roytam1 Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomen Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 trying to warm this up again. let retrozilla/rzbrowser/firefoxCE be a better gopher client. https://github.com/rn10950/RetroZilla/pull/32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamTron Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamTron Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CamTron Posted December 24, 2018 Share Posted December 24, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparty411 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 Is project dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 3 hours ago, sparty411 said: Is project dead? I'd say it is "inactive" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparty411 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn10950 Posted February 23, 2019 Author Share Posted February 23, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROBLEMCHYLD Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 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 !!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn10950 Posted February 24, 2019 Author Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) 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, 2019 by rn10950 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cov3rt Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 (edited) 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, 2019 by cov3rt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now