Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Mulls Dropping Firefox For Win2K, Early XP
CWmike writes "Mozilla is pondering dropping support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP without Service Pack 3 when it ships the follow-up to Firefox 3.5 in 2010, show discussions on the mozilla.dev.planning forum by developers and Mozilla executives, including the company's chief engineer and its director of Firefox. 'Raise the minimum requirements on Gecko 1.9.2 (and any versions of Firefox built on 1.9.2) for Windows builds to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher,' said Michael Conner, one of the company's software engineers, to start the discussion. Mozilla is currently working on Gecko 1.9.1, the engine that powers Firefox 3.5, the still-in-development browser the company hopes to release at some point in the second quarter. Gecko 1.9.2, and the successor to Firefox 3.5 built on it — dubbed 'Firefox.next' and code named 'Namoroka' — are slated to wrap up in 'early-to-mid 2010,' according to Mozilla."
Did Mozilla get taken over by Microsoft or something?
I disagree. Some people prefer Windows 2000. And if you have a server, you might not want to upgrade. Also, some legacy applications may not run on newer systems.
I hate developing using old tools.
I'm not sure where you're getting the .NET from. TFS reads "Firefox.next" - not "Firefox.NET" or somesuch. TFAs certainly don't mention any .NET.
At least they give some manner of justification - Microsoft themselves dropping support for Windows XP SP2 and anything older than that. fair 'nuff, I suppose - it's not like Firefox will magically stop working once they drop support and if somebody really, really wants to contribute patches to deal with older OS's, there's nothing really stopping them from doing so (or forking if the Mozilla peeps would actively block such patches from being included ).
Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2000 are due for retirement on 7/13/2010.
As long as Firefox waits until after that date to yank support from non-test code, I don't see a problem.
It would be interesting if 3.5 were ready by June or earlier, and they had to decide whether to ship it before MS pulled the plug, or wait until July 13. The "workaround" would be to have a "final release candidate" shipping instead of a "released version," then "release" the very same code on 7/13.
If Microsoft discontinues support for those versions of Windows, why should Mozilla?
I don't get what feature is available in XP SP3 and above that would justify the change? Can anyone enlighten me?
And if you have a server, you might not want to upgrade.
If you have a server, don't use it to surf the web!
Both Win2k and XP are in "extended support" mode, according to MS. I'm not quite sure how MS can justify this for an OS that is still being sold by MS.
The Mozilla foundation won't be the first to make this decision -- for example, recent iTunes releses haven't run in Win2k and Windows Defender won't install on Win2k (unless you edit the MSI file, after which it will install and run fine under Win2k).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Why?
I mean, obviously if software vendors are going to discontinue support, that's a decent enough reason. But you understand it's kind of circular reasoning to argue that developers are right to drop support because people shouldn't be using it, because developers are dropping support?
In general, I don't buy new stuff just because it's newer than what I have. I'm not particularly outraged that Win2k support is being dropped, though. It is old, and if your old system is working fine with all the old software and drivers, then keep using it with Firefox v3 or v3.5. That's fine.
Still, if your computer is 6 years old and still working for you, I say stick with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just try to keep it secure, since you won't be seeing new security patches.
...and stop supporting 2000/XP all together, we need to get rid of any MS destop OS that can run IE6.
If you have a server, you Should Not Be Browsing The Web (tm). And if you're using it as a desktop system...well, I hope god help you.
What's the reason for this?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Whats in SP3 that is required to run Firefox? If there isn't anything, then it shouldn't be required.
Windows 2000 works just fine at the office for the 2 systems I actually allow Windows on.
Why should we downgrade to XP when we don't have any need for it?
You can't take the sky from me.
They are just calling the next version firefox.NEXT not firefox.NET. I skimmed over the developer forum and didn't see anything about using .net.
The response was to the outright dismissal of Windows 2000. Having a web browser installed on a server for convenient download and installation of patches, drivers, etc. seems prudent enough. The dismissal of Windows 2000 entirely is the real jackassery.
Is this a joke? Making firefox run on neXt and dropping OS X compatibility?
That seems like something only @pple would do!
It used to be that one of the big selling points of Mozilla/Firefox was that it could run on almost any OS! Mac, Windows (95 and NT 3.51 and up), Linux, BeOS, OS/2, Solaris, and more!
To me this meant I could go to just about any computer, use Firefox, and have every web page render the same regardless of the OS. And I didn't have to worry about purchasing or learning a new OS just to browse a web site.
What happened to all of that?
I would almost think that with the economy as it is, Mozilla would want to keep Firefox as popular as possible by keeping it running on all these older computers out there that will NOT be replaced any time in the near future.
And personally, I'm still disappointed there is no Windows 9x version any more. Thank goodness for SeaMonkey 1.1.x and Opera!
Isn't this the merit of OSS, in that someone who needs Firefox to run on older Windows clients can maintain a branch that implements 1.9.1? I'd need to know "why" Gecko 1.9.2 doesn't run on older versions of Windows to make a value judgement as to weather or not this is a bad idea.
