I have a dream... where jQuery is dead, buried together with Flash & Internet Explorer, and we all go back to vanilla JavaScript, and HTML5 & CSS are both reworked to be even simpler for retro compatibility. Blame it on Google for pushing the boundaries of the web with their stupid vendor CSS properties that everyone is embracing now.

(Yes, I want a minimalist and more simple web).

bfcastello wrote:

I have a dream... where jQuery is dead, buried together with Flash & Internet Explorer, and we all go back to vanilla JavaScript, and HTML5 & CSS are both reworked to be even simpler for retro compatibility. Blame it on Google for pushing the boundaries of the web with their stupid vendor CSS properties that everyone is embracing now.

(Yes, I want a minimalist and more simple web).

HTML is for documents, not interfaces. It was ever thus. However, as the browser stack (being the proverbial hammer) has no screwdriver counterpart yet, whenever we're not dealing with a nail, we start pounding away nonetheless.

gdjacobs wrote:

bfcastello wrote:

I have a dream... where jQuery is dead, buried together with Flash & Internet Explorer, and we all go back to vanilla JavaScript, and HTML5 & CSS are both reworked to be even simpler for retro compatibility. Blame it on Google for pushing the boundaries of the web with their stupid vendor CSS properties that everyone is embracing now.

(Yes, I want a minimalist and more simple web).

HTML is for documents, not interfaces. It was ever thus. However, as the browser stack (being the proverbial hammer) has no screwdriver counterpart yet, whenever we're not dealing with a nail, we start pounding away nonetheless.

Oh, I know that. But I meant in HTML documents rendering. Because since when new tags were introduced in HTML5, most OLD browsers can't render them properly unless (in specific cases) you have a polyfill for them. For example, (I get the semantic meaning, but it's redundant for me) why do we have to use <nav> when we can use <div role="navigation"> ? I remember when there was a huge war because of <video> tag between the browser vendors because each one wanted to use a different codec. It's 2019 and I still see CMS educational websites using <embed> and <object>. Well, at least <iframe> is dead for good.

And all the fancy CSS vendor properties being standardized... seriously. I quite don't like them. It was just me ranting about the "modern" web, don't get me wrong pls. Some things I like (tableless web design) some I don't (new properties and new tags).

The nav tag seems like a strange one. It's enforcing hierarchical paradigms for document structure which should really be up to the author to define, IMO.

The modern web is increasingly not built with HTML. Yes, it's always there under the hood. But many modern websites are just big Javascript programs, where the HTML is just added dynamically.

keenmaster486 wrote:

The modern web is increasingly not built with HTML. Yes, it's always there under the hood. But many modern websites are just big Javascript programs, where the HTML is just added dynamically.

Yup. I can see when some sites are like this. But I believe that, at least half of my preferred websites, aren't. Just an example of what I like to visit:

autosport, Mundo Deportivo, Sport, Marca, Globo, GloboEsporte, IG, GrandePremio
CSS-Tricks, Designmodo, Tableless, Redmondpie, Macrumors
Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, YouTube

Of all these sites, only the last four and maybe Globo, RedmondPie, Macrumors I'd like to be able to see properly in an old browser. I know I can only see Globo almost correctly with Firefox > 45 ESR on Windows 2k. All others are useless with a Windows 98 machine and any browser. But if I could only get Youtube working with a Win 98 machine (even if I need to use a greasemonkey script to redirect the video to VLC) then I'd be happy. There is a mirror for youtube called invidio.us which is a bit suspect but does work like a mirror with a different design.

bfcastello wrote:

But if I could only get Youtube working with a Win 98 machine (even if I need to use a greasemonkey script to redirect the video to VLC) then I'd be happy.

YouTube translator for retro systems
There's this =)
I am doing more work on it and will release a better version soon.

keenmaster486 wrote:

YouTube translator for retro systems There's this =) I am doing more work on it and will release a better version soon. […]
Show full quote

bfcastello wrote:

But if I could only get Youtube working with a Win 98 machine (even if I need to use a greasemonkey script to redirect the video to VLC) then I'd be happy.

YouTube translator for retro systems
There's this =)
I am doing more work on it and will release a better version soon.

