RSS feed reader

[98 Guy]

"Java classic works up to version 3.5.19. There is no known
workaround to run Java applets in Firefox 3.6 and higher on
Win ME/98."

On the more recent versions of java (version 1.6.x) they've created
something called "next generation Java Plug-in". It can be turned on or
off from the java control-panel applet (it's under the Advanced tab).

This "next-gen" thing is not compatible with win-98 (even with kernelEx)
so the check-box must be cleared.

I believe that starting with some version of Opera (10.something I
think) and (as already mentioned) version 3.6+ of firefox, that they
require the next-gen plugin to be enabled. So hence those browsers
won't have java functionality on a win-98 system.

I have JRE 1.6.0_30 currently installed on this system.

To test which version of java your system has, visit this page:

http://javatester.org/version.html

And while you're at it, visit this page to get your current flash
version and test it:

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html

Oh, and that FF 3.5 allegedly can't print, either
"You can't print from Firefox. Print Preview dialog may work fine,
* only some parts or blank page may be printed
* program may hang or crash

I have to admit that printing any web-page from FF 2.0.0.20 under win-98
is also hit-or miss.

But printing airline tickets and boarding passes always works ok.

[Bill in Co]

Post by 98 Guy

"Java classic works up to version 3.5.19. There is no known
workaround to run Java applets in Firefox 3.6 and higher on
Win ME/98."

On the more recent versions of java (version 1.6.x) they've created
something called "next generation Java Plug-in". It can be turned on or
off from the java control-panel applet (it's under the Advanced tab).
This "next-gen" thing is not compatible with win-98 (even with kernelEx)
so the check-box must be cleared.
I believe that starting with some version of Opera (10.something I
think) and (as already mentioned) version 3.6+ of firefox, that they
require the next-gen plugin to be enabled. So hence those browsers
won't have java functionality on a win-98 system.

Right.
And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was written
specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform, like Firefox (it's kind
of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC). I've found it to be a bit faster in
loading than FF, which makes sense. But FF may be a bit more compatible for
all websites, as might be expected.

Post by 98 Guy
I have JRE 1.6.0_30 currently installed on this system.
http://javatester.org/version.html
And while you're at it, visit this page to get your current flash
http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html

Oh, and that FF 3.5 allegedly can't print, either
"You can't print from Firefox. Print Preview dialog may work fine,
* only some parts or blank page may be printed
* program may hang or crash

I have to admit that printing any web-page from FF 2.0.0.20 under win-98
is also hit-or miss.

Well, that's not encouraging to hear, but I bet it works better than it
would if trying to do it in FF 3.5, for the reasons already mentioned.
Since I don't have a printer hooked up to the Win98 computer now I can't
confirm this.

Post by 98 Guy
But printing airline tickets and boarding passes always works ok.

Good to hear.

[98 Guy]

Post by Bill in Co
And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was
written specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform,
like Firefox (it's kind of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC).

I've messed a little with Palemoon, but found that I got the white-line
across bitmapped images while scrolling a page up and down (just like in
FF 3.x) so I didn't pursue it.

I've also tried a browser called "Avant" - which if I recall is based on
the IE rendering engine. At the time I had an older version of
KernelEx, and it almost worked (it seemed to fully load, but it then
crashed the system). If anyone is so inclined, and has the time, might
want to try it and see if they can get it working.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Bill in Co
And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was
written specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform,
like Firefox (it's kind of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC).

I've messed a little with Palemoon, but found that I got the white-line
across bitmapped images while scrolling a page up and down (just like in
FF 3.x) so I didn't pursue it.

If there is any 'smooth scrolling' or similar control, does the problem
persist if you switch it off?

Also, does it improve if you use a keyboard instead of a scrollwheel to
scroll? (ignore that if you don't use a wheelmouse...)

[Bill in Co]

Post by Lostgallifreyan

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Bill in Co
And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was
written specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform,
like Firefox (it's kind of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC).

I've messed a little with Palemoon, but found that I got the white-line
across bitmapped images while scrolling a page up and down (just like in
FF 3.x) so I didn't pursue it.