Particularly when it comes to security, too much backward compatibility can be a really bad idea, and it is partially MS-fault that everyone expects all general-purpose consumer Windows software to run on older depreciated platforms adding code complexity, inefficiency and a greater risk for security issues.
Apple users have dealt with (for a long time) that certain updated software might require a newer OS release than they have and the vendor left it up to them to make the call if upgrading the OS+software or sticking with what they have is the right call.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
"There is an Arm that never tires
When human strength gives way;
There is a Love that never fails
When earthly loves decay." --Wallace
Having a web browser installed on a server for convenient download and installation of patches, drivers, etc. seems prudent enough.
No, it's very much not prudent on a production server. God help any company who hires you as a server admin.
You know those of us that will never get a SP3 for XP64 per MS "making it so". I know there are so few of us these days, but that's kind of beside the point isn't it?
Om, nomnomnom...
So Moz is only going to support the current shipping service pack for XP and Vista. Why? Is Firefox doing anything (better question SHOULD it be) low level enough for the current version to matter?
The situation with FF on Linux it is bad enough, in that they don't do security fixes for older versions, and new versions generally won't run on old Linux distributions but we understand that Moz Corp doesn't really give a crap about Linux, they make their coin on Windows. But now they are slashing Windows support. Only supporting XP SP3 isn't terrible, but if it is a prelude to dropping XP when 7 ships it will be a terrible thing.
Democrat delenda est
Let's get this straight: "Raise the minimum requirements to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher," with no benefit, and no rationale other than for breaking compatibility for its own sake? If that's the case, I venture to say that Mozilla has seriously lost its way.
So, Microsoft ditched support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP pre-SP2? So what; the APIs are just the same now as they always have been. If anything, Mozilla should focus more attention to catering to users of OS versions that Microsoft left behind, where they have less competition...and chances are, the users of Windows 2000 are still using the OS that they are because they're frustrated with Microsoft's "support" policies and the further regressions (performance and usability issues, product activation) posed by newer versions of its products.
I'm seriously still bitter about them breaking compatibility with Windows 95 and NT4 a few versions back: One consequence was that the current version of Firefox was no longer capable of running off a version of Windows not unremovably inundated with Internet Explorer and its ilk. Short of a miracle of penetration from the Linux camp, how are we going to wean people off of a steady consumption of upgraded Microsoft products when we get attitudes and potential decisions like this?
Mozilla/Firefox needs more users and being inclusive is a far better option.
Look at it this way, do you want to give people more reasons to stick with IE?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"I disagree. Some people prefer Windows 2000. And if you have a server, you might not want to upgrade. Also, some legacy applications may not run on newer systems."
That's a trivial number of users.
They can, if they wish, look into the many possible workarounds. If I want to run a Win2K machine, that's my problem. If I need it for a special app, then it will run that and I'll surf with another machine.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Not everyone works in a large corporation...sometimes the 2 servers company A owns needs updates, and they're not going to have a whole WSUS deployment set up for those 2 servers and 10 workstations they own. I've worked in many environments where it's necessary to have a working web browser on a server.
Depends. Using Firefox (or even IE) on a production server to hit support.microsoft.com, or an internal intranet site to get drivers and tools is fine. Using google to search down stuff and go get it is a different thing altogether. Logging in a root can be bad too. it's all in how you use the tools. The most important security tool is the gray stuff behind your eyes...
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
SP3 has been a bit crash prone for me on several computers. It's flat out unusable on my laptop. I'd really like to see Mozilla reconsider this one.
My guess is that you've never seen a server application with a web interface for its configuration.
That means you've never installed a commercial database.
I don't take much stock in your sys admin knowledge.
I know a person who is using Windows 95, and spends all his space time patching it :) So Windows 2000 is not surprising. They still have AOL dial-up to go with it.
o_O
in mid 2010. So Windows XP will be 2 versions of Windows behind the current one. Windows 2000 a ten year old that is 3 versions behind. Is Mozilla still supporting Firefox for Debian Etch?
And why would people using XP, that don't even update their os with SP3 be interested in the most current Firefox. They can then still use 3.1.
XP x64 is based on the Server 2003 code base, not the XP x86 code base. Despite it's age, SP2 is the most recent service pack for the Server 2003 line. As long as it supports Server 2003 SP2, it will support XP x64.
What's this web interface you're talking about? Real system admins don't even use the command line -- they go in there and start writing/manipulating machine code.
The troll with karma.
You would be wrong on all counts. Way to fail.
Sure, some people do... but how many people are actually in this category? And is it worth the Mozilla Foundation's time and money to provide official support for it?
It's a legitimate question, and I'm betting the answer is: "Not enough to worry about." If you don't want to upgrade to XP or Vista because of the typical reasons I hear (don't like activation, too bloated, whatever), then switch to Linux or something. Or just keep using Firefox 3.1. Or fork Firefox to support Win2K, since you've got a vested interest in it. Just because it's your problem doesn't make it Mozilla's problem.
I have a WinXP SP2 system at home, which for various reasons not of interest here, I am unable to upgrade to SP3. Chrome works just fine though, so maybe I'll just make that my full time browser on that machine.
Also running WinXP SP2 at work, as the admins haven't seen fit to make SP3 part of the supported environment. Looks like my Firefox install would have to plateau here as well.
