duo era (or even something like a Raspberry Pi or some other similar embedded-like device), and installing a pair of VMs on it, one for WRP+Chrome, and one for iSH? Then, in theory, all you'd have to do is chain them together (which, as I said, could potentially be rather cumbersome) and set it up so the computer running WFW3.xx and/or Win9x accesses it as it does your iPad now, except it'd be a one-stop-shop that incorporates both solutions into one package. Thoughts? c

OK, I'm planning to install/upgrade my old copy of Office 2010 on this old XP install I've resurrected, but I want to know which updates have the bad MSO.dll file so I can avoid them. Without having to read the past 15 pages, is there a definitive list of every to-be-avoided update released thus far? c

I'm updating an older XP Home installation (2011), and it's gone fairly smoothly for the most part, but I seem to have hit a snag with the .Net Framework 4.0 updates. They all fail with error 0x800B010B. I'm sure this has been encountered and solved several times over throughout the course of this thread, but I have very little desire to scan through 200+ pages at the moment EDIT: I should clarify that I've also used the dotnetfx cleanup tool and reinstalled the whole of dotnetfx 4.0 + updates, and I've applied the POSReady hack before doing so. I should also note that all the updates that are failing are post-2014 and are designated as being for Windows XP Embedded, which could be the problem, maybe. I note also that every post-2014, non dotnetfx40-related update has installed successfully as far as I can tell. c

That makes sense. However, JS on these same browsers (such as it is) works fine when they're run on a natively supported OS (XP), so I'm inclined to think its depends on some sort of API that KernelEx hasn't fully implemented yet. c

Hmm, OK. I guess the only two options, then, would be to either re-implement from scratch a modern JS engine/Gecko in its entirety (very nontrivial, I would think, but probably ideal since it could be highly optimized specifically with 9x in mind for maximum speed and efficiency), or tweak/extend KernelEx so that Gecko 3x works more or less completely as is (probably not as fast or efficient, but should be much more possible with the tools at hand, and a slow, inefficient browser that is stable and usable is far better than a fast one that crashes constantly). We're already 80% there, due to the fact that, JS notwithstanding, Gecko 3x otherwise starts up and renders sites with little or no adjustment. The key is to make the necessary adjustments to KernelEx, Windows, Gecko, or some combination thereof, such that JS will work. If I knew more about coding and such I'd give this a try myself, but alas I don't, so all I can do is churn out ideas. c

Huh, OK. It worked on 3.6, at least. I guess built in support still works in these more recent versions. By the way, I have 2.29.1 up and running, of course without JS (leaving it on resulted in the same crash as it's Firefox cousin). Is it possible there's some APIs that Gecko's JS engine uses which KernelEx isn't representing fully? This requires extensive investigation, I think, because it would be relatively easy, I would think, to extend KernelEx to encompass the missing API functions, if any, even if they're only minimally functional stubs (which would be better than nothing, and may allow JS to fail more gracefully rather than crashing the browser, at least). Nevertheless, even with the JS problem, this is a super excellent advancement in the state of web browsing on Windows 98! Here's a thought: what about taking an earlier, known working JS engine (say, Firefox 3.6) and grafting it onto SM 2.29's Gecko in place of it's original engine (in effect, a transplant)? The old JS engines are inferior to the new ones, of course, but at least they run, and a running JS engine would provide a usable base onto which 9x-friendly implementations of newer JS features can be built (or at least give a good idea of how the newer JS engine could be rewritten). c

Tahoma is the default system font for Windows 2000 and XP; it gets installed with the unofficial Service Pack. Interesting that 2.29 works! What is the comparable Firefox version? Twenty-something? To fix the SVG font problem, you can do the following (these instructions are for Opera, but with a few adaptations, they work on Mozilla browsers too): Download the two fonts mentioned in this post: Go to about:config and make sure gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled is set to false. Drop the fonts into %WINDIR%\Fonts Restart Firefox Enjoy the newly available font glyphs! 2.3x must be based on some version between 31 and 38. EDIT: Confirmed! SeaMonkey 2.3x is based on Gecko 33 and newer, so now we know that the effective limit of usability (so far) is Gecko 32, upon which SM 2.29 is based. We might be able to get Gecko 33 or even 34 to work with some careful tweaking, however. c

I noticed that as well, but I switching the system font to Tahoma (Western) seemed to fix it. This happened to me as well, but oddly, deleting the profiles folder, recreating a fresh one with FF 3.6 and going into 3.6's about:config to disable js solved this problem for me. c

I will! I shall report back here soon with my findings. c

Yeah, the point isn't necessarily that it's usable as is, but that it shows progress, and eventually, a working solution (plus maybe a fork of 24.x, such as, say Pale Moon 25 or 26, modified to be somewhat more 9x friendly) can be possible. I agree that broken js is a dealbreaker, but if the bulk of the UI and rendering engine works (as it appears to), then there's some hope that js can be made to work or mostly work, eventually. c

