Hi everyone,

seeing as there seem to be some folks with good knowlede of C++ programming in this forum, along with a sense of dedication to keeping Windows 98 alive, I thought this would be the right place to post.

As some of you might know or might have noticed, Mozilla has decided to drop support for all pre-Windows 2000 platforms on the current trunk code. This will impact all releases of Firefox and Thunderbird off the 1.9 branch and beyond (i.e. Firefox 3.0 and beyond). Note that Firefox 2.0 will still support Windows 9x.

With Firefox 3, they will change their grahpics module to CAIRO, which uses some APIs that do not exist on Win9x.


Here are the references:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330276
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331723
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=401271


The "Kernel Update Project" is already one exciting thing happening in this forum. Perhaps some of you would be interested in contributing and trying to develop a compatibility library for Win9x and Mozilla, along the lines of what Robert Callahan posted in one of the bugzilla threads. Obviously there is still time to do this, but I thought it would be good to get discussions started early.

Let's see if anyone is interested! On my end, I have almost no knowledge of C++ programming, but I'd be glad to volunteer in other ways.

Gimme plz link to ftp where that trunk resides.
I'll try to make that version running.

Hello!

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...y/latest-trunk/

ZIP:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...en-US.win32.zip

Installer:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...2.installer.exe

Regards, Roman

All developer related thing are here: http://www.mozilla.org/developer/

Petr

Well, current unimplemented APIs in 9x which won't allow Firefox 3 to run is
GetGlyphIndicesA/W
and UpdateLayeredWindow
First API can be implemented using this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/241020/EN-US/
Second API can be partially implemented for shaped non-translucent windows.

Tihiy, would you be able to write the patch refered to here? How difficult would something like that be?

Then, in a separate file, one would need to implement the functions. Currently it's those two, but I think they eventually plan to remove all "unnecessary" Win9x code from the official source code. For the Unicode functions, MSLU would have to be used, or Mozilla's MZLU/opencow. I'm not sure whether the "compatibility library" for Win9x would essentially be an extension and continuation of the MZLU project. I'm trying to get an answer in bugzilla.

probably stupid to ask but, firefox 2 wil prably be released this year.
and v3 next or the year after that....

looking at the computer timespan, why even concider gooing to that mutch truble for an OS that will hardly be able to run on a stock computer.

as i looked at the manual of my 939 mobo it does no longer support windows 9x me divers. just win2k and XP (and linux on the website). and this a mobo at the age (time since intro), of 1 and a half year...
would mean that youd like to build an os that doesn't run on any (new) computers since the last 2 years...
an avarage computer lives 5 this win vesion would than be more than twice a old as a computer should be living ...

but ofcaurse its always fun to try because you can...
even though i believe that if one would like to work in c+ (or something alike) creating Win api's
id would be of far greater use if contributed to WINE (for OpenSource Software).

That is why the official builds won't support Windows 98 anymore. However, no reason why not to have a branch of Win9x compatible builds, so that people with older machines can use the latest Firefox stuff and improvements in internet technology.

Well, how long "should" a computer be living? I don't like if someone tells me that my computer shouldn't live anymore, just because it's seven years old, and just because I don't see the point of having a throw away and replace mentality.

Additionally, the problem is that this "should be living" is determined by all kinds of factors, some of them having to do with politics and money. (See for example the reason why Adobe 7 or MSN Messenger 7.5 won't run on Windows 98.)

That being said, I don't think anyone is disputing some of the limitations of Win9x here.

Agreed!

avarage computers don't 'live' five years lol

theoretically soild modern state electronics have an infinite lifespan

there are companys around with systems which were built before windows was even thought of,

my Amigas and Atari ST are around 24-25 years old and my earliest Nintendo console 19

my current TV was 'born' in 1976 (sony's first remote controlled trinitron i believe)
making it 30 years old this year.

i feel sorry for the younger generation sometimes,
some are more than a little brain washed into being ever the constant consumers methinks . . .

on Firefox, traditionally open source projects usually try to support as many OS platforms as possible,
ans (as the end users) we should encourage 9X platform support (alongside NT5) as much as possible imo

I was advised by a TV repairman, who probably had somewhat of a conflict of interest, that my old Mitsubishi would last and last if I let him repair it. Whereas most new TV's are designed to last for about 2 years.

I let him repair it and it works great!

My old SiS5598 HP Pavilion 4430 still will run about as crappy as it ever ran. That doesn't mean I like running it except to relive old memories, but the point is it will still run.