This begs the question--are they TRYING to get me to quit using FF? XP SP2 isn't THAT old of an OS. I can't really understand why it would be dropped. I can understand Win2K, though I have a machine running that as well, since that one has been around a long time and the remaining userbase is likely small. Even so, unless there's an insurmountable technical hurdle supporting the newest OSes and the old ones, why bother? Near as I can tell from the article, Vista and Windows 7 have some *whiz bang!* features they can take advantage of. Hardly seems worth it.
So you have never installed Oracle or Cache or DB2?
How do you configure these databases without their web interfaces?
I thought the windows service packs were more or less bug fixes and security updates - not new APIs or suchlike that make any difference to applications.
So... what does FireFox need from Win XP SP3 that isn't in SP2?
What possible dependancy of SP3 could firefox need?
To make code work even in Win2000 is trivial, unless yourequire the latest 1gig of new APIs. Even then stop being lazy, find portable libs to use.
At least windows GUI api changes are extras, and not changing the core. Old APIs should always work, either by keeping old copies, or by layered emulation.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Wine for Windows!
(Well, there might be by then ...)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
USB, CD-R, Active Directory, rsync, ssh/scp, FTP...
It's never necessary to have a web browser on a server.
You're asking for trouble that way. There is nothing stopping you, aside from utter laziness, from getting the updates on there through other means even if it means burning the thing to CD.
You don't give people access to surf the internet on a server.
What possible components can firefox need from SP3? WMP 11 ? Some obscure api somewhere? Or is it that not one can be bothered to keep a VMware XPsp2 system running to test with.
I bet there still will be more sp2 systems out there than PPC macs.
Or even PPC linux for that matter.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
My beef with dropping the Firefox/XP support is that after re-partitioning, formatting, installing XP, updating that blank slate with SP1, SP2, SP3, and attempting to install all the assorted post SP3 patches I found that IE no longer worked for getting updates, or anything else for that matter. IE was hung solid. So I started to test to find out what caused it. No amount of wiping, installing, patching, hotfixing, or reinstalling any versions of XP, IE6,7,8 would fix the problem, but Firefox continued to work flawlessly no matter what I did to that poor laptop. In my case what caused IE to fail was exactly *SP3*! Had Firefox stopped supporting the XP OS prior to SP3 I likely would not have a working laptop for her right now, or at the very least I would be doing lots of much slower CD-R sneaker-net transfers back and forth. To this day IE, of any flavor, still doesn't work on that laptop, but at least its up to date with all its patches and, quite debatably, safe to use for perhaps a day or two. All I can say is 'Thank You Firefox!' You saved the day once again.
Remember, they're talking about a release of an app in the year 2010, and whether they'll support it on Windows 2000. Windows XP and Windows Vista have both been out for years already, and Windows 7 should be current by the time this move gets made.
So that's a 10-year-old operating system, four major releases behind, for which Microsoft won't even be providing security updates after July 2010 (unless they've changed their minds).
XP is another story, mainly due to the fact that Vista not only took forever, but has failed to catch on with the market. Fortunately they're only talking about dropping support for systems running on older XP service packs, not for a fully-updated system.
If Firefox 3.5 ends up rendering differently than Firefox Next and I will be pissed. The amount of browser to develop has ballooned in recent years and have fractioned development lines will not help one bit. For those wanting to say, "Just stop supporting it," well, it is just is not that easy is it? IE6 still has about the same market share as all FF versions combined on nearly all the sites I run. If Firefox 3.5 is left behind, it will continued to be used at a decent clip for several more years, making it one more PITA.... not to mention one more reason to recommend Chrome over FF.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
How are you going to keep it secure without getting patches for newly discovered security flaws?
The shareholder is always right.
No, it's very much not prudent on a production server. God help any company who hires you as a server admin.
I wonder. Does this apply to terminal servers too?
It would be rather absurd at a lot of companies to log into the vpn, log into the terminal server, and then search in vain for the web browser, only to be told after calling the help desk they can't browse the company intranet, or use any of the internal web applications like the CRM, web based project tracking, web based defect tracking, web based groupware, web based order entry and inventory tracking systems, etc, etc, etc because the new idiot server admin has a strict policy of not installing browsers on production servers.
Windows 2000 is probably the best Windows server platform. It's lean and mean and it doesn't get in your way like the newer versions. It's still supported by all the major database vendors.
It doesn't support IPv6 or LDAP, but that is not important for a lot of applications.
Most of these commercial databases use web interfaces for their configuration. For obvious reasons these interfaces should be firewalled for local access only. This means you have to run the web browser on the local machine to configure the database.
Some of these web interfaces use powerful new web features like AJAX and SVG, so a web browser from 2000 will not work.
It's never necessary to have a GUI on a server.
THL phish sticks
"having web client software installed" != "plinking around randomly on youtube all day"
There are often very good reasons to have a usable and reasonably secure web browser installed on a server system.