OK, let's see if I can help, since I'm already in this mode myself a bit :) It depends, but I think a Pentium 4 would offer somewhat better forward compatibility, with SSE2 and such. The AMD Athlon was a popular substitute during 1999-2004 because it tended to be a bit faster than most early P4s, but earlier versions lack SSE2, and later P4s eventually outsped them. Of the two, the Pentium 4 will be much more compatible with Windows 9x, particularly early ones from 2001-2003 or 2004. Stay away from Core2 Duos unless you plan to dual boot with Windows 2000 or XP, as some devices may not work properly due to a lack of driver support or a hardwired 9x-hostile configuration. You can do that, though you should install the RAM patch even with 512 MB to ensure stability. 9x should handle a DVD-ROM drive just fine. Worst case is it'll treat it as a CD-ROM. A 3.5 inch floppy is good, but make sure you have a motherboard with the proper interface (virtually all motherboards I know of from the P4 and C2D eras do (aside from some "legacy free" designs), so this shouldn't be an issue). This is where my knowledge gets iffy, as I've never tried installing/booting 9x from an SATA disk, but you should check out Rloew's SATA and AHCI patches, as I believe they are meant to make that possible. I can't say for sure, but I just read in another thread that someone recommended a GeForce 6600 GT, so that might be a good way to go? I'm currently using a Radeon 9550 in my P4 system, and it works OK too. I think the 6600 GT is supposed to be among the fastest-performing 9x-compatible cards, which I'd guess is good particularly for later games which can take advantage of it (I'm not a gamer, so I can't say for sure due to a lack of experience). Slot type will depend on your choice of motherboard, but I think you should try for an AGP card for maximum 9x compatibility (as far as I know, PCI express is a bit hit-or-miss). Plain PCI is okay too, but probably too slow for most newer games. Something like a Sound Blaster will probably offer the best compatibility sound-wise, and any standard ATX PSU ought to work as long as you make sure it's able to supply enough power for your chosen components. Setup /p i disables ACPI support, which can help ease some of the problems that can occur when trying to install 9x on newer hardware, such as a Core2 Duo-based system. I hope you find at least some of this useful! And anyone else please correct me if I've made any errors! c

I have devised a cheat, which I recall has been mentioned before. I am "running" roytam1's build of Firefox 45 ESR on Windows 98 by accessing a Windows XP VM on my MacBook Pro via Remote Desktop. Fonts are weird looking, and it's kinda slow and choppy, but it works! c

None, other than whatever the unofficial Service Pack 3.64 package installs. I don't think so? All I did was install Windows 98 SE, all the regular drivers for my hardware, IE6 and WMP9, the unofficial Service Pack, and the unofficial universal USB package for mass storage support. Then I installed to that the old KernelEx 4.5.2 package, and then I updated it using the 2019.24 update package. That was the key, as I only can run up to Firefox 10 with the old KernelEx. I'm afraid not c

Thank you! I'm running a Northwood Pentium 4 at 2.8 GHz and 2 GB of DDR1 RAM (I had to apply Rloew's rampatch to make that work, of course). c

No, which surprised me! I just tried Pale Moon 26.5.0, and it keeps performing an illegal instruction, so it would seem that any remotely modern browser is going to have issues. Still, Firefox 31 is a whole lot newer and better than Firefox 10! Based on this, do you think it's possible to fork from this version and backport security fixes and maybe remove some things that aren't Windows 9x compatible, such as transparency effects? If it can be done, this would certainly be a far better place to start than Retrozilla or Firefox 2, because the layout engine is new enough that sites still mostly render properly. c

Just tried 38.8.0 ESR, and it crashes before loading the browser chrome, so it looks like the newest version that will work is somewhere between 31.x and 38.x. c

I don't think this has been done before! Does that mean I'm the first to have made this accomplishment? This is with KernelEx 4.5.2019.24 and the Windows XP SP3 preset. c

Screenshots! c

This is no joke! I'll get screenshots shortly. By the way, I've got 31.8 ESR working too! There's some weird artifacts around the tabs (probably due to Windows 98's lack of proper transparency support), but as with 24.8.1, it works with JS disabled! c

I just managed to get Firefox ESR 24.8.1 to run! It's extremely sluggish and javascript needs to be disabled, but it works! c

I'm giving this a try, since I have my old P4 machine with Windows 98 on it setup, and I've found this forum to work quite nicely on both Opera 12.02 and @roytam1's special Firefox 3.6 build, particularly if I switch the forum theme from "Switch (Default)" to "IPS Default." "Switch (Default)" is usable, but kinda glitchy with the odd layout issues that people here have reported, whereas "IPS Default" renders almost perfectly (although the reply box is broken on Firefox). I tried logging onto eBay.com, which mostly works, but the sign in page is broken, and I can't log on (no loss there, as it probably isn't the wisest thing to do anyway). The main annoyance is that there are random errors in the encryption where a page will not load due to an encryption error, but will load fine if I remove "https://" from the beginning of the URL. But it can't be a hard error (like a missing cipher or some such), because it only happens sometimes. KernelEx-related, maybe? (I'm running straight 4.5.2, if that matters). I wish I could make the forum render somewhat properly on Retrozilla, as I definitely prefer its lightness, and the fact that it's natively Win9x compatible, so no need for KernelEx. Maybe in time, as Retrozilla gets improved, this will be less of a problem. c

I don't wish to get everyone riled up yet again over all this, but I have some thoughts on the matter that might be worth considering.... These names might have been suggested already (too lazy to look), but what about something like Retro Moon (for the PM27/PM28XP builds), RetroFox (for FF45ESR, Basilisk 55 and so on), and RetroZilla XP Browser/RetroZilla XP Mail (for the SeaMonkey-derived Borealis Navigator and Interlink Mail & News, respectively)? There already exists the Mozilla-derived RetroZilla for Windows 9x, so why not continue with that branding scheme for these other inter-related, 2000 and XP compatible browsers? As for icons, I'm OK with whatever anyone comes up with, but maybe someone can come up with something IE-like, to continue yet further on this "Retro" theme? Of course, for the Retrozilla XP-branded things, some derivative of the old Mozilla icon would probably be appropriate (or something like a modernized, more XP-era like version of the Retrozilla icon, maybe). c

Not at the moment, because it's not online! I'll have to get it set back up. I will post here when that happens. c