Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~

List of Web Browsers Working with XP 2018

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

No, no, I am talking of .com executables.

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

Windows 7 x64 (and I presume Vista also, and possibly also XP64, but I am not sure about this latter) removed the possibility to run a whole family of (simple) 16-bit executables, as an example the (very handy) echoo.com:

http://reboot.pro/topic/2681-is-httpwwwtinykrnlorg-closed/?p=2179

Which is reason enough to run, instead, 7 Ultimate SP1 x86, as I do (I have a secondary x64 on another machine, just to run VMs, though)... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for playing the sheriff, but didn't it get to far with the off-topic? The discussion is nice etc., but maybe splitting the topic into two different should be considered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops that was my bad I think.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firefox 51.x was released two days ago (01/23/2017):

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/51.0/win32/en-US/

It was quickly updated to 51.0.1 today (01/25/2017):

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/51.0.1/win32/en-US/

UPDATE 12:15 EST: this version does not get pulled automatically from Mozilla's servers. Firefox 50 reports being up to date even though 51.x is now available. I have submitted a bug report to Mozilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1333821

firefox.jpg

firefox2.jpg

Edited by sdfox7
Bugzilla info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the "Bulletproof TLS Newsletter #24:"

Quote

Two major browser vendors have started to warn about forms which are transmitted over insecure connections and intended to transmit sensitive data. If a web page that is transmitted via unprotected HTTP contains a form with a password field, then the latest Firefox version 51 will show a lock with a red stroke and Chrome 56 will display “Not secure” in front of the URL.

This tackles a situation that is relatively common which happens because of misunderstanding of HTTPS. If a form is transmitted via HTTP and the data from the form is sent through HTTPS, then usually the data is transmitted securely. However, an attacker can manipulate the [unsecured] form and force the data to be sent to a location he or she controls. Such attacks are known as SSL Stripping.

IOW, for a Web form to be truly secure, both the transmission of the form to your browser and the transmission of the response back to the server must be done via HTTPS.

Chrome 56 doesn't run on XP, but Firefox 51 does. The article doesn't specifically say if Firefox ESR 45 includes the new warning, although security fixes are normally included in the ESR updates.

New security warnings like this are one reason to stay up-to-date with your browser if/when feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"is not a valid Win32 application" means that it has been compiled without XP support, which is not a big deal since we already knew we were going to be moved to the ESR branch. Anyway, what's interesting is to find out whether it's just a flag unspecified at compiling time, or if something in the code ain't compatible with XP itself.

Edited by FranceBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Visual Studio compilers now apparently require a flag to be set for XP compatibility.  I think (don't quote me on this) that Visual Studio 10 was the last one that didn't require XP compatibility to be explicitly set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately we're not dealing with a simple case of compiling without enabling XP support. All code specifically supporting XP (and Vista) is being very deliberately removed from FF, so even if the various XP API extension projects mature, there's still no guarantee that FF will (properly) work on XP without forking the code and adding some of this stuff back in.

If you like, take a look at the dependencies of the XP/Vista EOL tracking bug to get an idea about how hard Mozilla is working to reduce FF market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mixit said:

Unfortunately we're not dealing with a simple case of compiling without enabling XP support. All code specifically supporting XP (and Vista) is being very deliberately removed from FF, so even if the various XP API extension projects mature, there's still no guarantee that FF will (properly) work on XP without forking the code and adding some of this stuff back in.

So we are facing a Chrome -like situation. Got it.

By the way, speaking of chrome, Google plans to limit Gmail functionalities on older version of Chrome (53 and older) which will see a warning message saying that some functionalities may not work. Of course, the HTML version will still work fine, and Google plans to automatically redirect all the XP users on chrome 49 trying to login in Gmail to the HTML version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FranceBB said:

So we are facing a Chrome -like situation. Got it.

Chrome-like in more ways than one, because one of the big reasons they decided to drop XP at this point was that they borrowed Chrome's sandboxing code and faced a problem after Chrome dropped XP support for it. You only learn that from their dev discussions, of course, in their public statements about dropping XP it's just your usual boilerplate about "no longer supported by Microsoft" and hence "security", and patting themselves on the back about what bros they've been to have supported it this long.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mixit said:

All code specifically supporting XP (and Vista) is being very deliberately removed from FF...

Regarding Firefox, which I consider to be the best browser available for Vista, my thought is that all XP and Vista diehards must pile into that ESR like it was the last lifeboat on the Titanic! Mozilla has written:

Quote

In mid-2017, a final support end date will be announced based on the number of users still on Windows XP and Vista.

Something that might work in our favor:

ESR 52 will continue to support all NPAPI plugins, but Mozilla has cleverly decided to end support for all NPAPI plugins except Flash Player in non-ESR 52 (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1269807#c16). Therefore, devotees of other NPAPI plugins running newer platforms may gravitate toward ESR 52, which would hopefully make Mozilla less inclined to end support for it (unless they really do have a deathwish). Incidentally, Pale Moon long ago stated that they would continue to support NPAPI plugins (see https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=9805); but how long would NPAPI continue to exist if Firefox no longer supports it?

Something that will work against us:

Large numbers of XP and Vista diehards are also inveterate Chrome 49ers. If they learn that Mozilla is also planning to end support, they will be even less inclined to switch browsers.:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm as for Flash, we should all want Flash developers to migrate their applets elsewhere.  Flash is a known security vulnerability (no not FUD).  You should all WANT Flash to die.  That's a good thing.

I really don't think that if everyone piles on to using the ESR release that XP/Vista support will be extended.  I think Mozilla states that as a goodwill gesture.  Security minded folks will want to take advantage of sandboxing and new technologies.  I would also think that browser developers would want to start merging code between desktop and mobile versions, so that development time and costs are halved, no?

Nobody in the biz world is rushing to preserve XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×