I use the browsers on all of our servers. I have never seen a reason not to. I will use them for updates, fixpacks, and the MS Knowledge base and such. No, I don't sit at my servers and browse the net or even slashdot. :-)
It makes me wonder what kind of websites all the admins who claim to never use a browser on a server are visiting... hmmmm
So you have never installed Oracle or Cache or DB2?
How do you configure these databases without their web interfaces?
With Oracle, our DBAs re-direct the X installer to a VNC session (Xvnc), then go in via VNC from their Windows desktops. They prefer to do this, but can also use the CLI interface. This is all under Solaris (and some Linux RAC stuff).
The other point is that why do you need to configure the system from itself? If it's a web interface you should be able to access it anywhere that has an IP (firewalls permitting). Bring up the config, set things up, stop the config daemon to remove security issues.
I'm not a Windows user, so I don't recall the exact details, but I remember reading, when SP3 was first released, that a good many Slashdot readers didn't want anything to do with it. Has something changed, or is it just that enough time has passed that people don't much care anymore?
the ones who would suffer most from such a move are those least able to afford new hardware -- kid you not -- i was at a school in march 2009 -- with old donated machines that were still running windows 98 (yes 98!!) and the 'new' machine was running windows 2000. i was trying to login to get my .mac webmail - which requires at least safari 3, mozilla 2, or ie7 - fat chance to get my webmail if i'm running on win2k - ugh. but i was able to DL & install (using win98) a copy of mozilla2 for win98 and get access to my webmail -- mozilla was the only link that made it possible to keep that old machine useful for a modern webmail app. cutting support kills old machines and puts them into dumpsters and landfills.
2cents from toronto
j
Many of the decisions being done at Mozilla headquarters seem to be done pursuant to an agenda which is at significant cross-purposes to the desires of the actual user. I'm a Firefox pusher, and install it on every machine I touch; but my enthusiasm has been greatly cooling off over the last year or so.
That's Oracle. There are lots of other products that don't work that way.
So you have never installed Oracle or Cache or DB2?
How do you configure these databases without their web interfaces?
vi and sqlplus
Same way you do when you disable enterprise manager because java is a memory hog.
Hmm... you can do a lot.
a) Firewall, don't allow inbound access to this machine from the untrusted network
b) Install patched applications if not OS
c) Turn off images in HTML mail
-- John.
You missed the part where I mentioned that there are OTHER databases in the world besides Oracle.
Search the bugzilla for "Quicktime" and "Windows 2000". FF3's new plugin security model makes the last QT plugin for Win2k unstable. And instead of looking for a workaround or allowing users to exercise discretion about the plugin, they simply put the plugin on a super-blacklist (you can't just whitelist it through the normal means, you have to tinker with the browser's xml configuration, etc.)
Basically, while the renderer may still work just fine in Win2k, the browser functionality in FF3 has taken a dive, and it's almost preposterous that they would even hint that the next version would continue to "support" it. Win2k support is gone, has been gone.
People who have no problem using an operating system that is ten years old (Windows 2000 went RTM Dec '99) probably have no problem using a web browser that is zero years old (Firefox 3.5, which hasn't been released). But by your logic, they'll instead want to use Netscape 5, aka Mozilla, also released ten years ago, to avoid further regressions (performance and usability issues) posed by newer versions of web browsers.
"our DBAs re-direct the X installer to a VNC session (Xvnc), then go in via VNC "
That would be a a rather nifty trick with Windows 2000.
I"m wondering why you'd still using win2000 in 2010. Seriously, innovation can't stop just because some people still use an old operating system. You can't keep your legacy programs and use the latest at the same time. It's either all or nothing.
Not every shop requires 24/7 99.99999% uptime. Not every shop can afford identical test hardware (or test hardware at all). My point is there are very different levels of "production" and pain tolerance (vs. spending more money and time).
Sometimes, in small companies, you just have to wing it and hope for the best (while having a fallback plan if everything goes to hell). A competent admin with an adequate sense of risk-vs-reward will do fine.
on the other hand - those who run win98 deserve thier fate - cut the chord... (muhaha) :-)
I mean, obviously if software vendors are going to discontinue support, that's a decent enough reason. But you understand it's kind of circular reasoning to argue that developers are right to drop support because people shouldn't be using it, because developers are dropping support?
Few users is typically not the reason developers want to drop support, it's supporting all the ancient interfaces, libraries and associated code that is a PITA. Usually they're the first to say "Can we please drop this clusterfuck and ask users to upgrade instead?" and when they're finally allowed to it's "Thank God we don't have to support that old junk anymore". Most of the time I'm in favor of upgrades, at least the smaller where usually I don't notice a thing and from time to time something positive. "Don't break it if it works" is one thing but I probably don't use anything optimally - newer versions tend to come wtih little bonuses in that it works even better than before.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No it's not.
c++;
Not all programs one might want to run from their server can be installed from the command line. This is indeed the fault of the program writers, but nevertheless I have encountered a few cases where for some dumb reason the prog writers thought it would be a good idea to make a critical part of the install process require a GUI.
If your current browser does everything you want, don't upgrade!
The most important security tool is the gray stuff behind your eyes...
What, hair? Who knew?
