Jump to content

Future versions of Firefox on Windows 98

ivanbuto

By ivanbuto
in Windows 9x/ME

 Share

Recommended Posts

erpdude8

erpdude8

Posted
Posted (edited)
Or they could use the latest SeaMonkey. ;)

true.

Firefox 3.0 beta 1 is now available. Topic discussed here:

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=22714

Release Notes of Firefox 3.0 Beta 1 posted here:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b1/releasenotes/

FF 3.0 beta requires at least Win2000 to run.

Soon the next generation of SeaMonkey (2.0) will be in beta and will require a minimum of Win2k.

Edited by erpdude8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

gpatrick

gpatrick

Posted
Posted
Or they could use the latest SeaMonkey. ;)

true.

Firefox 3.0 beta 1 is now available. Topic discussed here:

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=22714

Release Notes of Firefox 3.0 Beta 1 posted here:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b1/releasenotes/

FF 3.0 beta requires at least Win2000 to run.

Soon the next generation of SeaMonkey (2.0) will be in beta and will require a minimum of Win2k.

I thought SeaMonkey was not going to follow in Firefox footsteps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Analada

Analada

Posted
Posted

I found some stuff (a bit old) about FF3 and win98SE here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331723

More to the point, perhaps, here's some info I got today from the Firefox support group:

"The reason why Win98 isn't supported is because it would require a lot _a lot_ of work to add support for it, even for experienced Firefox & Windows developers.

"If you or your group are willing to do the work, there is AFAIK no reason why it couldn't be supported, but I'm afraid you are already too late for Firefox 3 as they have already released beta. You could get support for the next version, assuming you are able to write the patch fast enough.

"You would probably get help from the developers also. But I seriously suggest that you first study how big task this is.

"If you wonder why Firefox 2 works, but Firefox 3 doesn't. The reason is within the changes to the core of the Firefox. Firefox 3 uses Cairo, which doesn't work in Win98, due to lack of API functions that are available on more modern operating systems."

So there's some positive stuff to follow-up on mixed in with the negative. I only wish I had the programming skills to do this...Could anyone elect to follow-up on it and keep us informed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gpatrick

gpatrick

Posted
Posted
They're not going to. But they do use the same rendering engine, and that's what has become incompatible with Win9x.

They could use the old rendering engine. They do not need to go with Firefox.

To the other Poster

Cairo has or had an earlier version is used in other browsers that does work on Windows 98se. At least that what I read somewhere on the Firefox forums.

I just hope other browsers do not upgrade to the new rendering engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BenoitRen

BenoitRen

Posted
Posted

There wouldn't be much point in using the old rendering engine if it's only for the sake of Win9x compatibility, especially for a Mozilla project. Never mind they've done a lot of other changes too.

but I'm afraid you are already too late for Firefox 3 as they have already released beta

That doesn't matter one bit, as the proposed shim library idea was insufficient, and thus no specific code needs to get into the tree.

Waiting for beta was actually sort of my intention, because it has to have stabilised first. I didn't look forward to experiencing all sorts of crashes, data loss and other stuff that goes on on the trunk and then figure out if it's because of Win9x patches or a core bug.

You could get support for the next version, assuming you are able to write the patch fast enough.

Considering how anti-Win9x most Mozilla developers are, and that a shim library isn't sufficient, this is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Analada

Analada

Posted
Posted
There wouldn't be much point in using the old rendering engine if it's only for the sake of Win9x compatibility, especially for a Mozilla project. Never mind they've done a lot of other changes too.
but I'm afraid you are already too late for Firefox 3 as they have already released beta

That doesn't matter one bit, as the proposed shim library idea was insufficient, and thus no specific code needs to get into the tree.

Waiting for beta was actually sort of my intention, because it has to have stabilised first. I didn't look forward to experiencing all sorts of crashes, data loss and other stuff that goes on on the trunk and then figure out if it's because of Win9x patches or a core bug.

You could get support for the next version, assuming you are able to write the patch fast enough.

Considering how anti-Win9x most Mozilla developers are, and that a shim library isn't sufficient, this is laughable.

Reading through the thread on the link I posted, I tend to agree that there is a strong anti-Win9x prejudice. If I can help out with any donkey-work do send me a PM.

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Graz

Graz

Posted
Posted

Hi guys,

I just stumbled across this topic from Google. I still use Win98SE on a fairly new system that could run Vista (...), but I'm perfectly happy with 98. I have a laptop with XP on it but still would rather use 98 because I feel it's quicker and less bloated, it's secure, rarely crashes, 8mb ADSL runs like a dream on it, and I have no problems with Office XP and Flash/Dw MX 2004 which all run fine on it. Whoever it was that described it like an old reliable car is completely right.

It's a shame FF 3 won't 'officially' be supported, as FF is a really nice browser even though I use Opera more. But a compatible version for 98se/me would be awesome. I and many other w98se users would be extremely grateful that this good OS would still be very useable when it comes down to web standards.

Keep up the good work. :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
erpdude8

erpdude8

Posted
Posted (edited)
Hi guys,

I just stumbled across this topic from Google. I still use Win98SE on a fairly new system that could run Vista (...), but I'm perfectly happy with 98. I have a laptop with XP on it but still would rather use 98 because I feel it's quicker and less bloated, it's secure, rarely crashes, 8mb ADSL runs like a dream on it, and I have no problems with Office XP and Flash/Dw MX 2004 which all run fine on it. Whoever it was that described it like an old reliable car is completely right.

It's a shame FF 3 won't 'officially' be supported, as FF is a really nice browser even though I use Opera more. But a compatible version for 98se/me would be awesome. I and many other w98se users would be extremely grateful that this good OS would still be very useable when it comes down to web standards.

Keep up the good work. :thumbup

unfortunately, it's never going to happen, Graz. Gecko 1.9 based browsers like Firefox 3 seem to never work under Win9xME OSes, including the Seamonkey 2.0 alpha nightly builds I've tested. they keep crashing under 98se after launching them, even with KernelEx installed.

But at least Firefox 3 and the Seamonkey 2.0 alpha nightly builds work with at least Win2000 and Win2k is more stable than Win98se.

BTW - Firefox 3.0 beta 3 released last night:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b3/releasenotes/

Edited by erpdude8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
erpdude8

erpdude8

Posted
Posted (edited)
So you think it's never going to happen because the official builds don't work on Win9x? My, aren't you smart. (/sarcasm)

well, is there anyone out there brave enough to even make Firefox 3 or any Gecko 1.9 based browser work properly under Win9xME? What about you, BenoitRen? Don't look at me cuz I don't have the answer to that question. I thought ivanbuto would find certain people who have the guts to make Gecko 1.9 browsers run under Win9x by now. That hasn't happened either.

BTW- Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 now available here:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b4/releasenotes/

Edited by erpdude8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Chozo4

Chozo4

Posted
Posted

So far, BETA5 is missing the following dependancies (check of the main firefox executable).

USER32.DLL

GetLastInputInfo()

GDI32.DLL

GetTextExtentExPointI()

GetGlyphIndicesW()

GetGlyphIndicesA()

GetFontUnicodeRanges()

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...