Firefox Tinderbox Build

Thank you again for taking so much trouble. Would you know the earliest version of Firefox that plays videos from the browser? Could you also give me a link where I can find earlier versions of all FF addons.

 

You are always welcome! In general, a good way to find earlier versions of addons is to look up a particular one and add /versions/ to the URL (so, for example: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery, you put /versions/ on the end and it gives you the entire archive of past versions, starting with the most immediate release prior to the latest one & working down to the earliest).

In general, I don't use my Pentium 4 PC to play videos from the browser, Flash or otherwise (I recommend a dual-core or better for that sort of thing). I'm not sure what kinds of videos you're referring to. If it's Flash videos, then Firefox 2.0.0.x should work if you have JavaScript turned on and you are using an older Flash version (Flash 9.0.x is my favorite one for older machines due to its low overhead, but a lot of websites tend to reject it and ask for a newer version these days [it should be possible to work around this by spoofing the version number]). If it's HTML5 videos (like the YouTube player), then I believe Firefox 4.0.x may be the earliest, since it introduced support for VP8 (WebM), which the YouTube HTML5 player uses. I'm going to have to do some testing and see what sorts of findings I can come up with. Sadly, Flash doesn't work anymore on YouTube--they eliminated all compatibility with Flash Player.

 

UPDATE:

I just did a long trial/error on my spare XP laptop, trying out different Firefox versions (4.0.2pre, 10.0.12ESR, 17.0.11ESR, 24.8.1ESR, 28.0, 31.8.0ESR, 38.8.0ESR, and 45.9.1ESR), and 45.9.1ESR is the oldest one I've tried that is capable of playing YouTube HTML5 videos properly. Again, I don't advise watching videos through YouTube's HTML5 player unless you have a good system (dual-core or better, 2/3GB or better of RAM), but if you have a capable system and want to watch YT videos in the browser then 45.9.1ESR is still a very good choice! 45ESR is notable in that it was the final ESR to support non-SSE2 processors (such as the Pentium III & Athlon XP). It should be faster in terms of RAM extension than 52ESR, and it's not far off in terms of its support for modern-day web standards. It's a Tinderbox build and can be downloaded from here:

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr45-win32/1493910319/
(look for "firefox-45.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe")

I pray that this will meet your needs!

 

It looks very much like this is the browser for me. I just need to clarify something. I found the following page from the link you gave me earlier for Tinderbox builds:

https://download-origin.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr45-win32/1497368434/

This one is dated about a month later 13th June of 2017 whereas the one in the link above is dated 4th May 2017. Could this be a more up to date version? Having said that, it may be prudent for me to download the one you took all the trouble to test (the one they put out in may)

I am not sure how to spoof the version number.

Thank you for great support.

 

That was a great catch! I am surprised I didn't think at the time to scroll down and try to find the newer update, but you are correct. The final official Mozilla release of Firefox 45.x.x ESR was issued on June 13, 2017 and can be downloaded from the following link:

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-esr45-win32/1497368434/
(again, look for "firefox-45.9.1.en-US.win32.installer.exe")

Alternatively, if you want something that has even MORE security and stability fixes, roytam1 has been maintaining a custom build of 45ESR (with bugfixes ported from TenFourFox) which is currently up to version 45.9.11. It can be downloaded from the link below:

https://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/firefox-45.9.11-20181010-2a45518e3-win32-sse.7z (make sure you have 7zip to properly extract it; contained in the file is a folder listed as "firefox" which I would extract to Program Files. Afterwards, I would access the folder, then make a shortcut from the firefox.exe file [to be renamed as "Mozilla Firefox" or whatever you prefer], and then cut & paste it to your desktop. Don't worry about the profile; it's automatically created under Application Data once you start it up for the very first time.)

Periodic updates are released, and are applied by downloading the latest .7z file, then overwriting what's currently in your "firefox" folder (your settings will stay untouched, so you don't have to worry about tweaking everything again to get it the way you want it). They can be acquired from http://rtfreesoft.blogspot.com/.

If your computer is fast enough, it should be able to handle the latest version of Flash Player with no issues. After tons of searching it turns out Stephen Fox (sdfox7)'s site has what I was looking for all along as far as reliable Adobe Flash Player-related downloads. A lot of sites are switching to HTML5, or asking for newer versions of Flash, but if you want to enjoy the vast majority of what Flash content is still available on the Internet then my recommendation would be to download 10.3.183.90, which can be obtained here:

http://sdfox7.com/xp/flash/ie6final/ (look for " flashplayer_10_3r183_90_win.exe")

In my experiences 10.3.183.90 is the absolute best version of Flash for XP. 11.x.x.x and later start to incorporate features which can only truly be taken advantage of in Vista & newer versions of Windows--10.3.183.90 was the last one designed with WinXP in mind. If you install it, make sure to go to C: > Windows > system32 > Macromed > Flash after the installation is complete and ensure that NPSWF32.dll is the only file available (if you don't do this then you could be quietly upgraded to a newer version of Flash without your permission/consent, which has happened to me before). I would also go to about:config and set extensions.blocklist.enabled to "false" to make sure that Firefox properly loads the plugin. After that, you should have no problems at all. Some sites may ask for a newer Flash version, but in most cases they're not worth going to in the first place; the best Flash sites should allow 10.3.183.90.

