MS Website plays havoc on older browsers

[casey.o]

I dont know what's been going on lately on Microsoft's website, but it's
not good for older browsers. Several times in recent days, I've ended
up on a MS site, to read an article or something, and since I'm using
Win98 and the limited browsers for it, which are old browsers, I am
finding the browsers completely freezing up, if I have java script
enabled.

The main problem with using the older browsers, which are all that will
operate on Win98, is script based. But I never had problems on
microsoft.com until very recently. I normally try to keep java script
disabled, which many sites bitch about, but tough shit, let em
bitch.....

Java scripts tend to make browsers run real slow or do other odd things.
But it seems the moment I get on MS's site lately, if JS is turned on,
my browsers just lock up tight. These are mozilla based browsers.
(firefox and k-meleon).

 

[VanguardLH]

I dont know what's been going on lately on Microsoft's website, but it's
not good for older browsers. Several times in recent days, I've ended
up on a MS site, to read an article or something, and since I'm using
Win98 and the limited browsers for it, which are old browsers, I am
finding the browsers completely freezing up, if I have java script
enabled.

The main problem with using the older browsers, which are all that will
operate on Win98, is script based. But I never had problems on
microsoft.com until very recently. I normally try to keep java script
disabled, which many sites bitch about, but tough shit, let em
bitch.....

Java scripts tend to make browsers run real slow or do other odd things.
But it seems the moment I get on MS's site lately, if JS is turned on,
my browsers just lock up tight. These are mozilla based browsers.
(firefox and k-meleon).

I've already seen messages from several web site saying they will no
longer support IE6. Apparently there are features or functions in later
versions that are required to now properly view their site. Since my
experience is just 1 sample of several sites demanding later versions of
IE then the aggregate of all users encountering such declaration is a
much larger total. It's not just Microsoft that is moving to up the
baseline for the minimum version of web browsers that they will support.
Lots of sites are doing that. IE6 is 13 years old! You thought sites
would stagnate? The only constant in the universe is things change.

I've seen some sites now declaring that IE8 is the minimum they will
support. They want to improve their site but still have to support a
range of web browser versions to encompass the majority of their
visitors. They realize they'll lose some visitors by upping the minimum
version for the client but they also realize that is a dwindling number
of visitors, so small that it won't impact the site's purpose. There
are still some folks using Lynx but sites don't care that they cannot be
fully viewed using a text-only web browser.

Most marketshare sites showing which version of Windows has how much
share of the Windows deployments don't even show Windows 98. That's
because it's so tiny that you couldn't see the ultra thin line
representing far under 0.1% marketshare. No one is going to waste their
time making sites compatible with that old OS. Internet Explorer 6 is
down to just 4.47% of the web browser marketshare (of just IE, even less
if you add in all the other web browsers). Again, such a small remnant
community that sites lose nearly nothing dropping support for that old
web browser version and moving on to improve their sites with features
supported by newer versions of web browsers.

The base version of IE that was included in Windows 98 was IE5? The
latest version you can install on Windows 98 is IE6. That means you
cannot install IE7, and later, on Windows 98. I don't what are the max
versions of Firefox and Chrome that you can install on Windows 98;
however, maybe you already have those. As new features become available
in web servers that expect some of them to get supported in later
versions of web browser clients then the baseline of where sites cutoff
support for older versions of clients will rise.

As for Javascript, older web browsers also make it run a lot slower. If
you checkout the web browser benchmarks over the last half dozen years,
or more, each new version of each web browser typically results in a
boost in performance in interpreting and executing Javascript. Yes,
sites have added more Javascript to their web pages, especially for
sites that like to use dynamic pages altered by client-side scripts
rather than have their server do that with server-side scripts, so
they've gotten slower; however, web browsers have sped up a lot more
than pages have enlarged their scripts to slow down.

For really old web browser versions, their interpretation and execution
speed of Javascript is so slow that sites that have upped the volume of
scripts in their web pages will makes those old web browsers take eons
to run them. In fact, the script may be so large (when compared to what
those old web browsers expected back in their heyday) that they will
probably timeout after 5 minutes (or "hang" as you noted but you didn't
say how long you waited). If you put an old Ford Model T (top speed of
45 mph under ideal conditions on a flat smooth road) in a Formula 500
race (~130 mph), the spectators would be laughing pretty loud plus it
wouldn't even be allowed on the track because it would be a severe
hazard to the other racers.

