The Really Quite Unusual Screengrabs Thread . . .

For all tech/computer related or even internet related discussions not covered in other sections. Also iPad, iPhone, iPod and multimedia discussions.

Moderators: profman, Josh, Don_HH2K

Postby David Wonn » Wed 01 Sep, 2004 5:46 pm

Ever heard of Windows 3.95?

This is the result of installing Opera 3.62 on Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and running that executable under Windows 95 OSR2. I guess some 16-bit apps don't properly report the environment they are running in. That's perfectly understandable for really old apps, but for an application made in 2000 running in an OS made in 1996, it's a bit surprising if you ask me.

To avoid any confusion, I'm not bashing Opera at all. In fact, I find this version to be one of the best 16-bit web browsers out there.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.71 (Windows 3.95;US) Opera 3.62 [en]
David Wonn
super member
super member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Andrew T. » Wed 01 Sep, 2004 6:17 pm

Image

It may not be Windows 3.95, but the 2.10 version of Microsoft Diagnostics (that shipped in 1993 with Windows for Workgroups 3.11) identifies my Windows 95 OSR 2.5 installation as being "Windows 3.03."

It also identifies my Pentium III processor as a 486DX.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040803 Firefox/0.9.3
User avatar
Andrew T.
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Fri 14 Mar, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Somewhere beyond the sea

Postby DJGM » Fri 03 Sep, 2004 6:46 am

You just couldn't make it up . . . Windows Update running on Linux . . . !

Image

Click the image above to see a larger (800x600) version of the screengrab.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 - DJGM.co.uk (ax)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4550
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Lorraine » Fri 03 Sep, 2004 11:32 am

In 1996 I was using Windows 95 and Netscape 2.02 I believe. Perhaps I had updated to 3.0, not sure..it's ages ago

I installed Opera, just to try it and I tried it alright, I crashed big time and lost everything on the computer.
What a mess it was, luckily my beloved son knew computers and was able to restore Windows and Netscape for me.
It was a nightmare for me tho'.

I haven't touched Opera since then and don't dare try it although it was in it's very early stages when I downloaded it in end of 1996.

-Lorraine
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
User avatar
Lorraine
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon 21 Apr, 2003 6:55 pm

Postby David Wonn » Fri 03 Sep, 2004 8:47 pm

Lorraine wrote:I haven't touched Opera since then and don't dare try it although it was in it's very early stages when I downloaded it in end of 1996.


I was also afraid to try Opera many years ago, mainly because I had heard at the time, that when installed, it would render all other browsers on the PC unusable (which is the same reason why I detest IE 4.0 with a passion.) Now I don't know for sure if this was ever true with Opera (it certainly was with IE), so perhaps someone more familiar with the Opera timeline can enlighten me on this. I do know, however, that it hasn't been the case in a very long time, if at all.

I was bold one day and tried out Opera when version 6 was new. I was quite pleased to see how fast and efficient it was, even on an old Pentium Pro. Almost any task in Opera is just a key press or two away. For people like me who love to tweak options, it's excellent. I can toggle inline images by pressing g. With the F12 key, I can quickly toggle Javascript, cookies, plug-ins, you name it. Throw in mouse gestures, and it was quite revolutionary. Firefox didn't even exist yet (nor did its previous names.) I can confidently say without a doubt that among all the "6.x" browsers, Opera is the best. I haven't tried enough 7.x browsers to make a comparison, though.

Anyway, do try it out if you get a chance. Things have changed a lot since 1996 (and I'm sure that many more things have changed since version 6.01.)
UserAgent: Opera/6.01 (Windows 95; U) [en]
David Wonn
super member
super member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby David Wonn » Sat 04 Sep, 2004 6:14 pm

Despite Gmail's system requirements, you can still log in with Firebird 0.7. I presume it sees it as Mozilla 1.5, and thus allows you to log in. I'll post a screen shot when I get a chance.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Firebird/0.7
David Wonn
super member
super member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby beanboy89 » Sat 04 Sep, 2004 6:46 pm

David Wonn wrote:Despite Gmail's system requirements, you can still log in with Firebird 0.7. I presume it sees it as Mozilla 1.5, and thus allows you to log in. I'll post a screen shot when I get a chance.

I am actually able to log in to GMail with Mozilla 1.0.2, which is also unsuppoted by the GMail requirements. And in the What do you think about Gmail thread, I stated that I was able to log in to GMail with Netscape 7.02 which uses Mozilla 1.0.2 code. Mozilla 1.0.2 is the oldest browser I have tested with GMail.

Screenshot - Mozilla 1.0.2 in GMail
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216
User avatar
beanboy89
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sun 16 May, 2004 8:56 am

Postby David Wonn » Sat 04 Sep, 2004 10:03 pm

I'll take this even a step further. I was going to save this for later, but now you're forcing me to post this. :-)

Why log in to Gmail with Firebird 0.7, when you can log in to Gmail with Netscape 6.23!

