Slashdot Mirror
Firefox to Drop Pre-Windows 2000 Support
cyclomedia writes "While more and more platforms are getting (or aiming for) Firefox ports, the trunk itself seems to be going the other way. In an effort to clean up the API calls used and reduce the codesize a patch was posted at Bugzilla removing support from pre-W2k versions of Windows. There's a fiery discussion going on over at the Mozillazine forums about this after a counter bug was filed. The official position appears to be that Firefox 3.0 will maintain this un-compatibility, but developers are, obviously, free to work on a separate Win 98 compatible 'port.'"
MS has basically stopped supporting pre-2000 so why shouldn't firefox? Anyone using their computer to browse the web with firefox should probably make sure they have 2000 or better just to keep the nasties out of their system.
i'd be hard pressed to find someone who runs anything pre-win2000 as their main/only computer and also has technical sense enough to want to use firefox.
Deciding on when to drop compatibility can be a tough problem. I think a good policy would be to drop support for an OS when support from that OS has been dropped by the vendor. In Windows' case I believe the majority of home users are on XP while the majority of office users are on XP or 2000. So it would seem reasonable to drop support for the older OSs.
The last version of Firefox to support 98 and earlier should be kept up for easy download.
Developers: We can use your help.
I would like to see current user numbers? Windows 95/98/Me can't be big anyway. Maybe it's time for these people to upgrade or buy a new machine. There isn't much NEW software that supports these setups anyway. And anyone who is using them simply might be stuck with FF1.5. So what? You can't have all the new technologies on a five or ten year old machine / OS.
It seems to me that the developers of Firefox have fallen down the same pothole-filled path that Microsoft has - forget about your past, focus only on the future. As an guy who does quite a bit of home-based computer repair, I see a lot of people who are NOT using Windows XP and are using older versions of Windows (pre-2000 - I use W2K myself). What's happening to Firefox is that it's getting splintered apart slowly. I wouldn't be suprised to have four or five distinct versions of FF in the next few years (note I'm not saying ports, but distinct versions).
Firefox is already much slower-loading that it used to be a few years ago, loaded with a lot of things that probably aren't really necessary. Not all of us require the latest and greatest thing to do what we need to do and I feel that the developers of FF have lost touch of that, being driven by feature creep and "keeping up with the neighbors" mentality.
Your email has been returned due to insufficent voltage.
Pre-Windows 2000 will also include Windows NT, which is still supported. Only W98 support is dropped.
Excuse me? people are still using Windows 98?
Melenium is a joke anyway, so i suppose they are talking about 98/95... 3.11 maybe?
last time i checked everybody was happy with me installing Debian on their legacy hardware since it works way better than(arguably) any version of windows.
Software support is also there. There aren't any games needed for so old computers anyway.
Way to go Mozilla, focus on the stuff that matters(and one thing that doesn't matter is software that microsoft itself no longer supports)
Windows Millenium cannot be considered as a pre-2K Operating System since it was relased *after* Windows 2000.
I dunno, it's what people said when they found out IE7 wouldn't support 98.
I guess it's a little mean to the 98 people, but I think it's reasonable. It's hard to support a lot of platforms, and with Vista coming out that would have been 4+ Windows platforms to support without dropping 9x. Also, since it's open-source, there's plenty of opportunity for people to make a fork designed just for Win9x if there's enough interest. 9x people should really upgrade though. Win2k, FYI, is one of the easiest Windows to pirate. There's a hack that someone found to make the CD not even ask you for a key to install. I'm sure most of the ISOs at http://www.isohunt.com/ have it, if anyone needs it. Or here's another place to get your upgrade.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
9x/ME/NT support is dropped. Check the Bugzilla bug linked to in the article, it states it right in the title.
why there is no abstraction layer for previous version of windows. so for examples if something uses new features of windows xp/2000/2003 there would be a sandbox application in windows 9x which simulates the possibilities of the higher system
This hurts, especially for people like me who like keeping a few older machines running, but I can see why they would do it. As much as I love running old hardware with the best software possible, these days anyone keeping a W95 or 98 box running for nerd purposes could just as easily throw a lite Linux install together for it.
It is a bit sad for our grandparents who've been running the same old machine for AOL purposes since the stone age, but it's high time we built them some new Athlon boxes anyhow. Plus, once updated we could get them into some new technological wonders.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp
Read the stats for yourself...or just read it right here.
2006 WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT W2003 Linux Mac
April 74.0% 11.2% 1.8% 0.3% 1.9% 3.3% 3.6%
It shows that only 2.1% of people are Win98 or WinNT. That means that the other 97.9% will be unaffected by this.
do {print "Mini-Geek Rules!\n";}
until ($TheEndOfTheWorld);
If there is demand for it, I suppose log term support of 1.5 specifically tailored to the pre-Win2K versions of windows can be done. And if there is really good support (corporate-level, maybe), a separate build taking out all Win2K+ cruft from the 1.5 branch can be done for smaller download sizes.
