I'm surprised Internet Explorer 4 and/or Windows 98 didn't make it to the list. It introduced the concept of "web integration," and that was a disaster by any account: It slowed performance down to the bone, replaced the Windows shell with itself, dropped advertising right on the desktop, brutally ironed over DLLs as if there was no tomorrow, and (especially at first) introduced a ship full of bugs, all while adding no functional benefit. Almost all of this made its way into Windows 98, which immediately cursed that version and everything since then.
Unfortunately, with Windows 98 and later versions having phased out earlier versions over the years, a lot of people have gotten used to this stuff by now.
1. When closing a large number of tabs, the tab button changes position depending on what tab is active, reducing user efficiency. Previously, the user could simply keep the mouse in the same position while triggering the close button each time.
2. Since they're now located on each tab, the close buttons add clutter by taking up extra screen space and reducing the length of page titles visible on tabs.
3. When switching from one tab to another (especially when many tabs are open), the tabs physically change size depending on whether or not they contain a close button, forming a distraction.
I get a bit annoyed by the incessant criticism of Netscape 4.x nowadays. It certainly wasn't perfect...it WAS a bit bigger and slower than Netscape 3.x, and its user interface seemed contrived, but it really was the best browser around back in its day.
Netscape 4.x was one of the first browsers to support dynamic HTML features or any form of CSS. Sure, the support is pretty rudimentary now, but it was pretty groundbreaking back in '97.
Furthermore, it was a saint compared to Internet Explorer 4.0. Thanks in part to web integration, THAT had a tendency to slow down the entire system by its mere presence, crash and bring the entire OS down with it, and in terms of rendering capability, it was no better. It was so problematic, assertions that it rendered other browsers unusable and required a reformat to remove were only typical of accounts at the time.
The only big problem was that Netscape 4.x stayed viable for far longer than it should have or was originally intended to be. Thanks to badly-maintained code that needed to be rewritten, false development starts, and bureaucracy, the next usable version (6.1/6.2) didn't come out for about four years later. Even then, I was using Netscape 4.x sporadically myself well into 2003! Internet Explorer 4.0, meanwhile, was pushed aside by newer versions far sooner and its deficiencies masked over with the passage of time.
It wasn't until Mozilla Firefox came around several years after THAT that they began to give serious attention to improving the user interface and give the browser a badly needed marketing boost.
Part of the challenge of determining what systems to which you will present lies in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of given software versions with their popularity.
As such, I would actually endorse prioritizing support of Windows 95 over Windows 98, since Windows 98 added few if any notable technological advantages over Windows 95 OSR2, feature additions of dubious usability, and was (in my experience) less stable as well. Additionally, developing for Windows 95 always produces compatibility with Windows 98 as a consequence, although the inverse is not always true.
"Newer" or "more popular" do not necessarily mean "better" or "more suitable" for testing.
Why are XP and 2000 SP3+ the only versions of Windows the Google toolbar for Firefox is compatible with?
This is the only Firefox extension I know of that's incapable of working on Windows 9x.
I still use Windows 95 (or actually the OSR2 version, to be precise) very regularly on my own computer. Its performance is good, it runs all the software I have any intention of using (including DOS games and a modern web browser), it doesn't need much hard disk space or memory, and its user interface is quite intuitive, perhaps more so than the eye-candy laden and Internet Explorer-integrated UIs of Windows 98 and subsequent versions.
While the Firebird name did not last for many versions, the name was chosen in April 2003 and was first used on a formal release of the standalone browser with the release of Firebird 0.6 (NOT 0.7) in May 2003.
The Firebird name, used for over 9 months, was actually the LONGEST lived name for, outliving both Phoenix (6 months; September 2002-April 2003) and Firefox (4 months and counting; February 2004-date). It also helps to remember that the earliest Phoenix-named versions were released in very close succession.