But, yeah it sure would be nice to be able to keep Firefox updated for 9x. Especially for computers that are a bit newer but with owners who enjoy having a 9x operating system available for those old programs they still enjoy (like me).

well said ivanbuto. I had my cousin's old Compudyne Pentium one computer from a decade ago and it still runs good, even though I changed most of the parts (faster CPU, more RAM, faster video card, faster CD drive & bigger hard drive). I'm not gonna get rid of that ol' PC.

Nice to hear that Firefox 2.0 will work on Win98/ME systems. But right after Mozilla Corp. releases a major version of Firefox, the older major version becomes obsolete and they retire support for it (when FF 1.5 was released, FF 1.0x is no longer supported).

Hey MDGX. I just installed Firefox 1.5 on a Win95 machine and it works! I even installed Firefox 1.0x on a Win95 computer and it also works.

Too bad the uninstaller for Firefox 1.5.0.3 does not work at all whether I install FF 1.503 under Win95, 98 or ME. I have reported the "uninstaller" bug to Mozilla corp. and they should be able to fix the problem.

I'll wait until a stable firefox 2.0 beta to come out, then I'll test it.

What a newbie you are:

My LINC-8 is up and running and was my first computer in 1975 when it was already 9 years old. I have at least 20 computers older than your new-fangled toys!

LINC-8's run software based on pointing devices that interact with the screen stemming all the way back to the forerunner 1962 LINC. Anything called DOS [much less Windows] is clearly ripped off from a variety of Digital Equipment [DEC] O/S's all written prior to 1970.

Oh, and btw, Windows was NOT written by MS for PCs; rather it was written for the Rainbow in the '80's and only later grafted onto PCs.

I have the 1970 12" Sony first color set working fine [soon to need a convertor for digital TV I suppose, as do you!].

cjl [and don't get me started about the 029 keypunch and card-reader in the basement!]

OH MDGX!

The Firefox un-installer problem is NOT fixed in FF 1.5.0.4. Still had the problem removing FF 1.5 under Win9x. I think I sent you the old Firefox uninstaller from FF 1.5.0.1 that works under Win95/98/ME. You should post it up on your web site. I'll give you instructions on how Win95/98/ME users should use the older FF un-installer to remove Firefox 1.5.0.2, 1.5.0.3 or 1.5.0.4.

I had been told by Mozilla group that FF 2.0 will use a new installer/un-installer that should work properly under all 32bit versions of Windows. so the un-installer problem of Firefox will be fixed in FF 2.0.

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.

[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]

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

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.



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.

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.

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

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

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!



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.

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.

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????

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

The say Firefox 3.0 won't support Windows 98 and ME.

FF 3.0 will be based on the Gecko 1.9 runtime which wont work under Windows 9xME systems.
see this page:
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=8887

Would be great if we got a project going keeping alive Firefox on Windows 98.

I can understand why Mozilla would want to drop Win9x support from FF3 but it might be for the best anyway. As windows 98 users we hate bloat (Am I right! ) and the last thing we need is a bloated browser.

So maybe if we could keep Firefox 2 going, with the Gecko 1.9 engine, we could have a standards compliant browser with less bloat and features we don't need.

Just a thought

Before people start posting in this thread, they should perhaps actually read through it and take a few minutes to look at some information.

Firefox 2 is NOT based on Gecko 1.9, it's based on a 1.8 branch.

In order for Windows 98 to be able to run anything that's based on 1.9, it will require some coding work to substitute for missing APIs.

For more recent discussions about these issues, see also the following:
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=8887
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archiv...me_support.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archiv...ox_2_updat.html

Sorry I should have been more specific. Prior to my last post I had just spent some time reading Mozillazine and Forums.

The official Firefox 2 will be based on Gecko 1.8. And WILL run on Windows 98/me systems.

But..... what I was getting at was, maybe it would be better to start a Win9x project on keeping Firefox 2 alive (after mozilla launch Firefox 3) into the future for Win9x rather than 3.

They are asking for volunteers to make a Win9x branch for Firefox 3, but I think I'd rather we try and port Gecko 1.9 and all security fixes into a special Firefox 2 realease as it will have less bloatware (features we don't need).

Thoughts?

Hello!

Here is another recent thread at "Hacking for Christ" by Gervase Markham*
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archiv...he_late_98.html
And BTW, here is a thread about Opera and Win9X support:
http://groups.google.com/group/opera.beta/...bac469e3d2cd2f/


Roman

Because of this wholr issue, I re-gave Opera 8.5 a chance.

Didn't last long. Went back to Firefox.

But what good timing, Opera 9 has been launched. And it runs **** fine on Windows 9x systems

Successfull companies go to great measures to retain marketshare. Mozilla better becareful. The competitors are lurking in the shadows ready to snap up the unwanted.