If there is any 'smooth scrolling' or similar control, does the problem
persist if you switch it off?
Also, does it improve if you use a keyboard instead of a scrollwheel to
scroll? (ignore that if you don't use a wheelmouse...)

I don't recall seeing some of those scrolling problems he's mentioned before
with FF 3.5.8 (similar to Pale Moon), so it may be at least partially unique
to his setup. Then again, I haven't spent tons of time investigating it.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by Bill in Co
I don't recall seeing some of those scrolling problems he's mentioned
before with FF 3.5.8 (similar to Pale Moon), so it may be at least
partially unique to his setup. Then again, I haven't spent tons of time
investigating it.

Maybe. I just metioned smooth scrolling because it's an example of something
that can change a line in ways that conflict with attepts to render its
pixels in more detail. The fact that it IS a line suggests scrolling anyway,
and most blank line errors I have seen were implicating a scroll method in
some way. Snap scrolling, the old and easy and fast way, is best, because
anythign more complex demands time, CPU power, risks poor rendering, etc. A
lot of web pages seem to impose their own (maybe JavaScripted) methods to
influence scrolling, so the ideal might be to fins a master override.

[Bill in Co]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Bill in Co
And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was
written specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform,
like Firefox (it's kind of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC).

I've messed a little with Palemoon, but found that I got the white-line
across bitmapped images while scrolling a page up and down (just like in
FF 3.x) so I didn't pursue it.
I've also tried a browser called "Avant" - which if I recall is based on
the IE rendering engine. At the time I had an older version of
KernelEx, and it almost worked (it seemed to fully load, but it then
crashed the system). If anyone is so inclined, and has the time, might
want to try it and see if they can get it working.

Yes, as I recall Avant was based on the IE engine, whereas Orca was not, at
least for the versions I tried. (all this on the XP computer). I'm not
sure you'd gain all that much by getting Avant to run, even if you could,
however.

I also tried installing Pale Moon 3.5, but it seemed to mess up my FF 3.5
setup as I recall, so I scrapped that (on the 98 computer).

I finally went back and tried FF 2.0 (from the backup image) and installing
an updated Flash (in my case, just to ver 10.3), but ran into more
difficulties than I did with FF 3.5 in doing this, of all things.

I think part of the extra difficulty was that FF 2.0 was even older than FF
3.5, so that added yet another layer of BS to wade through, since Flash ver
9 is the latest you can use on Win98 without KernelEx and some workarounds
(one of those I had to use was to disable the plugin compatibility checks,
in about:config, etc).

Plus I didn't like seeing that annoying "your browser is out of date"
message on some web sites. So I guess I'll leave it with FF 3.5.8.

[Bill in Co]

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Bill in Co
And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was
written specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform,
like Firefox (it's kind of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC).

I've messed a little with Palemoon, but found that I got the white-line
across bitmapped images while scrolling a page up and down (just like in
FF 3.x) so I didn't pursue it.

Maybe you should try FF 3.5.8 (not 3.6) once again just for a test ride and
see if you still get the same thing, as I don't recall seeing it. PLUS the
other poster said he'd heard of the same thing happen sometimes with FF 2.0,
at least as I recall.

The advantage of going to FF 3.5 is that it should work better on more sites
nowadays, although even it is pretty dated. So FF 2.0 is getting a bit long
on the tooth, just like IE6 is. (I still have IE6 on the Win98 computer but
it's limited in which sites I can still access properly anymore). And it's
all just going to get worse, I'm afraid.

I bet the day will soon come that unless you have a HTML5 compatible
browser, you'll be unable to access properly a lot of sites. But I'm really
not looking forward to that, as I'm getting tired of this "pretty much
forced on us" upgrade crapola. MS already did that with IE6 (can't run
anything higher on Win98 assuming you want to use a MS browser, which you
probably don't).

I've stopped at XP, and expect it to stay that way, for years to come. But
then again, I also spent countless hours (months?) beating and customizing
XP into submission, LOL. So it "looks" pretty much like my Win98SE
computer now, but with the added bonus of being able to run a few nice apps
that I can't even get to install and/or run on Win98SEeven with KernelEx
(and even at that, they are fairly old editions - I generally don't like the
newest bloatware stuff)