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. 


frogman

Firefox 4

Recommended Posts

Just thought to ask as FF 3.6.13 works on Windows 98 with KernelEx-4.5-RC5, I am wondering if anyone knows what the system requirements might be for Firefox version 4 when it is officially released from beta?

In other words will FF Version 4 work similar to FF V3.6.13?

I know I could give the Beta a test, but I don't want to muck up my installation as it works really well at present.

If anyone has tried it that uses win98 & KernelEx-4.5-RC5 is what I really would like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought to ask as FF 3.6.13 works on Windows 98 with KernelEx-4.5-RC5, I am wondering if anyone knows what the system requirements might be for Firefox version 4 when it is officially released from beta?

In other words will FF Version 4 work similar to FF V3.6.13?

I know I could give the Beta a test, but I don't want to muck up my installation as it works really well at present.

If anyone has tried it that uses win98 & KernelEx-4.5-RC5 is what I really would like to know.

Hi,

what that I can say is that Firefox 4.0b7 work on Windows 98SE with KernelEX 4.5RC5 :)

There is a little restriction : the new add-on manager : it seem like the add-on that I have from an prévious version work but some updated add-on or new add-on doesn't install or work ;

that's do to the new form of add-on that keep compressed in the add-on folder and doesn't detected in W98SE ;

to make them work I have find a issue with extracting the *.xpi file in the same folder with the same name of the add-on

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought to ask as FF 3.6.13 works on Windows 98 with KernelEx-4.5-RC5, I am wondering if anyone knows what the system requirements might be for Firefox version 4 when it is officially released from beta?

In other words will FF Version 4 work similar to FF V3.6.13?

I know I could give the Beta a test, but I don't want to muck up my installation as it works really well at present.

If anyone has tried it that uses win98 & KernelEx-4.5-RC5 is what I really would like to know.

Hi,

what that I can say is that Firefox 4.0b7 work on Windows 98SE with KernelEX 4.5RC5 :)

There is a little restriction : the new add-on manager : it seem like the add-on that I have from an prévious version work but some updated add-on or new add-on doesn't install or work ;

that's do to the new form of add-on that keep compressed in the add-on folder and doesn't detected in W98SE ;

to make them work I have find a issue with extracting the *.xpi file in the same folder with the same name of the add-on

;)

Hi, are you saying I normally would not be able to install any add-ons with version 4 unless I do this fix that you mention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, are you saying I normally would not be able to install any add-ons with version 4 unless I do this fix that you mention?

that depend of the add-on ;

for example AdblockPlus is without problem ; the recent update work perfectly and is decompressed in the right folder :)

For Noscript the recent update keep in a *.xpi file in the extensions folder and I must decompress it in the original folder of this add-on I have previously and then this add-on work fine.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, are you saying I normally would not be able to install any add-ons with version 4 unless I do this fix that you mention?

that depend of the add-on ;

for example AdblockPlus is without problem ; the recent update work perfectly and is decompressed in the right folder :)

For Noscript the recent update keep in a *.xpi file in the extensions folder and I must decompress it in the original folder of this add-on I have previously and then this add-on work fine.

;)

On Firefox 3.6.13 I have the following add-ons, do you have any of these below? well apart from Adblock Plus, as you have already said it works, which version do you have of that add-on?

Adblock Plus 1.3.2

British English Dictionary 1.19.1

Flasblock 15.14.2

Java Console 6.0.06

WOT 20100908

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here my list of add-ons on Firefox 4.0b7 :

User Agent Switcher0.7.2

CSLite1.4

NewTabURL2.2.0

Add-on CompatibilityReporter0.7

Feedback1.0.3

Status-4-Evar2010.11.20.19

NoScript2.0.7

Nightly Tester Tools3.0

(only CSLite doesn't work because incompatible)

;)

Edited by patclash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here my list of add-ons on Firefox 4.0b7 :

User Agent Switcher0.7.2

CSLite1.4

NewTabURL2.2.0

Add-on CompatibilityReporter0.7

Feedback1.0.3

Status-4-Evar2010.11.20.19

NoScript2.0.7

Nightly Tester Tools3.0

(only CSLite doesn't work because incompatible)

;)

Thanks, I really would like to know if the add ons I mentioned earlier that I currently have installed on FF3.6.13 if they would install correctly on FF4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey if you like firefox but, hate that it uses 2 gb of ram if you leave it open all the time check out Palemoon it's a version firefox optimized for windows, it even has version OPTIMIZED FORE PENTIUM 3,4 AND ATHLON XP!!! On top of this it works exactly as the regular fire fox even the addons i am currently using it with kernel ex runs smooth other browsers would lock up so i got tired of it and got kernel ex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey if you like firefox but, hate that it uses 2 gb of ram if you leave it open all the time check out Palemoon it's a version firefox optimized for windows, it even has version OPTIMIZED FORE PENTIUM 3,4 AND ATHLON XP!!! On top of this it works exactly as the regular fire fox even the addons i am currently using it with kernel ex runs smooth other browsers would lock up so i got tired of it and got kernel ex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey if you like firefox but, hate that it uses 2 gb of ram if you leave it open all the time check out Palemoon it's a version firefox optimized for windows, it even has version OPTIMIZED FORE PENTIUM 3,4 AND ATHLON XP!!! On top of this it works exactly as the regular fire fox even the addons i am currently using it with kernel ex runs smooth other browsers would lock up so i got tired of it and got kernel ex.

How can it use 2gb of ram, I only have 256 ram and it causes no problems apart from the odd crash, but have had that with all my browsers over the years.

I have tried to update the ram but it caused an internet loop error, so took it out.

Have you set a compatibility mode for Palemoon on KernelEx?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it can use more ram than it has with memory paging with uses your hard drive as memory. besides pale moon has an optimized version for legacy CPUs witch means it runs easier using protocols native of those CPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

besides pale moon has an optimized version for legacy CPUs witch means it runs easier using protocols native of those CPUs.

Does it? As I read from their site, it needs Pentium 4 or Athlon XP or higher processor. Where can I get this optimized version and read its requirements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...