Bruninho

Sorry, that was not my intention, and yes, I was referring to the 'modern internet'. I also want to use Windows 98 not only for browsing but also for my retro gaming stuff, like Championship Manager 3, FIFA 99, Flight Simulator 98, SimTower and things like that. For me the parameter in testing is, "is this browser still capable of playing an youtube video?" if not, then you can forget 'modern internet' browsing in it. I tested Retrozilla and I couldn't even render the YT page correctly. I was expecting to at least be able to render the mobile versions of some sites (which is usually a stripped down version of their sites and - in some cases - works well in retro computers) but no luck either. Some forums don't even render their CSS. But OK, I recognize the feat that retrozilla is, as a browser capable of TLS 1.2 browsing and some other good features, I really applaud the effort, don't get me wrong on that. I wouldn't mind using some script to pass the video from the YT page to VLC, I can accept a such method to circumvent this problem. But there's also other pages, not only YT. (I don't expect a browser for W98 capable of rendering modern CSS3 and HTML5 either). As for SeaMonkey, the developers of this browser has stated that 2.49.5 is the last version of this browser for Windows XP, and I believe that BlackWingCat's kernel extensions for Windows 2000 can only go as far as the XP versions for the softwares we want to use. I don't think the next versions will work, but doesn't hurt to try it...

/ Start Rant I for one do have an iPhone, and I felt quite insulted by that comment. The iPhone is not for "dumb id***", but yes, for people who want things that "just works" quickly. They're far from being "dumb". I don't want an Android and will never use one, simply because I don't want to waste my time configuring something to my liking nor use something that is much more unsafe and easier to hack than the iOS. I am an UI/UX designer, and I find the Android UI/UX too cluttered, ugly and not easy for people. A good UI is like a joke; if you have to explain, then the joke is not that good. I do things with my iPhone or iPad that not a casual user or your "dumb user" would do. I like to push it to its limits. I'm not even the usual "apple fanboy", I give Apple credit where it is due and I also criticize them for some of their decisions or implementations. Just like I do with Microsoft as well. End Rant / That said, the comparison with retro computing stuff (to make fun of people who can't do something and tell them to use the iPhone) is unfair. Because this is a different scenario, a completely different thing. When we play with our retro things, this is a community, we like to share our experiences, what we've found, and grow with it together, share the nostalgia, things like that. We help each other, just so we can have fun with our nostalgia - some of us are too old to waste a lot of time with that and time is a very precious resource. I'm 37, and I for one want to use some of my time with that PC nostalgia thing and another good part of my time with my family, work, karting stuff, do you know what I mean? I don't want to waste an entire night trying to figure out how I used to make these things work 25 years ago. But, Ok, that's fine. Keep telling people "for those there's the iPhone".

Tried it last night (4.5.2), and even with the .24 update (I couldn’t find .18) browsing is still a nightmare. No youtube either. Win98 is pretty much dead. While on my Win 2000 the experience is much better with BWC, newer browsers and youtube works, great experience. Especially with SeaMonkey 2.49.5!

Where can I find Greasemonkey 0.9.22.1?

I wish we had a definitive version of KernelEx and a simple rundown of how to run certain browsers there. I tend to spend too much time trying to figure out how to make the things work.

Also, SeaMonkey is the closest parent to Netscape (more so than Firefox), it even retains some of the old look. I basically loaded SM 2.49.5 with a custom netscape theme. New Moon 28.8.x also works here and with a Netscape theme as well. New Moon is a fork of firefox/pale moon with some differences between them. I prefer SM because its more closer to a “vanilla” solution even though it only runs thanks to BWC. So far SM was capable of doing everything except banking (I haven’t tried and never will).

I would never trust an old browser with an old OS to do banking or secure related stuff with my money... Although I am curious to know if latest SeaMonkey on Windows 2000 + BWC Kernel Ex is safe enough. Probably the answer is NO.