Actually galahs, Firefox 2.0 will be based on Gecko version 1.81, NOT 1.8.

Beta 1 of FF 2.0 is mentioned here:
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=10874

Let Firefox 3.0 be a native Windows NT application for superior performance. I wish Firefox 1.0 were that way.

Good joke!

But if you repeat the same joke too often it is not soo good.

Its not a joke. It is reality. I sure hope Firefox 3.0 won't work on Windows 98/ME. Heck, I hope Firefox 2.0 won't work with Windows 98/ME.

Link21:

We have tolerated you way too long in these forums.
If you don't have anything contructive or useful to say, please refrain from hateful and flaming postings.
We already got the point you don't like Win9x OSes, but we don't care to see your hateful posts all over the place, every single day.
Next time I'll ask the mods to ban you from MSFN forums, and I bet I'm not the only one who doesn't like your inappropriate behaviour.

Thanks for listening.
I really hope you learn and grow up.

x2

x3

I don't even use FireFox, but you 9x-haters get out!

In fact it's timeless who brought him back here.

http://www.msfn.org/board/Link21-lives-t76515.html

All I said is I want Firefox 3.0 to be a native Windows NT application. And all I did is reply to one thread started by Timeless that specifically mentioned me. I also replied with my opinion about a threrad regarding the support for Windows 98/ME being ended by Microsoft.


I am just stating my opinion. And I am not the only one stating against Win9X. Jeremy also went in this thread and stated his opinion which didn't favor Win9X.

Untrue. You also threw and continue to throw abuse at the OS in this forum, labelling 9x a POS (which, I understand, is a euphemistic acronym for Piece of Sh*t) not once or twice, but three times in what is (at the time of writing) your rather pathetic, hate-filled signature. Your signature, full of abuse, shows up each time you post.

You constantly use the expression 'POS' in relation to 9x whenever you post anywhere on MSFN, let alone the 9x forums.

The intention behind that thread is totally regrettable. It has nothing to do with the point of these forums. Somehow appropriate for you, in that case. Stay there and post there to your snivelling heart's content, or better, leave these forums alone.



Untrue. You are not merely stating your opinion.

You are constantly throwing abuse. And when you do state your opinion, it's almost always besides the point of the topic/post in hand. The point of this post is to recruit skilled volunteers to maintain Firefox for 9x. The point of the other post you refer to is to see how much interest there is amongst 9x users in mounting an email campaign asking MS to continue supporting 9x. Neither of these post require, are contributed to or informed by your sulking hating and ultimately self-pitying posts. You contribute nothing.

Whatever you are doing here, you're doing the exact same thing constantly. Constantly. No doubt people here will speculate on your mental state, such is the undying intensity of your hate, and the doggedness with which you pursue its expression. You're like a broken machine, unable to adapt, fixed in a loop of hateful but ultimately pointless behaviour, forever.

Stop, Link21. What can you do? There's nothing you can do. We and millions of others continue to use 9x. We don't care about your opinion - as if that was ever in question! - but we're tired of your foul abuse. You stink the place out man. You would never have got this far were you to have aimed your tirades over the past months (years even!) at XP users in their forums. Moderators would have picked up on you way before now.



You are the only one I know of who has made it his mission to sidetrack, lampoon and hijack the posts in the 9x forums, for the sake of your own really rather stupid grievances. Even diehard XP users are embarrassed by your fanaticism.

The sun comes up and goes down. Life goes on. Accept it, and go away, finally.

Jeez, seems he really hates Win9x!

What does he get from bagging it out in his signature? Win9x WAS released. Build a bridge mate and get over it!

Do you think he's disgruntled because it was more popular than OS/2 warp?



I see Win9x as a utility. It has a job to do. Does it well enough on my machine, so let it be.


As for Firefox 3, if anyone has any programming ability, it would be awsome if we could keep a 9x branch running

I hope the moderators of MSFN.org Forums BAN Link21 from this site. what an absolute JERK he is. YEAH, you tell him bristols!

All right everyone, let's get back to business (and perhaps clean up the mess Link21 made in this thread).

I've checked the mozillaZine page and it mentions Firefox 2.0 beta 1. I'm beta testing FF 2.0b1 right now under WinME and WinXP [see, at least I like both 9x and NT versions of Windows]. FireFox 1.5.0.5 and Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 will be out in a few weeks.





not sure what Link21's problem is. he needs to have his head checked by a psychiatrist or something.

at least the un-installer for Firefox 2.0 beta 1 did work correctly under the Win98 and WinME machines that I have tested. wonderful!