Mozilla 1.4 and later require version 2.30.4265 or later of the system file oleaut32.dll to run properly beyond the splash screen. If you have problems running this software under Windows 95, it is probably due to this or another missing or obsolete system file. I have flawlessly run Mozilla 1.6, 1.7 RC3, and Firefox 0.8 myself under Windows 95C (although I'll still need to check to see if Mozilla Firefox 0.9 RC works under this OS).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised Internet Explorer 4 and/or Windows 98 didn't make it to the list. It introduced the concept of "web integration," and that was a disaster by any account: It slowed performance down to the bone, replaced the Windows shell with itself, dropped advertising right on the desktop, brutally ironed over DLLs as if there was no tomorrow, and (especially at first) introduced a ship full of bugs, all while adding no functional benefit. Almost all of this made its way into Windows 98, which immediately cursed that version and everything since then.
Unfortunately, with Windows 98 and later versions having phased out earlier versions over the years, a lot of people have gotten used to this stuff by now.
1. When closing a large number of tabs, the tab button changes position depending on what tab is active, reducing user efficiency. Previously, the user could simply keep the mouse in the same position while triggering the close button each time.
2. Since they're now located on each tab, the close buttons add clutter by taking up extra screen space and reducing the length of page titles visible on tabs.
3. When switching from one tab to another (especially when many tabs are open), the tabs physically change size depending on whether or not they contain a close button, forming a distraction.
I get a bit annoyed by the incessant criticism of Netscape 4.x nowadays. It certainly wasn't perfect...it WAS a bit bigger and slower than Netscape 3.x, and its user interface seemed contrived, but it really was the best browser around back in its day. Netscape 4.x was one of the first browsers to support dynamic HTML features or any form of CSS. Sure, the support is pretty rudimentary now, but it was pretty groundbreaking back in '97. Furthermore, it was a saint compared to Internet Explorer 4.0. Thanks in part to web integration, THAT had a tendency to slow down the entire system by its mere presence, crash and bring the entire OS down with it, and in terms of rendering capability, it was no better. It was so problematic, assertions that it rendered other browsers unusable and required a reformat to remove were only typical of accounts at the time. The only big problem was that Netscape 4.x stayed viable for far longer than it should have or was originally intended to be. Thanks to badly-maintained code that needed to be rewritten, false development starts, and bureaucracy, the next usable version (6.1/6.2) didn't come out for about four years later. Even then, I was using Netscape 4.x sporadically myself well into 2003! Internet Explorer 4.0, meanwhile, was pushed aside by newer versions far sooner and its deficiencies masked over with the passage of time. It wasn't until Mozilla Firefox came around several years after THAT that they began to give serious attention to improving the user interface and give the browser a badly needed marketing boost.
Part of the challenge of determining what systems to which you will present lies in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of given software versions with their popularity. As such, I would actually endorse prioritizing support of Windows 95 over Windows 98, since Windows 98 added few if any notable technological advantages over Windows 95 OSR2, feature additions of dubious usability, and was (in my experience) less stable as well. Additionally, developing for Windows 95 always produces compatibility with Windows 98 as a consequence, although the inverse is not always true. "Newer" or "more popular" do not necessarily mean "better" or "more suitable" for testing.
Why are XP and 2000 SP3+ the only versions of Windows the Google toolbar for Firefox is compatible with? This is the only Firefox extension I know of that's incapable of working on Windows 9x.
I still use Windows 95 (or actually the OSR2 version, to be precise) very regularly on my own computer. Its performance is good, it runs all the software I have any intention of using (including DOS games and a modern web browser), it doesn't need much hard disk space or memory, and its user interface is quite intuitive, perhaps more so than the eye-candy laden and Internet Explorer-integrated UIs of Windows 98 and subsequent versions.
While the Firebird name did not last for many versions, the name was chosen in April 2003 and was first used on a formal release of the standalone browser with the release of Firebird 0.6 (NOT 0.7) in May 2003. The Firebird name, used for over 9 months, was actually the LONGEST lived name for, outliving both Phoenix (6 months; September 2002-April 2003) and Firefox (4 months and counting; February 2004-date). It also helps to remember that the earliest Phoenix-named versions were released in very close succession.
Mozilla 1.4 and later require version 2.30.4265 or later of the system file oleaut32.dll to run properly beyond the splash screen. If you have problems running this software under Windows 95, it is probably due to this or another missing or obsolete system file. I have flawlessly run Mozilla 1.6, 1.7 RC3, and Firefox 0.8 myself under Windows 95C (although I'll still need to check to see if Mozilla Firefox 0.9 RC works under this OS).