Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


winxpi

Member
  • Content count

    265
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About winxpi

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.w98upg.net.tf/

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

1,825 profile views
  1. @Schwups This is a post I can more relate too, since I tested the browsers mentioned and used no addditional programs. Did you have the feeling that TLS 1.2 really did work on Windows ME (or whatever systems you tested on)? I recently found an possibility to actually use "Opera mini" but an very old version. however they say it was updated in 2014 (whats not so old). But dont except the best browser ever (just because its two years fresher). You might open a few news pages images and best in case of text related stuff but its not good to watch flash or html5 or any video(dont have to high hopes). Also I couldnt yet find out if e-mailing works, but I think in worst-case one might use a mailing software like somebody once suggested. https://dev.opera.com/articles/installing-opera-mini-on-your-computer/ If you want to do the regular stuff Opera 12 and the Firefox 9 version you mentioned are probably the best there is (maybe palemoon works better dont know all browser). Back to your post: I however must say I didnt really feel there was much difference using TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1 and or TLS 1.2 on Opera 12. Also I wonder why Firefox sometimes was more reliable in opening some pages like outlook.com mail page, and Opera would sometimes be "bitchy" about this (working one day the other time not). From my understanding it all has to do with H2 and the different configuration of the webservers. I dont know why hotmail seems to be a page that will sometimes allow login (or loading the page) and sometimes wont (maybe they decide to use different servers or whatever) but http/2.0 (or better said the complete usage of https urls instead of the former http 1.1) is not a thing that Windows 9x can take benefit of since the latest browsers that supported Windows 9x where only none, experimental or partially SPDY support. Ofcourse this would be different if there was such a browser supporting full h/2 or atleast SPDY 3.1 (since some pages still use it) on the 9x and or Windows 2000 operating systems. I wonder more (than the speed) why some pages will not open and some will. Because its not like every https isnt working. Its just some. Maybe also the role of javascript shouldn be underestimated, since my smartphone also sometimes loads heavy using JS pages slow but when I temporary disable JS the residual page gets loaded just a few moments later. But in case of https I think its also the outdated certificates, from which I dont know alot of and this was also the main reason to open this topic, I wonder if someone tested updating the certificates either on browser for a Windows 9x machine and then could load more pages than before.
  2. Interesting malware received via email

    Your questions are good. I dont know the answer if its an exploit. But its sounds like one. The freezing: Could be some issue related to Windows Explorer or the browser that attemped the download. Not sure. Windows 98 has the Active Desktop. I really dont know how it works to be honest. I just remember that it had the ability to make folders open like links (one-click instead of double clicks) and I think it was not so uncommon to sometimes have desktop backgrounds of pics that were actually on a webpage (not sure if they were actually embedded on the browser or downloaded to a temporary folder to do that). But the Active Desktop might have to do while win98 "did something" regarding the .js file. You might try do disable Active Desktop, but I dont know if this behaviour from the .js files can be disabled by a registry change(maybe for IE but probably not for all browsers), it really depends what was going on there and I cannot rule-out that an exploit was used. My first guess would be that the folder might have some thing like preview mode, I mean this feature that allows you to see a preview of a photo or video. Might be that this triggers a .js file. Not sure however.
  3. Seems Im not the only person with Windows 9x facing issues that pages especially the https ones wont open on either firefox and or Opera 12. But it does seem that not only that more and more pages by default use https:// at the beginning of their urls they also disallow to open in http:// (port 80) so forcing https to be used in the users browsers. Thats an issue for Windows 9x users (and maybe also 2000?) since not all browsers really have the support for Http/2 (or h/2) and especially Windows 9x lacks support of this. This issue is bigger than the one that youtube wont support flash anymore (and most pages by 2020) because even if your hardware supports this it probably wont support h/2. You could argue that Firefox and Opera partly had SPDY support, but the versions most pages use are not pure http/2 and in others cases spdy/3.1 (none of both have support for any Windows 9x browser so far I know). That also means that probably if this trend continues one day just a few webpages will be possible to run under Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME without extra help of lets say proxies or similiar. What I find interesting: Some https websites will load with no issues, but most I know wont open at all and will just give you an message that the page cannot be reached or is not available. This is annoying, we cant do much about this I think. But if someone has experiences like if this is TLS related and so one, you can share this info here.
  4. Interesting malware received via email

