|
|
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Monday, February 1, 2010 at 11:14 am
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
sekirt wrote:
|googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/modern-browsers-for-modern-applications.html
So, starting March 1, Google Docs and Google Sites will appear broken
if you try accessing those using Internet Exploder 6.
Other Google services will follow suit.
This follows on the heels of the Chinese exploitation of Google, China via IE6
(a security flaw that M$ was aware of in August 2009).
The love notes from Web developers in the comments on that page are priceless.
Web developers despise ALL versions of Internet Exploder--but especially IE6.
The typical discussion of this topic
usually mentions corporate intranets that rely on ActiveX
and the stupid individuals who specified that dog's breakfast.
Slashdot has coverage, as usual.
Folks think that *I* rant, but this guy takes it to a whole 'nother level:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/30/1315226&threshold=5#30962248
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 8:39 am
Posted by jack hall
(308 messages posted)
So now what ???
The best operating system 98SE
The best browser I.E. 6
I'm stunned !!!
On Monday, February 1, 2010 at 4:35 am, sekirt wrote:
>Official Google Enterprise Blog: Modern browsers for modern applications:
>
>href="http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/modern-browsers-for-modern-applications.html">
>color=#000000>http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/modern-browsers-for-modern-applications.html
>
>
>color=#6a5acd size=3>sekirt
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
jack hall wrote:
|So now what ???
|
Opera or Firefox or SeaMonkey or K-Meleon[1] or ....
Wanna see what's **really** available out there? This will boot to a desktop
(if your hardware has has enough horsepower and supports booting to a CD).
cache
of
http://linux.softpedia.com/get/System/Operating-Systems/Linux-Distributions/Ultimate-Debian-LiveCD-i686-54010.shtml
|The best operating system 98SE
|
LOL. You mean the one with ZERO security.
...and the one you can't find device drivers for any more.
...and the OS you still can't get legally for free
--even though it was declared dead by its vendor over 3 years ago.
|The best browser I.E. 6
|
Not even close.
cache
of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3
Note also how poorly IE7 and IE8 do.
Scroll down a bit and contrast that with other browsers.
That was Acid THREE.
Your browser even does poorly on Acid TWO
(where any *modern* browser[2] passes).
http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html
Why the Acid Tests exist:
cache
of http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2
It must be that you never go to a Web page of ANY complexity.
...or you're just satisfied with junky rendering.
...or developers have bent over backwards to accomodate your junky browser.
THOSE DAYS ARE OFFICIALLY OVER.
In addition, the crappy security of IE (any variant) has been noted by CERT
(the US Government's computer security experts):
cache
of http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878
CERT says to use ANY other browser.
|I'm stunned !!!
|
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/t1235187499
[1] K-Meleon is Windoze-only, so it won't be on that bootable CD.
IceWeasel==Firefox with the trademarks & proprietary artwork removed.
IceApe==SeaMonkey with the trademarks & proprietary artwork removed.
(A SeaMonkey ISN'T a simian; it's a brine shrimp.)
[2] "*Modern* browser" excludes IE7, BTW, as it doesn't pass Acid2.
...not that IE7 and IE8 haven't been purposely crippled by M$
so that they won't run under Win9x anyway.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Posted by sekirt
(297 messages posted)
I hope you are being facetious!
sekirt
On Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 8:39 am, jack hall wrote:
>So now what ???
>The best operating system 98SE
>The best browser I.E. 6
>I'm stunned !!!
>
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Posted by jack hall
(308 messages posted)
Yes and no. I understand the issues, but I've had it for 7 years, and it's been good
to me and for me, as well as being able to service. There was (hell is, I have XP
Pro but I'm talking to you on the 98SE machine now.
We had scanreg/restore, SFC, both great tools, and with a burner, later, flash USB
drives, and broadband capable.
Should disaster strike, with a floppy boot disk, drivers, everything backed up, and
the install disk, you were up and running in about 2.5 hours. Good as new.
Cost $0.00. What's to complain about.
On Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 5:25 pm, sekirt wrote:
>I hope you are being facetious!