They're not breaking compatibility, they're dropping it. That's a big distiction. There's likely very few places where this will result in concrete code changes. However, it will remove two substantial branches from thier test plan, which should free up resources for testing Firefox on Win7 and new Linux distros. If you must continue to use XP, then carry on using FF3.0 or FF3.5. If, after Moz has dropped security enhancements to the versions that they support on your system, you still have a compelling reason to continue using the old OS, you're so far in the minority that supporting you doesn't make sense for any company to pay attention to you. You'll just have to do your computing in a clean room...
This kind of policy will, in the long run, promote adoption of new MS OSes, thus increasing the MS revenue stream and line the pockets of the IE development team.
Balance that with less development resources on older OSes and of course this makes sense. But dropping XP support altogther should take a longgggg time.
If a server has software running with a web interface, the administrator shouldn't need to use a browser on the server itself to access it.
Hopefully that will free up testing and dev resources to focus on stability and performance in the new codebase. Supporting operating systems that MS doesn't even support any longer would have been a drain on thier resources with limited gain. If they can weather the storm of initial criticism, they'll be happy they did it now. With luck, they'll then find more problems that pop up more common systems before they hit the wild.
No benefit? Do you have any idea how much effort is wasted testing these platforms? How many opportunity costs there are to supporting old stuff?
You can't say you "support" a platform these days unless your tests pass on it. That means you need it installed somewhere running test software, and someone familiar with the platform needs to be around to help you when things break, which they do. Supporting it also means crippling any software that wants to use APIs that later versions of the platform supports. You either need two versions of the code (one with the feature you want, one without, a serious nightmare) or you have to tell the users of Windows XP from *years* ago "so sorry, we can't use that important performance optimization. Some idiot somewhere is still running Win2k".
Platform support is a huge cost. Dropping it is an easy savings. Any organization that acts without regard to cost has never even seen the way, never mind "lost" it.
You'll still be able to download older versions of Firefox; they might even continue to provide security updates for them.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
I'd say if there's a reason, go ahead. But, don't do some artificial thing just to not work on SP3. Feel free to mention at install that it's unsupported though.
How are you going to keep it secure without getting patches for newly discovered security flaws?
You might want to ask the same question about the (already long unsupported) OS first.
OK... agreed, but that's not what I was talking about. By "web client" I meant client-side web software, usually called "browser" but not necessarily used for "browsing". Useful for e.g. downloading system software updates, taking a peek at some HTML-format documentation while you're standing at the server rack, etc. I generally have at least one machine in each rack with a GUI on it and part of that GUI is a HTML-renderer / HTTP-client, i.e. a web browser. It's not strictly absolutely necessary but often pretty handy.
A server should be an appliance. You may use the browser to grab drivers and what naught but the only reason someone should be doing generic browsing on a server is if someone is on a terminal server. The Win2k version of that is rather dead. I can't see being worried about support for such a minute slice of users.
What I can't understand is dropping support for XP SP2. That is a massive percentage of PCs. Cutting that many possible users out of the pie is just nuts.
Win2K is the *only* version of Windoze that I *like*. :'-(
Win2K was the last "good" windows. Any other Windows after that assumes you are a criminal or a crook or whatever and is prone to label you a "pirate" if you make too many changes to your system (at its own discretion). I have had to reinstall countless of times my Win2K system in order to get rid of viruses, fuckups (self and externally induced) and just to plain spring clean the system. If I were using WinXP, I would have had to phone Microsoft each time to request a new license key and explain myself and yada yada yada and pray that they do not think I am a pirate (I am not, my system is 100% legal and I like to keep it such). Until Microsoft cleans up their activation policy, I refuse to upgrade and shall win2k become unsupported then I will finish moving my whole system to Fedora
With Oracle, our DBAs re-direct the X installer to a VNC session (Xvnc), then go in via VNC from their Windows desktops.
Welcome to failtown. Population: You.
Opera is willing to support you guys left out in the cold with a modern browser, going all the way back to Windows 95.
Please don't leave us hanging. Name a couple. Bonus points if you can point out a reason why it would also be a must to upgrade your firefox.
...but is there a "very good reason" why you can't keep on using Firefox 3.0 on that system?
No sig today...
The same die-hards who refuse to upgrade their ten-year-old OS are incapable of not upgrading their browser?
No sig today...
Excuse me, but real sysadmins (or programmers) use butterflies. (Obligatory)
30 characters are fine for a s
OK web interfaces are fine and everything, but since when did they require bleeding edge browsers? In my experience it's been just the opposite.
You realise right, Windows 2000 goes out of EXTENDED support next year (i.e. the same support status that XP has just entered into). This means no more updates (including security) for 2000 EVER from the middle of next year onwards.
Mozilla supporting it or in people fact using it from then on simply is not the best idea.
I intended my question to be about the OS, but now I see that it was ambiguously worded.
The shareholder is always right.
Erm no, it isn't. Windows 2k will be 10 YEARS old and by this time next year will at the point where it is no longer EVER supported by Microsoft from then on.
Just because MS has abandoned W2K users is no reason for FF to do also. There are many W2K users that are perfectly happy with W2K and have no compelling need to upgrade both hardware and software, just to feed MS's insatiable appetite. If it aint broke don't fix it.
