InterLinked

Why not dial your local time and temperature number?

Curious, why the 755 and not the 760 or the 780? I like the 780 the best, but the 755 was the last I think with the built in floppy drive. And none of them have PS/2 ports... gak... can't have everything!

Thanks, I ended up extracting the whole ~400 MB file and finding these and a bunch of other stuff in them. I kept all the Windows files and deleted the Mac and Linux junk. If people block the Windows Update removing Flash support then I think we're home free from here. I probably won't necessarily install it right or use it actively but it will be handy to keep handy. I don't trust the web to all of a sudden remove Flash everywhere. That takes years, maybe decades, not months.

Please change username to "InterLinked". Thank you!

Yeah, it's very sad. As I said, Microsoft has forgotten about its longtime loyalist corporate and power user base and moved on to another market - the fickles who can't tell a computer from a hard drive from a tablet. Very sad.

OK, here is is everyone! Actual download (425MB): https://web.archive.org/web/20200618035158/https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/installers/archive/fp_32.0.0.371_archive.zip Sourced from: https://web.archive.org/web/20200609220527/https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html Live links don't work anymore. Adobe really wants this stuff gone from the face of the earth.

Wow, thanks! How did you figure that out? Are you saying if I install 32.0.0.371, I should be good to go? Wonder how old that is. Looks like Adobe doesn't have the older versions on their site, do you know where the old versions can be found? Thanks!

Please make sure your programs are supported on *ALL* versions of Windows NT! Nothing irks me more than apathetic developers that make their software incompatible with any version of Windows not currently in stores.

Hi, there, I've actually use both Pale Moon and New Moon, and I have New Moon. It's not at all what I would consider a lightweight browser. It uses more memory than Iron does! Something like a few hundred MB just to open and load a single page. Interesting it's only 95 MB on XP, but there must be more overhead on Windows 7. That's why I'm struggling here. I've tried all the browsers that most people consider "lightweight" that are somewhat modern, e.g. New Moon, and my finding is that they are not lightweight at all, CPU and RAM just go through the roof, just like any browser. QTWeb is the only one I have used that comes close, but if I load bing.com, the entire browser crashes, so it's obviously not going to work out.

Has anyone found any real lightweight browsers that actually work well on the modern web? By this, I mean tabbed browsing, HTML5, CSS3, etc. - basically drop-in compatibility with the duopoly of browsers that dominate today. I'm talking about something like QtWeb, which I found mentioned on here, and is actually lightweight but incompatible with many things I need to view. Any way to have my cake and eat it, too? Even K-Meleon is not all it's cracked up to be. Uses 120 MB of RAM viewing the same page that only brings QtWeb up to 68K RAM. Looking up "lightweight web browser Windows" online is useless. They bring up all sorts of trash solutions, like Opera, Vivaldi, Microsoft Edge, Firefox, and Chrome. Gak! When I say lightweight, I mean lightweight, not "lightweight if you your PC is a tricked out server", which is what all these other sites claim. Running Windows 7 on actually decent hardware, but I'm tired of browsers taking over the computer, and want something that does its job and nothing more. Customization, easy toggles to disable JS, images, pop-ups, ads, etc. a bonus. I don't care if sites tell me "this browser is not supported", as long as it actually works. I use Iron 70 mostly (fork of Chrome 70), and it's more than 2 years out of date so I get these messages all the time, but there's not actually anything that doesn't work. It's just FUD.

Hey, I've been scouring around this place for suggestions for lightweight browsers, and glad I found this. Taking a look now. Anything else you recommend that actually works with most sites and is lightweight? I know, oxymoron, but I'm hoping there's something...

Well, Linux, quite frankly, sucks as a workstation OS in general. It's often impractical to use anything other than Windows for a variety of reasons. I love Windows in general, I just hate the most recent releases of it.

Bad news for Flash users: https://www.zdnet.com/article/adobe-to-block-flash-content-from-running-on-january-12-2021/?ftag=TRE-03-10aaa6b&bhid=29555123352311730618807440776796&mid=13196659&cid=2340241330 Anyone know what the last Flash update is *WITHOUT* the kill switch? Trust Adobe to screw things up even more than Microsoft.

I agree with the person who said this was one of the best posts on the forum in a long time. I have used Windows for a long time and have NEVER gotten a virus except for the one time I actually tried, too, in a dev environment. If anyone else "accidentally" just rolls through a bunch of UAC prompts for unverified software from sketchy publishers, I guess they don't have brain.exe Eh, not really. Just FUD. I recommend people stay on Windows 7, the technically inclined and very-much-not-so alike. This actually speeds up web browsing a fair bit! Pro tip: if you see a sketchy email, and you don't already, switch to plain text mode for reading it. Sometimes it's obvious mail is phishing mail, but sometimes I like reading it in PT mode just to see what's up. And since it's PT mode, they can't exploit any security vulnerabilities, execute anything, load anything, or track anything. I wouldn't say XP is more secure... just less likely and less worthy of being exploited. Windows 7 gets security updates for 3 or 4 more years, anyways.

WOW! Now I'm beginning to think the Office team forgot they were supposed to end support... SHHH!!! Let's not tell them... In actuality, these are once again RCE bugs, so crossing my fingers there are more in January so we get more updates!

I'm willing to take a slow boot for faster overall operation. Fast boot is meaningless if it's laggy afterwards. I also use W2K with KernelEx, not vanilla SP4, but should be only better in that case. I've tried with XP and it's just never been as good. W2K is great out of the box with near-XP compatibility with KernelEx. Yeah, agreed! I use Windows 7, which isn't as fast as something older like W2K, but there are other benefits obviously.

