JodyT

Member
  • Content count

    647
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

JodyT last won the day on September 13 2016

JodyT had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About JodyT

  • Rank
    All Set Until January 2023
  • Birthday 04/08/1970

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 8 x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

1,245 profile views
  1. @sdfox7 So what is life like now on Windows 2000? I take it you're using KernelEx to get Firefox 50x working, right? So can you reliably do banking, Facebook, Twitter? What BIG holes are there? I loved Windows 2000. Only Windows XP x64 Edition topped it for me. Last question, I promise. What hardware do you need to run so that Windows 2000 can run the newer software? I remember running Windows 2000 on a Pentium III 866 MHz, but that certainly wouldn't be enough today.
  2. Exactly. The closest would be Opera 12.10 (or maybe it's v10.12). I haven't tried K-Meleon versions but those are old too.
  3. Now I fully agree with your bolded statement, and by no means are updates a cure all, but I do believe it's best to install them.
  4. And how do you account for security patches since the last version? And don't cite the FUD theory. I no longer subscribe to that belief. Patches should be installed. Besides, the time it takes to install a browser upgrade didn't concern me in the least. I'm happy useragent spoofing fixes sites for you in about:config. I use that trick all of the time as well with Pale Moon. Facebook has been a source of endless trouble lately. So overrides have been necessary. I'm only saying we should set a standard as to what a "currently working browser" means. Just so we're on the same page.
  5. I thought they just didn't want to take the extra time because of the small user base.
  6. Apparently, the most recent engine and definition updates bring about a nag screen for end of support (but for XP ...lol - perhaps Microsoft was too lazy to change the displayed message for Vista users, as in both of them ) https://www.vistax64.com/system-security/304847-microsoft-security-essentials-begins-nag-january-10-a.html
  7. But that's what I mean though. Compatible should mean for the most part that you don't need to use spoofing or agent overrides. Compatible should mean out of the box. As it stands (for example), Firefox v51 is still fully compatible.
  8. What I wish could be revived is a really simple browser, like Arora. That was just a straightforward, classic looking browser. I remember QT-Web being nice too.
  9. I would say it be prudent to just stick with current browsers (where the going version is the product discussed). So only these would qualify. SeaMonkey v2.46 Firefox v51.x Cyberfox v51.x (although not officially supported, it fully works) Midori v0.5.11 Maxthon Cloud Browser v5 Lunascape v6.15 Dooble v1.56c Avant Browser 2016 (**** just don't use Trident ****) QupZilla v2.0.1 (the last release was six months ago - so try to confirm if this is currently active) For those wanting a native browser for Windows XP x64 Edition, Waterfox (which claims compatibility) hasn't run properly since v46.x, so that may now be a dud.
  10. This has to be unprecedented. I don't think when Windows Update was introduced for Windows 98, that Patch Tuesday was a thing yet. I think that part was established with Windows 2000. But I don't think that there has been a month for any Windows NT OS since then. This has to be a first.
  11. Uh .... OK! So for January 2017, other than the Adobe Flash Player Update (KB3214628), there is no security update for Windows 8.1 or any flavour of Windows Server 2012. Is there a precedent for this? I'm very surprised.
  12. I loaded up Opera 12.10 for fun a few days go. Besides some glitches, it works for the most part on this forum. And most sites were quite usable. So would that not work well enough for Win9x?
  13. On your Mac Pro, eh? Hmmmmm - does it run bare metal (I know that Macs run on Intels now), but is it really quick? Any compromises to be aware of? I admit, this sounds like a pet project right up my alley.
  14. Yeppers, I was aware of the IA64 builds of both XP and there was a released Windows 2000 Server for the IA64 architecture. I will agree, that Windows XP was just Windows 2000, save for new icons (I actually liked 2000's better), the firewall, visual styles and a few other things. Similarly, x64 was just a reworked Windows Server 2003. I love that OS though.
  15. I'd be inclined to seriously disagree. Yes Windows XP x64 Edition really needed to be mated with appropriate machinery to shine. But if you had a fully compatible machine, x64 Edition was a dream to work with. I'd say so much so that it redefined how I would look at using XP. If I had to go back and use it, I would ONLY use the x64 version. It was remarkably stable on my HP xw8200. You were lucky to never have a BSOD on the x86 version, though I admit I had very few.