Windows 95 OSR2 was far more stable than the initial release of Windows 98.
"Internet integration" was a sham, and it amazes me that people defend it. For the record, it was technologically possible to remove IE from Windows 95. Windows 98's "integration" ruined the modularity and usability of the system, and occurred for no reason other than to circumvent anti-trust stipulations and increase the penetration of Internet Explorer by any and all means necessary. We're still paying for that today.
I remember Netscape 4. In fact, I was using it semi-regularly (albeit on my Windows 3.1 computer) as late as 2003.
Although it wasn't quite as lightweight as Netscape 3 (which was undoubtedly their high-water mark), it was generally stable and ran just fine on a 486. It had none of the security issues that Internet Explorer 4 invited by going above and beyond the definition of what a web browser should do. If it crashed, it seldom took the whole system down with it as IE would always do. It didn't take the entire system hostage. It left the Windows shell well enough alone. It was uninstallable, like a normal application. Its rendering capability was no worse than IE 4's. (If it seems worse now--and frankly, most people haven't used IE 4 in years so they don't really know--that's only because IE got ahead of it in rendering capability after Netscape had its air supply cut off and was in a mad scramble to do anything other than fade away without a trace.)
It was a more robust browser than IE 4 in practically every way. And if Netscape had been able to develop the software in a more natural manner (a la version 1-3) without a monopolist breathing fire at their heels with blatantly-illegal marketing practices, I'm sure it would have been better still.
(And before you claim that IE won the Macintosh market "fair and square," remember that Microsoft threatened to discontinue Office for the Mac if Apple didn't bundle IE as the default browser on its systems.)
Assuming it matches the rest of the laptop, black permanent marker works in a pinch. It worked on the Dell that I've been trying (painfully) to convert to a workable Linux system.
In any case, "Windows" is a key that I've personally found to be as useful as "Sys Rq"...
The difference, of course, is that recent Firefox releases are quite a bit better in terms of features, usability, rendering capabilities, and stability than Netscape Communicator 4.51 and the then-sub-prototypical Netscape 5/Mozilla Milestone 4 were ten years ago. I can think of no like advantage Windows Vista has over Windows 2000.
Let's get this straight: "Raise the minimum requirements to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher," with no benefit, and no rationale other than for breaking compatibility for its own sake? If that's the case, I venture to say that Mozilla has seriously lost its way.
So, Microsoft ditched support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP pre-SP2? So what; the APIs are just the same now as they always have been. If anything, Mozilla should focus more attention to catering to users of OS versions that Microsoft left behind, where they have less competition...and chances are, the users of Windows 2000 are still using the OS that they are because they're frustrated with Microsoft's "support" policies and the further regressions (performance and usability issues, product activation) posed by newer versions of its products.
I'm seriously still bitter about them breaking compatibility with Windows 95 and NT4 a few versions back: One consequence was that the current version of Firefox was no longer capable of running off a version of Windows not unremovably inundated with Internet Explorer and its ilk. Short of a miracle of penetration from the Linux camp, how are we going to wean people off of a steady consumption of upgraded Microsoft products when we get attitudes and potential decisions like this?
Just for what it's worth, I use Firefox on Windows 95 myself, and have no plans to "upgrade" to another version. (Of Windows, that is. Linux, on the other hand...)
I'm generally in favor of metrication and the use of metric units, but the issue of temperature is a key exception. The Fahrenheit scale is more precise, and its zero-to-100 degree range more realistically covers the spectrum of what one would typically see on a weather report.
I sometimes wonder why Celsius is considered a metric measure to begin with: It predates the advent of the modern metric system itself. Its zero-degree reference point is just as arbitrary as Fahrenheit's in the big scheme of things. And, the measure doesn't employ metric prefixes (although I suppose they could conceivably be appropriated for the purpose).
The official Flash 8 and 9 plugins will not run on Windows 95 or NT4...and thanks to backwards-incompatible changes, content developed for Flash 8 or 9 often will not display with Flash 7.
