Running Windows 98 in 2020 and beyond...

[LoneCrusader]

46 minutes ago, Bruninho said:

https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use-waterfox-pale-moon-or-basilisk/ (this post even has a link for why you shouldn’t use Chromium forks - although Edge now is a Chromium fork as well, it comes from MS, more trustworthy than smaller groups of unknown developers).

FUD rubbish. Stuff like this is garbage, just another crackpot's opinion.

[Bruninho]

Oh, that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, I have mine, you have yours. I never wanted to make fun of someone else’s opinion. Security is important. But actually, when they refer to the versions of Firefox these forked browsers are based in, they’re not wrong at all.

My VMs do not contain personal data, except for a few retro community forums passwords which are very different from my more important stuff on macOS. Safari offers to generate a custom password and I use them for these forums. My Windows 2000 VM isn’t my daily OS, just something I built for retro gaming.

I didn’t want to spread FUD or whatever you call it - I just exposed what I think about this and wanted to express that I’d like to see more from Retrozilla. I believe people are wasting time with several forks of Firefox for XP and above (Serpent, Basilisk...) when there are at least 3 or 4 main well known browsers ready, working and updated perfectly for security issues on these Operating Systems. The real challenge is on Windows 3.x and especially 95 and 98, which is one of the things that were discussed here.

For example, why not resurrect and update Netscape while there is the source code available for it?

[deomsh]

12 hours ago, Bruninho said:

For Win 3.x, forget it. I have zero hopes of seeing something working there.

I use Netscape 3.04 Gold on Windows 3.1 (with MSClient,  connected to my router). Browsing seems almost impossible, but with http://proxycrime.com almost everything IS possible. I even managed to download Kernelex 4.5.2 from Sourceforge.

But javascript is to old (should be disabled). Websites can only be viewed in a sort of elementary html user mode. Most login-buttons won't show up. 

[LoneCrusader]

14 hours ago, Bruninho said:

Oh, that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, I have mine, you have yours. I never wanted to make fun of someone else’s opinion. Security is important. But actually, when they refer to the versions of Firefox these forked browsers are based in, they’re not wrong at all.

OK, so my intent was not to "make fun" of you or anyone else. The point was to try and get you to realize that the article you linked (and seem to believe is somehow an authority on the subject) is strictly an opinion piece. Just because it shows up on some tech website does not elevate this type of stuff to "gospel."

Just because any given "forked browser" project is forked from earlier code than contained in the current version of the original browser does not automatically make it "less secure." This is disingenuous. It's easy to create doubt based on a statement such as "it's based on a much older version." But that statement does not take into consideration what exactly has been changed in the "almighty newer version." For all anyone knows, there could have been no changes whatsoever to the actual "security" code. All changes could be to the GUI, etc. And to go a step further, the "almighty newer version" may have even developed a gaping security hole that didn't exist in the older code. "Newer is better" = chronological snobbery.

15 hours ago, Bruninho said:

I didn’t want to spread FUD or whatever you call it - I just exposed what I think about this and wanted to express that I’d like to see more from Retrozilla. I believe people are wasting time with several forks of Firefox for XP and above (Serpent, Basilisk...) when there are at least 3 or 4 main well known browsers ready, working and updated perfectly for security issues on these Operating Systems. The real challenge is on Windows 3.x and especially 95 and 98, which is one of the things that were discussed here.

For example, why not resurrect and update Netscape while there is the source code available for it?

OK, so, once again, if you wish to base your opinion on things like you linked above, be my guest. However, I fail to understand how you can be critical of "browser forks" and "smaller groups of unknown developers" when you wish "to see more from Retrozilla." RetroZilla is a browser fork, of a far, far older version of Firefox code than that used by Basilisk, Pale Moon, etc., and it is created by a small, small group of "unknown" (except to those of us here) developers. And, since those selfsame developers are "wasting time with several forks of Firefox for XP," I'd also like to see a list of those "3 or 4 main well known browsers ready, working and updated perfectly for security issues" on Windows XP.