:-)
Truthfully, I don't see that much support.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
I have several computers at home. One "Windows box". It runs Windows 98se. Its a Compaq PII 400 with 128MB. It runs Microsoft Office, Web browsing, email. Just fine (except for inserting TIFF pictures from the scanner).
You want me to dumpster this, invest in a new box -- and why? Because it doesn't matter. I guess you don't have much of a "green streak". After all, this computer MAY run Windows XP, but I am pretty sure it won't do it well. Besides, I have no need for that upgrade.
In fact, the ONLY software I need "upgraded" on a regular basis on this box is the web browser. As long as this is done, the machine is viable.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
no one should be using pre-2000 anyway
Man, that's the funniest thing I've read this week! Win98, the most stable version of Windows ever! HAHAHAHAH... Man, I'll be laughing all fucking day at that one!
Joseph?
You hit the nail on the head. 1.5 should be made available for awhile and security bugs should be fixed. By the time 3.0 comes out, many of those machines are going to be approaching almost 10 years old. Do you really expect a computer you buy today to run new software while keeping the exact same OS? It's one thing to update all the software on 10 year old hardware. But it isn't realistic to think you can have a hybrid of a 10 year old OS with a modern day browser.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
No, if there was such a thing, mod grandparent uninformative.
w3schools is a web developer site. Now tell me, would you expect the stats from a site for web developers to have an accurate reading of the OS/browser usage of the general public?
Firefox 3.0 is a long way away, and there's still Firefox 2.0 along with its security releases through Firefox 3.0's early lifetime as well. By the time 3.0 is absolutely necessary, the pre-2K computers could have already upgraded to Ubuntu.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Even if pre-NT OSs are not supported in the future, legacy versions of Firefox will be still be useful to people using old OSs.
Imagine the scenario.. for work, you are stuck on a Win98 PC, PII 333 Mhz. Yes, there is quite a few workplaces that still use kit like this. For the sake of argument, and website limitations aside, let's say you have the choice of Firefox 1.0.x or MSIE 5.5.
I'd take Firefox. Every time.
What's wrong with this? Does anyone care if Firefox runs on 7 year old Linux distributions? No. Do Mac users care if an application still runs on OS 9? No. There is no reason why anyone should be running anything less than Win 2k. If they are, they certainly shouldn't expect to be able to run the latest and greatest of software. If they are OK with an OS older than 2000, they should be OK running a browser version stuck in 2006. I say clean up the code and drop legacy support. Don't make Microsoft's mistake.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
There comes a time when legacy support just isn't viable anymore. It's really hard to move forward when you constantly have to support old outdated junk like Win98. Microsoft doesn't even support Win98 anymore. It reminds me of when Apple dropped the floppy drive with the introduction of the iMac. People shit bricks but it needed to be done, and now look where we are. I haven't had a floppy drive in any of my computers for probably 6 years now, and I don't miss the sumbitches at all.
Joseph?
Maybe this will mean that we will finally get a build that actually makes use of Windows unicode API?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
FWIW, I currently run Win2k on a P-133.
Windows, IE, and Office 2k run great on this 10+ year old machine.
FF is a bit slow, but works fine.
oh man, now what are people with 10 year old computers and 56k modems going to use as a browser!
Guess what? If they stop supporting Firefox, it's not going to matter to them anyway. Why? Because these people don't actually have a track record of caring about updates, now do they? They'll keep using Firefox up to the version that it stops working on their machines. In fact, they're probably all still using Firefox 0.9 from when the neighborhood kid came over to see if he could help them look at pictures of their new grandchildren online and they couldn't get IE 4.0 to actually render the page.
So, conclusion is, only way most of these people are likely to move is via a hard drive crash-induced trip to the computer store. And guess what OS is going to be preloaded on their shiny new box? Hint: It's not Ubuntu.
Vista's problem has nothing to do with legacy support and everything to do with an apparent lack of good software design and development practices at Microsoft (coupled with a long-term strategy of planned obsolescence).
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I mean, win98 is 8 years old. . . That's OLDER than most people who use web browsers these days!
If we don't remove support for old stuff like that then there will never be any room for new things.
I'm not saying that every time something new comes out that everyone should upgrade, but when there's a significant change to a significant change from the old software (vista to xp to win2k/98) then I'd say its about time to abandon those who seem unwilling to change.