Whew--this was a doozy to type up! I pray that this info will help! You are always welcome!

 

UPDATE:

I tried installing 45.9.1ESR and 52.9.1ESR on my Pentium 4 tonight; neither one of them would function properly with the YouTube HTML5 player. However, installing another browser (Chromium v49.0.2623.112, the last version for Windows XP) solved that problem. After trying it out, I have to say that there is no other modern browser that I can recommend more highly for Windows XP users. This is now, in my honest opinion, the gold standard. Not only did it play YouTube HTML5 videos out of the box (though they got a bit choppy when other tabs were open and things were going on in them, but that's to be expected on a 2.8GHz P4 without hyper-threading), but it even works properly out of the box with Twitter and Instagram videos. The icing on the cake? The installer weighs in at only 35.1MB! That's smaller than the last official Chrome release for XP (44.4MB), the last official XP Opera release (35.9MB), the last official XP Firefox release (43.4MB), and the latest version of Maxthon (52MB). The only smaller modern browser I've seen is Mypal (33.7MB), but Chromium is much leaner and meaner as far as its RAM usage, is compatible with virtually all the same addons as Chrome, and royally decimates Mypal in the HTML-5 test (489 to 423; Chromium's 489 score is even higher than Firefox 52.x.x ESR, which scored 474, but lower than Maxthon's 526 [for many reasons I can't recommend Maxthon to anyone, though it is the best XP browser web compatibility-wise]). I haven't yet tried to see how Chromium does with Flash Player but for me it's a non-issue since Flash is dying out anyway. If you're interested in downloading Chromium 49, it can be downloaded via the following link:

https://github.com/henrypp/chromium/releases/tag/v49.0.2623.112-r403382-win32 ((look for "chromium_sync.exe")

The installer is silent, but if you wait a few moments everything will go through and work with no problems. For the moment, this is my go-to recommendation for XP users, along with Firefox 52.9.1ESR (if you use both in tandem, you will have a fine setup for years to come as far as browsing the Internet under XP; because some sites render differently in Chromium it does help to keep Firefox around, & you should have no problems with recaptchas, etc). It was fun to tinker with homebrew browsers (ie roytam1's stuff), but in general official releases are far more stable. Firefox 52.9.1ESR+Chromium 49 is probably THE most dynamic XP browser duo for web compatibility, if not speed.

I pray this info will ALSO be helpful/useful to you!

 

Thank you for your enormous effort here Just one question; isn't the Chromium browser made by Google (I am not particularly fond of them).

 

Again, you are always welcome! It is ALWAYS my pleasure to help--I'm glad there are still some people out there who use Windows XP. Chromium is in most respects very similar to Chrome but with a few key differences--while Chrome is freeware, Chromium is free and open source (meaning its code is made publicly available and can be used to make other browsers; Google Chrome adds proprietary elements which are not licensed for public use [though most of them can be added to Chromium by way of extensions and add-ons]). Additionally, Chromium does not support automatic updates and lacks usage tracking/crash reporting; this actually makes it a bit more secure than Chrome. The Chromium 49 branch was quietly maintained with security/stability fixes all the way up until October of 2016 (by contrast, the last official Chrome release for XP came out in April 2016 and Opera 36.0.2130.x got its last security update in August 2016). Adv.Chrome 54 and Maxthon are both better in HTML5 support, but Chromium 49 is more stable as it truly was designed for XP.

 

Who maintained this please?

The reason I ask is that I am reluctant use anything connected with Google because that will make it easier for them to track me and collect my personal data.

Also, was as it Google who initially created Chromium?

 

From Wikipedia:

"Chromium is the name given to the open-source project and the browser source code released and maintained by the Chromium Project, which is headed by Google developers, with input from community developers."

Here's the source they referenced, which fully explains the Chromium-Chrome connection & the role Google plays in each browser:

https://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-google.html

Hopefully this will help you to make a more educated judgment call. I wouldn't recommend or use Chromium if I felt fishy about it. It is a MUCH better choice than Chrome 49 or Opera 36, based on my own personal experiences. Ultimately, the decision is yours!