I think this time it is different. There is really a lot of backlash against Windows 10, and really Windows 8, that has just never been the case with previous version of Windows. Yeah, there was Vista backlash, but people got over it, and Vista itself wasn't bad at all. Same thing with XP when it came out, though I think 2000 is better. My point is, people really are boycotting Windows 10, and I hope it will never see the adoption rates that previous versions of Windows have. Microsoft has made my job easy. They have lost me as a customer. I have all the software from them already that I'll ever need. My wallet thanks them!

I think that was removed in Windows 8 actually, if we are talkin natively. What you described is possible in literally EVERY version of Windows NT. On every version I have ever used, Windows 2000 through Windows 10, I always require CTRL + ALT + DEL and typing and the username and password. The "other user" thing in Windows 10 IS stupid but it's not like it doesn't let you do that. I have noticed it's almost impossible to distinguish a locked computer from one that is logged on. Maybe impossible, actually. Often on Windows 10, I'll start typing my password in the username box, thinking I just locked the computer, nope, I just booted it up. I *NEVER* made that mistake <= Windows 7. It was always very clear what the current state of the computer was. Windows 10 is just a disaster on so many levels. It's a complete joke, so many sites still use flash. I will be downloading the latest version on 12/31 and blocking the Windows update that removes Flash from IE. I don't think has anything to do with Windows 7 vs. Windows 10 at all. Yeah, it's amazing how Windows 2000 is so speedy compared to every other version of Windows NT out there, including XP. Seriously, every time I use it, I just say WOW. Everything is just instantaneous. With the Windows 2000 extended kernel and some custom DLL patches thanks to @win32, I think that's as close as you'll get. It can run most modern programs that can run on XP, so you're pretty good there.

Look for the Roytam browser builds part 2 thread in the XP forum on this site.

Curious, why are you moving from MN to Interlink? They seem to be virtually identical, except MN has wider software compatibility, so it seems objectively superior. I had to use IL MN for a few days while I had a script error downloading MN, but all the idiosyncrasies of the programs seem to be identical.

That's a fair point, but I'd be surprised if any of these cloud provider pages supported no-JS or the ability to scrape/ use wget. Due to my current situation, I have quite a few such accounts but the long term plan will be getting everything onto on-premises file servers, and then I won't need to worry about this. If I need to provide others with file access, I can throw it up onto an actual web server. Right... but if they can't tell what you are doing... If I wanted to be really anonymous, I'd dial in to a BBS or use dial-up. Those can't really be traced back to me by the feds. (by the way, nice BBS up at bbs.interlinked.us) Even that supports TLS 1.3 But then, you *do* support TLS 1.2, and it shows on your security scores. In order to pass those tests, you have to completely not support it, which means that wouldn't be possible. The only such users I can think of are those using unpatched Internet Explorer versions on <=XP, or something like that... Maybe... but half their pages are in Russian, which is really annoying. Yandex is my mail provider since they let you have unlimited accounts/storage, if you have your own domain. Score! Of course, I use a mail client (MailNews), since I have 11 email accounts, so I rarely use the website.

Just my opinion, and I use to be irritated by this, too. However, TLS 1.3 is supported w/o zero hassle on every version of Windows NT. I don't use Windows 9x so I can't comment there but the word on the street is it has been done as well. Even Lynx does SSL. Here's a good article which raises some points: https://scotthelme.co.uk/we-dont-do-https-for-backwards-compatibility/ Sure, HTTPS might not be necessary for everything. Disclaimer: I am a webmaster who mandates HTTPS on all of my websites and as of this summer, I require minimum TLS 1.2. Anything older is obsolete, seldom used, and a drag on security scores. Compatibility with older clients is not an issue, so I don't really see what the fuss is about anyways.

I don't mean any offense to anyone, but I think this seems rather shortsighted to me. Mega.nz is the only provider that offers up to 50 GB free storage (or at least it did, I don't think that is the case for new accounts anymore). Anyone can use any platform to share pirated files, it is merely a tool which I don't think ought to be held against it. It's way more accessible than, say, posting torrent links or something like that. HTTP? Really? Come on, even Windows 2000 can do HTTPS with TLS 1.3. Even Windows 98 can too, I've heard. There are likely very few members on here that are not able to use HTTPS. Maybe a poll might clarify this, but there are no incompatabilities between older platforms and secure web browsing. Just sounds like the OP doesn't know how to do SSL.

No comment about your other comments, but this doesn't really qualify as a discounter. Yeah, I hate that too, but it's easy to change. Taskbar Properties -> Never combine / use small icons. I don't see how people on W7/8/10 can live w/o that. That was the worst thing ever that they did, makes PCs as hard to use as Macs almost!! So, the default action is bad, but with a registry tweak or GPO you can mitigate this mess. I've always noticed that, but not really preferred one over the other... If the best of Vista and the best of 7 could be combined, and maybe the best of W2K, we'd have the ultimate Windows...

I agree that W7 is overrated compared to Vista. Vista was just ahead of its time, not inherently bad. I never had any issues when I used it daily. Personally, I use W7 as it's the last good version of Windows and modern enough to run anything I need to. I don't see the extended kernel changing that really but it is a neat effort. DreamScene is one of the few things I think that can't be natively done on Vista, and it doesn't work in a VM so one day I will get it on real hardware and experience that. Worth running just for that. I like the W7 Explorer much better than the Vista one. I don't like how it expands to everything and the navigation on the left is terrible. But I've heard the search is better. W7 is better, though of course I have Libraries and Homegroup and all that junk disabled in the Registry so all I see is Desktop, Computer, and Network. I have a lot of mapped drives so that makes it easy. And the dual lock and power action on the Vista start menu is nice, but not a deal breaker I guess.