 

[Mayayana]

Script has changed dramatically in the past few
years. So-called HTML 5 is little more than extreme
use of javascript. Many corporate pages now are
essentially script-based software, loading 250 KB or
more of script. Just a few years ago, a 100 KB total
webpage size was too big to be workable, and script
was only used for simple operations.

It's not only you, though. I disable script for security
and privacy reasons, but also for functionality. Many
pages have been so overloaded with "dynamic" functionality
that they're unreadable with script enabled.

One thing I often find I
need to do with MS sites: They're fond of hidden DIVs,
where there are several topic headings with + signs to
click in order to view the topic. Those use script. To see
all of the text on the page I use View -> Page Style ->
No Style. The result looks like a page from the 90s, but
at least it's readable.

 

[Tim Slattery]

I've already seen messages from several web site saying they will no
longer support IE6. Apparently there are features or functions in later
versions that are required to now properly view their site.

As a retired web developer, I can tell you that the reason is that
nobody wants to support an obsolete, non standards-compliant browser
anymore. Supporting IE6 just takes too much special-case code. It's
nowhere near worth the hassle.

 

[BillW50]

In Tim Slattery typed:

As a retired web developer, I can tell you that the reason is that
nobody wants to support an obsolete, non standards-compliant browser
anymore. Supporting IE6 just takes too much special-case code. It's
nowhere near worth the hassle.

About a year ago, I was playing around with Firefox v2 and IE6 and while
most websites displayed on IE6 very poorly, but FF2 was even far worse.
Why don't they support FF2 either? I believe Firefox 3 and 4 still does
pretty well the last time I checked a few months ago. And why when you
are using like an 10 inch Android tablet, websites don't send you to the
desktop version, but to the mobile version of it?

 

[casey.o]

cannot install IE7, and later, on Windows 98. I don't what are the max
versions of Firefox and Chrome that you can install on Windows 98;
however, maybe you already have those. As new features become available
in web servers that expect some of them to get supported in later
versions of web browser clients then the baseline of where sites cutoff
support for older versions of clients will rise.

For Firefox, the version is the last release of Version 2. However, if
Kernel-Ex is installed, you are supposed to use up to version 6 (or was
it 8???). I could not make anything above Version 3 work properly. And
I've heard this from others. But I can and do use Version 3, the last
release, which works on basic websites.

K-Meleon is another browser I used for years, and it's become near
impossible to use on most sites, unless Java Script is disabled.
Otherwise there are constant script errors.

Chrome never made a version to use on Win98 as far as I know. In fact I
dont think it works on Win2000. But it's a browser I would not touch
for any reason.

Correct, IE6 is the last IE to work on Win98. I have had IE removed
from Win98 for probably a decade. I never could stand IE5 or 6.

I have not seen this happen in years, but years ago, some websites would
try to open IE, even if I had Firefox or another browser set as my
default browser. After I removed IE, when a site tried to open IE, my
system would get all goofy, and post error messages. I easily solved
that by making a copy of CALC.exe and renaming it to IEXPLORE.EXE.
So, if the calculator opened on it's own, I knew why, but it eliminated
the error messages.

 

[casey.o]

I would think for the same reasons. Besides which, FF2 is really quite
dated now, isn't it (ditto for FF3 and FF4)?

FF is already up to version 30, but I've played it safe, and stuck with
version 24. But I think it's going downhill, too, with changes to its
interface and more added fluff. I'm just hoping we'll be able to continue
to use the older versions, and that they would stop jazzing up the web
sites, but that doesn't seem to be the trend. (More added glitz is what
sells, I guess).

FF changes so often now, that people cant keep up with it. Many people
are fed up with it. I use FF8 on my laptop until a few weeks ago, I
upgraded to ver 14. That works fine.

I also have Seamonkey, which is what FF used to be. I have their latest
version (as of 2 months ago). It's nice! Before I upgrade FF any
higher, I'll be using Seamonkey.

I did test out FF 27 or 28 awhile ago, on my XP desktop. Its a bloated
piece of shit!!! I removed it and went back to ver 8. (which dont
matter because I dont get a decent internet connection on that computer
anyhow).

 

[casey.o]

One thing I often find I
need to do with MS sites: They're fond of hidden DIVs,
where there are several topic headings with + signs to
click in order to view the topic. Those use script. To see
all of the text on the page I use View -> Page Style ->
No Style. The result looks like a page from the 90s, but
at least it's readable.