    Although the mentioned adress sounded for me like a normal IP for the private network (according to Wikipedia however I am wrong) the Anti-Virus software detects the IP to be malware on my (non Windows 98SE) system. Access is blocked for me therefore. I do assume that the .url file extension gets hidden similiar to .lnk or .exe if Windows 98 is configured to do so.
  5. YouTube WORKING! With Opera 12.02

    The Opera.dll was mainly the entire Opera browser back at the time Opera used the Presto-engine. But if you say you could access a website that didnt work before it probably means atlest some of the other files contain some configuration and or changes that were malfunctioning on the older version of Opera. Someone suggested once replacing a few of the dll files with some of Opera Next when it came to a topic regarding issues with https websites. I cant say if this still works or was just some workaround, since some pages just wouldnt open on Opera 12.02 and others would open sometimes . But I aswell have this issue at home on my smartphone with various browsers, and when I go online from a wifi access point they do open so it can also be caused by my router at home. But to make things short: I think its plausible what you reported regarding the filehippo website working again for you.
  6. Also on Windows Vista pages did load very slow, but I was connected throug network cable (LAN) recently. I dont wanna brag about Windows 98SE but I have the feeling it was slower than on Windows 98. I might assume it has to do with network card drivers but thats just a random guess. Maybe the current drivers on vista are faulty or its something with ipv6. The Wifi router could be the source of this poblem since this behaviour of slow loading pages does occur most of the time on the one Android device I have. But bridging(connecting) the router/modem with another wifi router cures this issue funnily. Although both are wifi routeres the mainly used router will typically take 30 seconds just to load google on the Android device and via the additional router I connected it loads immediately. Its strange and it doesnt matter if I reset the firmware or unplug or replug cables. I only connected the second wifi router to the mainly used one (lets better call it the ISP standard gateway xD) because this issue with the slow loading occures. The router of our ISP is a different brand than the one I use for the smartphone only. Also the "ISP standard gateway" uses adress are 192.168.0.xx and the one I use to surf with Android does use 192.168.1.x however. I did find cases on the net where it was described that people with an iPad had a similar issue with the wifi router of my ISP but since its not my own router I cant really update firmware, that happens on the Internet service provider side. They also dont offer support for internet related issues (like connection lose or slow speed) if you do use an own router for surfing, so I only use the second router to go online with the smartphone from home. Strange is also that some pages will load immediately on the Android phone using the ISPs router (ISP standard gateway) and others will behave like google. Im really sure this issue has something to do with ipv6 since my android version doesnt support it completely. Only like "partially". We dont use ipv6 at home ofcourse but the browsing of webpages strongly depends on ipv6. And some years ago I had issues loading pages that were ipv6, only the ipv4 ones would be reachable while the ipv6 ones showed a "connetion timed out" when pinging the server. So if you one time have issues with a device going online dont just consider faulty settings and or a virus. My android phone was factory reset once and the issue did stick. Also using a proxy loads google immediately so that makes me 100% sure its the ISPs router that just doesnt support my android phone so good (be it ipv6 or be it some firmware update). This did occure first sometime between april 2016 and early 2017 if I remember correctly). And were using this ISPs router since the year 2015. I do think the issue on Vista and my Android phone are similiar. I remember I tested accessing a page via proxy yesterday also on Vista which improved the loading speed(just like the google issue on the Android). Sometimes I also have recognized some pages wont loadt at all (like the httpvshttps page) but they would via proxy. Can server certificates being outdated on a device cause that?
  7. I lost the interest in maths once it became "Practical maths" were I really sucked. Yeah its OT but to be honest: When I was interested in math the most before I attended the school where I would have graduated with the A-level I surely would have calculated this out fast or not slowly. Only thing I remember back from then was trying to be ast fast as the school bus when I ran to school from home sometimes, which seemed to really have a speed of 30km/h since it took 2 minutes for about 2 kilometres (with stops however). Ofcourse it wasnt possible to keep up with real 30km/h (or even more) but through bus stops there were chances to be as fast at the destination (given a bit advance). When I was older I sure did also run a bit but only from a train station to the school since I would sometimes miss the tram xD. I came late often xD. But it was good training even without using typical maths that allowed to calculate the "average" speed (you can realy run nearly "30km/h" but not very long) through guessing the distance and knowing the time to reach the desination except for the first year. Then came the time where I was good in running and sports was sometimes my best subject regarding my school marks (except for the religion course) lol just like the other guys in the middle school that had this "learning" problems or didnt do their homework always. Btw. I did always do my homework, even if it meant copying the works in math from others xD. What alot of us did, but its not good practice if you are not good in learning/understanding