Oh yeah, I remember! I quite really like it, although it requires a server to run it. I was looking for a more client side solution 😜

I hope you can release a better version soon and hopefully be able to run it in a server for everyone on Vogons to profit! That would be great, and you can run it with ads on the page to get some funding, maybe...

bfcastello wrote:

Oh yeah, I remember! I quite really like it, although it requires a server to run it. I was looking for a more client side solution

Unfortunately this is really not possible. Not on Windows 98 appropriate hardware that is.
Even with Windows XP you really need at least a Core 2 Duo to use YouTube nowadays; everything is so inefficient. Mostly it is the codecs. And good luck decoding even h.264 (the old YT codec) on a Pentium III!

bfcastello wrote:

I hope you can release a better version soon and hopefully be able to run it in a server for everyone on Vogons to profit! That would be great, and you can run it with ads on the page to get some funding, maybe...

That is my eventual goal. I'll need a dedicated server which does require $$$, so it would have to have ads somehow. Eventually I will figure that out.

keenmaster486 wrote:

bfcastello wrote:

Oh yeah, I remember! I quite really like it, although it requires a server to run it. I was looking for a more client side solution

Unfortunately this is really not possible. Not on Windows 98 appropriate hardware that is.
Even with Windows XP you really need at least a Core 2 Duo to use YouTube nowadays; everything is so inefficient. Mostly it is the codecs. And good luck decoding even h.264 (the old YT codec) on a Pentium III!

What if I am running it on a VMware instance? I don't really run these things on real hardware, I have more interest on the software side of the things than hardware.

keenmaster486 wrote:

bfcastello wrote:

I hope you can release a better version soon and hopefully be able to run it in a server for everyone on Vogons to profit! That would be great, and you can run it with ads on the page to get some funding, maybe...

That is my eventual goal. I'll need a dedicated server which does require $$$, so it would have to have ads somehow. Eventually I will figure that out.

Fingers crossed! Good luck mate.

bfcastello wrote:

What if I am running it on a VMware instance? I don't really run these things on real hardware, I have more interest on the software side of the things than hardware.

Well then...

What about that hacked-up K-Meleon browser that floats around? It requires KernelEx but would probably work for YouTube.

keenmaster486 wrote:

bfcastello wrote:

What if I am running it on a VMware instance? I don't really run these things on real hardware, I have more interest on the software side of the things than hardware.

Well then...

What about that hacked-up K-Meleon browser that floats around? It requires KernelEx but would probably work for YouTube.

I tried it too, feels a lot buggy than I thought, and requires Js to be disabled or else it will crash every time. I switched to Windows 2000 Professional, so far things look a lot better for some things. Much better. NT technology, *sighs*. Win 2k was the most stable Windows I had ever used in my life.

But I am sad... I wanted Windows 98. No doubt Windows 2k had been used for a part of my life, never complained about, but Windows 98 had some much more fond memories for me. Especially with Netscape Communicator.

I believe that with an updated version of Opera and KernelEx it could survive a few more years, with Opera being so far the best option for older OS. Opera 12.02 doesn't run too bad, but needs updates. And KernelEx Core updates are a mess and hard to find or figure out how to update. It's a disaster, and developers of KernelEx need to be more organized. Even roytam1's browsers are a mess with versioning, but he did a great job in porting them to older systems, just that it was a mess.

To sum up they need to organize the third party KernelEx updates in a good manner, and also the newer browsers that were ported to older systems need to be organized too. Currently it's a disaster. For example here we have a topic about the last versions of browsers for older systems, but it doesn't specify what is working and what is not on each brand of browser as of 2019. None of them gives Youtube on Win98. The best solution for Win 98 is downloading them and playing them on VLC. OK, no problem, just need a script to open them on VLC. Another problem, I can't find a greasemonkey version and youtube script for these things. But this is not even the biggest problem - half of my fav sites doesnt render correctly, while on Pale Moon & Windows 2k they render almost perfectly and I am on vanilla Win 2k, haven't tried youtube yet.

It's a pity that most developers (re)compiling modern browsers for older operating systems are now focused on the shitty Windows XP.

EDIT: I'm using New Moon 28.x on Windows 2k. All good so far, I think. I am only having a problem with the font rendering - it is not smooth.
EDIT 2: I fixed the font rendering somehow. Probably related to DirectX 9.0c and VMWare Hardware Version (9, btw).
EDIT 3: Actually installed latest SeaMonkey and customized it to look like Netscape 9.x, so good so far... Just need to customize some icons and it will almost as good as Windows 98.

