Firefox 3.6.xx - Losing support from modern websites?

[ironman14]

Today I booted up my 98SE virtual machine, and opened up Firefox 3.6.28. I went on YouTube, and as usual, it worked well. But when I clicked on a video, above the video, there was a blue banner that read: "You're using an older version of Mozilla Firefox that we'll soon stop supporting. Please upgrade to a more modern browser."

But what confuses me is that FF 3.6.28 isn't even 2 years old. It would make more sense to drop support for FF 3.5x, 4 which are 3-5 yrs old.

This version is the only real "stable" version with nearly full features, modern browsing, and also the latest release.

[Andrew T.]

Google have been trying to push Chrome (and by extension, Windows XP+ and all it entails) on everyone. They've been dropping annoying "upgrade" banners on all their properties; even in places where they don't make a lick of sense. They've also used useragent sniffing to withhold tools or redirect users of not-up-to-the-second browsers to older versions of sites: Don't try looking for the "Search by Image" option for Google Images on Firefox 3, since it won't be there.

3.6.28 is the last version of Firefox I'll use on any platform, but for me the frustrations started kicking in three to five years ago when sites like Flickr and Slashdot began breaking and barfing on Firefox 1.5.0.12. I avoided the 2.0 upgrade since it didn't work on Win95 out of the box, and eventually moved to Opera 10 chasing the ever-moving illusion of popular compatibility.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason why any site shouldn't render decently on any standards-compliant, CSS- and PNG-capable browser of the last decade...Firefox, Opera, SeaMonkey, Camino, Konqueror, Netscape 7.2, or anything else you might fancy...but sadly, that hasn't been the case. Whatever happened to the hallmarks of the post-browser war web I hoped we were heading into ten years ago; a web with graceful degradation, device-neutral delivery of content, and standards like XHTML 1.0 Strict? Lost in the cloud of HTML5 trendiness, kludgy JQuery/AJAX abuse, bloated codebases, crass advertiser-coddling, and user-tracking; no doubt.

[Flasche]

Google have been trying to push Chrome (and by extension, Windows XP+ and all it entails) on everyone. They've been dropping annoying "upgrade" banners on all their properties; even in places where they don't make a lick of sense. They've also used useragent sniffing to withhold tools or redirect users of not-up-to-the-second browsers to older versions of sites: Don't try looking for the "Search by Image" option for Google Images on Firefox 3, since it won't be there.

3.6.28 is the last version of Firefox I'll use on any platform, but for me the frustrations started kicking in three to five years ago when sites like Flickr and Slashdot began breaking and barfing on Firefox 1.5.0.12. I avoided the 2.0 upgrade since it didn't work on Win95 out of the box, and eventually moved to Opera 10 chasing the ever-moving illusion of popular compatibility.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason why any site shouldn't render decently on any standards-compliant, CSS- and PNG-capable browser of the last decade...Firefox, Opera, SeaMonkey, Camino, Konqueror, Netscape 7.2, or anything else you might fancy...but sadly, that hasn't been the case. Whatever happened to the hallmarks of the post-browser war web I hoped we were heading into ten years ago; a web with graceful degradation, device-neutral delivery of content, and standards like XHTML 1.0 Strict? Lost in the cloud of HTML5 trendiness, kludgy JQuery/AJAX abuse, bloated codebases, crass advertiser-coddling, and user-tracking; no doubt.

You could if using a Firefox type browser (netscape and others) download an add-on to trick a website (google in this case) so that you can browse the site normally.

EDIT: Tried it on Netscape 9 and it did work ** some sites didn't render properly but thats the browser fault (it is from 2007) ** I shall now try it on Firefox 3.6.28 to see how well it works their. ( Add-on = user agent switcher " latest one works on netscape")

EDIT 2: Used Firefox 24 user agent string and loaded up youtube and avast it worked. (firefox 3.6.28)

Edited February 7, 2014 by Flasche

[ironman14]

The weird thing is that Opera 9.64 (early 2009) currently supports Youtube, while FF 3.6.28 (early 2012) doesn't seem to. For google's plans to support only XP, it's not working since YouTube even works on 95 with opera 10.

@Andrew T. Why do you use 95 as your main OS? I use it from time to time and while loading one site with IE 5.5, I got 3 blue screens of death. I use NT 4 and 98SE as secondary OSes, but they are more stable.

[Flasche]

...device-neutral delivery of content...

