10 hours ago, Nomen said:

Regarding Retrozilla-2.1 (Firefox Community edition) - is it just me, or has the DOM inspector been removed?

 

for some reason, it doesn't build correctly, so it is removed from bundling.

I don't think it can be added.  From what I read, FF2 was the last version to have built-in DOM inspector.  FF3+ has it via add-on - the oldest version I can find says it's for FF3 and higher.  I add it anyways, but it doesn't appear to work (it comes up, but it's empty).

 

4 hours ago, Nomen said:

I don't think it can be added.  From what I read, FF2 was the last version to have built-in DOM inspector.  FF3+ has it via add-on - the oldest version I can find says it's for FF3 and higher.  I add it anyways, but it doesn't appear to work (it comes up, but it's empty).

 

you may try extracting this archive to extensions folder

http://o.rths.cf/gpc/files1.rt/inspector@mozilla.org-fx2.7z

trying to warm this up again. let retrozilla/rzbrowser/firefoxCE be a better gopher client.

https://github.com/rn10950/RetroZilla/pull/32

On 10/22/2017 at 1:41 AM, roytam1 said:

That will be super hard as mozilla moves towards to google-ish usage of C/C++ language style, which makes compiling with old MSVC compiler hard/impossible.

Is it not possible to compile it with MinGW? I can compile C++14 programs with gcc and have them run on Windows 95.

9 hours ago, CamTron said:

Is it not possible to compile it with MinGW? I can compile C++14 programs with gcc and have them run on Windows 95.

using mingw to compile old firefox is totally untested, things may badly broken.

The Linux and OS X builds are compiled with gcc, so I'd think the vast majority of the code except for the Windows-specific platform code should be compatible with it. The major roadblock is getting the build system to work with it. I'm currently trying to build Pale Moon with MinGW.

Ok, never mind. The build system is HORRENDOUSLY complex, with hundreds of thousands of lines of python, and autogenerates code in places. I'm not going to attempt building it with MinGW.

Is project dead?

3 hours ago, sparty411 said:

Is project dead?

I'd say it is "inactive"

57 minutes ago, roytam1 said:

I'd say it is "inactive"

Ah, I see, that's too bad. This browser works significantly better under 98SE than any of the others I've found. 

It's finally fixed. After almost a year of a major bug that prevented me from shipping, I finally got a working build! Expect 2.2 in the coming days, possibly even tonight.

7 hours ago, rn10950 said:

It's finally fixed. After almost a year of a major bug that prevented me from shipping, I finally got a working build! Expect 2.2 in the coming days, possibly even tonight.

Loyalty, loyalty, loyalty !!!!!!!!!

2.2 is out!

https://github.com/rn10950/RetroZilla/releases/tag/2.2

 

Edit: It turns out that Github is refusing connections from RetroZilla 2.1, so it is impossible to download RetroZilla 2.2 using RetroZilla 2.1 (and I assume any official Mozilla release for 9x and NT4 as well as IE6). This issue will only affect 2.1 and below, as the security suite was updated in 2.2 (thanks @roytam1). I will look further to see if there is a way to access github using HTTP, or find an alternative host for the 2.2 binaries. There will be no way to change this in existing 2.1 installations, so consider the updater for 2.1 a notifier.

 

Edit 2: Link that works in RetroZilla 2.1: http://www.filedropper.com/retrozilla-22en-uswin32installer

Edited February 24, 20197 yr by rn10950

im curious to know if what this newer retrozilla 2.2 with tsl 1.2 version "20190223" has vs retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 version "20180708". i currently have the version "20180708" that works in my windows 95 systems so i wanted to see if this newer version will work on windows 95 and what specific changes were made, because the change log makes it seem like it's the first version and i'm not seeing what really stands out as a major change. also i was wondering if it's better to use the .exe or zip version of the program, i just wanted to know what advantages or disadvantages there would be generally speaking, lastly, i was wondering if someone can explain to me why i can't download youtube videos from "https://youtubemp4.to" on retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 20180708. it would be nice to be able to download videos in 720p hd that is offered from this site, but i've only got it to work properly on firefox 3.6.28 or newer ( i think that was the oldest web browser i tested for that youtube to mp4 site ). 

update - so i went and tried that youtube site i mentioned on the newer 20190223 build of retrozilla on my windows 7 system, but it fails to do the download portion and give options on what quality you want, it just doesn't do anything. i was wondering why this would be the case?

Edited February 24, 20197 yr by cov3rt