winxpi

I downloaded a "cygwin-downloader.zip" the files in it are are from february 2008. And since both pages write about different stuff (like the mentioned QuickTime SDK) according to "blog.ashodnakashian.com" its confusing. If the questions related to the webkit version in general : Randomly I found a google hit for a webkit version, throw the link into web.archive.org and it was downloaded. But this doesnt work always. It all depends if the file ever was safed by the webarchive. Some are safed some are not. The webkit homepage seems to be one of these cases where it was stopped being crawled by search machines if my assumptions are right (its not uncommon, its the reason some pages are not listed in google at all and if you remove it afterwards when the page was already crawled once google just wont list the newest content in search results). Also the webarchive.org seems to only backup pages/files that were really often accessed it seems. I dont know about QuickTime SDK or even the DirectX SDK, but I do think QuickTime SDK could only be found on "oldversions" "oldapps" or by research. It didnt work for the Apple page as far as I remember. Thanks for you input =).

Cool. Have to try it out when on the 98se pc again. Btw ABCDEFG I wrote a topic regarding Webkit in another area of MSFN board: If you have time you might want to read my question. Since you compiled the source codes, you may know what these tutorials mean maybe. I want to try out "building" /compiling a webkit version for Windows(if the tutorials really are right and usable on Windows). I think the webkit original files from the webkit homepage might only be testable on Windows 2000 and upwards since the issue for chrome (not runable on Windows 9x) existed already when Blink wasnt even an engine yet. You can just do basic things ofcourse with an engine as far as I know.. Thats why browsers are browsers(have plugins and other stuff too).

Thanks Jaclaz. That sums very much up about the SPDY protocol. Will tell him to try out Dragonfly and to look up that keywords and check if something changes faster than with regular browsers if he loads a page mentioned on the w3techs.com site. Still 8.5% pages use SPDY. Thats not bad. Ofcourse I also wasnt aware about the compression methods used in the background. Sounds similiar to what mobile browsers sometimes intend to do (for faster loading and reducing traffic).

Hi, so I know somebody that has Opera with SPDY support so its version 12.x something. It might be version 12.10 or Opera SPDY edition, that is simply Opera 12.01 with SPDY support. He also installed the SPDY indicator that was available for opera and I thing also Chrome. But the blue icon of the SPDY indicator never really blinks. Hes using an older operating system like Windows 2000 or Windows ME, Im not sure but not XP. So my question is (what Im saying I only know from reseaching): SPDY seems to rely on the Server using the SPDY protocol. Its better than http/1.1 in speed if things work our correctly. And Google and most sites stopped the support since http/2 came out. But: What is really necessary that you as a user (Linux/Windows/Mac ...) can use the SPDY protocol when loading a page? I do know the basics of network techics (OSI Modell with the 7 layers). I never owned a server or maintained it so that maybe the reason I dont understand the thing. What I do think: the spdy indicator aint blinking because the program is buggy or most of the tested sites simply deactivated spdy in favor of http/2, Some webpages that can tell if a page like e.g. facebook.com, twitter.com uses spdy/http/2 claimed that some of the pages loading where in fact using "spdy". But the indicator never blinked. So what can you tell about spdy that is necessary for a user to take advantage of it, (dont forget the friend of mine cant test any http/2 browser since OS is too old). But he would like to know if it simply might not work because the systems are just too old, the networks card or cables may be the fault(or too old drivers), or if the browser itself interacting with the Operating system might not find necessary functions to use spdy. Ofcourse I believe the servers dont use this standard anymore in most cases, that would explain much. Im not sure if this is the case for his setup, and the first opera version supported only supported SPDY version 2 and version 3 I think.