If the specifications are opened, I imagine it would be possible for a third party to write a Flash 8/9-compatible plugin capable of running on Windows 95/NT4 systems. (Or at least, I'd like to think so, odds of it actually happening to the contrary...)
I prefer Paintbrush (the Windows 3.1 incarnation) myself: It's the most usable pixel-arranging tool I've found thus far; with intuitive, scalable controls and the capability of moving the cursor around with the arrow keys, which is great for real precise movements.
In an analogy similar to what has happened many times before or since, Paintbrush was licensed to Microsoft by a company called Zsoft, which seemed to conveniently disappear after that. I wonder what happened to them: An updated version of Paintbrush with a few more features would have been a fine thing to have.
I don't know about you, but I'd MUCH rather have parallel, serial, PS/2, and IDE connectors--which are backwards-compatible with most everything and do what they are meant to do well--than a half-dozen more USB or FireWire ports that don't even correspond to any devices that I personally use.
USB keyboards require special drivers and offer no interface-speed advantages unless you type at superhuman speeds.
Netscape 4 didn't "kill" Netscape in the popular conscience. The five year gap between it and Netscape 7 did. Netscape 5 was skipped, version 6 was a glorifed beta, and version 4 got WAY long in the tooth. Even so, I used it sporadically myself well into 2003!
Netscape 4 was slower than Netscape 3. However, so were IE 4 and IE 5, and they were hardly lightweights in any sense of the term...especially when your computer had to labor twice as long at startup to bring all of IE 4/5's web-integrated "shell enhancements" to boot...if anything, IE was more sluggish at rendering. As for bugs, the later versions (i.e., 4.08 and 4.6-4.8) were much more stable than the earlier ones, and Netscape crashes seldom if ever brought down the whole system in the way IE's did.
As for Netscape 4 being a security nightmare, how was that so? It didn't contain ActiveX. It wasn't tied stock and barrel to the OS like IE was. If Netscape 4 did in fact have rampant security issues in its era, I certainly didn't hear a word about them at the time.
Part of the problem with Apple's repair policies is that they're too centered around their own retail stores as a hub of action.
If you DON'T have an Apple Store anywhere nearby, you have to juggle phone calls and shipping cartons to the nth degree for days on end when your Mac breaks, which was exactly what happened when my iBook G4 broke without explanation three weeks in.
The stat is completely useless for accurate comparisons.
In 1983, CDs were a brand-new technology just on the market, they were hard to find, the only factories that pressed them were located in Japan and West Germany, and they commanded a substantial premium over the records and tapes that by and large made up the majority of the market at the time.
"The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union supports...Netscape Navigator 6 and higher...Firefox...will be supported with a minimal of functionalities."
Statements like this make my blood boil slightly from time to time.
Mozilla Firefox should FALL UNDER "Netscape Navigator 6 and higher" as far as any site is concerned: It's a continuation as far as technology and popularity go.
I'm a Windows 95 user, and have been seriously contemplating a transition to Linux in the future. IE "integration," frivolous eye candy, and activation schemes turned me off permanently to later versions of Windows, and a Mac proved to be too unconfigurable and unsuitable for my work.
While I don't care for Windows 98 or ME, it wouldn't surprise me if many users of these OSes were thinking the same things.
Why on earth would you want to give Windows 95 and NT 4.0 "active-desktop" features? They ruin performance, usability, and stability while adding no functionality. In fact, one of the incentives for USING Windows 95 and NT 4.0 then and now would be the LACK of "active desktop."
Slashdot Mirror
Windows 95 OSR2 was far more stable than the initial release of Windows 98.
"Internet integration" was a sham, and it amazes me that people defend it. For the record, it was technologically possible to remove IE from Windows 95. Windows 98's "integration" ruined the modularity and usability of the system, and occurred for no reason other than to circumvent anti-trust stipulations and increase the penetration of Internet Explorer by any and all means necessary. We're still paying for that today.
I remember Netscape 4. In fact, I was using it semi-regularly (albeit on my Windows 3.1 computer) as late as 2003.