 

Thank for great support.

 

You are very welcome, my friend. I'm back on Mypal now, and find it to be the perfect browser for my needs. It uses a little more RAM than some other browsers I've tried, but that's to be expected since, apparently, version 28.x.x (I'm on 28.1.0 now, which is based upon Pale Moon 28.1.0) is actually a Firefox 52ESR derivative (it's now built upon the 52ESR-based UXP engine which Basilisk also uses). It is perhaps the best actively maintained XP browser, since it will continue to get security/stability fixes (unlike FF52ESR), retains the pre-Australis interface and as a result the ability to use classic themes/extensions, and has out-of-the-box support for online video (MP4 is activated by default but H.264 has to be activated via the Options menu). It also works without a hitch with Flash Player if you decide you want to install it, whereas older Firefox versions now tend to be flaky with Flash (even older versions that came out around the same time these older FF versions did).

I can't see myself using any other browser but Mypal now, and at this point I'm done tinkering with other browsers. Mypal may not score as high as a lot of other XP-compatible browsers in the HTML5 test, but it has been optimized for near-flawless compatibility with the modern web. These synthetic tests can only tell you so much about a browser--if it works, it works. Period!

I do remember you telling me that there are certain extensions which keep you on Firefox since they don't work with Pale Moon/Mypal. If you rely on those extensions every day and feel that you truly need them to be able to get the most out of your browsing, then my recommendation would be to either stick with Firefox 52ESR for now (though it won't be getting any more security updates) or consider using Centaury, a Basilisk fork for XP (which is more of a heavyweight browser than Mypal but has the FF52 feel you're familiar with and is compatible with nearly all of the same extensions).

The latest version of Mypal can be found here: https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases/tag/Mypal (look for "mypal-28.1.0.win32.installer.exe")
For Centaury: https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases (look for "centaury-52.9.0.win32.installer.exe")

As always, I pray that this info will be helpful!

 

Heres century https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases/tag/Centaury

 

Ah, okay! I will edit my post accordingly. Thanks for the clarification!

UPDATE: Aw, darn it--it seems my 2-hour editing window ran out. I don't know why they do that, but so be it.

https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases/tag/Mypal (look for "mypal-28.1.0.win32.installer.exe")
https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases/tag/Centaury (look for "centaury-52.9.0.win32.installer.exe")

These are the only two browsers I would even think about using now, not only on XP but any other OS (in their original Pale Moon & Basilisk forms).

 

Seeing what it is based on it may be compatible with at least some of the extensions of Firefox?

Do you mean that it uses too much memory (resources)?

 

1) Mypal/Pale Moon is compatible with quite a few Firefox extensions! Pale Moon's been around long enough now that most of the Firefox essentials have been forked to PM, and a lot of FF addons will work even if you can't find a proper fork (you just have to find the newest working version, as PM doesn't support every FF addon in its 52ESR equivalent; for example, QuickJava 2.0.4.1 is the newest compatible version that will work with PM, and that was designed to work with Firefox 20-33).
2) Centaury is heavier from the standpoint that it aims more to be a continuation of 52ESR and shoots for better HTML5 support than Pale Moon, and as such it lacks many older Firefox features that have made Pale Moon a big draw, but at the same time it remedies some of the longstanding issues that affect the 52 series (such as 52.x.x only supporting one NPAPI plugin [Flash]). Its RAM usage is actually pretty good--even on a Pentium 4, it isn't bad at all as long as you don't load a lot of tabs at one time.

 

Thank you for the useful information. Earlier you gave me links to Firefox archives. Are there similar archives for Firefox portable versions?

 

Yes! I know of a couple archives for Portable Firefox:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/Mozilla Firefox, Portable Ed./ (for modern versions)
https://sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/Mozilla Firefox, P.E. Legacy/ (for classic versions)

I pray these will help!

 

I have to display my ignorance again What is the difference between Legacy and regular edition.

From the 2nd link you have given, I see that Legacy editions are few compared with the rest. Starting from 2.0.0.15 to only 3.5.0.15 Then they produce 2 legacy versions after 7 and 8 years; 45.9.0 and 52.9.0 Any particular reason for this?

Thank you

 

The legacy and regular editions are both made to the same quality control standard. The legacy section is devoted to older Firefox versions ('legacy' essentially being anything up to the 3.6.x series), while the other section focuses more on 4.0.x forward. As far as I know, portable versions are not available for every FF version, but all of the major releases are covered (not nightlies, though, so there is no portable 2.0.0.22pre [though there IS a portable 2.0.0.20] or a portable 3.6.29pre [though there IS a portable 3.6.28]).