>
>
>
>
>color=#6a5acd size=3>sekirt
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Friday, February 5, 2010 at 10:43 am
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
jack hall wrote:
|We had scanreg/restore,
|
...which is unnecessary on systems that use plain-text config files[1]
instead of the proprietary binary-blob Windoze Registry.
Not using a Registry also means you don't have to reboot for every little thing.
|SFC,
|
...which is largely USELESS after you do any updates.
(The tool's lookup table ISN'T updated with system changes.)
|both great tools
|
Obviously, a matter of opinion.
|Should disaster strike, with a floppy boot disk,
|
With a *modern* OS, you get a bootable *CD*.
EVERYTHING is on the CD.
You can even **run** the OS (and all the apps) **from** the CD.
|drivers,
|
I repeat: With Linux, EVERYTHING is on the CD.
...and Linux supports modern hardware and modern protocols.
|everything backed up, and the install disk,
|you were up and running in about 2.5 hours.
|
Installing a Linux distro takes a small fraction of that time (OS and apps)
--and you actually get **useful** apps on the distribution disk.
...and you only reboot ONCE at the very end of the install process.
...and, with Linux, the need to re-install the OS is essentially non-existant.
(Most things on a Linux system can be repaired without that.)
cache
of http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/locutus/linux-gives-me-confidence-36243
...and, again, Linux INCLUDES **useful** tools to clone your partitions.
|Good as new.
|
...as long as your backups aren't infected.
|Cost $0.00.
|
...if you don't count the Microsoft Tax you paid at some point.
An M$ OS is never free.
You have to look a bit to find a Linux distro they ask money for.
|What's to complain about.
|
Having to enter a Windows Product Key
(and some real land mines with more recent versions of Windoze).
Having to babysit installs.
Running around to find device driver disks if you didn't think ahead.
Multiple reboots for no good reason.
Massive updates after the base install from the install media.
If you dual-boot: having stupid Windoze nuke your "Bootloader" app[2]
on the Boot Sector during an install[3]--or even nuking a whole partition.
Installing every extra app is a separate process requiring human input.
Having to periodically re-install Windoze because of Windoze Rot.
Infections.
No more security updates available.
If you use M$ products at a business,
there are raids by the Business Software Alliance to worry about--and fines.
That's off the top of my head.
[1] Win3.x used plain-text config files, so it's possible for Windoze to use those.
[2] ...which would properly be called an OS Selector app.
[3] The recent Vista service pack STILL screws up updates on dual-boot systems.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 6:51 am
Posted by sekirt
(297 messages posted)
I can partially agree with you, I liked Win98 - but it is certainly
time to move on. In any case, you'll still be able to use IE6
for months, maybe years. Not all websites will stop you.
sekirt
On Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 6:28 pm, jack hall wrote:
>Yes and no. I understand the issues, but I've had it for 7 years, and it's been
good to me and for me, as well as being able to service. There was (hell is, I have
XP Pro but I'm talking to you on the 98SE machine now.
We had scanreg/restore, SFC, both great tools, and with a burner, later, flash USB
drives, and broadband capable.
Should disaster strike, with a floppy boot disk, drivers, everything backed up, and
the install disk, you were up and running in about 2.5 hours. Good as new.
Cost $0.00. What's to complain about.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Sunday, February 7, 2010 at 6:31 am
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
Gewg, after reading your post in this thread and the next one I got to tell you that
you are wasting your time at this forum. With your talent for words you could have
made a lot of money on Madison Avenue in advertising or as a lobbyist in Washington.
Instead you invest your time lobbying for linux for little reward except perhaps
letting off steam over an issue that really isn't all that important, the computer
operating system someone chooses to use. Most people are more worried about whether
they have a date for saturday night than what OS they have installed.
The decrease in the cost of a new computer over the last 15 years makes the built-in
cost of an OEM Windows license seem like chump change to most consumers. In one article
I read last year it was reported Microsoft was getting as little as $10 per copy
for XP preinstalled in netbooks. Little wonder free-of-charge linux isn't attracting
more takers.
So, does anyone know of any hacks to get IE7 or 8 running in 98SE? :-)
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Sunday, February 7, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|you are wasting your time at this forum.
|
Well, it is my time.
