Future versions of Firefox on Windows 98

[HTS-500]

[spam_mode]

sorry for the 100% offtopic post, but i would not use firefox, is one of the worst browsers ever made (i dont know why people like it so much)... better use maxthon, it have dual engine (IE and Gecko, obiously not 1.9), its 100% compatible with windows 98 and have really low system requirements:

Minimum Requirements

100MHz CPU

32MB RAM

4MB Free Hard Disk Space

Microsoft Windows98

Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5

[/spam_mode]

[modicr]

Hello!

I you don't like Firefox, I recommend SeaMonkey (I use also Opera and of course Maxthon)

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=8761

Cheers, Roman

[erpdude8]

[spam_mode]

sorry for the 100% offtopic post, but i would not use firefox, is one of the worst browsers ever made (i dont know why people like it so much)... better use maxthon, it have dual engine (IE and Gecko, obiously not 1.9), its 100% compatible with windows 98 and have really low system requirements:

Minimum Requirements

100MHz CPU

32MB RAM

4MB Free Hard Disk Space

Microsoft Windows98

Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5

[/spam_mode]

GEE, I wonder why you dont like Firefox browsers, HTS-500. Have they been unstable on your computer or something?

I use FF 1.5.0.4 on my bro's XP SP2 and my WinME computer and they work fine; haven't received any Firefox crashes on both computers.

Yes, the recent Alpha 3 release of FF 2.0 has the new installer, and it indeed works fine, including installing and uninstalling shorcuts properly.

Did you test the FF 2.0 alpha 3 on a Win9x system, ivanbuto? You didnt say which version of Windows you have tested Firefox 2.0 on.

Edited June 7, 2006 by erpdude8

[erpdude8]

reading the latest post on the Firefox un-installer bug on Win9x systems:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338752

The older Firefox remover can be downloaded here:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...tallFirefox.zip

Extract the UninstallFirefox.exe from that ZIP file and run the uninstaller to remove FF 1.5.0.2, 1.5.0.3 or 1.5.0.4 off a machine that has Win95, 98 or ME. the older remover is not needed for win2k/xp/2k3.

[-I-]

in last post i pointed out that a pc hase a avarage lifespan of about 5 years.

so than i installed windows 98 Lite on a 100mhz pc with 48mb EDO- ram.

than i tryed using moder software, but my 1gb hardisk was full,

i wanted to install a new extra drive but it was bigger than 8gb so the system failed with bios error,

i tryed flashing the Bios (with a kind of compatible version as i already had the last avail version.

it failed it was a 12 year old pc, and i had no alternative but to use as old software als the machine itself was.

thats why my 5 year limit isn't just realy srtange, modern software just ask for more resources to get you better on your way. people expact a computer build for 16 color WordPerfect 5.1 (for dos) to run Windows MediaCenter 2006

its just a matter of why should we encourage (or force) them to support windows 9x

in the end it will only prevent them from adding security or features. or even support for new windows versions

(like xp64, and thats used loads more than 9x).

and even if we do so, where is the line, DOS-support, Cobalt support, or does i have to run on an old nasa system thats actualy as tall as your entire house????

i think they've drawn a line

and i we want improvements we'd better branch them on Firfox 1.5 (with extrentions and plugins, than slowing down the development of for example the 3.0-branch

[Petr]

in last post i pointed out that a pc hase a avarage lifespan of about 5 years.

Just a note - our 9 years old computers (built in 1997 and mostly never changed) have

- GA-586HX motherboard + AMD K6-2/400 processor + 128 MB EDO RAM

- GA-586T2 motherboard + AMD K6-2/450 processor + max. 256 MB PC75 SDRAM, UDMA33 HDD, USB

- GA-686LX motherboard + Pentium II 266 processor + 128 MB PC66 SDRAM, UDMA33 HDD, USB

VGA board mostly S3 Virge 2MB RAM, HDD WD-AC33200 (3,2 GB)

All of these boards support disks up to 137 GB.

All of these computers were built in era of Windows 95 and still are able to run Windows XP, althouth not very quickly - but they are usable.