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
I have mixed feelings on this one. I run win98, not because I want to, but because I have been unable to convince my dad to completely switch over to Linux, and he refuses to give Microsoft any more money. On one hand, it may just mean that I'll have to live with using an older version on Firefox, on the other, it may prove to provide the little extra push I need to get my computers running Linux.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
May be they are still in a tough fight against Vista and XP but for old versions like 98 the newest linux distros killed the old windows' so if pricing is a worry it is not something that should stop you from using modern OSes.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
If support for these old OS is causing bigger file sizes and other disadvatages I think it is wise to drop support for such an old System. 8 years is like a whole era in the PC world. Also nothing will stop interested developers in making a windows 98 port. And I think that 1.5 would be faster than 3.0 in w98 anyways
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
For example, the minimum system requirements for Red Hat Linux 5.2 was a 386 PC with 8MB of RAM and 100MB of hard disk space. Compare that to the current version.
*COUGH COUGH BWAGH COUGH COUGH CHOKE*
So, where were we?
(yes, this was meant as a joke... i think)
Maybe now they will upgrade.. Wait, no. If they are still running anything Pre-Win2K I doubt they even know what Firefox is and are probably running Internet Explorer 2.0 or something rediculously out of date.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Its a bit misleading saying Firefox/Mozilla is dropping "pre Win2k" support. It would be more accurate to say it's dropping NT4/Win9x support, and going NT5+ only. Windows 2000 was released late 1999/early 2000, and Windows Me was released later mid 2000. WinMe (and therefor parts of Win9x) is newer than Windows 2000. Anyway, I don't know how this will affect people. I use Windows 98SE on some older systems. My mother uses Windows 98SE on her only system. (mostly Pentium MMX 233MHz w/ 96-256 Megs RAM). Using something like WinXP on those systems would be a joke, and even going with Win2k isnt good. They'd run a lot slower and lose all support for DOS. Win98SE runs perfectly stable on the systems we use, and all of our programs work. I know we're not the only ones who use computers like those. If Windows 98SE "just works" - why upgrade? Most of the software out there now runs on older computers and operating systems - at least on the Windows platform. That's one reason why Windows is still so popular. Backwards compatibility. It's a shame to see Firefox specifically drop support for an older OS.
I use them rather heavily. Since I have an 8-port KVM switch at home, I can use a rather large mix of boxes on a regular basis, and I find that I tend to bounce between Warp 4 and Win95 OSR2 most of the time.
One of the Win95 OSR2 boxes is my secondary desktop box at home which I use almost daily (mainly things like Word 97, StarOffice 5.1a, FireFox, various MIDI apps for my Yamaha keyboard, Visio, etc.) and which is still my main gaming box (I play a lot of classics like UT, Tribes 1, TA, SC, AOE2, HomeWorld, NFS 3/4, Madden 2001, etc).
A second Win95 OSR2 box is my main fileserver (a Proliant 2500), and a third is smaller fileserver dedicated to MP3 files (an IBM IntelliStation 6899, which is a VERY nice PPro box).
Most of the others are multiboot boxes which are booted into other things most of the time (Linux variants, eCS, or OS/2), but which are booted to Windows 95 OSR2 with a QuikMenu 4 desktop if I want to put together a gaming LAN, so those copies are mostly idle. That much less reason to upgrade them, though.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Maybe they should try to organize their support for older versions.
I'm a huge FireFox fan, and I agree that keeping compatibility can be tough, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Look at the support list for the older Mac Operating Systems - it seems Mozilla only supports the most recent OS. I had an instance where a client was using OS9 and we found a documented bug in Firefox which had been fixed, but that version of Firefox only ran on OSX. After quite a bit of searching, I found a page where someone had compiled the fixes into an OS9 version, but I could never convince my client to install from some random site. There were other problems, one that I didn't have access to any OS9 machine - but it would have been nice to have a formal path for support of these older versions on the site of the product itself.
Maybe they can get a service together to sell the older versions to provide support to those who need it. I suppose that if I still used Windows 98, that I wouldn't mind paying $10 dollars to get a new version that someone took the time to provide support for.
I simply can't believe it.
Post after post where someone has to explain to someone using 10 year old software that they can use old software.
You'd think the 98ers would instinctively realize that they won't be forced to upgrade anything.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Out of my shop of 30 programmers I know 5 who either have 98 or ME as their home OS.
Why? Same reason a lot of people run Windows even though there are sites everywhere giving them reasons not to.
It doesn't matter. Its just a computer. Turn it on, get my mail, surf the web, who gives a flying F how it does it.
That is probably one of the bigger reasons Microsoft will stay entrenched, most people don't care how it works, only that it does. For those with problems they develop a tolerance level, usually based on how much a new PC will cost versus even bothering to find out if the old can be fixed.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I run (a relatively recent release of) firefox on a 200Mhz Win95 box.