Make it stop bitching about msimg32.dll when it's running on a fully up to date version of Windows 95 and/or Windows 98 then.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Command line and config files. Of course.
"You can't say you "support" a platform these days unless your tests pass on it."
Sure you can. Just reduce your testing to "Does it install?" :)
Hey, I *AM* Still using Win2k, and you know what? It's *ON* A new computer. WITH Radeon HD3650, And a Logitech DFP, with a 500 gig SATA hard disk. And y'know what? It runs circles around both Vista and XP, has had no crashes (although it HAS had irrepairable registry corruption! Appears to be either app or driver related but it's hard to track down once the OS is hosed.) Best part is, with the except of games using Windows Live or Developer Studio 2k8 runtime libs I've had no problems installing/running games that are supposed to be XP only. Anyone else out there with me?
I use Windows 2K as my only Microsoft Windows desktop (Okay, it's always running in a virtual machine...)
Frankly, it's the last version that doesn't require phoning home to install. It's also rock stable and quite fast compared to newer versions of MSWindows on the same hardware. Why upgrade?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
>And if you have a server, you might not want to upgrade.
Then don't upgrade... Leave Firefox 3.0.x on there.
Oh you don't need Firefox? No problem then. Why are you posting then?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So?
It may not be necessary, but there are many times when it's convenient.
Advanced users are users too!
Let's get this straight: "Raise the minimum requirements to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher," with no benefit, and no rationale other than for breaking compatibility for its own sake? If that's the case, I venture to say that Mozilla has seriously lost its way.
So, Microsoft ditched support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP pre-SP2? So what; the APIs are just the same now as they always have been. If anything, Mozilla should focus more attention to catering to users of OS versions that Microsoft left behind, where they have less competition...and chances are, the users of Windows 2000 are still using the OS that they are because they're frustrated with Microsoft's "support" policies and the further regressions (performance and usability issues, product activation) posed by newer versions of its products.
I'm seriously still bitter about them breaking compatibility with Windows 95 and NT4 a few versions back: One consequence was that the current version of Firefox was no longer capable of running off a version of Windows not unremovably inundated with Internet Explorer and its ilk. Short of a miracle of penetration from the Linux camp, how are we going to wean people off of a steady consumption of upgraded Microsoft products when we get attitudes and potential decisions like this?
Have you considered downgrading to a superior product like OS/2? As I understand, they still make ports for it.
Here's a link for the mozilla goodness.
http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/
Hey! Don't make me get out my tiny platter-writing magnetic diddle sticks!
No.
First, he already said that the API between Windows 2000 and Windows XP is identical.
Secondly, you can test for an API at runtime, check for a possible error or null pointer, and then decide what to execute. It's that simple, and requires no crippling at all.
XP corporate doesn't phone home to install, though you do have to pass WGA to get a lot of the updates, but there are ways around that too if you are really anti-wga. I used to hate XP and now its all I use because it was ultimately more stable than 2000 which I hung on to until probably 4 years ago. I mean it really is more of an update to 2000 than anything. If you hate the bloat you can turn it all off and pretty much go back to a Windows 2000 desktop if you like. You can even use nlite and strip out the stuff you don't want and get a lighter installation that chews up less RAM. My initial install was using like 128 megs at boot, thought I've since bloated it out to like 400 megs or so with AV software and a firewall and whatnot. XP isn't all that bad. If I could run everything as well under linux (photoshop cs3, reason, live, etc) I would happily make the switch again, but the gimp and audacity just isn't going to cut it for what I'm trying to do.
zosxavius photography
I already have SP4, code-named TrojanHorse-Conficker, so I'm safe. It's great 'cause I never need to connect to MS Update or update my virus scanner anymore!
That may be the case for mortals, but I can get by with links (or lynx) and wget.
That's what wget is for!
SP2 is as high as it goes... is it going to look at the version only??? Oh dear, SP2 - not SP3 - erk...
I'll assume that it will look at the OS as well as version, and count x64 SP2 as good enough, but it is a concern...
I guess you don't work with the same products I do.
To be honest, I am not ever going to understand people that a) Want to keep their old computers while b) Want to run windows on them. They are already getting all the apps incompatible with their windows versions. There are modern Linux distros out there that will run on their old computers, much faster than windows 95, and accept it, they are really much better than windows 95 (Yes, we are talking about 14 years of a gap here)... While the app support is actually better for these distros than for windows 95, as in firefox 3.5 will run on them without problem... But ok, since that's what you want, stick to your proprietary 14 years old OS and run your proprietary browser that allegedly runs in it (They probably just bother compiling it and do no tests whatsoever (who would really spend that much on 14 years old tech?) ) and be "happy"...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
SP3 breaks some of my software that uses USB, it slows XP down a bit, and offers zero benefits to the user.
I'd rather never upgrade firefox again!
Few users is typically not the reason developers want to drop support, it's supporting all the ancient interfaces, libraries and associated code that is a PITA. Usually they're the first to say "Can we please drop this clusterfuck and ask users to upgrade instead?" and when they're finally allowed to it's "Thank God we don't have to support that old junk anymore".