And what we were buying five years ago (spring 2001) as standard computers?

- GA-686BX7+ (with UDMA66 support, max. memory 1024MB PC100 SDRAM)

- Celeron 900 MHz, 100 MHz FSB

- WDC WD200BB 20 GB UDMA100 HDDs

- ATI Radeon VE, Nvidia GeForce2 with 32 MB video RAM

These computers can ran even Windows Vista, although without Aero Glass (who needs it?).

Everything mentioned above were low cost compoters for office use, not high end gamer's computers.

So I think the lifespan of average computer, not used for gaming, can be much more than 5 years.

Petr

[RJARRRPCGP]

Just a note - our 9 years old computers (built in 1997 and mostly never changed) have

- GA-586HX motherboard + AMD K6-2/400 processor + 128 MB EDO RAM

- GA-586T2 motherboard + AMD K6-2/450 processor + max. 256 MB PC75 SDRAM, UDMA33 HDD, USB

- GA-686LX motherboard + Pentium II 266 processor + 128 MB PC66 SDRAM, UDMA33 HDD, USB

VGA board mostly S3 Virge 2MB RAM, HDD WD-AC33200 (3,2 GB)

All of these boards support disks up to 137 GB.

Really? I don't believe that they can recognise HDDs bigger than 32 GB. Before 2001, there was a 32 GB HDD limitation. Also, if manufactured before 1998, then probably the 8 GB HDD limitation.

[Petr]

Really? I don't believe that they can recognise HDDs bigger than 32 GB. Before 2001, there was a 32 GB HDD limitation. Also, if manufactured before 1998, then probably the 8 GB HDD limitation.

Yes, some older Award BIOSes had a stupid bug causing divide overflow during the disk detection but it can be easily corrected. From the above mentioned boards, for GA-586HX and GA-586T2 I have corrected the bug myself: http://www.ryston.cz/petr/bios/ , for GA-686LX Gigabyte released new BIOS version with 32GB+ support: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherb...?ProductID=1460

Petr

Edited June 10, 2006 by Petr

[RJARRRPCGP]

Really? I don't believe that they can recognise HDDs bigger than 32 GB. Before 2001, there was a 32 GB HDD limitation. Also, if manufactured before 1998, then probably the 8 GB HDD limitation.

Yes, some older Award BIOSes had a stupid bug causing divide overflow during the disk detection but it can be easily corrected. From the above mentioned boards, for GA-586HX and GA-586T2 I have corrected the bug myself: http://www.ryston.cz/petr/bios/ , for GA-686LX Gigabyte released new BIOS version with 32GB+ support: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherb...?ProductID=1460

Petr

Lucky you. Because it seems that motherboard manufacturers would have stopped releasing newer BIOS versions a long time ago!

Really? I don't believe that they can recognise HDDs bigger than 32 GB. Before 2001, there was a 32 GB HDD limitation. Also, if manufactured before 1998, then probably the 8 GB HDD limitation.

Yes, some older Award BIOSes had a stupid bug causing divide overflow during the disk detection but it can be easily corrected. From the above mentioned boards, for GA-586HX and GA-586T2 I have corrected the bug myself: http://www.ryston.cz/petr/bios/ , for GA-686LX Gigabyte released new BIOS version with 32GB+ support: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherb...?ProductID=1460

Petr

Lucky you. Because I believe that the motherboard manufacturer won't release any later BIOS revisions! I didn't know that you were able to fix that.

[ivanbuto]

i think they've drawn a line

and i we want improvements we'd better branch them on Firfox 1.5 (with extrentions and plugins, than slowing down the development of for example the 3.0-branch

Yes, the intent of this thread was to get a community going that would continue to provide Win9x builds of Firefox, which is already done for some other OS's.

Also, Firefox 2.0 will still work on Windows 98.

[-I-]

oke ur running xp (tweaked it a bit, and got it to work.

now lets install software.

are you a gamer UT 2004 Nead for speed HS 2 Tompraider 3

1.5ghz cpu - 256ram minimal dx8 compatible vga card

[this info from Unreal website]

are you a webdesinger Macromedia flash MX Dreamweaver MX

1ghz cpu 256 (512 recomanded) ram

[this info from adobe website]

are you a programmer Microsoft Visual Express (free version).