...and I don't consider making people aware of their options to be a "waste".
|The decrease in the cost of a new computer over the last 15 years
|
Many people running W98 find their *current* HARDWARE to be quite serviceable;
it's the outdated, unsupported M$ SOFTWARE on it that causes them grief.
(Modern) Linux fills that niche--for FREE.
...and their *old* peripherals won't be supported under a new M$ OS
--the kind of support at which Linux excels.
|makes the built-in cost of an OEM Windows license
|
If it wasn't for the crapware that gets pre-installed on new hardware,
there would be no reason for vendors to continue to install
an OS that costs more than zero.
It's all the "free" trialware that continues to make Windoze profitable for them.
...and a new vendor scheme aimed at the suckers who buy pre-installed Windoze
is a "service" to get the crapware removed
--a "service" which the suckers pay extra for, of course.
|seem like chump change to most consumers.
|
Most people balk at the few bucks extra that getting an actual Windoze CD costs.
...and "most" people (naively) think that they get Windoze for free (see above).
If there was a la carte pricing on all the bits of a system
and it was mandated that that price list is available to all customers[1],
a lot more people would realize that Windoze isn't free
and many would forego the payware and opt for the Free Software.
I blame the roll-over-for-corporations "regulators" here
--not that M$ gets any slack from me
WRT their deceptive, anti-competitive business model.
|In one article I read last year it was reported
|Microsoft was getting as little as $10 per copy for XP preinstalled in netbooks.
|
I read one report that it was $8
and another that said M$ was having to give it away in order to get any play.
...and, of course, on ARM-based systems, Windoze isn't even an option
--and ARM is fast becoming the norm for portable devices.
(ARM+Linux costs less and is better on battery life.)
Going with the a la carte idea, if given the choice of payware that gets infected
or Free Software that doesn't get infected,
I'm thinking there is a large number of folks who whould choose the latter.
In addition, factor in all the time you wasted chasing your tail WRT infections.
(This is unknown outside the Windoze ecosystem.)
If businesses were to make an honest appraisal
of how much time and money they put into fighting (Windoze-only) malware,[2]
they would drop M$ like a hot potato.
Yet another factor will raise its ugly head
when M$ takes its XP activation servers off-line
and folks find out that their re-installs of that OS don't "take".
In time, Vista and Vista 7 users will find that they have suffered the same fate
...and those sheep will, once again, give money to M$
for yet another easily-infected OS which requires new hardware to run.
Linux, OTOH, doesn't require "activation" (aka: No Remote Kill Switches)
and doesn't get infected and runs on your old box.
|So, does anyone know of any hacks to get IE7 or 8 running in 98SE? :-)
|
Why would someone want the latest infect-my-brains-out-ware?
The *LESS* M$ software you use, the more carefree your computing experience.
[1] Academics have proposed that pricing paradigm to the European Commission.
[2] Many have made that evaluation
and those businesses/orgs/governments are switching to Linux
--or have already made that transition.
Being able to actually ask for competitive bids for software and support
is another advantage of moving away from M$.
...and *smart* software developers
have been making their products cross-platform-capable for years.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Monday, February 8, 2010 at 7:45 am
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
It looks like IE6 isn't quite dead yet.
The problem:
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winme/1265384959
The solution:
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winme/1265416154
Some web designers appear to be just as moronical as some of the developers at Microsoft
and perhaps more so.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Monday, February 8, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|It looks like IE6 isn't quite dead yet.
|
Professional Web developers welcome the demise of any version of IE
--especially IE6.
It significantly increases their workload when they have to support IE
(as opposed to ALL of the other browsers, which are more standards-compliant).
Given the powerhouse that Google is, with their announcement, IE6 is officially dead.
It gives others carte blanche to follow suit.
|The solution:
|http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winme/1265416154
|
Your link appears to be a circuitous reference to spoofing the User Agent String.
That is NOT a solution to developers *not* bending over backwards
to include additional code in the pages they serve up
as to **specifically** work around IE6's HORRIBLE compliance with standards.