That's reasonable, but the Windows API hasn't expanded much from Win2000 SP4 to WinXP SP3; they are versions 5.0 and 5.1 of the OS, respectively. I cannot think of any newer API function that should be considered necessary for a browser (although maybe a couple of the new convenience functions could be handy).
OTOH, if they're only intending to drop support rather than actually restricting installation, then I suppose I don't really care.
- T
SP3 has been a bit crash prone for me on several computers. It's flat out unusable on my laptop. I'd really like to see Mozilla reconsider this one.
As far as I can tell, this announcement is for Firefox 3.6, not 3 or even the forthcoming 3.5. By the time security updates for 3.5 are discontinued, Windows OS VII will be out, and you might even have a new laptop by then.
You would think so, but Microsoft made MSIE a required system component for many system components even on the server platform, including Microsoft Update, the online help viewer, and some of the monitoring and administration tools, not to mention certain views of explorer (as in the desktop/file explorer).
Why? So they could squeak around antitrust issues and claim that MSIE is an integrated part of the OS and cannot be separated. You COULD remove MSIE but you lose key functionality in the process.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I put X on servers whenever possible. Why? Sometimes it is easier to work with multiple xterms side by side rather than having to switch from virtual console to virtual console.
Oops. /s/Sometimes/Often/ /s/Somtimes/Usually/ /s/Usually/<b>Usually</b>/
Oops again.
Oops yet again.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Sure. I know you're kidding, but that's actually one of the most complex things to test a lot of the time.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
As someone who is typing this on a Win2K machine that runs beautifully, why would I want to upgrade? It is starting to look like Mozilla is jumping on the MSFT "You NEED Vista" bandwagon. Oh well, that is the great thing about browsers today. I can just jump ship to vanilla Kmeleon or Kmeleon CCF Me both of which run faster than FF3. And as you can see here with Kmeleon you can go all the way back to Win95 and still run the Gecko engine just by adding a few files.
Maybe if Mozilla pulls this BS somebody will fork it? Considering how many 2K/XP machines are out there they will have plenty of users. But Win2K/XP isn't like Win9x where the stability issues gave you a reason to switch. They are solid, reliable, and with a little tweaking easy to lock down. Why would I want to jump through all the compatibility hoops, dealing with tons of software that won't run, etc just to have MSFT's latest OS which frankly looks like a cross between OSX and "pimp my ride" and adds nothing of value but lots of bloat? No thanks. If Mozilla does this I bet all those gains they have gotten against IE will start dropping off. Dumb move Mozilla, just dumb.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I see people citing things like bloat and performance problems with supporting legacy operating systems, but it should be noted that Opera 9 works on Windows 98, and is known for having good performance and low resource usage.
This seems like a good opportunity for a fork.
than: quantity e.g. great than
then: time e.g. now & then
May be you should improve your English?
I don't think it's unreasonable to drop support for things from 13 years ago. "Seriously bitter" -- listen to yourself. You can remove IE from XP, try this: http://www.litepc.com/
You're welcome.
Just because the new versions of firefox won't officially support older versions of windows doesn't mean they won't run it at all. I mean worst case we're stuck with 3.08 or whatever the hell the latest on them is. Not really an end of the world situation is it? Why are you making useless posts where they're not needed?
You can't take the sky from me.
Then name what you work with, or just stop trolling.
Isn't Windows Genuine Advantage part of service pack 3? I've been avoiding it all this time for just that reason. I'm certainly not going to install DRM just so I can use Firefox.
Oh, thank you! I always get those two things confused. It's a server, not a surfer.
I've got it now. Thanks again! :D
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Mozilla has a reputation of making it fairly hard to kick upstream support that they don't want to do.
The Debian Mozilla schism was partially because of the fact that Mozilla basically told the Debian developers to bug off when they submitted patches to Firefox 1.0 when 2.0 was the oldest supported version.
Mozilla builds for OS 9 are very hard to find but they continued for years after Mozilla stopped supporting them.
One could cynically come to the conclusion that Mozilla only use for community contributions is to blame them for the poor quality of extensions.
The obvious solution would be to have unsupported OS9, Win2k, and windows XP, downloads that are labeled as community and allow the community to contribute to them, but Mozilla sees this as too anarchistic, (even though the extensions which are even worse, are OK.) for them.
Work bio at MMWD
A bit of Googling says that you have to replace it with the version of msimg32.dll that came on the Win ME install disc.
Apparently, it's linked to the visual effects introduced that apply when you mouse over toolbar buttons and so on; I venture to guess that going to Tools>Appearance and unchecking the check box for "advanced visual effects" may avoid the warning, but I'm not certain (I don't have a copy of Win 9x to check it out.
It is never necessary to have Windows on a server. Of course, it seems to be on a few...
Not for games. But the same Win2K system I have installed in 2000 still lives on. It has been ghosted between 8GB->20GB->40GB->120GB->250GB drives, then moved into dual hardware profile vmware/real system, then real hardware profile was deleted and it only lives in VM shrunk back to 40GB virtual disk file living on my 1.5TB RAID5 linux partition. And it still works just fine, dual booting Win98 DOS 7.0 and Win2K and I could still able to run all my Turbo Pascal crap back from 1990.