There already is and its called mobile websites, and in a current growing mobile based INTERNET ( <--- spell check being weird) all sites will have a mobile form soon. Unfortunately some people don't want that like here http://mobile.smashingmagazine.com/2012/04/19/why-we-shouldnt-make-separate-mobile-websites/ though this persons argument agrees with your ideas so either way all device websites will happen one way or another.

Developing Usable Websites For All Devices

“One Web means making, as far as is reasonable, the same information and services available to users irrespective of the device they are using. However, it does not mean that exactly the same information is available in exactly the same representation across all devices. The context of mobile use, device capability variations, bandwidth issues and mobile network capabilities all affect the representation. Furthermore, some services and information are more suitable for and targeted at particular user contexts.”

Developing Usable Websites For All Devices

Edited February 7, 2014 by Flasche

[cdoublejj]

when i try to install firefox 8 with kernel ex it never works.

[Andrew T.]

You could if using a Firefox type browser (netscape and others) download an add-on to trick a website (google in this case) so that you can browse the site normally.

User-agent spoofing? That sometimes works in a pinch, but it rarely goes far when the issue at stake is a plugin or the page coding and scripting itself.

There is a custom compile of SeaMonkey 1.1.20pre here that incorporates a few Firefox 3-era rendering tricks. It's the end of the road as far as 9x/NT3-4 compatible browsers go without kernel extensions...I used it for a while, though sadly these days it doesn't seem like enough.

The weird thing is that Opera 9.64 (early 2009) currently supports Youtube, while FF 3.6.28 (early 2012) doesn't seem to. For google's plans to support only XP, it's not working since YouTube even works on 95 with opera 10.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually because of an oversight. With big sites chasing after Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and IE willy nilly, Opera and SeaMonkey often end up in the statistical noise...and the browsers get overlooked in "we only support" lists and useragent-sniffing scripts alike!

There already is and its called mobile websites, and in a current growing mobile based INTERNET ( <--- spell check being weird) all sites will have a mobile form soon. Unfortunately some people don't want that like here http://mobile.smashingmagazine.com/2012/04/19/why-we-shouldnt-make-separate-mobile-websites/ though this persons argument agrees with your ideas so either way all device websites will happen one way or another.

I tend to think that mobile websites are makeshift bandages over deeper functional and technological problems. The sniffing routines that redirect people to them are often shoddy and introduce problems of their own. (Facebook redirected all SeaMonkey users to their mobile site a few years back, even though the normal site worked fine.) Plus too many sites are severely crippled in functionality relative to their non-mobile counterparts, so I'm left nonplussed by the trend.

@Andrew T. Why do you use 95 as your main OS? I use it from time to time and while loading one site with IE 5.5, I got 3 blue screens of death. I use NT 4 and 98SE as secondary OSes, but they are more stable.

While I've expounded on the plusses of 95 OSR2 time and time before (cough), a good bit of it boils down to this: No browser integration with IE, no DLL-commandeering by IE, no help files in IE windows, no file managers in IE windows, no disk space wasted by IE, no gaping security holes introduced by IE, and no performance issues induced by IE. If you take Windows 95 and iron IE 4 or 5.5 over it, you've defeated the benefits of using Windows 95.

That said, I don't use it exclusively: My secondary computer runs Windows 2000, so I'm not confined when the limits are reached.

[ironman14]

@Andrew T. I have IE 5.5 on Windows 95 OSR 2.1. It doesn't seem that you like IE. I can still uninstall it on my VM. Is that what makes 95 unstable?

For old machines, I typically use opera 10, but on 98 I use opera 12.

As for 2000, do you have UUROllup? I would recommend it as it allows 2000 to install some modern software.

Also, Opera 10.63 (late 2010) works great on NT 4.0, but not 3.5.

Edit:For Opera 10.63 on NT 4, you need Windows Installer 2.0 and sp6a.

Edited February 28, 2014 by ironman14

[farfigs11]

Isn't it funny that you can view images on Bing with IE6 but not with FF 3.6.28?

[ZortMcGort11]

3.6.28 is the last version of Firefox I'll use on any platform, but for me the frustrations started kicking in three to five years ago when sites like Flickr and Slashdot began breaking and barfing on Firefox 1.5.0.12. I avoided the 2.0 upgrade since it didn't work on Win95 out of the box, and eventually moved to Opera 10 chasing the ever-moving illusion of popular compatibility.