Again, IE just sucks at rendering HTML/CSS because first Spyglass, Inc. then M$
built it in MANY MANY ways that are NOT compliant with W3C standards.[1]
cache
of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3
|Some web designers appear to be just as moronical
|as some of the developers at Microsoft and perhaps more so.
|
While I won't argue with that generalization, and I agree that
MANY webmasters have no clue about how to PROPERLY sniff for browsers
(we see this all the time on the SeaMonkey newsgroup),
what you are talking about in no way describes what Google
--and before that, the Norwegian developers--are doing.
The Wikimedia link more clearly demonstrates the problem:
proper interpretation of W3C-compliant code by browsers.
cache
of http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/01/145231#26291983
cache
of http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/30/140230#15232102
[1] Granted, some of the standards were adopted *after* IE6 was initially built,
but M$ never went back and corrected the brokenness.
Bad piled onto more bad, and now it is just a steaming pile that developers despise.
ALL versions of IE are shades of the same story.
(Again, the Wikimedia page shows their badness with actual numbers.)
...and the whole point of Internet Exploder was to marginalize the Web
(which it turns out M$ couldn't contol and therefore couldn't monopolize).
The existance of IE and M$'s attitude toward the Web set back the Web YEARS.
IE is yet another example of how M$ is a anti-competitive corp in steep decline.
The real silliness of IE is that it isn't even compliant WITH ITSELF.
(Like all of M$'s junk, version-to-version consistency is crap.)
cache
of http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/03/1628219#14637658
cache
of http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2056228#26923297
Some additional cogent comments from the front lines:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/28/2348256&threshold=4#14136520
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238141&cid=19469619&threshold=2#19469619
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1215303&cid=27762267&threshold=5#27762267
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=189027&cid=15571108&threshold=5#15571108
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 4:40 am
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
That is all fine and well. I am not interested in theory, or how much web developers
grumble about IE, or what Microsoft did or didn't do. I am interested in results.
The point was that when the OP tried "broken" IE6 he could access MySpace, when he
used the "more standards-compliant" browser Firefox he was given the run around.
A similar thing happened to me last year when I tried to register at a corporate
website. When I tried "more standards-compliant" Opera it didn't work, when I tried
"broken" IE6 it worked.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: IE6 being phased out at Google
Tuesday, February 9, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|The point was that when the OP tried "broken" IE6 he could access MySpace,
|when he used the "more standards-compliant" browser Firefox
|he was given the run around.
|
...by the STUPID WEBMASTER of that site.
As I said, on the SeaMonkey newsgroup we see this all the time.
It isn't intentional; it's just a guy who doesn't know how to do his job properly.
http://google.com/search?q=define:User-Agent-String
Google's guys, however, are smarter that those bozos;
I assure you that they won't be using a kindergarten-level trick--even intentionally.
Here's what I suspect that Google
(and the others who DO know how to properly build a site) will be doing:
First, they will no longer be putting IE6-specific hacks into their pages
(which formerly made up for IE6's poor performance WRT interpreting good coding).
This saves the developers time and aggravation.
...and if Google does something similar to what M$ did with IE7 and IE8
(i.e. using instructions in the code that aren't understood by Win9x),
then Google's pages could conceivably make the pages so obtuse to IE6
that it will effectively lock out that ancient, kludgey PoS.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
Spoofing the User Agent in IE6, in Firefox, and in Opera
Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 4:10 am
Posted by Ed
(741 messages posted)
There are three solutions to this vicious attack on Windows 9x by Google, any one
of which will enable a Windows 9x browser to access a website from which Win9x is
banned.
The latest version of Internet Explorer that can run on Win9x is IE6 SP1 (Service
Pack 1). The latest version of Firefox that can run on Win9x is Firefox 2.0.0.20.
There are solutions for both of these browsers.
I strongly recommend upgrading to one at least of those versions, which in each case
is the last version that supports Windows 98/98SE/ME. Firefox v2.0.0.20 is currently
available as a free download from http://www.oldapps.com/firefox.php
Internet Explorer 6 -
Firstly, Internet Explorer 6 (SP1) can be made to spoof the User Agent, so as to
report itself as being a newer browser. For example, here's how to appear to be Internet
Explorer 7:
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\5.0\User
Agent]
"Version"="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0)"
Copy-and-paste the green text into a plain text file created by Notepad.exe, and
save it as a .REG file (e.g. UserAgent.reg); then right-click on that file and select
the option "Merge".
