Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

RetroZilla: An updated version of Mozilla for Windows 95 and NT4

- - - - - retrozilla mozilla nt4 95 windows 95 windows nt browser

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#26
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,513 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Deleting history.dat and cookies does NOT clear Location Bar History. This might be an issue for users who share computers. Another issue it that passwords can be seen in Password Manager. Is there a way to encrypt or add a way so that it is not viewed incase one is snooping around. Add a login feature to view it or something. IDK


Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
ZortMcGort11

ZortMcGort11

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • Joined 20-August 12
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

If you click on Edit -> Preferences -> Privacy & Security.... then there is a box there for checking "remember passwords." I always un-check that box.

I'm on a shared computer, and that's what I've always done to ensure nobodys passwords magically appear at every log in screen.

Edited by ZortMcGort11, 10 January 2016 - 06:33 AM.


#28
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Personally I think it would be more useful - and maybe easier in the long run - to take a more recent version of a browser that already has certain much-needed options implemented and patch the code so that it can be run on 95/NT4/98/98SE/ME (without the need of KernelEx or other unofficial fixes).

I myself am running Firefox 13 on XP-SP4 and not going to move away from it ever. If that version (and compatible add-ons) could be made to run in 9x it would be perfect.

Actually it would be perfect if it didn't require that much memory in the first place.

 

(typo)


Edited by Drugwash, 10 January 2016 - 06:37 AM.


#29
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,513 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Disregard the post, feature already implemented. Thanks

Setting a Master Password encrypts your passwords.

 

@ Drugwash

 

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/...for-windows-98/


Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD, 10 January 2016 - 06:52 AM.

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#30
ZortMcGort11

ZortMcGort11

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 643 posts
  • Joined 20-August 12
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I myself am running Firefox 13 on XP-SP4 and not going to move away from it ever.


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

#31
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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/...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.



#32
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,513 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
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.

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#33
MiKl

MiKl

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined 01-December 11
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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, 10 January 2016 - 02:32 PM.


#34
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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.



#35
rn10950

rn10950

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined 28-January 15
  • OS:2003 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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.


  • PROBLEMCHYLD likes this

#36
MiKl

MiKl

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined 01-December 11
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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



#37
rn10950

rn10950

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined 28-January 15
  • OS:2003 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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 :-)



#38
MiKl

MiKl

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Joined 01-December 11
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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.



#39
timofonic

timofonic
  • Member
  • 6 posts
  • Joined 07-February 10

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/...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, 29 January 2016 - 09:08 PM.


#40
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 978 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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.
  • Tommy likes this

#41
timofonic

timofonic
  • Member
  • 6 posts
  • Joined 07-February 10

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....moon-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.palemo...?p=76562#p76562

Edited by timofonic, 29 January 2016 - 10:11 PM.


#42
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,387 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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

https://forum.palemo...?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.



#43
roytam1

roytam1

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts
  • Joined 16-April 07

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, 01 February 2016 - 10:20 PM.


#44
pionner

pionner
  • Member
  • 3 posts
  • Joined 26-June 13
  • OS:Windows 8 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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, Yesterday, 08:30 AM.


#45
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

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.



#46
pionner

pionner
  • Member
  • 3 posts
  • Joined 26-June 13
  • OS:Windows 8 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

All right. I fixed it.

 

VHVRb6k.png

 

I wrote small program (.NET 4.0, so it won't work on 9X) which adds fixed background to all images in theme.

 

Q6LRgzD.png

 

You can download theme for default windows 95 colors, or use my program to put your color to background (use original classic theme, not modified one).

Theme: http://pionner.org/other/classic.jar

Program: http://pionner.org/other/bg.exe

Source: http://pionner.org/other/bg.zip

 

I suggest adding my "fixed" theme into program as one of default themes (named eg. Classic for 256 colors).







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: retrozilla, mozilla, nt4, 95, windows 95, windows nt, browser

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users