First I must say Im not into programming(anymore). And never really saw a line of code thats used for webkit compiling. I recently got hands of this version of Webkit "WebKit-SVN-r131444".I dont know if someone here ever compiled webkit for windows or another platform ever. So if I get no answer Im not disappointed. I found this online sites mentioning how to "build with webkit on windows" http://web.archive.org/web/20071217211734/http://webkit.org/building/build.html http://blog.ashodnakashian.com/2011/09/building-webkit-on-windows/ I linked to an version of the webkit homepage thats only available on the webarchive.org because the same instruction isnt accessible anymore. I would have a lot of questions probably as I never tried a thing like that. But the most important one for me is just one: Is it really possible with these descriptions to build compile a webkit version like the one I mentioned above? I think the version I would use is from 2012. What I want to try is to compile it and see what operating systems would be able to use the compiled files. Theres also a "minibrowser.exe" file in the archive. Just that you know why Im asking this. It sure is alot of time to prepare and compile that stuff. Since I dont want to waste the time when maybe the missing of one program /tool /file necessary command required could spoil it all im just asking now. Since the webkit homepage from now doesnt provide any tutorials for Webkit on Windows anymore, knowing if this is actually possible is very important for my decision to try it out. So if someone has ever tried a thing like this or knows the tutorials /or webkit ,I would be happy to read about the things that come to your mind. I know this is a long comment but really only my question is from importance.

If the topic here also had the keywords Palemoon maybe it would be better. Does it require KernelEx only or Kext too? If its a different thing than no problem make a new topic. Additionally I could link to it from the "General discussion" posting I made. Its what I expected. IE6 allows login but you dont see alot of stuff. You could read, but you werent able to write. Logout isnt possible via button, but ofcourse in the source code you could find the link. But thats not how browsers are meant to be used for the common users.

@~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ I might check when I got time if that webkit browser you linked to works. The posters in the "Chrome on me" topic seem to came to the conclusion that it wasnt Windows ME at all. At least one of them that watched the video. User "Flasche"'s post of a PM of the user that made the video (btw. the video got deleted), also implies that that user also used Windows 2000 some times and doesnt remember how he did it. More interesting concerning Webkit would be if one could implement also more modern webkit version files (once they are compiled). Its some work to do and there are also instructions on the net how to "Building Webkit". Having a working older browser relying on webkit that could be upgraded would be an option. Also I think "Gecko" (used in Firefox, K-Meleon and others)-browsers that are not so well known might be a try. If somebody has a source code for opensource browser and programming skills (with the right tools) it might be doable somehow. All browsers I tested so far that are webkitbased however didnt support Youtube, another one didnt have the ability to load Wikipedia and E-Mails are another thing. This security certificates stuff is serious stuff that would maybe only work if theres a browser that allowed e-mailing before and is now available as opensource. Since many Linux users wont be so interested to support Windows users at all its not easy to say if that exists.

I recently added to this board that my experience is that this is true. Checked on September 2nd 2017 this morning. Tried Firefox and other variations of Firefox. Opera 12.0x and login wasnt ever possible. Might have something to do with https/ssl/certificates or such stuff. Im not sure. IE6 that wont even load google.com or youtube funnily achieved to login atleast. I dont know how long the board will still be on, but just that you know there are issues with windows 9x. And so all Windows 9x just you know, that happened also on other systems. You can ofcourse still read topics and so, but the load time may be different from browser to browser. Would be interesting to find out what the issue is, but I think it may really not be worth of the time. So just an information for all. Also: On Windows 9x you do get the message "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. " But the ads are not displayed all the time. Atleast I remember it was so on Opera 12 with inprivate mode. I didnt make any screenshots. Also the "Opera Emulator" version 11 (designed to test mobile surfing) didnt allow login. If someone own the "Opera Mini" browser please check if the board login still works, since Opera mini also uses presto engine (should be the similiar to "Opera Emulator"). Might be Opera 12.1x supports login. So maybe somebody with Windows 2000 can tell if things work better from there.

I can testify, that msfn.org login also doesnt work on older browsers for Windows 9x even with KernelEx. Funny enough: I was able to login with IE6, but ofcourse I wasnt able to comment at all. Firefox/Opera and even an older Webkit version didnt even allow me to login. I checked it this morning on my Windows 98SE. KernelEx 4.5.2 is installed.

Please read the following link to understand the technical background behind the "problem". https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13407482/youtube-embed-gives-restricted-from-playback-on-certain-sites-error-despite-ap As MrMateczko said, embedding may be disabled by the uploader.

Ads are activated now atleast for my newer machine (Windows 7 and up). Btw. if someones running an AV program like Kaspersky and you get the message on some other page that adblock is enabled, you need to check also if an anti-banner/popup feature is used within the Antivirus SW . Sometimes you have two adblockers and dont even know that. I found that also to be the case for some blogs or german newspages or so. Its sad that msfn will have to end. It was one of these communities where people dont make jokes or troll you just because your not using the newest operating system on every PC (or the newest model). Normally your arent taken serious in normal life by some people if you do it (and thats a thing I knew already from 2003 onwards). Windows 9x users can be happy to knew this forums, we got better support here than MS and even Google and other sites were willing to give. Just saying. It was great too know this board and the community! I understand maintining msfn is much work and were not living in a life were everything is free. I wish xper and all the people a good life and hope you all still have great days and hours to enjoy.

