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. 



~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~

List of Working Web Browsers on Windows 2000 & NT4

Recommended Posts

On 9/30/2017 at 4:54 AM, petrus said:

blackwingcat:

Maybe "New Moon", the unofficial XP version of Pale Moon, would be better for wunning on Windows 2000?

https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases

 

Or the direct link for: newmoon-27.5.0.win32.installer.exe
https://mega.nz/#!0OJAiCoL!gMHDffJ8Ha6vMJGErohEkZFraDnPfFHx7FlDZCUXLXM

 

Read blackwingcat's quote out loud trying to sound like Elmer Fudd.  Good for a giggle ...lol :P

So is New Moon running on Windows 2000?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JodyT said:

So is New Moon running on Windows 2000?

It is :).

Untitled.png.5ace30060d9bddb9bf92003b847d840b.png

Tested with the @blackwingcat's newest kernel and core.

By the way, the screen shot also shows how nasty and broken Web fonts rendering is without ClearType support. There is no fix because the majority of those fonts themselves are simply very poor quality (= have no proper hinting). I would STRONGLY suggest to block all Web fonts either through about:config or with addons like uBlock to get rid of the grayish and blurry text.

Just look at this:

a) Web fonts enabled

2017-10-02-00-51-47-5472360.png.3e2c640a583e83b230827cd0bc324341.png

b) Web fonts disabled

2017-10-02-00-51-55-1227508.png.98adf0ae655a0d455fb7f975d24c25ab.png

Which one is easier to read? :rolleyes: (make sure to set your browser's zoom level to 100% to really see how huge the difference is)

Here another issue shows up though which is a poor practice of using fonts for icons (instead of proper images) which get blocked too. I know that this is more of a forum software problem than something specific to MSFN only, but in my opinion there is really no excuse for resorting to hacky icon fonts instead of just using SVG icons (with a Javascript backed PNG fallback for older browsers).

Edited by tomasz86
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, font icons are horrible, protonmail uses them for example, and when you have fonts disabled, all you see is squares.

 

The original msfn forum design was also better, is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" no longer taught in schools?

 

And the phones should be made out of bakelite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, petrus said:

... is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" no longer taught in schools?

Naah, it is taught alright, the difference being that the pupils, being nowadays so spectacularly smarter than the teachers, simply ignore such advice.

Chesterton's Fence, JFYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 10:10 PM, Merlin2K said:

I re-read my post, and it does sound kinda rude. You don't deserve that. Sorry. I appreciate your help Stephen (I offered to pay, several times). Anyway, i think I am just mad that my system is gone and feel helpless to fix it. And no, I don't trust some stooge at the local computer stores around here. I've heard too many stories from friends over the years.

I ran the FIXBOOT, but not the FIXMBR since it came with a warning.

I did the update. It is my fault. Not blaming others. I just think the advice and encouragement to install this stuff is too casual and tempting to people like me who feel locked out of the modern pc footprint, and I was not prepared for the consequences. And I wanted instant answers since I got an instant catastrophe. How I responded to the bad experience was poor, but was still not as ugly as the outcome I received by attempting to upgrade.

I won't vent anymore about this.

This is late, but maybe you can buy a hard drive to usb adapter from ebay, then copy the whole hard drive onto another pc. I believe then you can access your important files you need.

Can someone test sdfox's chrome frame download onto Windows 2000? Upon attempting to install it on Windows ME, it said Windows 2000 SP4 was the minimal requirement. I tried to install it on Windows 2000 only to get an error from the installer. If this works, we have Chrome 32 on Vanilla Windows 2000!

Instructions provided by jumper
Ocra for MSI editing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~

Chrome Frame was released in September 2010, at a time when Windows XP had over 60% market share: https://web.archive.org/web/20100914220805/http://www.netmarketshare.com:80/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Google Chrome was still a new browser, being released in 2008. Chrome Frame was a way that corporations could trial Chrome without actually installing it. Also, Chrome Frame does NOT require administrative rights, so regular users could run it on their corporation's computers.

In comparison to Windows XP, Windows 2000 was already out of mainstream support when Chrome Frame was released, and only had 0.40% market share, so it's possible Google did not feel obligated to support it.

I don't believe Google Chrome Frame was ever officially supported on Windows 2000, but it may work unofficially with UURollup. I suspect it may, because old versions of Chromium (such as the last non-SSE 34 0 1847 0) work provided you have SP4 + UURollup. If Chromium works, Chrome Frame probably does, but I have not tested it.

Here is Chrome 34 running on Windows 2000:

chrome2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sdfox7 said:

@~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~

Chrome Frame was released in September 2010, at a time when Windows XP had over 60% market share: https://web.archive.org/web/20100914220805/http://www.netmarketshare.com:80/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Google Chrome was still a new browser, being released in 2008. Chrome Frame was a way that corporations could trial Chrome without actually installing it. Also, Chrome Frame does NOT require administrative rights, so regular users could run it on their corporation's computers.

In comparison to Windows XP, Windows 2000 was already out of mainstream support when Chrome Frame was released, and only had 0.40% market share, so it's possible Google did not feel obligated to support it.

I don't believe Google Chrome Frame was ever officially supported on Windows 2000, but it may work unofficially with UURollup. I suspect it may, because old versions of Chromium (such as the last non-SSE 34 0 1847 0) work provided you have SP4 + UURollup. If Chromium works, Chrome Frame probably does, but I have not tested it.

Here is Chrome 34 running on Windows 2000:

chrome2.jpg

I tried installing chromeframe on Vanilla W2k with no luck. The installer says an error occured...I think it could work (if dependencies aren't missing) as the installer does say on 9x Chromeframe is for W2k SP4 and later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2017 at 11:37 AM, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:

I tried installing chromeframe on Vanilla W2k with no luck. The installer says an error occured...I think it could work (if dependencies aren't missing) as the installer does say on 9x Chromeframe is for W2k SP4 and later.

From what I found out a few years ago (cannot quote any sources, unfortunately), Google Chrome was originally supposed to support Windows 2000 and above but ended up supporting only Windows XP and later. This is why Windows 2000 was and still may be mentioned in some places in the code (like in case of such errors). The browser itself has never worked in vanilla Windows 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tomasz86

That makes sense. I would think running anything modern on vanilla 2000 would be difficult. Sometimes it's hard enough getting modern stuff working on SP4 let alone SP0.

As I demonstrated in this thread, the current versions of Adobe Flash Player require SP4, the rollup, the UURollup. IE 5.5 is also required if you plan on being able to run the plug in, because IE5 is way too old.

Edited by sdfox7
(tested, IE 5.5 is required, not IE6, and DirectX 9 is not required)

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.

×