Jump to content

cc333

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    594

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Posts posted by cc333

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by cc333

    Just now, Bruninho said:

    ...iSH is 32-bit linux...

    Just now, Bruninho said:

    ...there's no way to run the Web Rendering Proxy script (since it needs Google Chrome)

    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

    0

    POSReady 2009 updates ported to Windows XP SP3 ENU

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by cc333
    clarification

    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

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted

    On 4/8/2020 at 8:51 AM, Bruninho said:

    Also, I think that what makes JS crash with these browsers is the size of these scripts. They are too big for them to handle...

    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

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by cc333
    Expanded with more thoughts

    7 hours ago, Bruninho said:

    That would not work. I believe the JS is tied to the browser engines. They understand the instructions as of the JS versions of that era. Most sites now use jQuery, which is essentially a JS framework (like Vue, React...) that’s the problem; old JS cannot understand the newer, more advanced jQuery, yet alone more advanced vanilla JS instructions. Most of the known vanilla JS properties, selectors and functions of today did not exist back in these days.

    I tried last week to do a vanilla JS version of the scripts I use on my website. Failed miserably. I could not even do a proper global variables with multi dimensional arrays vanilla JS to reuse in more functions. I mean, I could at least write a vanilla JS parallax script for the background of my site. But it does not work for these browsers either.

    so basically, your idea of a “transplant” would simply not work.

    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

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by cc333

    2 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

    Mozilla has not got the WebFonts problem.

    1 hour ago, Bruninho said:

    I can confirm that the solution for the SVG glyphs on Mozilla browsers doesn't work.

    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

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by cc333

    1 hour ago, Bruninho said:

    EDIT: Switching the Windows 98 system font in appearances tab to Tahoma fixed that issue. Thanks for the tip. Tahoma is similar to the default font, no?

    Tahoma is the default system font for Windows 2000 and XP;  it gets installed with the unofficial Service Pack.

    1 hour ago, Bruninho said:

    EDIT 3: I'm now trying higher SeaMonkey versions but with JS disabled to check how well they render the CSS. Starting with 2.29, it can render my website pretty well and also the brazilian news site and the youtube page (no videos). I will continue trying higher versions until I cannot go higher, but I already know I can't install 2.49.5. No support for SVG fonts (like FontAwesome) so far. And so far, I'm quite, quite surprised with the results. If someone could get JS to work at a decent level, then there MIGHT BE hope...

    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):

    1. Download the two fonts mentioned in this post:
    2. Go to about:config and make sure gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled is set to false.
    3. Drop the fonts into %WINDIR%\Fonts
    4. Restart Firefox
    5. Enjoy the newly available font glyphs!
    1 hour ago, Bruninho said:

    EDIT 4: Can't go past 2.32. When i disable JS, the browser is completely unusable and no url on address bar will load (2.31, 2.32, 2.33, 2.35). I am reverting to SeaMonkey 2.29 - which worked wonders.

    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

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, Bruninho said:

    What I don't get is how your system font family looks right on Firefox but not on my Firefox install.

    I noticed that as well, but I switching the system font to Tahoma (Western) seemed to fix it.

    13 minutes ago, Bruninho said:

    I tried 31.8 ESR and it installed, ran and i couldnt go to any site I type on address bar. it refuses to go without any sign of life.

    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

    1

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Bruninho said:

    Hate to say, but I did try to run FX 24.x esr, it did install and run, but only without JS. Not good enough for me, plus it crashed a lot often for me. I couldn’t access vogons forums because of ciphers anyway. Haven’t tried msfn forums but I suppose it would be the same problem. I ditched the snapshot later anyway

    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

    0

    Question on What to Update W98 With

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted

    OK, let's see if I can help, since I'm already in this mode myself a bit :)

    On 4/3/2020 at 8:23 AM, theulticobia said:

    What CPU is the best for this time period, Intel or AMD?

    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.

    On 4/3/2020 at 8:23 AM, theulticobia said:

    I have been recommended the Pentium 4 or the Coro Duo/Core 2 Duo.

    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.

    On 4/3/2020 at 8:23 AM, theulticobia said:

    I would like to have 512 MB minimum while increasing the amount of RAM later. I have downloaded Rloew's RAM patch.

    You can do that, though you should install the RAM patch even with 512 MB to ensure stability.

    On 4/3/2020 at 8:23 AM, theulticobia said:

    I want to have DVD-ROM and 3.5 floppy drives. Want the DVD and HDD to be SATA if possible.

    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.

    On 4/3/2020 at 8:23 AM, theulticobia said:

    I know support for Windows 98 ended in 2006. Should I go with a GPU from the early 2000's or mid 2000's? What slot type? Also, what is the best recommended sound card and PSU to work with?

    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.

    On 4/3/2020 at 8:23 AM, theulticobia said:

    Also, may I ask what setup /p i does? I have seen it before, but do not remember what it is for. Not the best person in terms of DOS commands and remembrance. 

    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

    1

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted

    On 4/3/2020 at 2:02 PM, schwups said:

    :thumbupWhat 2K/XP/Vista/ReactOS dll files and versions do you have in the system or system32 folders? Have you registered any? Or only a ServicePack?

    None, other than whatever the unofficial Service Pack 3.64 package installs.

    On 4/3/2020 at 2:02 PM, schwups said:

    Is there anything that could be different in your system in contrast to others? A special Kexstub.ini?

    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.

    On 4/3/2020 at 2:02 PM, schwups said:

    No ideas?:dubbio:

    I'm afraid not -_-

    c

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted · Edited by cc333

    1 hour ago, jumper said:

    Several years ago I had enough success with KM74_31 to recommend it. But I haven't tested it lately and didn't have the CPU or ram for FF.

    Good job! What CPU?

    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

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, win32 said:

    Were any special KernelEx settings needed?

    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

    0

    Browsing the web on 98/ME in 2019 and beyond

    in Windows 9x/ME

    Posted

    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

    3

    On Branding RoyTam1's Browsers

    in Windows XP

    Posted

    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

    0
×
×
  • Create New...