Internet Explorer 6.0 in Windows98SE and XP/2000

[Offler]

i tried a lot of web browsers. Opera (quite good), Firefox (not so good), Maxthon (geee) and other. As always i returned back to default internet explorer 6, in better cases to slimbrowser which i use at home and in my notebook.

Slimbrowser is not an ordinary browser - it is a upgrade for IE as i noticed correctly...

Since i used IE6 for years on win98se i knew it has some trouble inside, but i never seen major error regarding directly to its code...

At these days i am building up a server based on Windows 2000 and IE6 is present there by default, also in work i have to use IE6.

Most users always thought that Win98 is less stable as OS based on NT5.0 kernel, but since i help with one freeware project based on NET 2.0 i noticed that stability is not archieved by better system kernel, but by zero fault tolerance in program code when win9x is used as OS.

For example - 98 percent of users noticed no error when using last RC version of tested software, only i (as only tester with win9x) received fatal error regarding to NET 2.0. The leader of the project just released build where program has to write all errors which may occur, and they were happy because they have found simple hidden bug which might cause problems in later usage.

so why am i writing it here...

When i work with IE6 on NT5 based systems i noticed that it can crash 1-3 times a day (8 hours). On Windows 98se i didnt notice any standard program crash (invalid page fault blah blah blah), and no freeze. And i just wonder how and why...

Edited February 21, 2009 by Offler

[starcraftmaster]

because windows 98 is better Lol

or mabye some start up thing is interfening with IE

msconfig!!!!!!!!!

[Sfor]

I've been experimenting with an application on Windows 98. It was working in general, but at some point the results were not displayed correctly.

When trying to run the same application on Windows 2000 professional, a missing .dll message was displayed at the beginning. It appeared the application required Microsoft Visual C++ 8 libraries to be installed in the system, and the installation package did not contained them.

After adding the Vicual C++ libraries to the application folder, everything started to work correctly in Windows 98. For some reason the Windows 98 did not displayed any missing .dll message, while Windows 2000 professional reported the problem immediatelly.

Some other time, the Windows 98 crashed because of the GDI resource leak in a Clarion application, while working correctly in Windows 2000. Futher inspection revealed the Windows 2000 also has some limits to how much GDI resources could be assigned to the Clarion application. So, Windows 2000 was not immune, as it appeared to be.

[BenoitRen]

Slimbrowser is not an ordinary browser - it is a upgrade for IE as i noticed correctly...

No, it is not. It still has the dozens of rendering bugs and lacks a lot of CSS and DOM support. It's just a different shell.

Please upgrade to an up-to-date web browser and spare us the horrors of IE6. There's no good excuse.

Edited February 21, 2009 by BenoitRen

[starcraftmaster]

opera is good

lol BenoitRen

[whatever420]

Slimbrowser is not an ordinary browser - it is a upgrade for IE as i noticed correctly...

Slimbrowser is just an IE shell...

as is Maxthon, Avant, CrazyBrowser etc...

They can add many more features and options, but they all rely IE as their base...

That is... if IE has been removed from your computer, none of them would function...

[Offler]

to BenoitRen:

the same told me Co-Leader of freeware project where i participate about Win 4.0 kernel. Only later other leader of the team created new philosophy for new Client program which included full windows compatibility (win32 from Windows 95 to Vista 32bit, and Win64 for XP64-Vista64). In few months they realized that it is not so hard to create such application even when it is based on .Net 2.0.

Slimbrowser is all i need. Just a point of view...

the thing that is important for me is fact that Windows kernel NT5.0 is working with IE6 much worse than kernel 4.0, which is for me quite unique paradox which throws salt into eyes of all people who believes that XP is better than other systems, but they just cant say why...

For me ideal Win32 OS will always be Windows 2000, but i really need much more backward compatibility which offers Win98SE.

[Atmosphere XG]

At these days i am building up a server based on Windows 2000 and IE6 is present there by default, also in work i have to use IE6.

I'm using Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 and, it doesn't offer Internet Explorer 6.

It has 5. I refuse to upgrade it for I only use Opera.

When i work with IE6 on NT5 based systems i noticed that it can crash 1-3 times a day (8 hours). On Windows 98se i didnt notice any standard program crash (invalid page fault blah blah blah), and no freeze. And i just wonder how and why...

Could Fat 32 have anything to do with it? Just a wild guess.

[BenoitRen]

the same told me Co-Leader of freeware project where i participate about Win 4.0 kernel.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing an OS API used by programs with a rendering model.

When you are making a program, you can emulate the missing API with your own logic. Such a thing is not possible when it comes to CSS and the DOM. Either the feature exists, or it isn't there.

IE's numerous renderings bugs don't compare to the bugs of the Windows API. Programs can detect versions and work around it. For web pages, you have to resort to hacks, browser-specific stylesheets (IE conditional comments, anyone?), or other undesirable work-arounds.

Again, please spare us the horrors and use another web browser engine. Any other one. I don't care what web browser you use, as long as it's not IE(-based).

In few months they realized that it is not so hard to create such application even when it is based on .Net 2.0.

One problem with that; .NET 2.0 doesn't run on Windows 95.