John,

Up until just a couple of years ago I still ran v3.x (on both
98se and XP).

I think to go beyond 2.x on '9x needs kernelex, which I never got round to
learning to use properly.

In that case I must have been using v2.x too, as I never got around to
trying KernelEx out.

The better old-version sites often tell you which versions work with what
OSes,

Its not just that. I would (now) like to know beforehand what kind of
"features" a browser comes with. Like the blasted "tiles" (ad injection),
"pocket", that infamous "lense" fiasco and others that come with different
versions of FF. And thats apart of the "calling back" behaviour ofcourse.
I was never able to choose a version that would /not/ have them, as the
pertaining info was simply not there to be found (by me).

True. Though the last XP-compatible version is probably not all that
sinful in itself - the offenders probably being the websites themselves.

I would not know about Chrome, but if I may take FF as a yardstick than I
consider some of its "features" rather sinful indeed. Especially when the
disabeling of it takes a /lot/ of work deep-down - and even than does not
always stick (never been able to disable the "tiles" and "location"
callbacks)

Oh, and don't forget that "Mr Robot" fiasco either. I think that has
(also) hurt trust in them quite a bit.

But sadly there are a lot of sites it now won't run (run being the
operative word, as websites are now programs).

I consider that to be of a while different level, with the choice to "give
in" wholly mine (and I normally don't).

For the record: I've got all scripting disabled, and a plugin which blocks
all third-party content (until I white-list it on a site-to-stite base - a
webpage from domain A may connect to domain B, but a webpage from domain C
must get its own permissions).

And yes, that blocks me from most "social media", "file download", "news
outlet" and alike websites. But for some reason I do not find that all
that problematic ... :-)

Regards,
Rudy wieser.