I really prefer Windows 2000 over Windows 98 SE, because I do all my DOS things in pure DOS.

Same thing for Windows NT 4.0 vs Windows 95.

In terms of memory usage, these comparisons match up nicely. In terms of stability, NT-based OS's win every time.

But the issue with Windows 2000, for me, is that it feels like it should be able to do more. I feel like it ought to be as capable as XP, and am disappointed when it isn't. Because it's NT5, for pete's sake! There's no real reason it can't do X, Y, and Z! But really this is true of any OS, even DOS, so whatever, I guess.

bfcastello wrote:

DId anyone manage to get youtube working on Windows 98 in any browser? 2019 it is... I can only get it working on Windows 2000 Professional, Blackwingcat extended kernel and Firefox 52.x ESR. Not really what I wanted to do.

There's a way to watch youtube with VLC player. Have you tried such approach?
I also know that FF and Chrome have a plugin that allows you to open video with VLC automatically by clicking on video on the youtube website.

keenmaster486 wrote:

But the issue with Windows 2000, for me, is that it feels like it should be able to do more. I feel like it ought to be as capable as XP, and am disappointed when it isn't. Because it's NT5, for pete's sake! There's no real reason it can't do X, Y, and Z! But really this is true of any OS, even DOS, so whatever, I guess.

Very, very true. I agree

GigAHerZ wrote:

bfcastello wrote:

DId anyone manage to get youtube working on Windows 98 in any browser? 2019 it is... I can only get it working on Windows 2000 Professional, Blackwingcat extended kernel and Firefox 52.x ESR. Not really what I wanted to do.

There's a way to watch youtube with VLC player. Have you tried such approach?
I also know that FF and Chrome have a plugin that allows you to open video with VLC automatically by clicking on video on the youtube website.

Yeah, I mentioned it before, it's greasemonkey with some youtube dl or yt2player script. I couldn't find both in older versions for Win9x. I've spent an entire night searching for both. But it doesn't matter - if I had found them and made them work, I'd still have other issues browsing some of my fav sites, since they don't render properly in any Win9x browser, even with KernelEx to use newer versions, but in Win2k and blackwingcat's kernel extender, renders quite beautifully on SeaMonkey 2.49.5, the latest version.

For Win2k I'm pretty satisfied with SeaMonkey. It'll probably be my new go to browser for Windows environment. For newer macOS, I'll stick to Safari.

EDIT: While I were reading about SeaMonkey, I found this...
"SeaMonkey 2.49.5 is the last version to support Windows XP/Server 2003 and Windows Vista/Server 2008."

F*ck.

use mypal for 2000/XP

oeuvre wrote:

use mypal for 2000/XP

Actually I have tried almost all browsers and the only one that surprised me on windows 2000 (plus BlackWingCat's kernel extenders) was SeaMonkey 2.49.5, youtube works and my news websites are rendered 90% perfect at times. I was pleased when I found out that SeaMonkey is a direct "child" of what was left from the great old Netscape after its downfall against the ($#*$# censored *%$*$#) Internet Explorer 6.0.

Just throw a Seazilla theme (with another add-on to bypass addon compatibility, because Seazilla wasn't made for the latest version) and hey presto, it's themed like Netscape!

EDIT: I will actually try to go further and "cheat" a little bit by changing some Windows 2000 bitmaps to Windows 98 branding (boot screen, start menu banner, logon/shutdown banners). Windows 98 never had the logon/shutdown banners, so I will have to create some. That will do.

How hard is it, really, to compile newer browsers for old systems if you use the right compiler flags?

Google now blocks you from signing in to your account when you have Javascript disabled, or your browser doesn't support it.

Looks like they've been doing this since last year. I just now noticed it, because I couldn't sign in to my Gmail account using Links in DOS, like I used to be able to.

Bummer!

Good thing they still have good support for old browsers on the main search engine side of things. I have been so impressed with Google's search engine's performance on ancient browsers. Even in Internet Explorer 3.0, it looks pretty darn good. I think they send you a "basic HTML" version of the site when your browser isn't new enough, because it does that with RetroZilla too, and looks completely flawless.