...
I appreciate the fact that I am able to do this, but I'm
afraid to upgrade at all (even for security patches), not
knowing what it might break
I think one way of looking at this, maybe a pragmatic way, is as a resources issue, sort of along two different lines. First, is maintaining the backwards compatibility burdensome to FF devs? Gotta balance the advantage of Win9x support with the burden of keeping it to those who actually produce and maintain FF -- might those resources be better devoted to keeping FF as good as it is? Second, does the expanded codebase and unwieldy coding impact the usership -- either by performance reductions, bloat, or whatever? So you'd have to also balance this concern with the benefits of Win9x compatibility. I mean, I know one goal of FF is to keep the install package small; Win9x compatibility can't be good for that. Not being so hot on the technical aspects, I can only speculate about the performance impact, but if there is one, I would think it's silly to hold back the vast majority of users to accommodate a qiuckly vanishing minority. Especially when you've got an app that's on the move, like FF.
Maybe it is mean to Win9x people, but I think that FF has to (a) be well-coded; and (b) efficient, to maintain its level of competition. I think those are edges it has over IE7, and I'd hate to see it squandered on less than 3% of users...and note, that figure is only going in one direction: it's not as if we'll see an explosion in Win98 users sometime.
There are lots of people in the world that are still using Windows 95/98/Me. More than Mac, Linux and UNIX combined. Many have older machines that don't support Windows 2000. Most have no idea how to upgrade an operating system. Some only get a new operating system when they buy a new PC. Many can't afford either a new PC or a new OS. None have a clue what Linux is or how to use it.
But, many of these people can, with a little help from a webpage or a techie friend, install a new browser. One that can protect them from online nasties. One that doesn't let people install random bits of code. One that lets them explore new areas online. This is far easier than an OS upgrade. Or a new PC. And it's free.
Firefox officially dropped Windows 95 support quite a while back, but it does still run fine on Windows 95. I keep instructions on how to Run Firefox on Windows 95 on my website for just this reason. It gets a couple thousand page views a month. And I still get emails from people thanking me for compiling it.
Windows 98, on the other hand, has been officially supported this entire time. And lots of people are running it. While we may not have a solid source for stats (and, no, W3 Schools is not a solid source for stats... it's geek-centric and not reflective of the overall web), something like TheCounter.com provides some global OS stats that are a bit more indicative of the net at large... at least in terms of those visiting smaller sites.
So, basically, dropping Windows 9x support would be a disservice to lots of folks around the world. Now, if Firefox 2.0 is going to keep support for it AND have security patches issues for quite a while after FF3 is released, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. But having an actively-maintained, secure browser for these older Windows users is important.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Am I the only one with an old win 98 games machine - I only really use it for my older games (own about 200 of them) but sometimes its proved useful to be able to browse the web on it, especially when downloading updates for games etc - It also save booting up my main machine.
To lose decent browser support for it would be really annoying.
Still always Opera I guess.
To Slashdot or not to Slashdot. That is the question (that will cause me to fail an interview)
If you want to use an eight year old OS, that's fine, but you are pretty much running in legacy mode. You can keep what you've got until your computer breaks, including the current version of FireFox, but any new capabilities that get added to your computer at this point should be regarded as a bit of good fortune. In order to expect to get new free features, you should have a platform based not in the past but in the present with everybody else. It's a simple economy of scale thing for the friendly hackers who give us all such nice presents.
The bug comments have me confused. Does this remove support for the old Win9x APIs (95, 98, ME) or every OS that came before Win2K (95, 98, NT)? Remember, ME came out after Windows 2000 and was the last OS based on the 9x code base; but comments on the bug reveal the expectation that Mozilla will no longer support ME. I think they mean this call is only supported on the NT kernel base (although I'm not sure that actually includes NT 3.x/4.x). Programmers should really know the difference, and say "Win32c" or "Win32".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Firefox 2 which will be out in the third quarter of 2006 is the last version of Firefox to support Windows 9x. Mozilla has a policy of supporting a milestone release till two add ional milestone releases are made. This means that Mozilla will be supporting Firefox 2 with security patches until Firefox 4 is out or whatever the milestone release after Firefox 3 is named. An educated guess would be that Mozilla support of Firefox 2 will end some time around the middle of 2008.
mozilla.org bug - Don't kill Win98 If a strong community can form to write a wrapper around Firefox 3 as described in bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330276#c36 Firefox 3 could work in Windows 9x.These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
Also this new theme messes up html ordered lists such as the one above.
It's all the bitchy responses to something like this that makes me believe people who champion OSS's "free"ness is much more about users wanting something for "free" as in "don't have to pay" rather than "able to do what I want with it". Want support? Download the source and support it you cheap ass pansies.