Im using the original 2.49.5 SeaMonkey version on Win2k without problems, runs perfectly, but I have BWC Kex as well

I believe Windows code names were suggested to indicate the minimum supported OS versions of his browsers, as well as specific features of these versions that will run better on specific OS version. This helps users to choose the right browser version.

You can emulate Apple IIe with this: http://www.virtualii.com (for mac) https://github.com/AppleWin/AppleWin (for Win)

Rather than saying this or that version is “for XP”, the codenames suggested, for me, are only indicating the oldest OS version supported.

I basically fixed it by doing a backup of these drivers before updates so I could put them baack. Worked wonders

I actually like what Matt wants to achieve with different branding for different operating systems. But since roytam1's doesn't want to have the work of going through the whole rebranding of his browsers (icons, banners, name...), here's my take. The browser - which is actually some sort of Firefox fork - would have the same name across all OSes, a name of his own choice, I don't care which name it has (Pale Moon, New Moon, RoyFox...) BUT the version of it must have a codename that must refer to something to identify the OS version it supports. Every big company has a project with a codename (Apple with the failed Copland project and its successful macOS versions, Microsoft themselves does it since mid 90's, even I do that at my work). For example, let's be open minded a bit here, just for a exercise... what if he actually names his browser as "RoyFox", and in its about window the codename it supports is there - for example, Whistler for XP? Then you would know it is for XP. Then you would know that you need RoyFox Whistler for XP, RoyFox Neptune for Windows 2000... Same for the github repos: the branch name would be the codename, as well as the MSI/Executable installers of his browser. That's my 2 cents on this subject. Everyone wins - he can use whatever name he likes and we can have a codename in which we can identify the OS each version of his forked Firefox browser supports. End of story.

Just to add a note, something in the unofficial 5.1 service pack by Gurgelmeyer is breaking the connection between my iPod Nano 1st Gen and iTunes (Windows 2000 cannot recognize it anymore). When I do a clean install up to the SP4, the iPod works again flawlessly. I thought it was worth mentioning here because maybe the problem would persist with the USP 5.2 if it were unnoticed. The iPod is seen by Device Manager as an yellow flagged "USB Mass Storage Device" and not seen as a drive nor seen as a device by iTunes when I apply all the hotfixes.

OK, with a vanilla fresh install of Windows 2000 Professional, the iTunes 7.3.2 can see the iPod Nano. When I install the updates, it's broken again. I can't figure out which update broke it for the iPod. Windows cannot see it anymore.

I like this branding idea. The version names are linked to the codenames of supported Windows OS versions so it makes the things easier for those looking for which browser to use.

Anyone can shed a light here? I have an iPod Nano 1st gen, and I cannot make it visible on WIndows 2000 SP4 Professional, no matter what version of iTunes I install. I have tried numerous times with the latest version for Win2k (7.3.2) and I couldn't understand the instructions for BWCat's iTunes install. No matter what I do, the iPod is not recognized and Device Manager shows an yellow exclamation mark for a device unnamed but labeled as an USB Mass Storage Device. I've lost three nights trying to make it happen.

Has anyone managed to get iTunes 7.3.2 (there is a version specifically for Windows 2000) to work with an iPod nano 1st gen? I am running Win 2k in a VMware machine, with BlackWingCat's KEx, and the iPod isn't correctly recognized (appears with an yellow exclamation on Device Manager as an USB Mass Storage Device) and does not appear on iTunes. I remember that I had managed to do it once before but probably I was on Windows XP.

I am a web developer, and I wish more sites could do what CNN does, they have a low-bandwidth version of their site. There was a trend of text-only websites back in 2017-2018. It was primarily done for critical situations, but it can also help us through our retro browsing activities. You can read about them here and here: https://www.poynter.org/tech-tools/2017/text-only-news-sites-are-slowly-making-a-comeback-heres-why/ https://www.maketecheasier.com/access-low-bandwidth-websites/ In case you'd prefer to go straight to the low bandwidth versions of some sites: https://lite.cnn.io/en http://text.npr.org/ Twitter and Facebook had one as well, but they $#*%$*%$ ported the experience to mobile apps only. EDIT: Adding some more that I haven't tested yet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

I switched to Windows 2000 and I am trying to keep using the apps and games that are compatible with the vanilla Windows 2000. So far only the two browsers and some other app I can't remember now are using the BWC Kex. I don't know, I say it is a victory for me: the classic windows desktop and some of my favorite apps & games. If there is something to improve the situation with Windows 98 and the browsers, I'll try again, of course. 20 years ago it was not the case, but now, in 2019 (2020), an operating system is as good as the browsers it can run. An operating system without a browser is not of much use in today's world.