Firefox -
Secondly, Firefox 2.0.0.20 (and, in fact, probably any version of Firefox 2)
can spoof its User Agent in either of the following two ways -
A. Firefox Add-On method
You can download an Add-on for Firefox called "User Agent Switcher".
However, this Add-on doesn't change the browser's default. In other words, every
time you load Firefox you have to go to TOOLS > ADD-ONs and select the User Agent
of a more recent version.
If that isn't a problem, here's how to install it -
1. Run Firefox and download the User Agent Switcher from
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59
2. Follow the on-screen instructions, then restart Firefox.
3. Go to: Tools > Default User Agent > Edit User Agents
4. Click: New > New User Agent
5. Add a description, such as "Firefox 3.6"
6. Type the following user agent string, as a single line,
into the "User Agent" box (edit the string as desired):
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows 98; en-US; rv:1.9.2)Gecko/20100101 Firefox/3.6
For example: Change Windows 98 to Windows Vista, etc.
More importantly, change the location information
("en-US" tells the locale and language).
B. Editing Firefox's Default
Alternatively, if you don't want to have to always tell Firefox which user agent
to masquerade as, do this instead:
1. Open a new tab in Firefox.
2. Type "about:config" in the Address bar, then press .
3. Type "Useragent" into the Filter box.
4. Double-click on "general.useragent.extra.firefox".
5. In the dialog box "Enter String Value", that pops up: change the default value
e.g. from "Firefox/2.0.0.20" to "Firefox/3.5.4" or "Firefox/3.6", etc.
This method also works for the Opera browser.
One side-effect of spoofing the User Agent is that the forces of evil, who count
up how much web surfing is done by each type of browser, will start to see a (false)
decline in the apparant use of IE6 and Firefox 2, because those browsers are being
forced to masquerade as something else.
In the case of Firefox, if you use the first method above it's necessary to set the
User Agent at the start of each Firefox session, so at least there the spoof doesn't
run by default, but only if intended. Also, in that method the spoof can be switched
off again easily, when going on to browse other sites.
Ed
On Monday, February 1, 2010 at 4:35 am, sekirt wrote:
>Official Google Enterprise Blog: Modern browsers for modern applications:
>
>href="http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/modern-browsers-for-modern-applications.html">
>color=#000000>http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/modern-browsers-for-modern-applications.html
>
>
>color=#6a5acd size=3>sekirt
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Spoofing the User Agent [won't solve the problem]
Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 10:04 am
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Ed wrote:
|There are three solutions
|
Again, there is no evidence that Google will be *blocking* IE6. In all likelihood,
they simply won't go out of their way to make pages work with it.
The solution is to stop using a crappy browser and get one from this century.
|to this vicious attack
|
Yawn.
|on Windows 9x by Google,
|
...an obsolete OS (you can tell by the zero support it gets from its own vendor)
and a browser that M$ itself wishes would just die.
Even on *supported* platforms, IE6 will be EoL'd in June 2010.
...and Mozilla just dropped support for OS X 10.4 (Tiger)
--which was shipped on new units as recently as 3 years ago.
It's considered an OBSOLETE operating system--by its vendor.
|any one of which will enable a Windows 9x browser
|to access a website from which Win9x is banned.
|
Again, the work "banned" has not been used by Google.
Speculate all you want,
but attempting to put words in Google's mouth just makes you look foolish.
...and, again, this kindergarten-level stuff is unlikely to be the approach
that the world's most successful company would take.
|[...]IE6 SP1[...]Firefox 2.0.0.20.
|I strongly recommend upgrading to one at least of those versions,
|which in each case is the last version that supports Windows 98/98SE/ME.
|
The US Government's computer security experts
recommend AGAINST the use of *any* version of Internet Exploder.
|Internet Explorer 6 (SP1) can be made to spoof the User Agent
|
...which won't make it render pages any better nor will it give IE better security.
|[...]any version of Firefox 2 can spoof its User Agent
|
I have no idea why this was mentioned in this thread. It's a complete red herring.
...and you missed the **obvious** solution to this situation:
Install this 3rd-party kernel extension for Win9x
http://google.com/search?q=KernelEx
then install Firefox 3.x.