Or maybe upgrade to an operating system from this century.
I have a bunch of friends who bought their first computer around 98-99 when everyone and their grandma were getting computers. Most of them have gotten hooked and jumped on the upgrade bandwagon. They all have new hardware now and xp except 3 of them.
These 3 found it nice to have a computer but didn't feel the need to get a new machine. Nothing's broke and everything works, well except, strangely to them, their computer keeps getting slower and slower, and crashes more. They don't want something new, they just want it in the state that they originally got it.
I have reinstalled for them a few times but sooner or later it gets back in the 'bad' state. I'd recommend xp but these machines are pII 450's,- pIII 600's and I think only one has 128 megs of ram.
So in the end I made a ghost image of their drive and even showed them how to restore it.
Now, every so often they restore their image, and everything back the way it was and they love it. Cause this way, it's not just a fresh install, it's got all their drivers, programs installed, email configured, shortcuts they like etc all ready to go. I just tell them back up my docs (and save everything there) and copy that back once the restore is complete.
Yes, pretty trivial stuff to the average geek, but my friends feel impowered now that they can always get their machine back into a perfect state if it every starts acting up.
And, to put off restoring, my main piece of advice was never ever launch ie and always stick to firefox.
Ya, I guess these machines are getting really long in the tooth now, but it still does what they want, surf the web, check email, listen to tunes, burn a cd. Thats all they want and these machines and 98 still fit the bill. And sadly, linux isn't an option here. Kde or gnome are pigs on machines like these and believe me they'll want kde or gnome, anything less will seem too barebones to them. Xfce is close, but not yet.
I demand backwards compatability for my 386 w/ 16 MB ram and running Windows 3.1... but I may never find it.
Back then MSIE didn't even exist yet, I originally had to use WinSOCKS to get on the Internet with my 2400 baud modem and then use text only browsers.
There are many alternatives to Firefox. Check out the http://tinyurl.com/dnm7v list
One of the most genius moves Apple ever made was to rewrite the APIs for OS X and leaving classic in the past where it belongs. Sure, they threw in an emulation layer. If they had written classic support into the OS we would have an API nightmare.
Contrast with Windows Vista. Microsoft is trying very hard to be backwards-compatible with all of the software released even as far back as 1998. As a result they are stuck with DLL hell and a large and bloated OS. I'm sure they would love to rewrite some of it, but that would kill backwards compatibility for them. Of course their business would suffer greatly if they were to rewrite a lot of the OS without worrying about legacy apps, and that is why they won't do it. But one day they will need to, and they have let things build up to a point where soon they will need to do it just to make a working OS. Look at all the problems getting Vista to work properly. See the legacy dialogues and features it is stuck with.
Firefox, on the other hand, is taking an example from Apple. Unlike Microsoft, Firefox will not lose a lot of money or market share by doing this. They are removing the cruft and crap from their software now, like Apple did; instead of waiting to do it later (like Microsoft) when it will inevitably be harder to do. This is a good long-term decision for Firefox and will ensure that is isn't held back in terms of features or development by legacy cruft.
But if the reasoning behind running an old system is "because it just works" or "it does everything I need" then you should also be content to run old software on that old system. It seems rather stupid to me to declare that your old system is all you need, but then demand you should be able to run new things on it.
For example I worked for a Neurology department for a while and most of the systems there were prety new NT4 and Windows 98, and we were upgrading to 2000 as it had just come out (this was late 1999). Ok, but they had one old Win 3.1 computer. It's entire purpose in life was to access some device over a special interface. It worked just fine for that. I determined the only issue was year 2000 compatibility, and since nothing on it was related to the date, I just rolled it back a decade.
All well and good, but that system was not used for surfing the web, or playing MP3s or whatever else. It lacked the software and we didn't bitch that it should be back ported. Everyone understood it was legacy and thus would never do anything new.
So if you use an old system because you are truly content, good on you. You are being conservative and not spending money on things you don't need. However if you use an old system, but think it should run all the lasest stuff, then you need to get a grip. You are just being cheap or lazy and I have little sympathy.
I don't see the big deal here. Firefox -- today -- runs fine ( I suppose, I use OS X ) on win98. When Firefox 3 or whatever comes out and drops support, so be it. But 1.5 and 2.0 ( I suppose ) will continue to work, right?
So what's the big deal? The people *still* running win98 are clearly not bleeding-edge upgrade-or-die types, so what's the commotion? It's not like they're being forced to upgrade to a new, incompatible firefox.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
My Micron tower at home is almost 10 years old now (built November 1996), but it has a 686-class CPU (a 200MHz Pentium Pro) with a second CPU socket if I want one, it has three 7200RPM SCSI drives in it which are probably as fast as many modern IDE drives, its video runs at 1600x1200@85hz which is decent even by today's standards, and it connects to the net via cablemodem with a 100Mbit ethernet card.
