[thisis1984]

Hi there. I'm fairly new to this community and this is my first post I believe. So, Hi.

I have questions regarding what is the best and most modern browser to run on Win9x

I am aware and use Seamonkey95 provided by toastytech.com but I have recently discovered that Opera actually supported 9x for quite some time after that. I am also aware of and use KernelEx and all that entails but am wonding what is the best I could get without the use of KernelEx. I have conclude that is Opera 10. So...

10.10 will run on 98 and up according to oldapps

according to old apps 10.61, 10.62, and final update 10.63 require ME but that does not make much sense since 10.61 contains an update specific to Windows 98 compatibility.

I have read elsewhere that 10.63 runs only on 98 IF a certain system file is replaced with on from WinME.

SO... I am fairly confused. Naturally I want to run the latest version I can but all of these factors are confusing me. This is primarily for a friend who is leery about installing kernelex. My machine already has KernelEx and I am running 11.64 on it and really don't want to have to uninstall it and break things testing around for hours testing different versions.

Can anyone shed any light on this for me.

Will 10.63 run on Windows 95? 98 first edition 98se? If so what would I have to do in order to achieve this?

thx

[LoneCrusader]

Welcome to MSFN!

I know you asked specifically about Opera, but since you asked about "modern browsers" for 9x I'll add this.

Firefox 2.0.0.20 can be run on all Windows 9x without KernelEx, etc. It's not quite as "new" as the last builds of Opera that supported 9x, but it's miles ahead of IE6.
(Running FF2 under 95 requires manual deletion of 2 files before running Firefox, if you need to know more about that, I will elaborate, instructions elsewhere are confusing and take many unnecessary steps.)

I don't use Opera and I'm not a fan of it, so I can't help you on that specifically.

This post has been edited by LoneCrusader: 15 January 2013 - 01:42 PM

[dencorso]

dencorso, on 18 February 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Opera 10.10, runs OK without need of KernelEx (but don't forget to disable auto-updates asap, on the first run).
It's the minimum one must have to get around the web.

[shae]

Welcome thisis.

v10.63 works for me on 98SE. No KernelEx, no ME DLLs (that I'm aware of). It might need the latest IE6 updates for some DLLs, but that's just conjecture. The only oddity is that semi-transparent GUI elements look wrong, but it's not a big deal.

This post has been edited by shae: 15 January 2013 - 09:20 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

shae, on 15 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

The only oddity is that semi-transparent GUI elements look wrong, but it's not a big deal.

That because you don't have MSIMG32.DLL 5.0.2218.1 from WinME

[Foxbat]

shae, on 15 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

The only oddity is that semi-transparent GUI elements look wrong, but it's not a big deal.

loblo made an awesome set of Opera skins to solve this specific problem a few years ago. See this thread: http://www.msfn.org/...opera-10506070/
Download the appropriate file for your version of Opera. MSIMG32.DLL from Windows ME is not required, but without it, you won't get the most out of these skins.

[LostInSpace2012]

The newest browsers that work on Windows 98 or ME without KernelEx:

Opera 10.63 (Octoboer 12 2010)

*requires Microsoft Installer version 2.0. This is the only system file you need to install, to my knowledge. Usually KernelEx will connect with the Microsoft website automatically. It used to be available for free, but in the last few months they've been removing older stuff like that. The actual file name is "InstMsiA.exe" and is 1.62 MB in size. Probably a good file to keep for posterity, as I'm sure Microsoft will eventually remove it. Opera on Win9x won't install without it.)

SeaMonkey 1.1.19 (March 16, 2010)

K-Meleon 1.5.4 (March 5, 2010)

Firefox 2.0.0.20 (December 18 2008)

Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.6 (February 20 2008)

Internet Explorer 6.0 service pack 1 (2000-2001 ??)

IMO, SeaMonkey and K-Meleon are the last good browsers for Win9x without Kernelex.
................
With KernelEx you can use newer browsers, but on dial-up internet connection they're practically worthless and actually slower than the older browsers. I speak from personal experience. I occasionally will use Opera 11.x because it has turbo mode for slower connections.

When using Kernelex, anything past Firefox 3.5 and you run into printing and bookmarking problems... and who knows what else. I also recommend turning Javascript off in whatever browser you use, since even the KernelEx browsers are out of date now.