I have to do this on Ebay. If I load Ebay pages with JS turned on,
after a few pages, the pages get so slow it takes me 5 minutes to scroll
from the top to the bottom of the page. (using FF3 on Win98. ).

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co typed:

I would think for the same reasons. Besides which, FF2 is really
quite dated now, isn't it (ditto for FF3 and FF4)?

Yes FF2 is old, but so is 3 and 4, but they still work quite well. So
why is 2 is basically unusable and 3 is fine most of the time?

FF is already up to version 30, but I've played it safe, and stuck
with version 24. But I think it's going downhill, too, with
changes to its interface and more added fluff. I'm just hoping
we'll be able to continue to use the older versions, and that they
would stop jazzing up the web sites, but that doesn't seem to be the
trend. (More added glitz is what sells, I guess).

I use FF23 on my XP and 7 machines and the latest beta for my Windows 8
machines. Isn't FF24 the first one to use the new interface? I know TB24
has that new interface, maybe FF didn't until 27 or something.

 

[Paul]

In Bill in Co typed:

Yes FF2 is old, but so is 3 and 4, but they still work quite well. So
why is 2 is basically unusable and 3 is fine most of the time?


I use FF23 on my XP and 7 machines and the latest beta for my Windows 8
machines. Isn't FF24 the first one to use the new interface? I know TB24
has that new interface, maybe FF didn't until 27 or something.

Web sites that use browser sniffing, could do things to your
FF2 on purpose. Same with browser sniffing of IE6. You have
the option of using User-Agent spoofing, to stop them.

While Tim feels that people don't add extra code for these
browsers, they could just add special code to break the browsers
in question. A purposeful attempt to drive people away from the
browser. It might not be a purely "accidental browser failure".

Note that the latest versions of IE, stopped supporting browser
sniffing. (It was a purposeful decision by Microsoft developers.
The User-agent string is designed to be less helpful for sniffing.)
And there are still web developers out there who sniff everything,
and their sniffing code reaches the wrong conclusion when the latest
IE is sniffed. Maybe the sniffing code says it is Firefox or
something And then you wonder why your latest IE doesn't
work when you attempt to use your banking site.

Good developers do extensive testing. They are likely to have
run an IE6 test case (in a VM), seen the mess... and moved on.
Happy as a clam.

*******

The part I like the best, is when a site puts up one of those
"our web site uses cookies and you should have cookies turned on"
messages. And you check and double check, and your cookie setting
is *wide open*. And you have no cookie block add-on either.
Well, it's not cookies they're worried about. They seek to abuse
your browser, one of those modern browsers with
HTML5 domain storage, Flash storage, all the things that
Evercookie-like code attacks. Of course the idiots could
"just set a traditional cookie", but the message is actually
expressing their dis-satisfaction that they can't set the cookie
in thirty different places. Modern browsers have storage leakage
all over the place, and web sites seek to "stuff a cookie in any
crevice they can find". It brings a smile to my face, when a web
site discovers my ancient browser can't be exploited that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie

Code to test your browser for leaky behavior, is here.

http://www.samy.pl/evercookie/

My active browser, passes that test. With nothing more
than "Clear Private Data". But of course, the Evercookie
code in that example, isn't using every possible crevice.
For example, if you keep browser site history, that
could be exploited to store data.

And rest assured, that the staff at Mozilla writing Firefox,
they'll be careful to *not* arm the "Clear Private Data" button,
with the ability to actually clean that crap out. They love
that idea, and the Evercookie. It's $$$ to their ears.
Google sponsor $$$. "Don't do evil". "Just do evil for $$$
we give you."

Paul

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, VanguardLH <[email protected]>
writes:
[]

I've already seen messages from several web site saying they will no
longer support IE6. Apparently there are features or functions in later
versions that are required to now properly view their site. Since my []
I've seen some sites now declaring that IE8 is the minimum they will
support. They want to improve their site but still have to support a
range of web browser versions to encompass the majority of their

But in many cases, the "improvement" isn't; it uses these "features and
functions" but doesn't improve the usability of the site. OK, in some
cases it does, but very many show no actual improvement in return for
the new requirements.
[]

 

[casey.o]

Why would you remove IE? It is integrated into the GUI. IE is there not
only for browsing, but it does a lot of other GUI tasks not related to
the web. Now the GUI is crippled. You might as well remove the whole GUI
desktop at this point, because using the desktop without IE integration
is just asking for problems.