Not that different from most boxes sold today. And it's nine years old.
The main differences are (1) video subsystems are much faster today, (2) my old box only reads/writes CD-R/CD-RW media and not DVDs, and (3) it runs older operating systems specifically optimized for its era.
I've even found at times that my little 192MB PPro outperforms my 512MB P4 box. Why? Because Warp 4 kicks XP Pro's ass under load, for one, and because I tend to run a lot of smaller lighter applications instead of the modern bloatware I'm saddled with at work.
So I ask again: Are computers really evolving?
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
>Up until now, the most secure thing for win 98 users (for whatever reason they are still using it) has been to sit behind a router and use firefox.
I switched to OS X more than a year ago, and the only "PC" hardware I have now is an old ThinkPad 760XL with 64MB. There's no way I'd run anything else than Win98SE on that thing, and upgrading the RAM is incredibly expensive. And I'm not buying another PC ever again.
Why is it so important that I can run the latest FireFox on that old thing? It's my only way to test websites on the PC. The FireFox team should fork FireFox in two Windows versions: Win95/98, and "all the rest". Who knows, they'll probably make a "Special Vista Edition" anyway, which will require them to maintain two versions anyway.
FireFox dropping Win95/98 support is a very bad thing as a whole for the Web in general. If people can't test their websites in FireFox, they won't bother buying new hardware/software to make it happen (remember, hardware and Windows aren't free like FireFox).
It's a trick link to a porn site.
You know, one of the "You've been blatantly tricked!" types.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Win98 is pretty much free of Microsoft control bullshit these days. They didn't have their arm-in-arm with Big Brother shtick quite down to a fine dance back when Win98 was in production. Unlike today. . . When was the last time that Win98 secretly dialed up Microsoft from your home? Never. I know where all the bugs are and how to make the system fly.
There's a neat parable about fighter jets which is applicable here. . .
The Canadian and the American air forces have friendly contests each year to see who can out-fly who. The Canadians consistently win. Why? Because the Canadian Air Force has old jets which haven't been updated in a long while. They are not state of the art, which means that the pilots must work with the same gear year after year, getting to know their machines really, really well.
The American pilots, by contrast, are presented with new, high-tech aircraft with too many new gadgets which are updated regularly. This means the U.S. pilot, no matter how brilliant, doesn't have time to groove into a deep, instinctive knowledge of the machine being flown, and as a result, cannot perform to the maximum level of efficiency.
Anyway. . .
How does one save an extension on one's system for later installation? I knew this whole "live install" thing would eventually cause problems.
-FL
If they're going to continue Windows 98 support, I wanna see a build for Mac OS 9. Why the inequality? Marketshare should be a small determining factor for most open source software anyway. Isn't that part of what the whole open source idea is all about?
The car compnies and highway safety guys use it to collect crash data.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
why is this so surprising that Firefox will drop it as well?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I was running Firefox on Windows 95 until last August when I was given an iPod for my birthday and had to buy a new XP box to use it.
My old 233MHz PII box ran Firefox fine under Win95, and did ok as a dual-boot Linux box too. Of course the new Athlon64 box screams, but I still saw no *need* to upgrade until I had to do it.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Nice rant, but I can't really remember it that way though.
;)
I remember running Windows 2000 with a sigh of relief. At last some security, clean desktop and some stability. Then came XP, and you had to tweak 1000s of options to refrain from scratching your face bloody with your fingernails at the bad inital setup. However, XP is both more secure, has faster boot, faster applications than 98 / 2000 ever did, and rock solid unless you have faulty hardware or bad drivers.
The way I remember 98, is the pain it was to administer with multiple users on the same account. One day, the desktop was cluttered with icons, another day the OS failed to boot and I finally have to resolve it by ghosting. Then suddenly a new unknown device is found... With 98 madness ensued from out of the blue, litterally
98 is pure and utter garbage. I can understand people using it on older hardware to get some speed, but compared to XP, utter, utter garbage.
Windows 2000 has already been out for 6 years, and Firefox 3.0 isn't expected to be released until next year (they haven't even released 2.0 yet!). 2.0 will likely continue to get security updates well into 2008 to allow corporations the time to upgrade. Therefore by the time Mozilla stop releasing security updates, Windows 98 will be 10 years old and it's replacement (2000) will be 8 years old - thats a long time in computing.
Commodore 64's rock
vi +
As far as I know, the new IE7 wont support Windows 98 and below. Actually, looking at beta 2, apparently nothing below XP SP2 will be supported.
I need a sig.