[Bruninho]

OK, I never wanted a fight, and this is not a fight as far as I can tell, but hey, I can answer your questions fair and square, we are all friends here.

I didn't link the article because "it came from a tech site". That site in particular is not one of those which I visit regularly - in fact it came from a search about browser security that I did. I linked because I've read it all, I thought it was well written, had some good points, made sense to me even though for some people it was just meant "to spread fear" or FUD, like you say. And I linked it to explain why I uninstalled from my Windows 2000 VM the browser forks like Pale Moon, New Moon, and sticked with the only well updated and working one - SeaMonkey. Which isn't even my #1 browser choice in other OSes.

And most browser forks IMHO are unsecure not only because they are based on very obsolete code, but also because they came from unknown sources. "Who are the people behind these forks?" That's my question. I don't know them. For example, I don't know "Moonchild Productions". I know Microsoft, Google, Opera, Mozilla. For more important things like banking, I trust these. For minor things like "posting on a forum about retro things", I see no problem.

And just to throw a little of fun so it does not turn into a heated debate (I never wanted a debate. I just wanted to explain why I did what I did with my choice of browsers on my VMs. Everyone is entitled to use any browser they want for any reason they like, but I wanted to tell my reason and my choice). Remember "How I Met Your Mother" ? Barney Stinson? I'm a huge fan of this series. In a few episodes he always says "New is always better". =P

Yes, I can see the contradiction when I talk about Retrozilla - In fact, I was seeing that while I wrote my previous post. I should have predicted that it would be questioned...

Yes, you're right, the code is old and unsecure - but it's only one that works well from Windows 9x and below (well, at least from all the browsers that I tried - and I tried many browsers, many versions, lots of nights without sleeping). There's no way to get newer browsers for these versions of Windows so a fork of it and a few updates (newer ciphers, maybe a goanna engine) is the only exception I'd like to see. Like I said, it'd only be used for a few fun things but never for more secure transactions, banking, things like that.

About the "wasting time on browser forks for XP and above", I'd like to again point out that it was an opinion not a critic or an insult to them. XP, in my opinion, is still a relevant OS in these days - I've seen many companies here in Brazil still using it, so it is far from being retro IMO. I have to admit that I do not like XP, Vista, 7, 8 and 10 versions, but this is not the reason why I said these things. The reason was because it was still relevant, far from being retro, and still had good working apps & browsers, in spite of what I can think about XP.

I mean, my father has an old laptop with XP installed just to run an old software that lets him work on his favorite mappings of his Hayabusa GSX 1300R engine. I told him to install 2000 if he wanted speed or 7 if he wanted an upgrade, but given how old and underpowered that laptop is (the original OS was the laggy Vista), XP was the choice to go for him. The laptop is not used for anything other than that. He could've made a VM on his daily driver 2017 MacBook Pro, but that would be an overkill. He gave an use to a tiny underpowered laptop with XP on it.

I mentioned "3 or 4 trusted browsers good enough for XP". Well, for XP, you can always believe in SeaMonkey (2.49.5 is the lastest and last version supporting XP now), Firefox ESR versions, Chrome, Opera, while IE is out of this game, finally. Yes, the ones I mentioned before IE, do not support XP anymore (especially Chrome), but their latest working versions for XP still have enough security and can render all the sites properly. I believe more in SeaMonkey than any of these for older Windows for one particular reason - they do not go crazy like Mozilla actually does with their disgusting "Chrome clone" that is Firefox now. Actually, MS did a fine job with their new "clone" (Edge). It uses the engine but they did not deviate from the UI and look of Edge that much.

And if we move ahead, Vista is on the same boat as XP, but from Windows 7 onwards, you have newest Edge Chromium, Firefox, Opera, Chrome versions working flawlessly. So why we have to develop more browser forks for XP when we already have official (older, I know) versions of Firefox, Chrome, Opera working so well in XP? I want to know why we need Serpent, Basilisk, Pale Moon, New Moon, for XP? We have near zero options in Windows 2000 (SeaMonkey 2.49.5 has a perfect score there with BWC installed), complete zero from Windows 9x and below. The real challenge is there, not in XP. I mean, hey, everybody does like a challenge, right? I don't expect my post to "magically" bring more effort to this direction, but that's just my opinion on this subject.