Opera and K-Meleon have also been mentioned as solutions.
An older version Of SeaMonkey (1.x) will also work.
Security patches for it are current, but no more are expected.
Opera or SeaMonkey (both are suites)
can also replace M$'s HORRIBLY INSECURE email client.
Another solution is MEPIS (Linux) antiX,
an out-of-the-box solution that will work on Win98-era hardware.
It *comes* with all the necessary modern software.
You can even try it **without** INSTALLING it. (Everything will run from the CD.)
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Spoofing the User Agent [won't solve the problem]
Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 1:38 am
Posted by douglas
(5 messages posted)
Thanks very much hombre for the ref to KernelEx.
We ARE being squeezed out but I for one sure like my Snappy old 98.
yours
douglas
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Spoofing the User Agent [won't solve the problem]
Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 11:32 am
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
douglas wrote:
|Thanks very much hombre for the ref to KernelEx.
|
No sweat...though that was the *second-best* advice in that post.
|We ARE being squeezed out
|
The use of the present tense is incorrect.
Maybe you've noticed that there are no more security updates available for 9x
--such as those ever were.
M$ declared Win9x dead OVER THREE YEARS AGO (and gave up on it in 2001).
I'd been looking at alternatives to M$ since the release of XP
--which requires Product Activation, which I won't tolerate.
...and long ago I soured on OSes that install with ZERO **real** security
and which need to have a bunch of 3rd-party junk PASTED ONTO THE OUTSIDE
to make it **appear** to be "secure".
|but I for one sure like my Snappy old 98.
|
I can see that you're easily impressed.
Now try to imagine an OS that has up-to-date security updates
and which **runs on your current hardware**
(and which is FAR more secure than anything Micros~1 *EVER* produced).
Actually, you don't need to imagine that; you can view it for yourself.
This will run from the CD (the OS *and all the apps*).
Just burn the *.ISO to a CD and boot to it. It gives a graphical desktop.
cache
of http://antix.mepis.com/index.php?title=Main_Page%26printable=yes
(Iceweasel==Firefox with the proprietary artwork & logos stripped out.)
cache
of http://lightlinux.blogspot.com/2009/01/antix-8-test-release-reviewed.html
Here is another view of some of the information I pointed to in the links above.
(Page 3 is especially interesting in showing the completeness of the package.)
cache
of http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2009/07/29/antix-m8-2
Brad Rodriguez has an Obstacle Course for OSes for boxes with ~400MHz CPUs.
antiX finished at the top of the heap (the 2008 version was tested there).
cache
of http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/print.php?news.279
Again: out-of-the-box completeness.
Note here that device drivers for those printers that aren't included on the CD
can be installed just like you can do with Windoze.
Linux Mint has a slightly different definition of "complete out of the box"
which might suit you even better.
Mint's Edition that uses the Xfce desktop is one option
(256MB of RAM recommended with that one.)
The lastest release is version 7 (6 months old); v8 is due out any time now.
Mint Fluxbox Edition may be another way to extend the life of your ancient iron.
cache
of http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-Mint-6-Fluxbox-Is-Here-108894.shtml
That's for v6 which can get by with 128MB of RAM;
it is 12 months old (but the kernel and apps are completely updateable).
256MB is recommend for v8 (though that looks overly-cautious and pessimistic);
v8 was just released.
(There was no v7 release of Mint Fluxbox Edition.)
When Ubuntu 10.04 is released in late April,
I'm expecting several new Linux distributions/spins based on LXDE
(Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment) to be formally released--notably Lubuntu.
A release candidate (RC) of Lubuntu is available now
as is a pre-release version of wattOS which uses LXDE.
Knoppix, which has achieve Legendary status,
has used LXDE for its last 2 ~yearly releases.
The ALTERNATIVES to using an OBSOLETE OS on your old hardware are numerous.
(All of these boot-to-a-desktop CDs are also useful when Windoze self-destructs.)
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Spoofing the User Agent in IE6, in Firefox, and in Opera
Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Posted by gerald Keene
(77 messages posted)
Greetings Ed:
Just wanted to thank you for the active old link where I downloaded the Firefox 2.0.20.