Although it wasn't quite as lightweight as Netscape 3 (which was undoubtedly their high-water mark), it was generally stable and ran just fine on a 486.
It had none of the security issues that Internet Explorer 4 invited by going above and beyond the definition of what a web browser should do.
If it crashed, it seldom took the whole system down with it as IE would always do.
It didn't take the entire system hostage. It left the Windows shell well enough alone. It was uninstallable, like a normal application.
Its rendering capability was no worse than IE 4's. (If it seems worse now--and frankly, most people haven't used IE 4 in years so they don't really know--that's only because IE got ahead of it in rendering capability after Netscape had its air supply cut off and was in a mad scramble to do anything other than fade away without a trace.)
It was a more robust browser than IE 4 in practically every way. And if Netscape had been able to develop the software in a more natural manner (a la version 1-3) without a monopolist breathing fire at their heels with blatantly-illegal marketing practices, I'm sure it would have been better still.
(And before you claim that IE won the Macintosh market "fair and square," remember that Microsoft threatened to discontinue Office for the Mac if Apple didn't bundle IE as the default browser on its systems.)
Assuming it matches the rest of the laptop, black permanent marker works in a pinch. It worked on the Dell that I've been trying (painfully) to convert to a workable Linux system.
In any case, "Windows" is a key that I've personally found to be as useful as "Sys Rq"...
The difference, of course, is that recent Firefox releases are quite a bit better in terms of features, usability, rendering capabilities, and stability than Netscape Communicator 4.51 and the then-sub-prototypical Netscape 5/Mozilla Milestone 4 were ten years ago. I can think of no like advantage Windows Vista has over Windows 2000.
Let's get this straight: "Raise the minimum requirements to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher," with no benefit, and no rationale other than for breaking compatibility for its own sake? If that's the case, I venture to say that Mozilla has seriously lost its way.
So, Microsoft ditched support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP pre-SP2? So what; the APIs are just the same now as they always have been. If anything, Mozilla should focus more attention to catering to users of OS versions that Microsoft left behind, where they have less competition...and chances are, the users of Windows 2000 are still using the OS that they are because they're frustrated with Microsoft's "support" policies and the further regressions (performance and usability issues, product activation) posed by newer versions of its products.
I'm seriously still bitter about them breaking compatibility with Windows 95 and NT4 a few versions back: One consequence was that the current version of Firefox was no longer capable of running off a version of Windows not unremovably inundated with Internet Explorer and its ilk. Short of a miracle of penetration from the Linux camp, how are we going to wean people off of a steady consumption of upgraded Microsoft products when we get attitudes and potential decisions like this?
(Er, make that uber-bundling!)
Has anyone forgotten how people went about getting browsers before IE ber-bundling existed?
Just as a side note...if you use Windows 95, there's no reason to have Internet Explorer (5.x or otherwise) installed at all.
Not to digress, but how was the mandatory Internet Explorer integration of Windows 98 a "slightly less painful experience for the end user?"
Just for what it's worth, I use Firefox on Windows 95 myself, and have no plans to "upgrade" to another version. (Of Windows, that is. Linux, on the other hand...)
I'm generally in favor of metrication and the use of metric units, but the issue of temperature is a key exception. The Fahrenheit scale is more precise, and its zero-to-100 degree range more realistically covers the spectrum of what one would typically see on a weather report.
I sometimes wonder why Celsius is considered a metric measure to begin with: It predates the advent of the modern metric system itself. Its zero-degree reference point is just as arbitrary as Fahrenheit's in the big scheme of things. And, the measure doesn't employ metric prefixes (although I suppose they could conceivably be appropriated for the purpose).
The official Flash 8 and 9 plugins will not run on Windows 95 or NT4...and thanks to backwards-incompatible changes, content developed for Flash 8 or 9 often will not display with Flash 7.
If the specifications are opened, I imagine it would be possible for a third party to write a Flash 8/9-compatible plugin capable of running on Windows 95/NT4 systems. (Or at least, I'd like to think so, odds of it actually happening to the contrary...)