Since I've made my opinion clear, I'd like to end this and go back to the original subject (Windows 98 in 2020), because I can see that me and LoneCrusader will keep disagreeing on that. So let's just agree that we disagree, shake our hands and move on.

[Wunderbar98]

Thanks for all responses, even if things got a little sideways, members are passionate. Note to vanilla Windows 98 users that don't have the desire or energy to research out-of-scope software, the last page or so contain fairly obvious references to some web browsers that won't run on a vanilla Windows 98 system, as well as kernel extensions and other operating systems.

FWIW i also agree RetroZilla in vanilla Windows 98 is awesome. The fact that a browser still connects using this old OS is amazing. Will keep tweaking it based on all the feedback. These were linked a long time ago if anyone wants to dig through the remaining extensions that could be found.
http://users.skynet.be/fa258499/extensions.html
http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmisc.html

In addition to siria's advice, anyone using 'newer' XUL-based browsers and wants to search extensions, it is possible without having to install an add-on. The link below will be included in the modern web browser emulation notes.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/177106-running-vanilla-windows-98-in-2020/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-1175476

Thank-you siria for sharing your knowledge and experiences. Anxious to review and test out your notes. Disturbing that Mozilla removes valid configurations from about:config, empty placeholders (null value, empty string) would have been helpful. Created and currently testing a couple new entries.

Wish large organizations like Mozilla and Microsoft did a better job of archiving old information, rather than push new and shiny. Obviously for those who can't or don't want to purchase new hardware every few years, but also to demonstrate leadership as stewards of the environment.

The killer circle situation is unfortunate. Guess the onus has been with the end user for many years. Maybe i'm a bit extreme but holding on to precious software is important. OS and gaming files deemed important are backed up in sync on three separate USB sticks, one stored off-site. After a fresh Windows 98 install, either a Linux dual boot or Linux live-CD is used to bulk transfer my entire Windows 98 goodies directory to the new installation, which provides all the necessary software to get things up and running.

Just a thought, if this forum goes down it will be a very sad day for these old operating systems. There does not appear to be a lot of active Windows 9x discussion anywhere else.

Thanks for the feedback Deomsh, will check if the printer requires USB2 support. Based on your recommendation downloaded NUSB33 from below (no JavaScript needed, NUSB.EXE, 756 KB, English).
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#NUS

Found a NUSB tutorial.
https://www.raymond.cc/blog/how-to-install-usb-mass-storage-device-on-windows-98/

Sorry to hear about your printer, always sad when old hardware dies. Reason i want to keep my Canon MX310 going, ink refills don't even require a reset.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Wunderbar98

[Wunderbar98]

NUSB got mass USB storage access working on a FAT formatted stick, nice.

Exploring my Windows 98 CD, comes with 'Microsoft Windows 98 Resource Kit Sampler' under D:\tools\reskit. Everyone has different needs, applications that looked useful: ClipTray, Microsoft File Information, Quiktray, USB Viewer, WinDiff. The sampler install is small, about 10 MB into C:\Program Files\Win98RK. It adds a Tools Management Console link to the Programs menu and can be removed with Add/Remove Programs. Most applications appear useful without installation if desired, just click on it's executable.

Overall the default Windows 98 shell is great, no intention of replacing it with something else. Just curious if anyone knows of a way to get un-Maximized windows to snap to the screen edge, or at least configure screen edge resistance to easily shove windows into a corner without going off screen. Doesn't look like Windows introduced this until much later releases, just curious, thanks.

[roytam1]

On 2/25/2020 at 2:43 PM, Bruninho said:

and sticked with the only well updated and working one - SeaMonkey

it is no longer "updated" as firefox(as in web standard) as they're sticking to Gecko56 now.