Regarding FF/Opera/all browsers and kernelex versions: Please all look here http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/wiki/ Btw no chromium/ie7 and upwards wont work on windows 9x. Some webkit engine browsers do but never got youtube running there. Also if you got better machines with html5 support you might research from the opera homepage "opera emulator". Theres a version 11.50 that did work for me also v11 and 12 but that didnt. Requires kernelex but its not listed on the kernelex wiki seems xp sp2 or windows 2000.were.intended to be the minimzm versions of operating system. Maybe that you require some additional dlls. Its supposed to be for testing (like android emulators or so) but flash player wont work. Just a last question to nomen: Opera 12.18s dll you somehow parzly are using inside an other opera browser version does it support flash? Cause some versions of opera wont use flash at all, whereas 12.02. Im to lazy too look it up. But if the instalkation folder has a plugin-wrapper folder flash wont run atleast not on windows 9x.

About my last post: Try this site. If you do the trick described on former postings also music videos will work embedded on Youtube again: https://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_default Im just not sure if the site does load correctly on older browsers. Just try and see!

Not so bad news: I got it going again on a newer machine (windows 7 and up) with Opera 46 "AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/59.0.3071.115 Safari/537.36 " and Flash player version 27 (its a beta version so dont wonder about that) atleast for the one video I checked now. What I did: Installed Extension: "Flash Player for YouTube™ Version 0.1.5 from emmyaldor" Then allowed opening in private windows. And finally: Im not sure if this will work on XP/2000/ME/98SE (its not Presto Opera but the one with the Blink Engine) . But since I heard this trick worked for Mozilla (with other addons), I think it might do the job. It didnt work when I tried this before with other addons, and also I didnt have the newest flash version. It might be that Opera/Chrome demand the newest flash version whereas Firefox might be okay as long as the "video-id" think is used or any extension helps. However Im glad I can use flash if I need to, its better than nothing. SADLY I must tell you that this will only work for very very few videos. Its embedding, and since embedding somehow conflicts with copyrights, music videos will not work using Flash in most cases. So be aware that you might be able to watch some "normal" videos but not copyright protected material. Copyright protected material only works within HTML5.

How did the gstreamer thing actually have to be applied to a system using Opera 12 /Opera 12.02 (without the plugin_wrapper) to work? Some months ago it was suggested but never worked for me. Also althought it seems people found a woraround Im very pessimistic that the staff of ABC.XYZ/G00gle/Y0utube are going to destroy our workaround soon. Like they did nearly a dozend times already. But anyway Compliments for finding that! I just hope they dont read this board! I havent tried the embedding on Win 7 with Opera anymore but might check if it goes for Win98. If it does than thats good news. Figured out I wont be able to install a graphics card that supports HTML Five. So lets just hope things stay like they are.

I suggest trying that. While its an issue that affects all operating systems known, tried yesterday to watch videos on YT with Windows 98SE and only HTML5 version will load, there are also extensions for other browsers that might still work. I tried on Win 7: "YouTube™ use Flash Player" for Opera. Flash was used again afterwards. But you might have to activate it also for private tabs since only non private tabs are affected by default. But I cant assure that it will work on the Opera version 12 and below which were used for Windows 98. The extension is from 2016. Since opera 12.18 (not supported by Windows 98SE but by Windows 2000/XP and Linux ofcourse) came out the same year it might be worth a try. Anyway there might be other extensisons like the one you mentioned. Since the guy that programmed the one I checked out also did release some for other browsers. So that might be a workaround (hopefully) for some time.

