Best web browser for windows 95.

MrVestek

I have the perfect Operating System for that hardware, it'll work a treat!

Screenshot here:
http://goo.gl/6z7GH

tuxy

Fysh wrote: »

Are you kidding? Look at how much Javascript a site like boards.ie uses, and imagine how well that'll run on something like the hardware you'd be getting in a Win95-era PC.

You know a browser like lynx will work just fine for reading boards

I see the OP probably needs to keep on to win95 for some reason. If you want speed then the win32 version of lynx will do the job. Perhaps someone else knows of other lightweight browsers that provide more junction.

The PC is obviously working fine at its intended function so why scrap it?

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

The PC is obviously working fine at its intended function so why scrap it?

Because its a power hungry beast with the processing power of a wristwatch, a more modern PC will save you money. It's a false economy to run something like this.

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Because its a power hungry beast with the processing power of a wristwatch, a more modern PC will save you money. It's a false economy to run something like this.

How power hungry is it?

Fysh

tuxy wrote: »

You know a browser like lynx will work just fine for reading boards

I see the OP probably needs to keep on to win95 for some reason. If you want speed then the win32 version of lynx will do the job. Perhaps someone else knows of other lightweight browsers that provide more junction.

The PC is obviously working fine at its intended function so why scrap it?

If the OP needs to keep Win95 around for some reason (specific software/hardware support, for example) that's one thing.

There is no sane reason for putting that system on the internet at large without taking a substantial number of precautions to prevent the many, many vulnerabilities that would be exploitable in the OS from being used by bored or malicious attackers for fun, profit or mischief. And that's without even discussing the horrendous experience of getting any current software to run on Windows 95 unless it's been written expressly for that.

The way I see it, one of two situations apply:
a) the machine and OS have to be retained for some non-trivial reason (controlling hardware, running specialist software etc). In which case, fine, but keep the damn thing offline; or
b) the machine and OS have been retained for no real reason and the only use of the machine is web browsing - in which case the electrical power inefficiency on the system will alone mean that it's likely the most expensive way of doing very basic web browsing available.

Why scrap it? Because unless it's doing a very specialised job, it's the Cro-Magnon man of computers and will cost far more in terms of time spent maintaining it (or just waiting for it to do stuff) than the cost of a basic contemporary replacement.

Jesus, I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation.

Edited to add:

tuxy wrote: »

How power hungry is it?

For a Win95-era machine, you're talking the best part of 20 years of degradation of the components (capacitor leakage, etc) as well as hardware which had no real power efficiency to speak of. So while the actual processing power available would likely cost you maybe 30W on modern hardware (or less on something like a Pi), a machine this old and creaky is likely to be using far more than that. Only the OP can answer for sure, but I'd lay odds on it being the least efficient way available of getting that amount of computational power.

tuxy

The OP says he needs to keep it running in certain parts of the plant.

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

How power hungry is it?

Specs haven't been posted, but they all were back then. One of the great advances in computers along with the huge increase in processing power is the energy saving features. They do things more efficiently and downclock themselves to a low power state when the power isn't required. There is even a huge difference in power consumption between running a modern PC and a 7 year old Pentium 4, a Windows 95 PC is most likely 10 years older than that. It's a dinosaur

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

The OP says he needs to keep it running in certain parts of the plant.

Well then, keep it off the internet

skimpydoo

Achilles wrote: »

Booo! That's region locked over here.

I can see it just fine. Where are you?.

Fysh

Further to my previous post, go take a look at this page for a list of some of the outstanding Windows 95 vulnerabilities.

Then consider that not only would you be risking the integrity and security of your own system by putting such a paleocomputer on the internet, but you'd also likely be contributing to problems experienced elsewhere given how easily it could be exploited and roped into DDOS attacks or botnets.

tuxy wrote: »

The OP says he needs to keep it running in certain parts of the plant.

Maybe he does. I can tell you from professional experience, such systems may well be necessary for equipment running, but they very rarely need to be networked. 99 times out of 100, someone saying that they "need" such a system on the network is actually saying "My job involves long, boring hours watching this thing and being on call in case the Red Light O' Doom lights up, and I want this computer networked so I can look at cat videos on youtube/browse boards/view wildly inappropriate video content when I think nobody's looking".

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

There is even a huge difference in power consumption between running a modern PC and a 7 year old Pentium 4, a Windows 95 PC is most likely 10 years older than that. It's a dinosaur

But something like a pentium II would only use a fraction(25% I think) of the power of the notoriously hungry P4. So you can't base power usage on age. Perhaps the OP has a power hungry system but maybe not. How can you say with out system specs?

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

But something like a pentium II would only use a fraction(25% I think) of the power of the notoriously hungry P4. So you can't base power usage on age. Perhaps the OP has a power hungry system but maybe not. How can you say with out system specs?

A Raspberry Pi is 2.5 Watt and has more processing power

I have a dual core Atom HTPC that uses 15 Watt streaming 1080p media from my network

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

A Raspberry Pi is 2.5 Watt and has more processing power

I have a dual core Atom HTPC that uses 15 Watt streaming 1080p media from my network

Do you think the windows 95 software the op needs will run on a ARM processor?