I guess Microsoft should be raked over the coals for putting Trumpet Winsock out of business too?
You could remove the dial-up networking functionality through the Add/Remove Programs dialogue of Windows 95. You couldn't remove Internet Explorer.
I prefer Paintbrush (the Windows 3.1 incarnation) myself: It's the most usable pixel-arranging tool I've found thus far; with intuitive, scalable controls and the capability of moving the cursor around with the arrow keys, which is great for real precise movements.
In an analogy similar to what has happened many times before or since, Paintbrush was licensed to Microsoft by a company called Zsoft, which seemed to conveniently disappear after that. I wonder what happened to them: An updated version of Paintbrush with a few more features would have been a fine thing to have.
I don't know about you, but I'd MUCH rather have parallel, serial, PS/2, and IDE connectors--which are backwards-compatible with most everything and do what they are meant to do well--than a half-dozen more USB or FireWire ports that don't even correspond to any devices that I personally use.
USB keyboards require special drivers and offer no interface-speed advantages unless you type at superhuman speeds.
Windows has been a virtual billboard since IE 4/Windows 98. Remember the advertiser-branded Channel Bar and IE logos in every corner?
Netscape 4 didn't "kill" Netscape in the popular conscience. The five year gap between it and Netscape 7 did. Netscape 5 was skipped, version 6 was a glorifed beta, and version 4 got WAY long in the tooth. Even so, I used it sporadically myself well into 2003!
Netscape 4 was slower than Netscape 3. However, so were IE 4 and IE 5, and they were hardly lightweights in any sense of the term...especially when your computer had to labor twice as long at startup to bring all of IE 4/5's web-integrated "shell enhancements" to boot...if anything, IE was more sluggish at rendering. As for bugs, the later versions (i.e., 4.08 and 4.6-4.8) were much more stable than the earlier ones, and Netscape crashes seldom if ever brought down the whole system in the way IE's did.
As for Netscape 4 being a security nightmare, how was that so? It didn't contain ActiveX. It wasn't tied stock and barrel to the OS like IE was. If Netscape 4 did in fact have rampant security issues in its era, I certainly didn't hear a word about them at the time.
Part of the problem with Apple's repair policies is that they're too centered around their own retail stores as a hub of action.
If you DON'T have an Apple Store anywhere nearby, you have to juggle phone calls and shipping cartons to the nth degree for days on end when your Mac breaks, which was exactly what happened when my iBook G4 broke without explanation three weeks in.
The stat is completely useless for accurate comparisons.
In 1983, CDs were a brand-new technology just on the market, they were hard to find, the only factories that pressed them were located in Japan and West Germany, and they commanded a substantial premium over the records and tapes that by and large made up the majority of the market at the time.
"The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union supports...Netscape Navigator 6 and higher...Firefox...will be supported with a minimal of functionalities."
Statements like this make my blood boil slightly from time to time. Mozilla Firefox should FALL UNDER "Netscape Navigator 6 and higher" as far as any site is concerned: It's a continuation as far as technology and popularity go.
Will Firefox 3 be capable of running on Windows NT 4.0?
Regardless of whether or not their implementation is "proper," animations are annoying to myself either way.
I'm a Windows 95 user, and have been seriously contemplating a transition to Linux in the future. IE "integration," frivolous eye candy, and activation schemes turned me off permanently to later versions of Windows, and a Mac proved to be too unconfigurable and unsuitable for my work.
While I don't care for Windows 98 or ME, it wouldn't surprise me if many users of these OSes were thinking the same things.
Why on earth would you want to give Windows 95 and NT 4.0 "active-desktop" features? They ruin performance, usability, and stability while adding no functionality. In fact, one of the incentives for USING Windows 95 and NT 4.0 then and now would be the LACK of "active desktop."
At least the mushy blurriness of CGA monitors helped somewhat to disguise the jaggedness of the 320x200 or 640x200 resolutions. :-)