rn10950

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

113 posts in this topic

How current is the browser for modern rendering?

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JodyT said:

How current is the browser for modern rendering?

:)

I've tried it myself and I find it mediocre personally. It will get the job done and all, but if you browse this website there will be glitches everywhere. I'm sure its a lot better than any browser for Windows 95 though :)
I appreciate the fact that someone on the internet is making an effort to improve web browsing on legacy OSes!

Edited by ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

RetroZilla is certainly a great project. I put it up on '98SE today, just to see it go. It does, but like FF 3.6 (etc.) it only renders the simplest web sites. FF 8.0.1 with KernelEx is far better.

A thought about priorities: Reading back over all the comments here, there's quite a bit about features, details of what RZ would support and so on. I would argue for going wide rather than detailed: Get RZ to the point where it runs on 9x in some manner -- with/without KEX, even under 98SE2ME, whatever BUT IT WILL RENDER IN A USEFUL MANNER VIRTUALLY EVERY SITE ON THE WEB. Tolerate a few glitches -- FF 47 that I'm running as I type this doesn't render MSFN correctly in every detail but it does get the job done.

The critical resource is the 9X user base -- at most a few 10's of thousands now. THERE IS NO BROWSER for those systems that will let you do even nearly all of the web routinely: 9X is thus a niche and 'I have this old software that won't run on ...' system. As time goes by, those users are going away and when they do they won't come back just because a do-all RZ has arrived.

I suppose one could write some sort of browser for Win 3.1. And when you got it going, how many copies would ever even be d/'led, let alone run? The user base is GONE -- and for very good reason.

Right now, FF 8.0.1 with KernelEx is the best I can find for 98SE. Opera versions I've tried render LESS though they seem quicker. But one of my tests for a browser is DISQUS comments, and FF 8 seems to hang attempting to load them.

Go broad -- get the maximum number of web sites MOSTLY working and you'll have a user base. 9X ARE good systems for many modern uses for the more techie among us. THEN work on feature details, fixes for small errors of rendering, and folding all the support (from KeX, etc.) inside.

We'll be eagerly awaiting RZ 3 and if it matches or betters FF 8 I'd guess a whole lot of us will put it into service the day it arrives.

Edited by waltah
Add stuff
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opera 12.10 runs in the backround only without the GUI on 98SE/ME if using Kext or iphlpapi4 on 98SE:( . I never read that somebody was able to run 12.10+ Presto. The snapshot 12.5 1538 is the latest that works without plugins.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Saturday, 17 December, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Dibya said:

Thanks I am going to put it for her.

Does that PC has SSE and with SSE driver installed?

I can't remove SSE dependency from QtWebKit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roytam1 said:

Does that PC has SSE and with SSE driver installed?

I can't remove SSE dependency from QtWebKit.

Yes it is Core 2 Quad

0

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.