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

Do you think the windows 95 software the op needs will run on a ARM processor?

Me thinks you're trolling now.

We understand the OP needs to keep this PC running, that is fine. I've dealt with situations like this from time to time. But FFS, it has no place on the internet

Fysh

Tuxy:

Why exactly are you so insistent on arguing against the good advice re: not networking an ancient, bug-riddled OS that will only run on ancient legacy hardware that has been given in this thread?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just genuinely curious why you seem to think that it's a good idea when to everyone else (or at least everyone with professional sysadmin experience) it's an appalling idea.

tuxy

The system is already networked there would be a reason behind this. Windows 95 is the operating system the OP needs. I'm going on the facts provided by the OP not speculation that many of the other posts contain.

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

The system is already networked there would be a reason behind this. Windows 95 is the operating system the OP needs. I'm going on the facts provided by the OP not speculation that many of the other posts contain.

Being networked doesn't necessarily mean has internet access

tuxy

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Being networked doesn't necessarily mean has internet access

Then perhaps his current use of IE is for some internal web server or he has parts of the intenet burnt to cd rom. People should advise him if there is a better option to the IE browser on win 95 since that's his question.

Fysh

tuxy wrote: »

The system is already networked there would be a reason behind this. Windows 95 is the operating system the OP needs. I'm going on the facts provided by the OP not speculation that many of the other posts contain.

The OP needs Win95.

The OP needs to control some unspecified plant equipment.

We know the OP is asking about browsers, not that the machine is networked or that its primary function requires networking.

Facts you're conveniently ignoring include:

• the relatively high power consumption and relatively low computational power present in Windows 95 era hardware, compared to modern equivalents
• the high number of unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows 95
• the consistency of professional advice from various posters including myself regarding the relative sanity of networking such a system

You're entitled to your opinion, just like anyone else. All I'm saying is that you're basing it on a highly selective (and IMO silly) set of facts rather than all available information. And, yes, I'm inclined to think you're trolling at this stage.

Edited to add: You do realise the OP hasn't returned to this thread since starting it nearly 2 years ago, yeah?

tuxy

Fysh wrote: »

Edited to add: You do realise the OP hasn't returned to this thread since starting it nearly 2 years ago, yeah?

Of course that's why I'm using all available info in my answers.
The OP needs win 95 and needs a browser that work on win 95. This is all we have to go on.
It's been an interesting debate.

PogMoThoin

tuxy wrote: »

Then perhaps his current use of IE is for some internal web server or he has parts of the intenet burnt to cd rom. People should advise him if there is a better option to the IE browser on win 95 since that's his question.

You really are clutching at straws here to keep your argument going. People have already advised on the better option, it's unwise and not worth the hassle.

tuxy

It can't become an argument until we debate which browers are the best for the win 95 operating system. I've already segessted Lynx win32 out there, does anyone care to discuss its merits or limitations? Possible replacements?
Can we find something with Low memory and CPU usage but some kind of java support? Is Java support even necessary?

Fysh

tuxy wrote: »

It can't become an argument until we debate which browers are the best for the win 95 operating system. I've already segessted Lynx win32 out there, does anyone care to discuss its merits or limitations? Possible replacements?
Can we find something with Low memory and CPU usage but some kind of java support? Is Java support even necessary?

Your argument is entirely predicated on the unsubstantiated assumption that the OP needs rather than wants network access.

We know he needs the computer to keep equipment running; we've got precisely no info on what web-based services (internal or external) he's accessing. Which means that any and all advice on which browser to use is worthless.

Funny you'd bring up Java of all things; as if a Windows 95 install by itself wouldn't have enough security vulnerabilities :rolleyes:

MrVestek

Lads will you all calm down?

Clearly there's a plant out there with a computer that's highly exploitable... all we have to do is find it.

Yeah... good idea OP put it on the Internet. Brilliant idea.

Capt'n Midnight

PogMoThoin wrote: »

A Raspberry Pi is 2.5 Watt and has more processing power

2.5W ?

A smartphone with a 4Ah battery that can last all day has more processing power.

And it can run windows 95 in an emulator (if you have the licenses :P )
http://www.androidnova.org/run-windows-xp9895-on-your-multi-core-android-phone/

Capt'n Midnight

Achilles wrote: »

Clearly there's a plant out there with a computer that's highly exploitable... all we have to do is find it.

that was back in post 26 https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84054457&postcount=26

At this state VM's are the way to go for really old legacy stuff as I'd be worried about drive failure unless it needs specific hardware and then the fun begins.

djsim101

oooohhh the memories.....god good, I LOVE retro technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miZHa7ZC6Z0

MrVestek

djsim101 wrote: »

oooohhh the memories.....god good, I LOVE retro technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miZHa7ZC6Z0

The poster above is a hipster and has never had the pleasure of Windows 95 growing up. :-)

unkel

Lads, the OP just PMd me he upgraded the PC to NT4 last year. Mods can close the thread now

MrVestek

Windows NT4?

The machine could handle that? For the love of god please don't add that machine to a domain... please... PLEASE!