xD. Especially networks technics was a hard subject, atleat when we had the practical works and not just theory like "what are the 7 osi model layers" or whats a router. SPDY was an important step in faster browsing. Thats why I took some time to research and test older browsers. I must report back on Windows Vista I couldnt open pages using https very often regardless if it was the Opera 12.x SPDY version or Internet Explorer 7. Did also test a few browsers on Android if they support SPDY. I do think its a question if your browser is webkit based or not. So some Firefox version on Android will probably use SPDY and even http/2 (depending on the version supported for your Android operating system). But on the other hand all browsers that are based on a webkit version lower than the one used in Safari 8 will probably not see any effect of SPDY at all. I cant 100% say if that is the rule since I didnt test every browser there exists and for example opera mini or the so called Amazon Silk do use VPNs or similiar but atleast I couldnt get Opera mini or Opera mobile 12.10 work on Android for the mentioned httpvshttp website so I suppose they really do not support the standard or the version they did support is outdated (and not used on many servers anymore). I might come back to the math question if I get bored again^^.
  8. Ok since this is offtopic: This is a funny example. Percentages are just marketing figures. Ofcourse in this example the way back is done with additional 30km/h that curiously also saves us exactly 30 minutes (0,5h). The speed (km/h) difference for the way back is actually just 33,333%. And the time saved (difference) in percent aswell. Speaking in relative percentages (I think its called that) yeah you have a 50% speed increase between the original driving speed of 60 km/h and the one used in the way back which was 90 km/h. But this just decreases the traveling time 33,33% (30 minutes) since we still have the same constant length to drive (it doesnt get longer or shorter). To be 50% faster (in time measurement) than somebody driving 60km/h it would need 120km/h here. Sorry for not explaining this so well, I wasnt very good in maths and so I didnt do cross-multiplications for a while. We had alot of "higher math" which was not so mind-blowing and I found it really annoying and it was all just about learning formulas. To be honest I think I had these calculations speed and time and so in school the last time when I registered here. Maybe even a year before.
  9. This may seem odd, since its a list of instructions for different systems: http://wiki.cacert.org/FAQ/ImportRootCert But atleast for Firefox theres a description to import the Certs of "Cacert". http://wiki.cacert.org/FAQ/BrowserClients#Mozilla_Firefox I dont know which certificate popups on which pages or which issues you have. I can however report that I had troubles logging in my outlook mail on Firefox 3.6 or Opera 12.02 some times. Sometimes it would work other times not. I did import the Certs for Opera the way it was mentioned in one of these sections "Microsoft Internet Explorer" Manual Installation (for a single user) " or "Microsoft Windows" single user . Not sure which one particular. It seems outlook.com opened again without issue. The menu to import certificates in Opera ofcourse is somewhere different to find than firefox or IE. Cant really say if it made any bigger different. But when I updated CaCerts on a Android Phone a few https pages that would normally not show-up did open however. If you got time you can give it a try.
  10. Ok. I wanted to leave out the www for both links but somehow forgot that. On my Android phone its before version 4.0 only one of these two pages did show up the https results. The other one (Google) only http. Going to the https version would show a "Webpage not available" message. And I would assume that https is in your case 57% faster than http or simple math its a 1,611 s difference in speed. Or if you see it the other way round if you could only browse with http it would mean a speed lose of 75% (+1,611 s) compared to https . I Just dont know why the http:// version works and the https:// not regarding googles page on my android phone. Also other pages with https sometimes also dont open.
  11. Funny enough there seem to be two different pages (regarding the url name) with exact the same motive (comparing speed of a http or https connection). From Google is: www.httpvshttps.com But there is also one from a german guy (registered the domain): httpsvshttp.com Might seem to be unimportant. Hower: When I tried googles page first mentioned in my prior posting not even Android stock browser (or mobile Opera) would allow a https (spdy) speed test. Now with the second domain I mentioned speed test was possible. And it showed up that http was actually faster than https on that particular browser on my Android phone. I just dont understand why the https:// pages sometimes do work, and other times they wont. This is a thing that I noticed on both Windows 9x and also Android. Its strange. I think that SPDY aka https has more to do than what browser you use. However I havent done any additional test with any others browsers supposed to support SPDY or http/2 (both use https:// pages) like lets say Firefox. on the Android version Im running. Many pages that wont work locally will hower load via proxy but its not what I want, it must be possible (somehow) to load them within the browser. For Android there might be some browser supporting SPDY or http/2 since I havent checked all of them. For the older Windows versions than XP I fear that http/2 is out of question if it is a browser related issue. If it has to do also with network drivers(or IPv6 -just suggesting) or I dont know what else Windows 2000 should be supporting it somehow. But thats just speculation and I doubt any technology being released after 2010 could be suitable for Windows 2000 (XP officially had support until 2014 other than Win2k).
  12. KernelEx 4.5.2