And the reason why IE opened up even when you set Firefox as the
default, is because Mozilla only set a few file types to use Firefox and
not all of them (yes, Mozilla programmers are stupid too). There are
dozens of file types that calls up a browser. If not all of them are set
for Firefox and just one is still set for IE, this will happen.

People always say how Win98 is unstable. Getting rid of IE makes it
very stable. There is a program called IEradicate. It removed just the
parts that are not needed and leaves the rest. Much of the embedded
parts are still there, but the browser is completely gone. I've run
it this way for many years and it's very stable.

IE 5 and 6 were horrid anyhow. I have 8 on my laptop with XP. Thats a
huge improvement, but I rarely use it.

 

[BillW50]

In (e-mail address removed) typed:

Correct, IE6 is the last IE to work on Win98. I have had IE removed
from Win98 for probably a decade. I never could stand IE5 or 6.

I have not seen this happen in years, but years ago, some websites
would try to open IE, even if I had Firefox or another browser set as
my default browser. After I removed IE, when a site tried to open
IE, my system would get all goofy, and post error messages. I easily
solved that by making a copy of CALC.exe and renaming it to
IEXPLORE.EXE.
So, if the calculator opened on it's own, I knew why, but it
eliminated the error messages.

Why would you remove IE? It is integrated into the GUI. IE is there not
only for browsing, but it does a lot of other GUI tasks not related to
the web. Now the GUI is crippled. You might as well remove the whole GUI
desktop at this point, because using the desktop without IE integration
is just asking for problems.

And the reason why IE opened up even when you set Firefox as the
default, is because Mozilla only set a few file types to use Firefox and
not all of them (yes, Mozilla programmers are stupid too). There are
dozens of file types that calls up a browser. If not all of them are set
for Firefox and just one is still set for IE, this will happen.

 

[VanguardLH]

People always say how Win98 is unstable. Getting rid of IE makes it
very stable. There is a program called IEradicate. It removed just the
parts that are not needed and leaves the rest. Much of the embedded
parts are still there, but the browser is completely gone. I've run
it this way for many years and it's very stable.

How is an application that is not loaded into memory and running cause
instability in the OS? Nope, it was IE that was unstable and would hang
or crash.

I don't know what parts of IE that get removed and which are left behind
by IEradicate. It isn't just IE that uses IE's libraries. There are
HTAs (HTML Applications) that rely on IE's lib. The HTA uses the IE lib
to paint its window and perform other tasks. This is akin to a program
that requires the C or VB runtimes be installed to call on them to
perform functions. If you remove IE then the HTAs cannot load. I
haven't used either Symantec of McAfee for a long time but back then
they're config UI was an HTA. Screwing over IE meant you couldn't do
anything with those anti-virus programs. They would load and perform
normally but you couln't load the UI to use or configure them. If you
have no apps that are HTAs and command that you will never use any
despite how much you want the app then you don't care how you screw over
IE.

Of course, back in its heyday, if you didn't have IE then you couldn't
update via the Windows Update site. If you don't use IE (i.e., you
never load it) then the disk space you regain after removing IE is so
trivial that there's no point in removing it. Just don't use it. If
you don't load it (or its libs) then it cannot affect the OS. The
existence of files on storage media doesn't affect stability of the OS.

 

[Mayayana]

| I don't know what parts of IE that get removed and which are left behind
| by IEradicate. It isn't just IE that uses IE's libraries. There are
| HTAs (HTML Applications) that rely on IE's lib.

And CHM help files. The IE browser window is ubiquitous. IE
itself is just a frame around that. And much of the networking
Win32 API uses IE libs. A lot of software uses what are essentially
IE Internet functions because developers use those libs. They're
easy to use because they're basically just IE wrappers. People
can end up with all sorts of things in their IE cache, even if they
don't use IE, because they use software from developers who don't
know the difference between communicating with a server and
just automating IE. All of that software would break without IE.

I suspect that what Casey is talking about with "removing IE"
is just removing shortcuts and maybe renaming iexplore.exe.

In any case, he's very fond of being annoyed. I think we
could all agree on that.