It's really quite peculiar because I can't seem to get in with Netscape 7.01! It acts as if there's some issue with cookies. Even the newer Mozilla 1.21 does this as well. So what makes Netscape 6.23 so special? Is it looking at the 0.9.4.1 string and misinterpreting it as Firefox 0.94 (which certainly doesn't exist yet as of this writing)? It's quite puzzling to me.

Anyway, it's not without its quirks. I have to click the "sign in anyway" link first, as Gmail initially complains that it doesn't support my browser. No problem so far. Once I'm in, certain browser functions will not work. I cannot go back or forward within Gmail, and I cannot open some links into new windows. Fortunately, Gmail is still easy enough to navigate in Netscape 6.23, despite these shortcomings.

Anyone care to try logging in to Gmail in older browsers? I predict that some older 6.2x versions might work, but I don't know just how far back you can go....
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3
David Wonn
super member
super member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Andrew T. » Sat 04 Sep, 2004 10:15 pm

David Wonn wrote:Anyone care to try logging in to Gmail in older browsers? I predict that some older 6.2x versions might work, but I don't know just how far back you can go....


I'd love to try, but I'd need to earn a Gmail account before being capable of doing so!

I also noticed that you changed your Start button's caption to "David." I presume this is done by editing the EXPLORER.EXE file in a hex editor?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040803 Firefox/0.9.3
User avatar
Andrew T.
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Fri 14 Mar, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Somewhere beyond the sea

Postby David Wonn » Sat 04 Sep, 2004 10:42 pm

Correct. I hex-edited the explorer.exe file in Windows 95 to help "personalize" it. In a way, it helps me to tell my OSes apart, as it's quite easy to mistake 95 for NT or vice-versa at a moment's glance.

While it is (somewhat) common knowledge that you can rename the Start button to anything with 5 letters, it's less commonly known that you can actually remove the text entirely, saving a small amount of room on the taskbar. This is done by hex-editing at the location two bytes prior to the S in Start. It will have a default value of hex 05, indicating the number of letters to place on the start button. Simply changing that to NUL (hex 00) will make just the Windows logo visible, more than halving the size of the Start button.
UserAgent: Mozilla/4.7 (compatible; OffByOne; Windows 98) Webster Pro V3.4
David Wonn
super member
super member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Mandrake » Sat 04 Sep, 2004 11:33 pm

Andrew T. wrote:I'd love to try, but I'd need to earn a Gmail account before being capable of doing so!


Do you want a Gmail account? I can send you an invite if you'd like one.

Meanwhile . . . just how many media players does one need?

Image
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 - DJGM.co.uk (ax)
Core i7 920 | ASUS P6T Deluxe v2 | 3TB+ HDD | 12GB Corsair DDR3 | Radeon 4890 Xfire | X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty | Logitech Z-5500 Speakers | Dell 3008WFP | Seven RC1
User avatar
Mandrake
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Fri 13 Sep, 2002 6:35 am

Postby Antony » Sun 05 Sep, 2004 1:52 am

Mandrake wrote:Meanwhile . . . just how many media players does one need?
:lol:
Nice one!

BTW, you will need dual G5 processors to make sure all of them can run smoothly. (Okay, we shall keep the Mac debate in another thread.)

Presenting Antony's Desktop in Action, Part 3
featuring the Dock
Image

(QuickTime movie, QuickTime 5 required. 856KB)

You know you want a Dock like this. Five iPod ads (QuickTime movies) played at the same time.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14343
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby Edward » Sun 05 Sep, 2004 8:41 am

David Wonn wrote:Anyway, do try it out if you get a chance. Things have changed a lot since 1996 (and I'm sure that many more things have changed since version 6.01.)


7.54 is the current version of Opera and yes, it has changed quite a bit since version 6.01.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040803 Firefox/0.9.3
SillyDog701 Moderator
debian 6 - iceape - iceweasel - icedove - seamonkey
User avatar
Edward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun 01 Dec, 2002 7:15 pm

Postby Antony » Sun 05 Sep, 2004 8:57 am

Mandrake wrote:Meanwhile . . . just how many media players does one need?

Image

Jarrad, you missed one popular one - Musicmatch Jukebox
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 14343
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby DJGM » Sun 05 Sep, 2004 10:25 am

How many media players does DJGM need . . . ?!?

Image


In no particular order . . .

:arrow: Windows Media Player 9 (Classic skin)

:arrow: Windows Media Player 6.4

:arrow: Quintessential Player

:arrow: Apple QuickTime

:arrow: Apple iTunes

:arrow: Foobar 2000

:arrow: Winamp 2.95

:arrow: Sonique 1.96

:arrow: RealPlayer 10.0

:arrow: Sound Recorder
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 - DJGM.co.uk (ax)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4550
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

PreviousNext

Return to General Computing and Tech

Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]