I haven't been able to get on one of my websites because IE shuts it down. After
I downloaded the Firefox I got to the website with no trouble. I've not changed
any settings that you listed to Spoof IE6, just download the Firefox.
Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your post and all the information.
Best Regards,
Gerald
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Spoofing the User Agent [won't solve the problem] MORE DETAILS
Tuesday, July 5, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Ed wrote:
|There are three solutions to this vicious attack on Windows 9x by Google
|
First, it doesn't affect just M$'s ancient crap;
it's a wake-up call for ANYONE running ancient crap of ANY stripe.
As for IE6, it *barely* does HTML 3.2.
Doing HTML 4.0 is a distant dream for IE6 that will NEVER be realized.
Meanwhile, the world is moving on to HTML 5.
The only solution is to get a browser that supports the technologies being used.
This means getting an OS that supports apps with that tech.
In a quasi-recent blog, Brad Rodriguez
identifies this as a problem for folks hanging on to their low-RAM boxes.
cache
of http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/print.php?news.656
Google is phasing out support for older browsers from 1 August.
Those using IE7, Safari 3, Firefox 3.5 and their predecessors to view
Gmail, Google Calendar, Talk, Docs and Sites will then lose some functions.
[...]its engineers were keen to make use of the latest capabilities in browsers,
and that required support for HTML5 technology.
[...]I'm quite certain that there will be no Google-compatible browser
that runs on a Pentium II with 192 MB of RAM.
...and, of course, Brad writes about Linux, which
(along with its compatible apps) is **currently** under development/support.
The range of browsers/versions available to Linux users
is MUCH wider than what is available to Win9x users
(Linux users can even run *multiple* versions of IE on the *same* box).[1]
All of this assumes that the box has enough RAM, of course.
Processor speed is another, lesser issue.
..and, oh yeah, Linux will run on your current hardware.
OK, you can go back to waving your fanboy hands in the air again,
shouting about how you are being persecuted.
[1] ...which is useful for Web developers.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Spoofing the User Agent in IE6, in Firefox, and in Opera
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 6:06 am
Posted by Ed
(741 messages posted)
Good to know the link to Firefox 2.0.0.20 was useful to you.
My own experiences with Firefox 2 have been very positive. It copes quite easily with
many websites that IE6 now struggles with.
However, I cheat. I have a large HOSTS file with which I block any functions that
I find harmful to IE6 - basically, anything that slows it down.
I also cheat by switching off javascript when I encounter sites - like Amazon
- that use excessive javascript. It's amazing what a benefit browsing without javascript
is, when running IE6, and amazing how few sites actually provide any useful functions
with it.
Also, I no longer use web based email, but rely on POP and IMAP to handle my email
locally on my machine.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Spoofing the User Agent [is a waste of time for this]
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Ed wrote:
|My own experiences with Firefox 2 have been very positive.
|
That happens with software which has good compliance with standards.
(M$ wares are the antithesis of this--especially their previous-century junk
which was designed to PURPOSELY break compliance;
in the process, it looks like a retarded 2 year old.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer
|It copes quite easily with many websites that IE6 now struggles with.
|
{Feigned surprise}
|I have a large HOSTS file
|with which I block any functions that I find harmful to IE6
|
I guess that's better than nothing,
but the only reason anyone would *need* to run Internet Exploder
is for a site that use ActiveX or other M$-specific badware
(wonderful sources of M$-specific infections).
I've found that I can do without sites that rely on that junk, constructed by idiots.
Mozilla-compatible browsers have a far more granular approach:
AdBlock Plus (an extension).
You get a lot more effect with a lot less effort (by using wildcards).
|I also cheat by switching off javascript
|when I encounter sites - like Amazon - that use excessive javascript.
|
Again, the Mozilla approach is far more granular:
NoScript (another extension).
It can whitelist ONLY those scripts that *you* want to run.
|It's amazing what a benefit browsing without javascript is,
|
Yup.
|when running IE6,
|
Yuck.
