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. 


rn10950

RetroZilla: An updated version of Mozilla for Windows 95 and NT4 [2.2 RELEASED]

Recommended Posts

Just now, cov3rt said:

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 ).  

This is my first release of RetroZilla 2.2, any other build is unofficial. This release, as with all RetroZilla releases, is tested on both Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0. The changelog appears like it's the first release on the GitHub link because it is only showing the latest release. You can view all the releases, with their associated changelogs here, as well as about:changelog from within RetroZilla. The only differences between the exe and zip versions is the exe is a graphical installer. (i.e. installs into \Program Files, adds shortcuts, etc) Regarding youtubemp4.to, from what it looks like, the JavaScript code used is too new to work in RetroZilla at this time. It may work in a future release.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rn10950 said:

This is my first release of RetroZilla 2.2, any other build is unofficial. This release, as with all RetroZilla releases, is tested on both Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0. The changelog appears like it's the first release on the GitHub link because it is only showing the latest release. You can view all the releases, with their associated changelogs here, as well as about:changelog from within RetroZilla. The only differences between the exe and zip versions is the exe is a graphical installer. (i.e. installs into \Program Files, adds shortcuts, etc) Regarding youtubemp4.to, from what it looks like, the JavaScript code used is too new to work in RetroZilla at this time. It may work in a future release.

thanks, this information certainly helped.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rn10950 said:

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

Hi,

I am planning to buy a domain to host old Windows Stuff and knowledge, if you want a space for RetroZilla please e-mail me [tobias@tromm.no-ip.org].

The idea is to host a website that support old Windows Browsers too = )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! How can I get Russian interface in latest Retrozilla?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed, that FF 3.6 does not render background colors of HTML elements. Is there any solution?

problem.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stopping in to say thanks for keeping Windows 95 (and 98/NT) alive! Awesome work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

@roytam1 Can we use your files in other Mozilla apps as it does work in them as well.

what mozilla apps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well I used the freebl3.dll etcetera in CometBird 9 and found I could access more web sites.

Edited by Goodmaneuver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

Well I used the freebl3.dll etcetera in CometBird 9 and found I could access more web sites.

you can try, but I can't promise if things will work or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For quite a while I've been running Firefox Community edition (Roytam's version) compiled on 5/4/2018.   See page 17 of this thread.

Just today I began to get security protocol errors on some components of a website I regularly view.  The components are small clip-art or jpg elements that are hosted on storage.googleapis.com.  I can post the URL of an example of one of these if asked.  I tried one of those URL's on Opera 12.02 and it had no problem.  So I don't know what security protocol or cipher googleapis is using for this, but what-ever it is, opera 12.02 has it.

Anyways, I've just downloaded and installed this newer version of Retrozilla, and it *does* work on these URL's, so there must be some new protocols or ciphers added to it.

My question now is - how do I get this new install of retrozilla to look like my current Roytam version (which is installed in programfiles / mozilla firefox and was not touched or modified by the installation of this newer version) ?  I would like my bookmarks, search window, menu bar with quick links to be imported / copied to the new install.  Is there an easy way to do this?  Like copy some files over to it?

edit:

I copied all the files in the root of /program files/retrozilla/ into my existing /program files/mozilla firefox/.  Just copied the files in the root, not the sub-folders.  These files are mostly dll's.  So I now have retrozilla.exe and firefox.exe in that folder.

I ran the firefox.exe (5/4/18, 7128 kb) and it works fine.  It doesn't give me the security protocol error that I was getting yesterday.

I note that retrozilla.exe (2/23/19) is only 156 kb.  It doesn't run when I launch it from /program files/mozilla firefox/.

It looks like the only protocol difference is that Retrozilla 2/23/19 has support for 2 additional algorithms:

Signature algorithms    
 
SHA512/RSA
SHA512/ECDSA

Those functions must be contained in a dll that firefox.exe is (now) using.

Edited by Nomen
new / additional information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2019 at 11:08 AM, Nomen said:

It doesn't run when I launch it from /program files/mozilla firefox/.

because official build of retrozilla has different build configuration than my builds. my Firefox CE has --enable-static switch enabled, so all XUL related functions are fused into main executable(firefox.exe). And my builds are build with MSVC 2003, so don't place my build and official retrozilla build in same location as C runtime mismatch will cause problems.

On 7/28/2019 at 11:08 AM, Nomen said:

Those functions must be contained in a dll that firefox.exe is (now) using.

those functions are in nss*.dll, ssl3.dll and freebl3.dll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differing vs of Mozilla need their differing xul and jar files so if trying to launch in same directory it wouldn't be a simple idea. What I do is take any common compatible files and put them in the system but checking has to be done with Depends for function mismatches.

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...