'unknown sys-requirements'

do you use it for office use

pII class cpu 128mb ram

[this info from openoffice.org website]

or just use it as Media Pc.

1ghz cpu + 256mb (for dvd or tv/dvb -playback)

1,8ghz cpu + 512mb (for recording and playback (timeshift).

[this info from media-portal website]

so for regular software (nothing extra-ordinairy), is recomanded for newer computers than yours,

exapt openoffice ...

so face it, your list of computers will (maybe) run, but not perform 'realy well' with modern software.

like hondreds of people said, "i got xp to run on a 100mhz cpu) so i aks and??? dit it start within 2minutes (like it should).

people cant walk on watter like a fly can, unless they can make 30 steps a sec....

so can they????

Edited June 11, 2006 by -I-

[miko]

i can see where this is going, and it's waaayy off topic.

but . . .

you're assuming there's an inherent need or desire to use modern software.

i can't speak for anyone else but i'm still writing HTML in Notepad (well Textpad actually) and i think its fair to say i don't think MDGX (the member here most would agree has the best 95/98/98SE/ME support site) uses Macromedia flash MX Dreamweaver MX.

personally imo the only piece of software that must be current is Anti-virus and the web browser (and the web browser is debatable)

it's all relative

try not to wade in just because we may poke fun over a single phrase (of which i may be guilty, and as such apologize) but on the flipside could you perhaps try not to make posts in the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME Software Discussion & Support Forum in an effort to try to get us to agree we should upgrade to new hardware (or a new OS) for two reasons.

1. it's not going to happen (the people that are here have made their choice, for whatever reason).

and

2. a rather dim view of it is taken by most of the regulars (and thankfully now) the forum mods as well.

please

guess i'll get back to designing a cool mini desktop Arcade cab built out a of K6-2 333, PCChips PC100 board, ISA SB16, TNT2, running NeoRAGEx and DOS ZSNES and try to stop the name Link21 rattling round in my head . . .

Edited June 11, 2006 by miko

[erpdude8]

Yes, the intent of this thread was to get a community going that would continue to provide Win9x builds of Firefox, which is already done for some other OS's.

Also, Firefox 2.0 will still work on Windows 98.

and FF 2.0 will use a different setup installer and un-installer than the ones found in FF 1.x versions so installing and removing FF 2.0 should work properly under all 32bit NT-based and 9x-based versions of Windows.

[wizardofwindows]

i agree that modern software isnt always best.i built websites not proffessional but their quite nice i use Arachnophilia circa 2000 i use startup cop 1999 other than msn i use older icq etc i run dosbox and many emulators for 9x wgen project 64 etc.if the makers of new software change the installer code so im force to run xp or vista gasp. ill find away to make existing apps run.or use third party apps.as far as firefox goes why change installer why does avg and other still use 9x installer etc .because microsoft doesnt own them yet gasp.the great thing about older apps is no bloat.every new version seem to double in size and yet only adds a few useful new features that most dont need or use take msn messager 7.5 only runs on xp when the only difference from 7.0 was they added a voice clip thinghy noone ever uses.and oh yes link21 my old nemesis must be losing sleep over xeno86 kernel project lol longlive 98se.P.S kudos on running isa cards i got a old dell p2-266 i run sound blaster and lancard on love old 3com lol. Edited June 12, 2006 by timeless

[-I-]

my apolitgies of i may have get you to think i was trying to get you to upgrade,

but i do think its not very realistic to want the lastest software for an outdates OS,

unless you realy do it yourself,

because in the end it would be a big loss for the many to not use a new (often mutch faster and more optimized for comon hardware) for the sake of a 10year old operating system.

im a huge windows 2k fan, i have been beta testing Gurgelmeyers sp5 setup.

but the ting is id never ask for example wine-(windows api for *nix) devver to leave his work alone so i could run media player 10 on win2k, (in that case i just try somthing else Media player classic or what-ever

its the price i pay for not updating and paying yet another licence upgrade.