Hope this helps

This post has been edited by LostInSpace2012: 17 January 2013 - 04:28 AM

[Nomen]

I have Opera version 12.02 running on this win-98 system (with kernelex). It thinks it's running on win-2k. I don't use it very much. I use FF 2.0.0.20 as my primary browser.

PROBLEMCHYLD wrote:

> > The only oddity is that semi-transparent GUI elements look wrong, but it's not a big deal.
> That because you don't have MSIMG32.DLL 5.0.2218.1 from WinME

I have the original version of MSIMG32.DLL (5.00.1693.1) in my windows/system directory, but I have version 5.00.2218.1 (KernelEx special version) in my windows/KernelEx directory. Should the newer version be in my /system directory?

[jumper]

Nomen, if Opera is running in KernelEx's Win2K mode, then it is using the 5.00.2218.1 (KernelEx special version) from your Windows/KernelEx directory. Only apps for which Kex is disabled entirely will use the Windows\System version. The KernelEx special version doesn't seem to have any non-standard dependencies, so you might be able to put it into Windows\System for use by non-Kex apps.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Nomen, on 16 January 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

I have Opera version 12.02 running on this win-98 system (with kernelex). It thinks it's running on win-2k. I don't use it very much. I use FF 2.0.0.20 as my primary browser.

PROBLEMCHYLD wrote:

> > The only oddity is that semi-transparent GUI elements look wrong, but it's not a big deal.
> That because you don't have MSIMG32.DLL 5.0.2218.1 from WinME

I have the original version of MSIMG32.DLL (5.00.1693.1) in my windows/system directory, but I have version 5.00.2218.1 (KernelEx special version) in my windows/KernelEx directory. Should the newer version be in my /system directory?

You can add the MSIMG32.DLL 5.0.2218.1 from WinME. DoNOT replace the original Win98/ME with the KernelEx stub version. This has to be one of the most uncommon things I ever heard, replacing a original file with a stub. Xeno86 knew what he was doing, thats why he created the KEX directory for his stubs. Original system files should not be replaced by stubs.

[Nomen]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 18 January 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

You can add the MSIMG32.DLL 5.0.2218.1 from WinME. DoNOT replace the original Win98/ME with the KernelEx stub version.

Yea, ok, I see that the stub is only 8kb.
Is this the correct / actual version number for the winME version:

5.00.2218.1 (Lab06_N(PRAVINSDEV).000328-1149)

Looks strange...

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Nomen, on 18 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

Yea, ok, I see that the stub is only 8kb.
Is this the correct / actual version number for the winME version:

5.00.2218.1 (Lab06_N(PRAVINSDEV).000328-1149)

Looks strange...

Yes, it official

[jumper]

>Original system files should not be replaced by stubs.
Agreed! Fortunately, the KernelEx version (written by Tihiy, not Xeno86) is full-featured, not stubs.

The three key functions in MSIMG32.dll are:

* AlphaBlend
* GradientFill
* TransparentBlt

Tihiy's version (7.5KB) contains nearly complete implementation of all three functions and fixes visible rendering problems that can be seen when some apps use the standard SE or ME versions.

The XP version [5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158)] is smaller (4.5KB) because it passes most of the work to XP's version of GDI32.dll (GdiAlphaBlend, GdiGradientFill, GdiTransparentBlt--not available in 4.10.1998/4.10.2227 for SE) with just a bit of modification to AlphaBlend.

The SE and ME versions are larger (52KB), perhaps because they are unoptimized, debug versions. If anyone knows of (or wants to write) a test app to compare MSIMG32 feature compatibility, fidelity, and speed, we could determine whether Tihiy's version is indeed the best to use globally.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

jumper, on 20 January 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

>Original system files should not be replaced by stubs.
Agreed! Fortunately, the KernelEx version (written by Tihiy, not Xeno86) is full-featured, not stubs.

The three key functions in MSIMG32.dll are:

* AlphaBlend
* GradientFill
* TransparentBlt

Tihiy's version (7.5KB) contains nearly complete implementation of all three functions and fixes visible rendering problems that can be seen when some apps use the standard SE or ME versions.

The XP version [5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158)] is smaller (4.5KB) because it passes most of the work to XP's version of GDI32.dll (GdiAlphaBlend, GdiGradientFill, GdiTransparentBlt--not available in 4.10.1998/4.10.2227 for SE) with just a bit of modification to AlphaBlend.