I just noticed one small problem. Probably caused by one of the updates I've installed before. Why does the System Properties panel report it's Windows Me instead of Windows 98? EDIT: Just fixed it using some other sysdm.cpl from another source. All OK now so far. EDIT 2: Ok, not all good at all. The CPU info is missing... ROFL EDIT 3: Tried to fix it and it returned to showing Windows Me. Oh dear...

Actually, I can start KM74, but it runs only if I disable Javascript. Otherwise it crashes without even being able to type an url to load. The only browser that I left on my Win98SE VM is the MS one (IE6.0), because I am still searching for the "chosen one". Strong candidates are SeaMonkey and RetroZilla. Hopefully RZ's developer can update it enough to almost match the experience I have with Win2K and New Moon/SeaMonkey. Opera is an outsider, but non-presto engine builds probably don't work well so the only way it can win is a fork of an old Opera version with updated stuff, no vanilla old Opera versions can play Youtube at the moment. I uninstalled KM after that, because of that and because I disliked the UI. I like the SeaMonkey UI and (maybe) the New Moon UI with a Netscape theme. Back in these days, the Netscape was my number 1 browser until its sad downfall. I had switched to Firefox later and before I could even start using Chrome I switched to macOS and Safari, and never looked back again. Chrome is a no-no for me since it eats RAM like a monster.

Apparently - it was even mentioned on MSFN forums somewhere - You cannot, but you can use some files from the 12.18 install on 12.02 install, like Opera.dll and gstreamer folder, I think. I can't find the link now - I am on the move at work now. But I expect it to be a troublesome experience. I will just "cheat" and change some parts of the Windows 2000 (boot screen, logon and shutdown banners, and some other places I can't remember now) to show Windows 98 branding. That will do for now. Unless roytam1 or someone else comes with a magic browser supporting HTML5, CSS3, TLS 1.2 and running on Windows 98... Web developers need to ditch jQuery - you definitely DON'T need jQuery in 2020. They need to go back to vanilla JavaScript (yes, I know jQuery is nothing more than a JS framework), at least a very basic JS experience is enough. Most of the things you needed jQuery to do can be done with CSS3 now. I for one can understand the Netscape's very early developers reluctancy to use scripts in their browser back in late 90's, before they were sold to AOL and switched to a Mozilla fork before its death. "Why do you need scripts to run a website?"

Thanks for the clarification! I've done some more digging on browsers for win98 and so far zero luck. I have tested (and retested) a whole variety of browsers, including QtWeb. Zero, Nada, Nothing. While on Win2k I also got New Moon 28.8.0a1 working exactly the same way SeaMonkey 2.49.5 does. Both score 99/100 on Acid3 Test. SSL test is "okayish". Youtube plays fine, pages renders fine. I think I will stick with Win2k + BWC and do some skinning to match Win98 in some places (I already changed the desktop icons to older Win98 ones). And, I also happen to own an old iPod Nano 1st gen 1GB, so I might want to install iTunes to sync some musics on it. If I recall correctly, I never had both in my time, instead I had WinAmp and no syncing devices.

If you feel fancy to try out, there's Firefox95 and SeaMonkey95, from ToastyTech. Try them and let me see if they work for you. Both can run on vanilla Windows 98 (They were for windows 95). I have tried several (yes, several) browsers from different places and none was giving me a good experience for Windows 98. Like, literally, none. These two also failed my test. http://toastytech.com/files/95browsing.html