Timeline for Latest web browser compatible with Windows 95 / 98
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2020 at 16:45 | comment | added | Alan B | @Zeus Run Opera 12 in a VM then. Since you seem to know better than the combined wisdom of OS and internet security experts. | |
| May 20, 2019 at 23:29 | comment | added | dave_thompson_085 | @JeremyP+ certificate authentication/validation is independent of TLS/SSL version, but has its own issues: certs valid today use SHA-2 since both MD5 and SHA-1 have been broken for collision, but XP didn't support SHA-2 until SP3 in 2008, so I expect 2k and 9x didn't at all. Plus most of the CAs used today didn't exist in the 90s and so won't be in the truststore unless manually fixed. It might work to 'outboard' TLS: route old browser through a proxy like nginx or haproxy that does modern TLS upstream. This could also do HTTP/1.1 if necessary. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 11:03 | history | edited | John Dallman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add Windows 95 mention.
|
| Mar 15, 2019 at 0:28 | comment | added | Cubic | @Zeus I'm not asking you why you refuse to upgrade. I genuinely don't care. I'm explaining to you why website operators don't care either. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 23:39 | comment | added | Zeus | @Cubic, I'm not going to discuss the old tired argument 'people are too stupid to make right decisions', but more on-topic (even generally for RC.SE :) - why refuse to upgrade? - for example, because no browser ever closely approached usability of Opera 12. To the point that I'm prepared to sacrifice some of my security for that usability. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 12:51 | comment | added | Cubic | @Zeus First of all, 99% of users have no way to assess what level of security they want or need. From a websites perspective there's also frankly no sane reason why they'd lower their security standards just because some stubborn users refuse to upgrade their outdated systems. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 9:33 | comment | added | JeremyP | @Zeus At a minimum, the user needs to be confident that the web site they are at is the one they think they are at, which means there needs to be a certificate on the web site that the user trusts and it needs to match the URL the user typed in. And the mechanism to verify the certificate needs to be as secure as possible. You need TLS and it needs to be a fairly modern version. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 8:19 | comment | added | Zeus | Well, in most cases they really have nothing to lose except me as a customer. This 'weakening' is like having a 50 mm armoured door instead of 60 mm for your house. But I'm fine with my beautiful oak door. So let's agree to disagree and not continue such discussion here. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 7:54 | comment | added | Moo | @Zeus I disagree - every website should always have the best security available, no exceptions. Why should it be solely your choice to weaken security when there are two parties involved - you and the website. Every website has something to lose. | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 7:49 | comment | added | Zeus | @Moo, because an overwhelming majority of websites don't really require any security to bother with at all. But more specifically, the practical security improvements of TLS 1.3 do not justify breaking backward compatibility and thereby forcing an upgrade (a despicable current trend). For all but some specific cases (like banking), TLS 1.2 (and often even plain http) is just fine. It should be my choice to select between security and usability (or other costs). | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 7:11 | comment | added | Moo | @Zeus why is it foolish to not support older, less secure TLS and SSL versions? | |
| Mar 14, 2019 at 6:42 | comment | added | Zeus | As someone who still regularly uses Opera 12, I can say that the biggest problem is not so much javascript, but rather the websites which [foolishly] only support https with TLS 1.3. | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 14:25 | comment | added | xorsyst | @Nelson As someone who occasionally browses with javascript completely disabled, I can say this simply isn't true. Many major websites work fine, although others don't. Any my goodness, the web is much faster with no javascript. | |
| Mar 13, 2019 at 6:19 | comment | added | Nelson | Strictly speaking all of these are nearly unusable. Javascript is VERY difference now (I worked as a web dev dealing with IE6 compatibility issues). Almost no website will work using a browser that is more than 10 years old. | |
| Mar 12, 2019 at 17:42 | history | answered | John Dallman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |