Can anyone tell if this browser will work on XP?

Discussion in 'Windows XP General Discussion' started by trimis, Nov 19, 2018.

  1. trimis

    trimis

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    101
    trimis, Nov 19, 2018
    #1
    cmccaff1 likes this.
    1. Advertisements

  2. trimis

    cmccaff1

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2018
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    162
    Just downloaded the latest version, for the heck of it, and got an error message:
    "The procedure entry point AcquireSRWLockExclusive could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll."

    Sadly, this doesn't work in XP, but it looks like a browser with potential!
     
    cmccaff1, Mar 31, 2019
    #2
    trimis likes this.
    1. Advertisements

  3. trimis

    Mike_Walsh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    King's Lynn, UK.
    Min is a very minimalist browser, based on the Chromium 'Blink' engine. I doubt it'll run under XP, since Chrome/Chromium haven't been supported since around version 49.....and Chromium is currently at 73 (stable)-74(beta) -75 (Canary).

    I don't know exactly which version of Chromium the current version is based on, but it'll be a fairly new one.

    I'm pretty au-fait with all the Chromium-based browsers (including Chrome; yes, Chrome itself is simply a Chromium 'clone', albeit with Google's proprietary bits & bobs and branding added to it).....I've used Chrome itself since day one, back in September of 2008. In fact, despite being a diehard Firefox user at that time, FF was going through a lousy spell back then; I signed up as a tester for the Chrome 'beta' release in Summer 2008, and really haven't looked back since.

    Don't get me wrong; I like the current Firefox 'Quantum.....it's what FF could have been years ago if it weren't for the near-constant in-fighting and back-stabbing between the Mozilla devs.


    Mike. ;)
     
    Mike_Walsh, Apr 3, 2019
    #3
    cmccaff1 likes this.
  4. trimis

    cmccaff1

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2018
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    162
    You are definitely entitled to your opinion. I've tried Firefox Quantum, and while I am impressed with the rendering improvements compared to what older versions of FF can do it seems like a huge step backwards in terms of extension support. There's no reason, to me, why Mozilla needed to get rid of the XUL/XPCOM system...they simply chose to do so JUST for the hell of it, and that REALLY grinds my gears to no end. By rewriting the backend, all the useful extensions for FF56 and older (including QuickJava, a must-have for me and others) became useless.

    My friend Michael Walden (who you may recall created the old 'FOXSCAPE' theme for which support ended after Firefox 28 was released) just released the first true old-school theme for 'Quantum' Firefox in FOXSCAPEuC. I recently BRIEFLY went off XP and beta-tested under Windows 7, and was quite impressed with the results! It's not a real heavyweight theme like was possible with FF56 and older, but as close as you can get for the time being! You can download it here: http://mw.rat.bz/foxscapeuc/
     
    cmccaff1, Apr 3, 2019
    #4
  5. trimis

    Mike_Walsh

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    King's Lynn, UK.
    Oh, I agree with you; the new WebAPI/WebExtensions format has killed off literally thousands of the older extensions, some of which I found really useful myself. Even under Linux, which I use most of the time anyway, the current 'stable' of extensions is but a former shadow of itself.

    There are, however, legacy 'archives' of the older extensions freely available at Github.

    https://github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/releases

    Download the .xpi file. Open Firefox; go into your 'Add-ons->Extensions'. Click on the wee gear symbol somewhere along the top, and choose 'Install from local file'. Browse to the file, and OK it. It'll then install like a normal extension.

    When you click on it, you're then presented with an enormous catalogue of the old-style, 'legacy' extensions.....which you can browse to your heart's content. Even if it does 'grind your gears', it's easily fixable.


    Mike. ;)
     
    Mike_Walsh, Apr 7, 2019
    #5
    cmccaff1 and ZeroDayDefender like this.
  6. trimis

    cmccaff1

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2018
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    162
    I appreciate the link--thank you! I'm still using Pale (New) Moon 28 in Windows XP for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it still supports the older 'legacy' extensions. These archives are very useful for Pale (New) Moon (Mypal), Basilisk (Centaury/Serpent), and Waterfox among other Gecko/Goanna-based browsers retaining 'legacy' extension support. Sadly, they won't do a lick of good for anyone using Firefox Quantum, so technically the problem is not actually fixed (or 'fixable'). Instead, it is only worked around. As it stands, the aforementioned browsers and many others are now ticking time bombs...eventually this old code is going to start having lots of problems with current websites, & unless the Quantum code can be merged with this older code somehow many users will be screwed.

    There was no reason why Mozilla had to rewrite the back-end. They could have kept the XUL/XPCOM system and integrated it with the newer Quantum code. This is a company that once staked their reputation and company philosophy on truly giving the users what they wanted. Firefox was designed to be the IE 'killer' that would end the longstanding king's reign on top, and to that end for the first several years of Firefox's existence Mozilla focused considerably on making it as thoroughly superior to the aging IE6 (and later IE7/IE8) as they possibly could. The first sign of their decline appeared with Firefox 4, and steadily more useful features were removed or tucked away in about:config. The decline continued with Firefox 29, and the final death blow was struck with 57. It is legitimately heartbreaking to have witnessed firsthand the metamorphosis of what was once the best browser of them all into a Chrome clone. Just like Opera post-Presto. Mozilla and Opera Software sold out, and now their focus is not on what the users want but what their corporate underwriters mandate.
     
    cmccaff1, Apr 7, 2019
    #6
  7. trimis

    Jody Thornton

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2014
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Richmond Hill, Ontario
    Meh - I actually love Quantum. I don't really need more than a few extensions, so no XUL support just doesn't bug me. Besides I run Windows 8 VERY happily, and the flat look suits it nicely. I'm of the sound opinion that things like XUL and XP are things that should only be seen from the vantage point of a rear view mirror. They are not things that are representative of "today's" computing,
     
    Jody Thornton, Apr 8, 2019
    #7
    cmccaff1 likes this.
  8. trimis

    cmccaff1

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2018
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    162
    Nothing wrong with that! The main thing that keeps me on Pale Moon (beside the fact that it just works--and works great!) is that by way of extended support for legacy add-ons I still have access to a very neat XUL extension, QuickJava. This is the most useful of all XUL addons as it offers immediate/convenient toggling for JavaScript, Java, Flash, SilverLight, cookies, images, animated images, and CSS. Of course, these things can all be toggled in about:config, but I've never been comfortable with messing around with it. QJ is safer, and FAR more convenient. Sadly, there does not yet exist a suitable alternative for Firefox Quantum; if QJ ever gets ported, I'll have my first good reason to upgrade. Since Pale Moon still supports XP, and since XP on its own is much easier to set up than newer versions in my experiences, I keep it going! There is nothing compelling to me about the computing of today, from what I've seen. Never before has the phrase "change for the sake of change is not progress" rang truer than it does today. Modern programs/OSes (and modern versions of longtime programs/OSes) don't offer major improvements compared to their predecessors in terms of what you can accomplish with them. The only major difference (not improvement) is that they have more bells/whistles, in most cases providing nice decoration but failing in all but a few instances to add worthwhile features. They are also much more bloated in terms of size and require newer hardware (multi-core processors, 2/3GB+ of RAM, a high-end graphics card, etc) in order to run with acceptable speed/performance.

    XP was made at a time when the requirements were lower, and aimed to offer power/flexibility for both business & personal/recreational use while still retaining compatibility with relatively ancient hardware (Pentium I/Pro/MMX being the minimum you can run XP on). This philosophy was abandoned starting with Vista/7, which struggle to function well on anything older than a Pentium III (and even THAT is pushing it), and software is following the same trend today: add unnecessary bloat/bells/whistles and bog down the speed enough that it forces the end user to invest in modern hardware (even if they may not necessarily have the money to afford it, and/or even if they're fully happy with what they're using). Another trend in modern software/OSes is to remove useful features (or at least hide them or make things more difficult to adjust). XP was the last version that easily allowed you to change your startup/shutdown sounds; starting with Vista the startup sound is kept in a bizarre proprietary format which cannot easily be modified without the use of a third-party program. For some this may not be important, but for me it is essential to have easy access to that feature just in case I want to hear something different when I turn the computer on and/or when I shut it down. Firefox's old XUL/XPCOM system was far more powerful and flexible than what Mozilla introduced with the 'Quantum' series. At the very least, they could have at least been considerate enough to add graceful fallback for these older extensions--a compatibility layer that would allow them to at least perform their basic functions (even if certain features wouldn't work properly, at least without modifications). But no...they stripped it ALL out, and now those old essentials are all but useless.

    I understand that 'forced obsolescence' has always been a thing in the world of technology, that anything technological is only supported for a finite time and eventually gets discontinued. But these newer operating systems, and newer programs/newer versions of longtime veteran programs, are woefully ill-equipped compared to their predecessors when it comes to offering a smooth experience and/or being able to function well on virtually any hardware one cares to use. Now I'm not saying modern programs should target a 386 or 486; those are way too old & slow now. But even a Pentium III, with enough RAM, is still a heavyweight (or at least a middleweight) for today's tasks; even on a dual 1.4GHz Tualatin setup with 3-4GB of RAM and an SSD the latest versions of programs targeting SSE1/older run rather slow. There is NO reason why any OS, or any program, should not be able to run well on hardware like the above-described. Nothing is getting properly optimized for older hardware, save for a few exceptions, and while some of it can be chalked up to the incompetence of younger programmers in other cases this is intentional on the part of the developers, as a way to force people into upgrading to newer hardware. It is sad when a company is so devoid of compelling reasons for people to use new hardware, or newer versions of software, that they all but trap the users in a corner and MAKE them upgrade. That is a despicable business model, as the end goal is not the users' happiness but the company turning a profit. If an OS or a program is genuinely good, it should be able to achieve success strictly on its own merits, not by people being left with no option but to switch. That's how XP got dethroned as Microsoft's most popular operating system; not by Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10 being genuinely superior to the old warhorse in the areas that matter most but because of planned obsolescence. It is also why Firefox Quantum overtook older versions--planned obsolescence (support being ended for OSes, features being taken out).
     
    cmccaff1, Apr 9, 2019
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.