Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 

rn10950

RetroZilla: An updated version of Mozilla for Windows 95 and NT4 [2.0 RELEASED]

Recommended Posts

Drugwash    60

Just out of curiosity, what did they put in Firefox 14 that made you never want to upgrade?

Can't remember now, it's been a long time, but I vaguely recall a bunch of my favorite add-ons having stopped updating at this version back then, which made me stay with that version. I'm not saying it's the best or whatever. Actually someone really knowledgeable with web technology should assess the best browser version to be picked.

 

I agree, we should have an updated browser that don't requires unofficial packs, whether it be SP3, KEX, 982ME etc....

Not everyone use or want these packages installed on their systems.

 

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/152624-experimental-firefox-7-build-for-windows-98/

Indeed, such application as a browser can be critical for a system and it should be able to run without any additions.

However, it should be thoroughly tested so that it should also run correctly when any (and all) possible (un)official packages were to be installed on a given system. That is, full compatibility with or without (un)official upgrades.

 

The link you pointed to is about a modified version of Firefox 7 that still requires KernelEx (or has a problem with). I do have Firefox 9 on my 98SE machine and I know some 10 ESR version would work too (I tried such version for a very limited amount of time on another system, with some bad behavior). If someone managed to get Firefox 10 (or even 9) run on 98SE without needing KernelEx or other updated (ME/2000/XP/etc) system files, then that would be perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PROBLEMCHYLD    44

I was pointing out that Aurora was nice, I tested it in the past. Don't use it, self explanatory. To have a few options is what I was aiming @. rn10950 was talking possibly upgrading a firefox version, thought the link would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiKl    1

Personally I think it would be more useful - and maybe easier in the long run - to take a more recent version of a browser ....

 

Yes that would be nice especially now as NoScript also dropped support for older geckos but as I understand it it is rn's first goal to create an as up-to-date as possible browser for vanilla 9x's !! Once that is achieved (within reason) he can still take the next step with what KernelEx allows at that point. Right now it seems to be SeaMonkey 2.6.1.

Edited by MiKl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drugwash    60

It's about two different concepts: first is building from a bare old version up and the other is chopping off unwanted "features" from a mature product while trying to make it run natively without system "improvements".

I suggested the second as the features that would remain would have already been tested through time. Reimplementing them from scratch, especially for a one-man task, might be too difficult. But it's just a suggestion. Whatever works is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rn10950    103

I've considered building up from a newer Gecko, but the issue is that it won't build under VC6, and even if I can get it to build, it probably won't be compatible with 95/NT 4. For 98/Me, I recommend using 3.6 on KEx. One thing that I do want to clarify however is that RetroZilla is based off of SeaMonkey 1.1.19, which is the same Gecko as Firefox 2.0. If you modify the mozconfig file, you can build a version of Firefox 2.0 directly off of the RetroZilla source tree. (You can also build XULRunner, and if you add the Thunderbird code, you can probably build that too) I chose to build the Suite as default because it builds the browser and the mail application at the same time, so both can benefit from the enhancements in RZ-Gecko.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiKl    1

Interesting ! Firefox 2.0.0.20 already had a sessionstore system so it should be possible to port it over, shouldn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rn10950    103

Interesting ! Firefox 2.0.0.20 already had a sessionstore system so it should be possible to port it over, shouldn't it ?

 

I already got a working one based on an add-on in my development builds. Once I finish up on some other new features (may be a few weeks) it will be shipped out :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MiKl    1

O.K. can hardly wait. By the way, I think what Drugwash and I meant is that after you have reached a point where updating the old gecko does not make any sense any longer to then work on later versions.

Of course, you can't compile with VC6 then but most of us are on KEX anyway !!

Fixing the bookmark issue and maybe also that SM freezes in versions 2.7.x up to 2.9 would be just awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
timofonic    0

Just out of curiosity, what did they put in Firefox 14 that made you never want to upgrade?

Can't remember now, it's been a long time, but I vaguely recall a bunch of my favorite add-ons having stopped updating at this version back then, which made me stay with that version. I'm not saying it's the best or whatever. Actually someone really knowledgeable with web technology should assess the best browser version to be picked.

 

I agree, we should have an updated browser that don't requires unofficial packs, whether it be SP3, KEX, 982ME etc....

Not everyone use or want these packages installed on their systems.

 

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/152624-experimental-firefox-7-build-for-windows-98/

Indeed, such application as a browser can be critical for a system and it should be able to run without any additions.