It actually applies to ANY browser--and other browsers make it MUCH easier.
|and amazing how few sites actually provide any useful functions with it.
|
Yup. See "whitelist", above.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
Requirements for using HTML5 websites
Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
gewg_ wrote:
|[Google's use of HTML5] doesn't affect just M$'s ancient crap;
|it's a wake-up call for ANYONE running ancient crap of ANY stripe.
|[...]
|cache
of http://www.goodbyemicrosoft.net/print.php?news.656
A recent thread on the SeaMonkey newsgroup
had a gal wanting to try out an HTML5 demo page.
If you have any interest in participating in the future of the Web, brace yourself.
from the Usenet Archive -- MCBastos
(Besides the software requirements, note the hardware requirements.)
NB M$'s 6-month monkeywrenching of the Linux device driver supply chain
(which I have mentioned here recently) is also a factor touched on lightly there.
Only ONE guy who responded to the thread could see everything on the page.
from the Usenet Archive -- Ray_Net
(Note well the vintage of the OS he is running.)
On a somewhat similar Web-related topic:
Anyone who hasn't been unconscious for a decade knows that
M$ does NOT backport their "innovations" to earlier versions of Windoze.
You may have encountered sites that use M$ Silverlight for video.
Win9x will NEVER have the ability to view those videos.
Interestingly, an Open Source Software implementation of that M$ technology
exists for Linux.
http://google.com/search?q=intitle:Moonlight+Silverlight
Mono/Moonlight development lags behind M$'s version, but at least it does exist.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Requirements for using HTML5 websites
Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
|You may have encountered sites that use M$ Silverlight for video.
|Win9x
will NEVER have the ability to view those videos.
|
As a matter of fact
I haven't but so what, there already is enough porn on the net.
Another post from a thread too old to bother with. Clearly you have too much time
on your hands. The people in charge of the prison workshop really ought to find another
job for you to do, preferably something out of doors and away from the computer.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Requirements for using HTML5 websites
Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
gewg_ wrote:
||You may have encountered sites that use M$ Silverlight for video.
||Win9x will NEVER have the ability to view those videos.
||
Arminius wrote:
|As a matter of fact I haven't
|
Good to hear that you don't patronize sites built by those particular idiots.
There are some formerly clueless businesses who dabbled in that junk
but who have gotten that particular M$ monkey off their backs.
http://google.com/search?q=Silverlight+MLB
|but so what, there already is enough porn on the net.
|
http://google.com/search?q=Silverlight+Olympics+NBC
http://google.com/search?q=Silverlight+CBS
http://google.com/search?q=Silverlight+Netflix
...and when governmental agencies use proprietary technologies
rather than open standards, that makes me especially angry.
http://google.com/search?q=Silverlight+"Library-of-Congress"
Contrast that with
http://google.com/search?q=Norway+"open.standards"
(Open standard) HTML5 is an alternative to
(proprietary) Silver-Lie and (proprietary) Adobe Flash.
|Another post from a thread too old to bother with.
|
...in a forum for an obsolete OS
---which still occasionally gets new/repeat visitors
(who, apparently, haven't heard that it's obsolete).
...and (for those with reading comprehension problems),
the effective date for Google's change was August 1, 2011.
...and YOU did bother.
|Clearly you have too much time on your hands
|
Says the guy that follows me around like a puppy
and posts to threads he claims are "too old to bother with".
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Requirements for using HTML5 websites
Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
When I come across a cockroach I usually step on it.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Requirements for using HTML5 websites
Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius write:
|When I come across a cockroach[,] I usually step on it.
|
If you were going for wit, you missed the mark.
What you wrote doesn't have anything to do with a single thing I wrote.
Maybe that's why you didn't blockquote anything for context.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Requirements for using HTML5 websites
Friday, August 12, 2011 at 6:13 am
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
My comment was hyperbole.
||Clearly you have too much time on your hands
||
|Says the guy that
follows me around like a puppy
|and posts to threads he claims are "too old
to bother with".
|
When I come across a cockroach I usually step on it.
Evidently you don't like being hassled any more than anyone else does.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Requirements for using HTML5 websites
Friday, August 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|My comment was hyperbole.
|
Hyperbole would have been "over the top"; what you wrote was "out of left field".
|Evidently you don't like being hassled any more than anyone else does.
|
A good rule of thumb:
If you're going to insult someone,
don't make your references so obscure that they can't be parsed.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