    Yes hellopdf is ok. I tried also two additional pdf converters that might have one supporting format 1.7. My file had text and two images inside. It was surely made with PDF 1.7 atleast I suppose that Word 2010 supported creating these types of PDFs. I checked with hellopdf which is freeware(should only support up to pdf 1.6): Result were ok or average but some formating issues like image shifted or wrong size of image. "SomePDF.com" (supported format unknown probably pdf 1.6 maybe 1.7 but rather not) converter through the web archive ,was freeware. Results were average. Meaning images were shifted. And ofcourse the conversion is into a .rtf instead of .doc file. KernelEx is needed to start the setup atleast. And number 3: "pdfwordconverter.net" demo version. The limitation is you get a message and start that popups and reminds you that its not the full version and you can register. And also only 50% are converted. I tried to convert 3 pages, 1 only was converted. Couldnt do that for any other page even by changing the "start" page number. It would crash when I did. But the result from the one page that I was allowed to convert was really 100% looking like in the PDF file. There was a version 2.0 (past through webarchive) and 3.0 (also through webarchive, current version is 3.5). Version 2.0 should support windows me and 2000 and all afterwards (according to the webpage). version 3 only Windows 2000 and upwards. I did however not find any difference between version 2.0 and 3.0 . And both did run on 98se with KernelEx(needed atleast to get the setup started). Conclusion: What I would suggest: Trying pdfwordconverter.net for 50% of the content of a pdf (since its demo only) and the other 50% being converted by hellopdf or somepdf.com There were slight differences between hellopdf and somepdf (besides the .doc or .rtf format) considering the layout of text. All 3 pages would have been needed to be edited afterwards anyway. There was one case where a image was converted to big and another where the fonts where to big. But I really cant remember so good which of the two programs did what at the moment. Since people suggest hellopdf to be good for windows 9x I would say try hellopdf and if you want to make an experiment try the other one aswell. Its really up to you which converter is good enough for your work. But the demo limited converted had the most flawless result for the one page it converted and with a small image on it. Making me think somepdf.com is not just supporting pdf 1.6 format but also 1.7 format. But except for hellopdf we have no documentation which pdf version can be converted to word documents. Edit: Most of the PDF-Files I found on my system seem to be PDF 1.4 or 1.5. I still must test the conversion with a 1.6 or 1.7 PDF version.
  13. Why use Win 9x on new PCs in 2013?

    True. Like the thing that Flash is getting replaced with HTML5 just because mobile devices support it better. And ofcourse older browsers dont work that well over years and the Javascript stuff and Ads everywhere play a roll. Regarding this topic I did suggest the virualization solutions since most modern hardware probably doesnt bring any drivers for Windows 9x with it. So its more a question if the drivers will be recognized or not. When I had to install Windows XP on a system formerly running Windows 2000 I did run into such a case where the network card(NIC) wasnt recognized. So such situations or similiar will probably be the rule with hardware (year 2013 and onwards). However if one wants to run windows 98se on this type of hardware why not. There just a few obstacles in the way nowadays. There still older software that wont run on the most of the modern operating systems of Windows. Especially the MS-DOS games and so.
  14. Why use Win 9x on new PCs in 2013?

    You might try Windows 98SE through VMWare ESXi (formerly VmWare Esx) or so. I saw a video where somebody claimed to install Windows 98 on Esxi. Still might be the best option how to install on modern hardware.
  15. My friends gave me a 17" LCD (non CRT) for my old windows 98se machine. Actually been the first own 17" monitor I ever used at home (notebooks just rarely have that size but to be preciously even a 15" notebook tft has the same display size as a 17" CRT where only the diagonal size is counted if I remember correctly). However the thing you mentioned reminds me of myself. I also hate the highest possible screen resolution. Its just so unusual to have that small desktop icons. So althought I use 1366x768 for my working notebook , I still stick to 1024x768 or similiar on the 17" LCD for Windows 98SE.
×