S
Skeleton11223
Sadly it probably wont...unless someone makes a kernelEX for it then we would be able to run a ton of software we just have to wait and see.
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
Sadly it probably wont...unless someone makes a kernelEX for it then we would be able to run a ton of software we just have to wait and see.
What do you guys think?
Don't listen to the technocratic futurists who predict what will happen by telling you what they want to happen. When they're saying you have to upgrade or this or that will go away they are telling you that because that's what they want to happen for their own interests. Interestingly its always a gigantic company like MS or google saying things like that.
That's a major benefit of using XP and older Windows versions--in 2018 they are among the most hacker-proof OSes anyone can run. As far as Opera 9.01, I'm sorry about your bad experience, but I hope that it has not soured you on Opera as a whole. I used Opera 9.64 for many years, and it proved very reliable/trustworthy. Eventually I had to ditch it in favor of newer versions when HTML-5 became a big thing (Opera 9.x and early 10.x versions have little to no HTML-5 support), but it still works fine for older sites. In fact, it's the last version of Opera I know of that properly supports backgrounded .mid playback on Geocities-era sites (though it could also be 10.10, since under the hood it's fairly similar). Opera 10.x and earlier support Windows down to Win95 (Opera 3.62 and earlier support Win3.1).
Nowadays, I use Opera 12.18 (the last version that uses the Presto engine)--I keep JavaScript turned off as much as possible, and have animated images/plug-ins disabled. It runs like lightning on a Pentium 4, and should be quite fast on a Pentium III too. Of course, that's not my main browser...I'm now using Mypal for sites that Opera can no longer handle (every giant meets its fate).
You know what? I can't blame you one bit. That's your choice, and in the end whatever makes you happy is what counts the most. For older computers with single-core processors and/or 512MB of RAM or less, Opera is perhaps the best modern browser in my experiences. In my case, I'm using an old HP Compaq DC5000 SFF with a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 (Prescott), & Opera's easily the fastest browser of all the ones I've tried. Mypal doesn't run quite as fast, but it has the compatibility with modern websites Opera lacks.
One bad experience can ruin everything. I know my grandfather (God bless his soul, may he rest in peace) had a bad experience in the Air Force (he served in the Korean War) when the mess hall chef served him some undercooked lima beans. He was puking his guts out in the bathroom and got stomach pains you wouldn't believe. From that day on he was completely done with lima beans, though my mom got him to try her lima beans one night. He enjoyed them but other than that one exception he was done with them.
I never found Pale Moon to be 'awful,' but I will admit that earlier releases (when they were still forking from 24ESR) were already seeming dated when I used them; they worked fine for most sites, but when you tried to load a site that had copious amounts of JS (like the main Twitter and Facebook sites, as opposed to their legacy fallbacks) it would slow to a crawl and/or fail to display a lot of elements properly. Newer versions are more stable and don't have issues with JS-heavy sites (when they started forking from 38ESR that solved the compatibility issue almost immediately). I did get a blue-screen with Mypal earlier today while I was using Twitter, but other than that it's been absolutely golden. Looking forward to seeing how the development progresses with Mypal.
I agree with you. Older (pre-27.x) versions of Pale Moon are good for checking your e-mails (if you're using legacy Gmail and/or Yahoo Mail) and social networking (if you're using the legacy Facebook/Twitter sites), as well as looking things up on Google, Wikipedia, etc. and browsing older/simpler websites. They can also come in handy on systems with low RAM, but for modern/more demanding tasks they aren't always reliable. Pale Moon 27 marked a major turning point for the better, and 28 only improved upon the many things 27 already does right. Thankfully post-26.x Pale Moon forks are available for WinXP, and quite frankly they couldn't have come at a better time.
Basilisk, if I'm not mistaken, is an extension/continuation of Firefox 52ESR. Much of the source code is forked from 52, but it will continue to receive security updates (Mozilla retired 52 with the 52.9.1 update a week or so ago [Tinderbox build]). The man (team?) behind Mypal has forked Basilisk to WinXP under the title "Centaury," so it should be getting updates on the same schedule as Mypal. While Pale Moon and its forks are meant to provide a browser that has modern web support but simultaneously is a throwback to older browsers in feel & design, Basilisk is meant to work and feel a lot like modern Firefox.
Advanced Chrome, IIRC, combines elements of Chrome 48 & 49 with code from newer Chromium versions (51 and 54). It is a good choice for dual-core/multi-single-core-based systems (Chrome 49/Opera 36 are also still good choices). Maxthon has ported (closed-source, sadly) Chromium 61 code and the best support for modern web standards, but for many reasons I cannot recommend it at this time.
So is Advanced Chrome any more privacy oriented than Chrome/Chromium? Does it use the CA nazis embedded security certificates store in XP?
Posted Saturday at 03:22 AM
the above post at this link:
https://msfn.org/board/topic/177125...-for-xp/?page=60&tab=comments#comment-1154487
for basilisk, took a bit of searching![]()