However, it should be thoroughly tested so that it should also run correctly when any (and all) possible (un)official packages were to be installed on a given system. That is, full compatibility with or without (un)official upgrades.

 

The link you pointed to is about a modified version of Firefox 7 that still requires KernelEx (or has a problem with). I do have Firefox 9 on my 98SE machine and I know some 10 ESR version would work too (I tried such version for a very limited amount of time on another system, with some bad behavior). If someone managed to get Firefox 10 (or even 9) run on 98SE without needing KernelEx or other updated (ME/2000/XP/etc) system files, then that would be perfect.

 

 

I agree.

 

What about talking with Pale Moon developers? If you are the maintainer, I would see possibilities they would accept to support older systems.

 

I think extremely massive multiplatform and well managed projects have very interesting advantages:

- Robust and cleaner code: The code must compile on even older compilers. While this may reduce the possibilities of using latest syntactic sugar and nice additions, these "universal" features are often more universal and less prone to deal with compiler bugs or differences.

- More optimized code: Because the project has been adapted to run on older operating systems, they can potentially run on older computer systems too. These optimizations could even benefit newer platforms too!

- More debugged code: Because the software is able to run in a diverse range of platforms, there's more probabilities to find bugs. These bugs can be solved and iteratively improve stability of other systems if done properly.

 

My favorite example is ScummVM.

 

I even mentioned this forum in Pale Moon forums

 

I even mentioned this forum in Pale Moon forums

Edited by timofonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LoneCrusader    95

What about talking with Pale Moon developers? If you are the maintainer, I would see possibilities they would accept to support older systems.

While I would love to see this happen I highly doubt it would even be given any serious consideration. We just had a battle with the PaleMoon developers over the ins-and-outs of Windows XP support, which they have all but threatened to drop (again) if too many people using a "hack" they disapprove of try to get support. Also I read a post over at their forum once by someone who wanted to run PaleMoon on 2K, and he was given the standard Microsoft-esque response (old, outdated, insecure, bla, bla, bla). I can only imagine the rubbish that would be said about supporting 9x.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
timofonic    0

What about talking with Pale Moon developers? If you are the maintainer, I would see possibilities they would accept to support older systems.

While I would love to see this happen I highly doubt it would even be given any serious consideration. We just had a battle with the PaleMoon developers over the ins-and-outs of Windows XP support, which they have all but threatened to drop (again) if too many people using a "hack" they disapprove of try to get support. Also I read a post over at their forum once by someone who wanted to run PaleMoon on 2K, and he was given the standard Microsoft-esque response (old, outdated, insecure, bla, bla, bla). I can only imagine the rubbish that would be said about supporting 9x.

I think things maybe changed since then. The Atom build runs under XP too.

Here's a reply:

 

Why?

Why do you follow the mainstream way? There's rebels out there. Despite some may think, Pale Moon is a "rebel" project too.

The [highlight]rebel force[/highlight] is here dude: Go to grab the Atom flavor that is the official version for Windows XP now. :mrgreen: http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-atom.shtml

They also replied about it and seem positive about 3rd party builds. But they are going to the C++11 route. Is possible to build C++11 for Win95/98?

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=76562#p76562

Edited by timofonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dencorso    531

But they are going to the C++11 route. Is possible to build C++11 for Win95/98?

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=76562#p76562

 

If, by "C++11", you mean VC++ 2012, the answer is no, not at all. Even VC++ 2008 is already quite problematic...

You want to build Pale Moon for 9x/ME, it'll have to compile without a complaint with VC++ 6.0, or it's not worth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roytam1    18

does it have a faster javascript engine?

actually the biggest issue of fx2/sm1 is slow javascript execution.

 

And also NSS needs to be updated for TLS support.

Edited by roytam1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pionner    0

I really like your browser, but there is one problem.

 

On my W95C in 256 colors it look like this:

VZdTbt1.png

 

Original browser did look like it too. Can you fix it/add another theme for 256 colors?

 

Also I'm using .zip version, cause installer won't work on my PC.

Edited by pionner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drugwash    60

You may try editing the icon resources if you have a fair amount of computer knowledge, adding 256 color versions to the existing ones (which probably use 32-bit transparency). It also matters how the multiple images are stored in each icon. Better perform testing on a single icon and when you get to the desired solution apply it to all the others.

Share this post


Link to post
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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×