The SE and ME versions are larger (52KB), perhaps because they are unoptimized, debug versions. If anyone knows of (or wants to write) a test app to compare MSIMG32 feature compatibility, fidelity, and speed, we could determine whether Tihiy's version is indeed the best to use globally.

I am up for the challenge far as testing.

[jumper]

I did some more testing and found that Opera only uses MSIMG32's AlphaBlend function, and only for displaying icons in menus and the Minimize/Restore/Maximize/Close buttons on child-window menu bars.

I didn't see any rendering problems with any of the three versions of MSIMG32 (SE, ME, KernelEx). The skin I use (like most skins) has custom icons and buttons prerendered to blend with matching backgrounds.

Even on the Bookmarks menu which is full of icons, rendering speed was fast for all versions with no lag on my 735MHz C3 processor. And I was adding much overhead per icon by redirecting (and logging) each call to AlphaBlend via Kexstubs!

So, the good news for Opera users is that any of these versions can be used. There should be no performance issues unless maybe a system has an early Pentium or slower. Use the "[User Prefs]Show MSIMG32 Warning=0" setting in "operaprefs.ini" on Win9x less than ME to avoid the need to upgrade. Use the ME or KernelEx version if you notice icon or button rendering issues.

I was unable to find a test program to benchmark either MSIMG32's AlphaBlend, GradientFill, and TransparentBlt, or GDI32's GdiAlphaBlend, GdiGradientFill, and GdiTransparentBlt. If and when I do write such a program myself, I'll let PROBLEMCHYLD be head tester!

Footnote: I also tried redirecting AlphaBlend to GDI32:GdiAlphaBlend from W2K and ReactOS with no luck....

[technoid]

Opera 10.63 is my best browser in a non-KernelEx 98SE system. Before, I was using Firefox 2.0.0.20 and K-Meleon 1.54, and IE6, but all these had their quirks. FF felt bloaty and took awhile to load. KM just couldn't handle Javascript and kept freezing on some websites, even this one at MSFN. And IE6 was just too 'old'. I haven't really been using Seamonkey 1.1.19. so can't comment on it, but I know it's sort of a successor of the last Mozilla'd NetScape I think (NS was my fave browser in the late 1990's).

So far Opera 10.63 has been handling all the websites pretty easily, especially on this old system I'm typing this up on, a Socket 7 with a 400MHz AMD K6-III and 256MB PC66 dimm memory. Yes, due to the 'slow' CPU, it chugs along. Can't play Youtube or anything like that, but we only mostly use it for surfing and MS Office 97 stuff, because I'm on dialup.

Since I have the skins set to 'Windows Native Skin', I haven't had the need for any of the updated msimg32's. Skins, even with Revolutions Pack, can sometimes slow things down just a touch on 400MHz, so I also have that set to classic desktop theme in RP.

Here's a post I made about a couple months ago about Opera (starting at post #821):
http://www.msfn.org/...ost__p__1019260

I've also migrated to the latest Opera (currently ver 12.14) on my XP and Seven systems. The main advantage that Opera has apart from other popular browsers (including in 10.63), is the Turbo mode, which compresses images, etc. This makes things even faster, especially on dial-up. Netzero, the popular dialup ISP which I use, had this feature first years ago, but you had to shell out a few more extra bucks (USD) per month to use that feature. I've never tried it, but these days in the last few years with Opera's Turbo, it's all free anyway. Because of this turbo mode, among other things, I've never really gone back to current Firefox, IE, et al. Firefox was my browser of choice in the ~2002-2007 range, iirc.

In summary, I like 10.63 because it handles javascript well, makes good use of pc's memory (i.e. not bloaty and slow) and has the compression feature. And I don't really use KernelEx. It was sad when v11.00 and up couldn't work in 98SE natively anymore.

[vinifera]

dencorso said:

Opera 10.10, runs OK without need of KernelEx
It's the minimum one must have to get around the web.

just for history sake

actually version 9.8 is minimum, it was 1st to pass acid 3
it was released for VERY short period of time, internally called wingogi
it was developer test version, has minimal UI (nothing fancy) - you can see it here http://timaltman.com.../acid3_full.png

This post has been edited by vinifera: 06 February 2013 - 07:10 AM