In my opinion, when Microsoft ended Windows 98 support through security patches, releasing all safety nets for new exploits and allowing Windows 98 to freely become a security hole of its own, it only makes sense that Firefox which intend to push for a reasonably high security shouldn't run on such an OS. Also, Windows 98 is based on a kernel since 1995, and the security landscape has changed a lot the past 11 years. Heck, the kernel of 98 isn't even based much around the assumption that its users will be Internet heavy users, and I believe it shows up in many places of that OS.
Windows 2000 provides, using Microsoft standards, a quite solid platform with the NT 5.0 kernel, and it's an entirely different ball game as for the kernel API.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/ Perhaps Windows 9x users will have to start using that? Ir runs faster and uses less memory.
... to upgrade those win98 boxes
------------
Enrique IX
Firefox should keep this at least until version 2 or one year after ie 7 is released, whichever is later; it's in their best interests. With IE 7 is planned to only support xp and vista. If firefox follows suit and drops 98 support, people who want more features will be forced to upgrade their os and a large percentage will use ie7 because that's what comes with their computer. But if firefox keeps support, this will be a huge opportunity for them to keep and even increase their market share. IE 7 will bring lots more publicity to and create a greater demand for many of firefox's features, such as tabbed browsing. And to satisfy that demand, many people will prefer to install firefox for free than pay to upgrade their system.
MS-DOS: Most Severe Denial of Service
Free Online Backup
I fail to find the same issues the poster has with dropping pre-2k builds of Firefox. First of all, you're running Windows. That's strike 1. Second, you're complaining that you have to run an OS that is less than 6 years old. Strike 2. That's obsurd in a consumer environment.
If the poster was a Mac user, he'd be compliaining about lack of OS 9 support.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Why can't they just build binaries for such systems that do not require loading piles of other stuff? Have they never heard of static linking?
Seriously, installing on windows is trivial. The install on other systems should be as easy, and should be doable by a non-superuser (as netscape installed into a user's subdirectory if desired).
But, no, they don't seem to get it.
ok given that 98 me 95 are not going to be supported,
what can we recommend instead for lets say a base machine of a p166 with 48 meg of ram I think 2000 will install on that but what linux distro would give an equivilent experience to 98se (which the P166 in question is running currently)?
personally I like ubuntu but I think it wouldnt run gnome on that hardware config.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I got an old PC (Celeron 300MHz, 128MB RAM, 3dfx). Windows 98 works perfectly, but 2000 or XP won't. I can't run Firefox? Screw you, I'll switch to Opera... unless Mozilla Foundation will upgrade my hardware ;-)
And no, I won't use *nix - it sucks.
Why? Because I own it. So for me its free. And Windows XP is absurdly expensive.
Unlike XP which "phones home" with each install, Win 98 can be installed, and re-installed on successive machines.
Its stable. And perfectly fast enough for coding, web design, etc. I have resisted purchasing
XP almost out of pride: I *like* '98. It does what any good operating system *should* do: it works.
And it runs all the software I want it to run: OpenOffice, Flash, Firefox, Outlook, etc.
Saying "Microsoft stopped supporting '98, so why should Firefox?" is an absurd question.
Microsoft stopped supporting '98 because they'll do anything in their power to get users to
purchase the next version of Windows, (even if that new version does virtually nothing to enhance
the experience of most users).
Why the Firefox team is asking users to purchase a new version of windows makes little sense to me.
Microsoft hasn't even come close to convincing me that Windows XP is worth the upgrade cost. So
why should I?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
That is a command shell. FREAKING FRACKING BRICKING BRACKING!!!!
Man that really ticks me off. Every time I try and help one of our support staff solve a problem that involves using a command line I get this garbage. "I don't know DOS only Windows!"
The command line IS WINDOWS!
When I am talking about DOS programs I am talking about old, 16 bit real mode programs that use just the MS-DOS API.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Does ReactOS imlpement the needed APIs yet?
OS Stats
Mon May 1 00:01:02 2006 - Wed May 31 23:58:01 2006 31.0 Days
1. Windows XP:109776299:(81%)
2. Win 2000:11171903:(8%)
3. Win 98:6881813:(5%)
4. Mac:4109035:(3%)
5. Unknown:2056457:(1%)
6. Linux:456894:(0%)
7. Win NT:372212:(0%)
8. Unix:184640:(0%)
9. Win 95:159923:(0%)
10. Win 3.x:155783:(0%)
11. WebTV:30751:(0%)
12. Windows ME:8246:(0%)
13. OS/2:1167:(0%)
14. Amiga:272:(0%)
as its more based on "ordinary" users not webdevs/computer nerds
OS Stats
Mon May 1 00:01:02 2006 - Wed May 31 23:58:01 2006 31.0 Days
1. Windows XP:109776299:(81%)
2. Win 2000:11171903:(8%)
3. Win 98:6881813:(5%)
4. Mac:4109035:(3%)
5. Unknown:2056457:(1%)
6. Linux:456894:(0%)
7. Win NT:372212:(0%)
8. Unix:184640:(0%)
9. Win 95:159923:(0%)
10. Win 3.x:155783:(0%)
11. WebTV:30751:(0%)
12. Windows ME:8246:(0%)
13. OS/2:1167:(0%)
14. Amiga:272:(0%)
so i trust Mozilla are dropping support for linux and macs ?, why bother supporting such a minority right ?