Just quoting partly because of better overview. So youtube did assumably perform better on machines one,two, three. Besides the processing power, Id think it depends also on the DirectX/OpenGL version the graphics card can handle. Somewhere I read that, OpenGL ES and WebGL are related. "OpenGL ES is based roughly on OpenGL 2.0" (Wikipedia) And since WebGL 1.0 is based on OpenGL ES 2.0 this could in fact mean it requires a graphics card that supports atleast "OpenGL 2.0" for rudimentary HTML5 standard support like HTML5 Canvas and other stuff. I researched this two months ago, but ofcourse theres no assurance this is the way it is. Im not an Expert on all the features a graphics card and GPU can offer, but sure the graphics cards Nvidia7800GT/7900GS are better suited for youtube with html5 than mine and offcourse the 5900XT (even though its better than what I have onboard) you mentioned. The extra RAM and processing power also are benefical. I got a quite good internet connection, Windows 98SE doesnt get the full bandwith, but still 2MB/s (16Mbps) are possible at a time. So I think youtube is just overestimating the connection, but in other situations it might be a factor. Good news however that HTML5 seems not to be incompatible with Windows 98SE itself thanks to available HTML5 support browsers, but rather a question of Hardware. Thanks for your feedback!

Since whe are here in the "Working Web Browsers on Windows 9x" -section and its getting a bit off-topic, I'd like to ask (youtube was mentioned), did anyone of you get HTML5 to work properly on youtube with Windows 98SE or Windows ME? I use the Flash Player all the time, since its in really slow-motion if HTML5 is ever used. It may have to to, that I only have 1 Ghz single-core, 256 mb ram, 100 Mbps Network card and an integrated graphics cards, which according to bios has either 32 or 64 MB. However: Anybody had good experience using HTML5 for video playback ? And if yes: Which graphics cards do you use for it? I dont need 720p or 480p quality, Im good with 360p and 240p on Windows 98SE. Just curious if HTML5 performs better for someone, since I read it dependant on the graphics card and GPU and other sources claimed it has to do with the Network card(which might be true for smartphones with the same processing power, integrated Gpu and more ram) but sure not for all desktop pcs.

According to suse.com the SiS 900 PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter does support 100 Mbit/s speed. I aswell have a Windows 98 machine which has a built-in Fast Ethernet Adapter with so called 100 Mbit/s speed that doesnt get the complete bandwith on any speedtest. We have a max out at approximately 3 MB/s. The highest I could achieve on Windows 98SE however was 2 MB/s using that connection and Patch 5E cable (and latest drivers ofcourse for the Network Interface Card). There might be the possibility of duplex mismatch(read about that on wikipedia). It could happen if that mode is set on your SiS 900 PCI Fast Etherenet Adapter (NIC) or the router/modem you use(Id rather say the NIC because you archive the maximum speed on the laptops/handhels). Try to find out it you can change the setting. Im not so familiar with SiS 900, but for the type of NIC I use there was such a setting that could be changed in the Control Panel =>Network applet. But like I said I didnt archieve the full bandwith on that one. But 80 Kb/s must be improvable.

Interesting. Maybe its browser specific. I cant remember right now if Opera 12 remebers it , but atleast on IE11 it does(I know thats no option). But ofcourse only aslong as you havent cleaned the cache yet. Well that PC uses an ethernet cable directly linked to the wireless router/modem (its a modem with integrated wifi router). All the notebooks get a faster speed on the speed tests. Somewhere I read that maybe due to lack of RAM /Graphics card. Usually I can load a youtube video on a smartphone faster (well should be said that youtube is handled differntly on smartphones aswell and better implementation of HTML5, graphics processor chip maybe a reason) and thats via wifi in the same household. But havent tried the speed test there. Sorry for the double post hope its just a bit more better overview.

### When you use embedding the code changes. I cant tell you why that is. would look like this : youtube.com/embed/VIDEOID?nohtml5=1 If you dont use embedding its youtube.com/watch?v=VIDEOID&nohtml5=1 But there are examples that may not work. I noticed the same with a notebook where I used Internet explorer 11, some of the music videos might not play with flash because of copyright restrictions. Didnt try if the restriction message also showed up on 98se thought. Hower it should work in most cases. Interesting would be if we could find a solution for the slow performance when using HTML5 player. I rather use flash because on a Pentium 3 machine it even slower when HTML5 is used. Flash atleast gives me a relatively good performance(as long as I dont have multiple videos open).

I'll give you a temporary fix (however it can't the final solution since also users with Windows XP and above don't want to be fixes to HTML5 by default). Simply add "&nohtml5=1" at the end of a youtube video. Maybe one day they will also remove this fallback option but maybe we have some time to. Can't open videos another way on my older machine with 98se. And I'm not going to install android gingerbread (not even on a usb Flash drive) or lower just to make use of HTML5... I'm hoping to find some alternative but it's nearly impossible and internet speed is really slow on that one, maybe Microsoft programmed the Network Drivers to have limitations. Can't get above the 1MB/s. But 3 MB/s would be possible through my ISP.

