Computing.net webpage problem with win3x

Many/various / X86
July 28, 2017 at 13:00:35
Specs: DOS/Win16, lots/varient
I can seem to get computing.net to load from within windows 3.11.
What is the best 16-bit web browser to view computing.net with?

See More: Computing.net webpage problem with win3x

Reply ↓  Report •

#1
July 28, 2017 at 14:46:00
Depends on what your system specs are, but IMHO---Opera 3.62 was the last "good" browser for 16-bit Windows. You could try Internet Explorer 5, but it's a resource-hog and sometimes needs tweaking for RAM issues. Netscape Communicator 4.08 is out there somewhere, but also is a "heavy" browser. Links below:

Opera 3.62:

http://arc.opera.com/pub/opera/win/...

I.E 5:

http://www.oldapps.com/internet_exp...

Netscape 4.08:

http://ftp.vim.org/netscape/communi...

Remember you also need a Winsock interface (which you probably already have).

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#2
July 28, 2017 at 15:03:59

The computer is a Compaq Presario 5441 running Windows 3.11.

I have tried Netscape 4.08 and Opera 3.62.
Although other web sites work, I am unable to visit Computing.net.



Reply ↓  Report •

#3
July 28, 2017 at 18:15:10
"The computer is a Compaq Presario 5441 running Windows 3.11

Amount of RAM? HDD size?

Does Computing.net actually load up? Or if there's some error message, what is it?

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Reply ↓  Report •

Related Solutions

#4
July 28, 2017 at 19:25:17
T-R-A, I am sorry if I have confused you.

The windows 3.11 computer has 64MB of RAM and an 8GB disk drive.
It has on-board SIS530 video and ESS Solo audio.
I have added a Netgear FA310TX.

This Compaq Presario 5441 setup works very well.

Although I can load other web sites, Computing.net has an error that prevents its HTML pages from loading.

Netscape 4.08 says A network error occurred while Netscape was receiving data.
Opera 3.62 says Secure Connection:Fatal Error (40).


Reply ↓  Report •

#5
July 28, 2017 at 20:50:06
Unfortunately, you're likely being shifted to "https" pages instead of "http" on this site. The SSL security certificates that are currently in use likely aren't usable in older browsers (and I personally don't know of any way around that). You might have a little better success with IE 5 (it being the "most recent" Win3.x browser), but I have serious doubts about that. It's likely more and more pages you visit will be that way in time as well...

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Reply ↓  Report •

#6
July 29, 2017 at 06:06:39
I tried the 16-bit Niles/houseofa browser.
With it there computing.net gives a web page that says.

<html>
<head><title>301 Moved Permanently</title></head>
<body bgcolor="white">
<center><h1>301 Moved Permanently</h1></center>
<hr><center>nginx</center>
</body>
</html>

Has computing.net moved?


Reply ↓  Report •

#7
July 29, 2017 at 08:09:34
The 301 error (301 Moved Permanently) is the aforementioned shift from http to https :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301

and the browser won't accept the secure redirect.

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Reply ↓  Report •

#8
July 29, 2017 at 08:32:30
Thank you for your help T-R-A.

Computing.net's HTML pages are no longer openly available to the public for generic browsers to download and view?


Reply ↓  Report •

#9
July 29, 2017 at 08:49:04
"Computing.net's HTML pages are no longer openly available to the public for generic browsers to download and view?"

It's not really an issue of being openly available to the public, just that the landscape (i.e.---web pages) of the internet has changed (due to security issues as much as "new technologies") to the extent that the old browsers from years ago can't interpret them. Not necessarily saying this was for the better, just that given the pitfalls of having data compromised---it had to happen. It'd be nice if someone could develop a 16-bit version of something like current Firefox or Chrome...but sadly the demand for such just isn't there

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#10
July 29, 2017 at 09:44:36
The interpreted part of a webpage I can read in my text editor.
If I could download this HTML document I could view it easily.

I understand there are many types of security( international, corporate, personal, etc...)
What type of security does perusal of public documents by venerable patrons represent?

Are these superannuated computer programs dangerous?


Reply ↓  Report •

#11
July 29, 2017 at 10:37:37
"Are these superannuated computer programs dangerous?"

If you refer to the 16-bit programs/browsers, then no, not really as much as maybe someone like Microsoft would like you to think they are. There's a margin of risk in any computer activity, especially for anything online. The world has moved from 16-bit to 32/64-bit from the time of Windows 3.1---therefore, the "ne're-do-wells" (those who create viruses/spyware/adware) have moved along as well. It's not impossible to get a virus online with a 16-bit OS...just pretty damn difficult. While there's something to be said about keeping up-to-date with the latest and greatest hardware/software, there's more money involved in doing so than I personally am willing to part with. I continue to use an "old" OS daily (WinXP), an old browser (Firefox 30 Portable), and older programs/utilities as well. I maintain an older virus-scanner (Avast 5-which continues to get updates) and run spyware and adware utilities as well. I'm pretty comfortable with what I have but I also know that eventually, I'll have to upgrade simply because some of these things simply will become so outdated that they won't work. Keeping an old machine/OS running isn't against the law, it just becomes more difficult as time goes on....