 

[Jon Danniken]

For really old web browser versions, their interpretation and execution
speed of Javascript is so slow that sites that have upped the volume of
scripts in their web pages will makes those old web browsers take eons
to run them. In fact, the script may be so large (when compared to what
those old web browsers expected back in their heyday) that they will
probably timeout after 5 minutes (or "hang" as you noted but you didn't
say how long you waited).

I think the web was a lot better before all of these various scripts on
webpages. I realize that people need work, but most pages would do just
fine with just basic html.

Jon

 

[VanguardLH]

But in many cases, the "improvement" isn't; it uses these "features and
functions" but doesn't improve the usability of the site. OK, in some
cases it does, but very many show no actual improvement in return for
the new requirements.

What's an improvement for them in designing and supporting a web site
does not necessarily relate to any change the user can see. For
example, they'd like to get rid of all the special hacks needed only for
the older web browsers in trying to accomplish the same function when
using a newer IE or other web browser. They'd like to clean out the
speghetti code and special checking code that is old-version dependent.

A lot of sites, if not most, use libraries they don't write; i.e.,
they're not wasting their time rewriting code that is already widespread
and well tested. jquery is used at a lot of sites. According to
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/14/jquery_used_by_half_of_all_websites/,
about half of the web sites use this Javascript library. Now go look at
http://jquery.com/browser-support/ to see the minimum version for the
clients.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

BillW50 wrote: []

Yes FF2 is old, but so is 3 and 4, but they still work quite well. So
why is 2 is basically unusable and 3 is fine most of the time?

2 works OK for me on the one site I use that PC on (-:. (It's the last
version of F that works on 98-without-kernelex.) Still better than the
last version of IE I had on there, but that could well have been
whatever came with 98 rather than the latest (6?) that would run, as I
IEradicated it years (decades?) ago.

I expect because ver 2 is so much older, so it probably suffers for the same
reasons as IE6 (regarding coding for it). The web sites are just getting
more complex, unfortunately. (More glitz, less substance, since that's
evidently what brings in viewers and sells, unfortunately).


I didn't notice any new interface in this version. I think it was ver 28,
but I'm not sure now. And somebody has probably commented on it in
FileForum, but I haven't checked. (Plus I didn't want to have to deal with
breaking old add-ons, either, in addition to the alleged or so-called
interface "improvements").

Exactly: it works. I've stopped auto-upgrading at 25.0.1. I think the
new "Australis" UI came in with 29.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Paul <[email protected]>
writes:
[]

The part I like the best, is when a site puts up one of those
"our web site uses cookies and you should have cookies turned on"
messages. And you check and double check, and your cookie setting
is *wide open*. And you have no cookie block add-on either.
Well, it's not cookies they're worried about. They seek to abuse
your browser, one of those modern browsers with
HTML5 domain storage, Flash storage, all the things that
Evercookie-like code attacks. Of course the idiots could
"just set a traditional cookie", but the message is actually
expressing their dis-satisfaction that they can't set the cookie
in thirty different places. Modern browsers have storage leakage
all over the place, and web sites seek to "stuff a cookie in any
crevice they can find". It brings a smile to my face, when a web
site discovers my ancient browser can't be exploited that way.

[]
To be fair, not _all_ sites that ask that question are sulking for that
reason; a year or few ago some legislation was passed (maybe only in
EU?) that in effect said they had to ask before setting cookies, and so
they do. (I _presume_ if you say OK, they set a cookie so they don't
keep asking, though maybe some don't check and always ask.)

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>,

That's what MS wanted you to believe, yes.

What are these types?

People always say how Win98 is unstable. Getting rid of IE makes it
very stable. There is a program called IEradicate. It removed just the
parts that are not needed and leaves the rest. Much of the embedded
parts are still there, but the browser is completely gone. I've run
it this way for many years and it's very stable.

+1. IEradicate was from the same people who made (I think it's still
available) 98lite, which allowed you to run the simpler and more stable
(and quicker) 95 shell but still have the advantages of 98 (I forget
what, other than better USB - was it FAT32 among other things). (The 98
shell had among other things eye-candy which noticeable slowed things
down.) 98lite included the IEradicate function, but they provided
IEradicate (free!) for those who only wanted to do that.

IE 5 and 6 were horrid anyhow. I have 8 on my laptop with XP. Thats a
huge improvement, but I rarely use it.

Ditto - only for sites that really won't play ball with my F 25.0.1
(with my current lot of plugins - I find it easier to try IE than mess
around turning F plugins off).