Ok following Information whom it may concern. None of the above mentioned links work currently. Concerning Uploading.com "OOPS! Looks like file not found" issue I can re-upload the german and english Version of the recent Windows 98 Upgrade Pack (WUPG98). But who doesn't want to wait I recommend downloading directly from MDGX: Summary for the WUPG98 http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#WUP English Version: http://www.mdgx.com/spx/WUPG98.EXE Deutsche "German" Version: http://www.mdgx.com/spx/WUPG98DE.EXE Don't want to promise to much, but it may be possible that WUPG98 becomes a last cameo (on ist original website or not we will see, I will leave a link if the host.sk Domain will not bei available) where Internet browsing will play an key issue. This will either as a whole new pack version or as an smaller "Extension" so people by popular demand can also have new features without having to choose either Revolution Pack, unofficial SP2/SP3 or the WUPG98 for Windows 98. Additional info as of 16.09.2016: Wanted to announce already in January 2016 that the current project status for the "Windows 98 Upgrade Pack" aka WUPG98/W98UPG is frozen because a new version containg a few older and newer unofficial updates was planed also an additional language with another imporant addition being improvement for browsing the Internet on 98SE PCs. Since Microsoft Windows Update Server (v4) is offline the main goal for the new WUPG98 is impossible for the planned complete pack in this particular third language. Thats the background story why maybe there will only be a smaller "Extension" to be released.

Maybe I should point out, that this Change of referrer has atleast one downside. For me: YouTube and other pages had a fallback using html5 instead of Adobe Flash Version I installed. Found out that after removing the additional keys that I mentioned above this issues stops and Adobe Flash is used again. So backup your "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent" entries before you do any changes or create two .reg files for both scenarios as I did if you want to do this workaround (althought it only Counts for Messages you get in your browser). If you need to revert like me add this changes now into a new .reg file and call if "default.reg" and then run it with administrative privileges. Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent] "Compatible"=- "Platform"=- "Version"=- The reg-file basically removes the 3 new entries from above. Additionally you can also create two .reg files. One you may call "Referrer10.reg"(or whatever you like) and the other one "Default.reg"(to restore the Default Settings on referrer). If you aren't sure if it worked you can still run regedit.exe with administrative privileges (CTRL+R for Windows 8 or use the Metro menu and type "regedit" and just right-click the administrative privileges). For 7 it would be STart=>Run "regedit" then SHIFT+ENTER and it will be start with administrative privileges. If you cant get regedit running with administrative privileges just Google "Run as Administrator" you will find what you Need to know. However if you started regedit successfully with administrative privileges you can look up HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent and check if the keys are removed or still in place and remove "Compatible", "Platform" and "Version" by Hand (right-click delete). So after doing the Research the plus-side is: Most Web sites relying on referrerer will Thing you are using Windows 10 and also Msn page is one of them. Downside is also Flash-Content or the whole Flash Player itself may rely on the referrer Information and then not run at all. So I can't say this is a permanent solution rather a work-around.

I must admit Windows 9x or XP are not my main OSes anymore. Use 7 and 8.1 at the moment very often, still having one windows 9x system around but offcourse we are speaking about the Windows 10 upgrading issue here. Just saying cause I've not been around a while. And I just found out someting helpfull (don't know if you people read about it before). Atleast it helps when you installed some of the IE Updates. Like I had on a Windows 7 client when I installed a cumulative Update for IE. So the second thing is the issue that you get nagging "Upgrade to Windows 10" boxes on outlook.com (former hotmail). I'll send you the code I used (but you should modify it regarding the IE browser version you are using). Don't know if the "Windows Registry Editior Version 5.00 part still counts for Win8. But can say its been 5.00 since Windows 2000. Don't think its been changed much when you consider Windows 7 is actually 6.1 and 8 actually 6.2. Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User Agent]@="Mozilla/5.0""Compatible"="compatible""Platform"="Windows NT 10.0""Version"="MSIE 11.0"Well and the only thing it does is stopping to show you the blue box on outlook page after sign out in Internet Explorer. Hope this may help somebody.