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#12
July 29, 2017 at 11:39:54
If the old 16-bit web browsers are generally innocuous,
then are you saying computing.net's content would be a security threat
to my personal computers security?
Or are you saying that the win32s browsers are the greater threat?

The greatest nerd-duels are all 64-bit now?
I no longer have a 64-bit OS... I suppose Should secure one.

T-R-A, I'm glad to hear you have a posh XP computer.
I hope that PC outlives your expectations
and I wish you luck in dealing with your XP difficulties.

Thank you for updating me on all these things.


Reply ↓  Report •

#13
July 29, 2017 at 12:27:50
"If the old 16-bit web browsers are generally innocuous,
then are you saying computing.net's content would be a security threat
to my personal computers security?
Or are you saying that the win32s browsers are the greater threat?"

Https is used to help ensure that data between two machines has less chance of being compromised. Thus I'm sure the webmasters here migrated to it to protect machines connecting to the site---unfortunately that limits the number machines/browsers that can do so (as you have now determined).

Win32 anything would be a current greater threat than Win16, simply for the fact that so few people use 16-bit Windows it wouldn't be much of a incentive (not that I can see one anyway) for someone to write malware for it.

"...glad to hear you have a posh XP computer.
I hope that PC outlives your expectations and I wish you luck in dealing with your XP difficulties."

Thank you, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it "posh"; it (or "they" as the case may be) just does everything I need it to. Where I work, I hear (much younger) guys talking about all their games and stuff they can run on their newer "Win10" systems. I also overhear their complaints about every time their system upchucks on them as well. While they jokingly ridicule my desire to stay a luddite, I just grin and remind them every chance I get that I (at least currently) have no issues with my "old-school" method, contrary to what they have with theirs.

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#14
July 29, 2017 at 14:15:29
T-R-A, you think that my public communications are being compromised?
Are you suggesting corruption within computing.net's staff or
within some place like AT&T?
Or are you just reminding me that everything I type here is public information?

Standards and bureaucracy do not prevent corruption, they simply encourage organized crime.
If malevolent programmers targeting modern systems are the major threat, then why exclude legacy access?
Modern developers have access to HTTPS info don't they?

After looking at this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301
It seems to me that computing.net's 301 page may be incomplete.
Perhaps it can be fixed.


Reply ↓  Report •

#15
July 29, 2017 at 14:28:24
"T-R-A, you think that my public communications are being compromised?"

Not at all. Just that as you mention, everything that's out there on a public forum is available to anybody. It's not the nature for any legitimate site (including this one) to have a deviant-intent with their information. I'm just stating that https was initially developed to secure information from those that aren't so well-intentioned. But as many people have stated---somebody somewhere out there knows what you're doing on the internet...

"If malevolent programmers targeting modern systems are the major threat, then why exclude legacy access?"

Put it this way, if you have the malevolence to rob a bank in a short amount of time and you have a load of $100 and $50 bills available in the vault, why would you bother to pick through only $1 bills and change. While 16-bit systems still are out there, almost all malware is designed to compromise the majority of systems using the most widely-used OS (32/64-bit Windows). Therefore you'd want to ensure that the methodologies being used to prevent such a "theft" would keep the majority of people coming back...

The fault that is here is the obsolescence of the 16-bit Windows platform, not anything that webmasters (either intentionally or unintentionally) create.


"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#16
July 29, 2017 at 15:39:31
How about that.
I thought Netscape Communications created HTTPS in 1994 for its Netscape Navigator web browser.

I thought Android/Linux was the most common OS in use today and
I never would have guessed that the security threat was some old NT programmer.
Perhaps you have deduced the the culprit.

Clearly my obscene obeisance to obsolescence has hindered my progression to acquiescence.

Thank you T-R-A.


Reply ↓  Report •

#17
July 29, 2017 at 16:32:20
"Clearly my obscene obeisance to obsolescence has hindered my progression to acquiescence."

You're no more guilty than I am myself. I have machines running Windows 3.0/3.1/WfWG as well as a DOS-only/Geoworks machine in the works and one running Windows 95/98/2000. I'm in the process of also delving into command-line Linux and I cut my "computer-teeth" on MS-DOS 3.3 and still use DOS/Win3x on occasion, just to keep myself "sharp" on it. I am, however, guilty of having a Win7 machine, but that's my limit. If you're on the trailing-edge of things, then I'm right there with you. Nice to have had the chat....

T-R-A

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#18
July 29, 2017 at 16:50:54

So, how do you access computing.net from win3x?

Reply ↓  Report •

#19
July 29, 2017 at 17:02:12
"So, how do you access computing.net from win3x?"

I don't.

I haven't had a "true" DOS/Win3.x machine on the internet since getting broadband (DSL) back in 2006. I did play around with running DOS/Win3.1 on a VM a few years ago (Microsoft Virtual PC 2004), and configured it to run Opera 3.62 and I.E. 3.02, but that was before I upgraded that particular machine to Win7. Don't remember a whole lot about it except that it ran pretty well---but the internet was a lot less demanding on system resources then.

Sorry, I know that doesn't help much...

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Reply ↓  Report •

#20
July 29, 2017 at 18:17:58
My 5441 is on 12mb/s today.
Chameleon ,Cello,IE, Mosaic, Netscape, Opera 3.62, Xitami,etc...
If you want me to test anything for you, just let me know.

Reply ↓  Report •

Ask Question