OS/2? Nobody uses OS/2. :-)
;)
*quickly hides his copies of OS/2 Warp 4, OS/2 Warp 4.52 and eComStation 1.2*
Why yes, yes, no one uses OS/2 anymore. Everyone knows that Linux is king.
Your email has been returned due to insufficent voltage.
But you forgot the Blue Screen of Death...
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
Only in the Windows world (it seems) do you get a significant number of people who stubornly refuse to give up their applications and OS from 1995.
Several of schools in my local district still have Mac Classics lying around (though most have been replaced). They can't really browse the WWW, no new software is written for them, the most complex piece of software on them is a primitive word processor, and I have 1.5 thousand times the hard drive space that they do on my tiny laptop computer. That said, 16 years after their release they're relatively easy to use and they just keep on working... and working... and working...
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
So operating system vendors are supposed to keep compatibility with old releases? That hampers innovation. Did it ever occur to you that continuing to build for old environments may require more effort than it is worth? Maybe you should pony up some money, you and all the other pre-Win2k users(95, NT, ME)can start a fund to keep development going. You really expect to pay $100 for something in 1998 and keep getting support for it as long as you want to run it?
Well, whatever. I haven't seen much Windows 9x for the last couple years now. Of the remaining Windows 9x machines, how many can actually run Firefox usably anyway? Firefox is pretty happily sucking up over 100MB of memory on my laptop right now, most Windows 98 era machines would have maybe 64MB?
Further, what about old Linux distros? What are the odds of Firefox 3 running on RedHat 5?
See my blogpost for the argument why.
Gerv
First, though I must agree with you that Win98 certainly does not "just work," it does offer a "stable" platform in the sense that you know what its problems are, and you can modify your behaviour to work around those problems. This is not an endorsement for using Win98; I do not use it, and I don't tell anyone else to use it. However, there are several people I know who do use it without my blessing, and they use it for the simple reason that they prefer the devil they know to the horrendous Microsoft concept of "change is our most important feature."
Along this line, your statement about Windows people being the only ones who want to hang on to their applications for decades if utter rubbish. I myself firmly cling to many such applications I have been using since 1995 on my [Linux] box. There is tremendous benefit of not having to relearn the use of various applications each time a company wants to make a little more money.
Seán C. McCord
Refrigerators are mechanical analog devices, they actually wear out and need replacements.
An O/S is digital, the corners don't wear off the ones.
If Firefox ever supported anything Mac before OS X, it's completely gone now. But there's still iCab -- not as good, but it's there.
I don't want to upgrade to Vista anytime soon, but when you're using a version of an OS that's more than 8 years old, you should be happy you can even get on the Internet in the first place. I'd much rather there be browsers like iCab for those who insist on using a depricated system, so that my own browser doesn't get packed with too much backwards-compatibility cruft.
It's hard enough being cross-platform.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I intentionally do not allow any version of IE higher than 3 or its rogue dlls to ever infest my dual 95/NT box. Firefox works just fine. All that is required is to have comctl32.dll at version 4.72 for recent versions of Firefox. Firefox will even run on Windows NT 3.51!
Refrigerators are mechanical analog devices, they actually wear out and need replacements.
Right, so the computer is already better eight years later (although it, too, will eventually break). And it can get new features, unlike the fridge. But you should stop expecting them after a while. The analogy is about expectation, not whether features can be added. It isn't a pervasive analogy that extends well cover all aspects of the situation, so I didn't belabor it. Well, until now, that is.
Exactly. Leave the last Win98 version in an easily-accessible place on the site, just like Apple does with old versions of Quicktime.
A Win98 PC will be useful a lot longer with a 2006 copy of Firefox than a 1999 copy of IE5, that's for sure.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Just about every Windows 98 machine can be upgraded to Windows 2000 and run fairly smoothly. I've done the upgrade on 3-4 machines running anything between 250mhz to 500mhz. Buy a small stick of 128/256 pc100 RAM and it'll be just fine.
Get a copy of windows 2000 sp4 however you'd like and upgrade... problem solved.