On 2/25/2020 at 2:43 PM, Bruninho said:

"Who are the people behind these forks?" That's my question. I don't know them. For example, I don't know "Moonchild Productions".

as long as they provide source code (as well as changes), they're fine.

in contrast, cometbird provides no source code and it is done by Chinese(hint from screenshots in their home page), which makes cometbird less trustworthy.

Edited February 28, 2020 by roytam1

[Goodmaneuver]

5 hours ago, roytam1 said:

cometbird provides no source code and it is done by Chinese(hint from screenshots in their home page)

France is my guess. The Google home page I think is what you are referring to. It could be differently presented to different country participants. Their forum is similar to MSFN's.
 

[roytam1]

23 minutes ago, Goodmaneuver said:

France is my guess. The Google home page I think is what you are referring to. It could be differently presented to different country participants. Their forum is similar to MSFN's.
 

actually this screenshot shows the default Simplified Chinese system font "SimSun" in their official website:

not to mention it is stated in wikipedia that CometBird is developed by BitComet developers, which is Chinese-based.

[Goodmaneuver]

Your correct about BitComet but it is interesting my Wiki did not say developed by BitComet developers.

If I type in "CometBird is developed by BitComet developers" it does bring up the info in a Google shortcut. Certainly developed in China.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Goodmaneuver

[Bruninho]

20 hours ago, roytam1 said:

it is no longer "updated" as firefox(as in web standard) as they're sticking to Gecko56 now.

as long as they provide source code (as well as changes), they're fine.

in contrast, cometbird provides no source code and it is done by Chinese(hint from screenshots in their home page), which makes cometbird less trustworthy.

Damn! I will have to check it out.

But I agree that as long as they provide the source code, it’s perfectly fine.

As for SeaMonkey on Windows 98 + KernelEX, it does not support newer SeaMonkey builds even with the KernelEx updates that I know or have found. Apparently it can only go as far as 2.6.1 (current is 2.49.5).

Edited February 29, 2020 by Bruninho

[Wunderbar98]

The 'Modern Web Browser Emulation' project and download links were updated on page 21.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/177106-running-vanilla-windows-98-in-2020/page/21/?tab=comments#comment-1177321

Updated Win98_BrowserEmulator.zip.
- More informative LAUNCH.BAT REMarks: WINDRIVER, USB
- LAUNCH.BAT default memory allocation increase to 1024 MB
- Added QEMU.EXE_options.txt
- Added QEMU-IMG.EXE_options.txt

New README.zip.
- README_FIRST.TXT [1]
- README_FILE_SHARE.TXT [2]
- README_FIREFOX.TXT [3]
- README_SEAMONKEY.TXT [4]

[1] Updated README_FIRST.TXT (was README.TXT):
- Added table of contents and updated formatting
- Edited fdisk virtual disk partitioning guideline
- Added basic QEMU keyboard shortcut information
- Added basic FLWM Window Manager usage and keyboard shortcuts
- Added TCL mouse and graphic configuration and troubleshooting
- Expanded miscellaneous tips

[2] New README_FILE_SHARE.TXT:
- Prepare a FAT virtual disk to exchange files between host and guest
- Notes on handling shared files between host and guest
- Download link for Disk Explorer v1.69 helper software
- Notes on manual vs auto mount, disk space monitoring

[3] New README_FIREFOX.TXT:
- Steps to manually install any version of Firefox

[4] New README_SEAMONKEY.TXT:
- Steps to install the repository's SeaMonkey v2.46
- Steps to manually update SeaMonkey to the latest release

[Bruninho]

I know that the topic is about vanilla Windows 98, but KernelEx was mentioned a few times here so I have to ask... which codec packs should I install - K-lite 6.90 if KernelEx is installed?

[loblo]

LAVFilters 0.66.0.10 (for audio and video) and VSFilter 3.0.0.284 (for subtitles) work OK for me and are pretty much all I actually need.