I remember back in 2011 I could still purchase from Amazon and Ebay using K-Meleon 1.5.4 and SeaMonkey 1.1.19, with javscript enabled too! Now, those websites destroy those browsers. Ebay doesn't function at all without javscript, but amazon still has a presentable website. I haven't actually attempted to order anything on Amazon though in a couple years. Can't purchase nothing at home now. I go to the library and use the latest Firefox for making purchases. Getting back to your main point, yes, Firefox 3.6 is almost toast. I actually prefer to stick with Firefox 2 based browsers, since I'm on dial up. They load 5x quicker. The difference is that Firefox 3.x sits there and loads ALL t he images before rendering the page. Firefox 2 will load the text, render the basic design of the page, then slowly fill in the graphics. It's the complete opposite with FF 3. I guess maybe they do load nearly the same, but it creates the illusion of slowness. Plus, FF3 is just way bulkier anyway. The tradeoff on dial up approaches nil. I will only use FF 3.6 if I need to read a website real bad. And that's it, I'm through with Opera (good riddance). I use K-Meleon 1.5.4 and SeaMonkey 1.1.19 for everyday use, and in case of emergencies FireFox 3.6.28.

[Flasche]

3.6.28 is the last version of Firefox I'll use on any platform, but for me the frustrations started kicking in three to five years ago when sites like Flickr and Slashdot began breaking and barfing on Firefox 1.5.0.12. I avoided the 2.0 upgrade since it didn't work on Win95 out of the box, and eventually moved to Opera 10 chasing the ever-moving illusion of popular compatibility.

I remember back in 2011 I could still purchase from Amazon and Ebay using K-Meleon 1.5.4 and SeaMonkey 1.1.19, with javscript enabled too! Now, those websites destroy those browsers. Ebay doesn't function at all without javscript, but amazon still has a presentable website. I haven't actually attempted to order anything on Amazon though in a couple years. Can't purchase nothing at home now. I go to the library and use the latest Firefox for making purchases. Getting back to your main point, yes, Firefox 3.6 is almost toast. I actually prefer to stick with Firefox 2 based browsers, since I'm on dial up. They load 5x quicker. The difference is that Firefox 3.x sits there and loads ALL t he images before rendering the page. Firefox 2 will load the text, render the basic design of the page, then slowly fill in the graphics. It's the complete opposite with FF 3. I guess maybe they do load nearly the same, but it creates the illusion of slowness. Plus, FF3 is just way bulkier anyway. The tradeoff on dial up approaches nil. I will only use FF 3.6 if I need to read a website real bad. And that's it, I'm through with Opera (good riddance). I use K-Meleon 1.5.4 and SeaMonkey 1.1.19 for everyday use, and in case of emergencies FireFox 3.6.28.

Has anyone tried the new K-Meleon on windows 9x (its based off of firefox 24) I'm really curious to see how it will perform being a "modern" browser like firefox 3.6.28. I also agree with @Andrew T. choice of browser. I'm switching from win98 to Me and fell in love with Opera 10.63 for its speed and ability to add ad blocking url filter with out an add-on.

[ZortMcGort11]

I haven't tried it, but I don't belive it's KernelEx compatible. The new K-Meleon is built using the chrome engine, to my knowledge. And there's no way to get that to work. Going by the final versions that worked on Windows 2000... you know, Opera 12.02, Firefox 10 or whatever.... those seem to be the latest KEX compatible browsers.

[ZortMcGort11]

correction: guess I was wrong, website does say Gecko version 24. There was another thread floating around here, from what I vageuly remember it didn't work. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that :-)

[ironman14]

Windows 2000 is capable of running ANY modern browser (save IE), but I'm pretty sure you are talking about the native 2k browsers.

Edited February 10, 2014 by ironman14

[Flasche]

Windows 2000 is capable of running ANY modern browser (save IE), but I'm pretty sure you are talking about the native 2k browsers.

I was asking about K-meleon compatibility with windows 9x series (The new K-melon that is based of of gecko 24). [Also google has been putting that message up for a while now and I think it will be supported for a while since firefox 3.xx still owns a little more than 2.5% of Firefox's market (16-21%) which is 11,295,00 million people (not that big of a #) of the 450 million people that use firefox (which is much bigger than the 40,000 that still use windows 98] Not only that but firefox 3.6.28 scored 96/100 on the acid test so user agent spoofing is a very good option.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Flasche