Now please someone explain to me what is so special about WinXP SP3 that Firefox really needs to work correctly? This reminds me foobar2000 when they dropped Win2K suport as well because of some lame excuse about some win api function.
I am on Linux. I just keep Win2k in a vm to run MS apps... Not firefox I guess... :)
Not all programs one might want to run from their server can be installed from the command line. This is indeed the fault of the program writers, but nevertheless I have encountered a few cases where for some dumb reason the prog writers thought it would be a good idea to make a critical part of the install process require a GUI.
I haven't found any of those cases where the software in question was important enough to install (at least not since the early days of Windows.) A crappy installer pretty much prevents me from giving a product a positive evaluation.
I suppose even if we did buy it, we'd be rewrapping the software in a customized install package anyway before we deployed it.
John
How are you going to keep it secure without getting patches for newly discovered security flaws?
You mean like Win98? Yes, I have one around, and tossed up a VM for some testing. Most malware fails on it. It seems the programs it is trying to hack just aren't there. Hmmm...
Windows Server 2k3 (and I assume 2k8) has a pretty secure IE installed by default. It has some NoScript style feature on it that stops it from running javascript & other potential security holes, i.e. it basically functions just as a HTML renderer.
If you're using Windows as a server, it really should be Windows Server!
Nick
There are often very good reasons to have a usable and reasonably secure web browser installed on a server system.
And without Firefox 4.0 support on Windows 2000, we shall undoubtedly in short time see droves of Win2k sysadmins jumping ship for Internet Explorer 8. Oh wait...
Seriously though, my soon to be previous employer uses IE6 because "IE7 doesn't run on Windows 2000". I don't think we're talking about the security-paranoid here.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
ha i just touch the circuit board with my hand and transmit instructions directly. rofl that you are such a noob that you have to use a keyboard
My first thought was "accessing your router's configuration screens", which CAN be absolutely necessary.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I'd settle for "We didn't intentionally break anything, and it SHOULD run as well on your old OS as it ever did, but we can't guarantee it." Those of us who use an old OS (through preference or necessity) are used to that, but what grinds us is being told "Tough shit, it won't work at all any more."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Don't insult my Win98 box that way; it thinks crashes are a rare and odd event :)
But otherwise... right on. There are an awful lot more "ain't broke, no need to fix" systems out there in Real Userland than the lovers of latest-and-greatest care to know about.
I'm wondering if this will affect Seamonkey, which so far has had sense enough to retain the features that FF got rid of (or now makes you go find for yourself)??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The difference, of course, is that recent Firefox releases are quite a bit better in terms of features, usability, rendering capabilities, and stability than Netscape Communicator 4.51 and the then-sub-prototypical Netscape 5/Mozilla Milestone 4 were ten years ago. I can think of no like advantage Windows Vista has over Windows 2000.
If the support for the old version take too much time it's reasonable to stop supporting.
But, XP3 is too recent for a solid wall, even for firefox.NEXT. I think Win2k and XP0 should be put into automated testing only, ie install, run and got some sort of image. XP1 will still be needed because it's the last XP that could use 4GB of memory and it's the same API as W2k3-sp0. But Win2k and XP1 are close enough that killing the right services (and using a "Corp" key) will get you an OS that will work fine.
The core problem is that both XPsp2 and XPsp3 failed to (or were prevented to) install on significant numbers of machines. So I feel Firefox should not really be the rat that leaves the sinking ship. It should be more like the First officer who gets everybody out he can and limps to the last boat carrying a baby.
Captain Steve went down with the ship.
Not precisely, but a few of us put Win98 on a new computer for the same reason -- runs rings around everything else.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
That's kinda normal, imho. If you *really* want to use a *completely* obsolete OS, then use the obsolete version of FX with it...
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
No
If you think supporting older platforms is as simple as "test for an API at runtime, check for a possible error or null pointer, and then decide what to execute" then you've never written any serious desktop software with lots of users.
So what are the Mozilla people saying?
i) Firefox will be fine on these deprecated OS's
ii) Firefox will not run on these deprecated OS's
iii) Firefox may or may not run on these deprecated OS's
iv) iii) plus we don't care
v) iv) plus MWAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Tens of thousands of old and working computers head to the e-waste dumps in China and Africa every time Firefox dumps an old platform of Linux, Mac or Windows. I have a perspective of trying to keep very old hardware working in low income schools in the US, Guatemala, and Costa Rica.
The time to pull the plug really depends less on the OS and more on the browser ( and dependent plug-ins). The browser is the tail that wags the DOG and can render the hardware obsolete as web designers take useless leaps into bloatware.
People will tolerate their crusty old laptop that can only hold 25 minutes of charge, but as soon as too many websites become hard to browse, it's time to buy a brand new laptop.
The low income schools I've helped mostly use Ubuntu 6, 7 or 8 and some XP SP2 and even some W2k. Heck it runs, and stays mostly virus free if they don't use IE version anything.
For starters, Does anyone on slashdot know of any well written and tested steps to get Firefox 3 working on Ubuntu 6.06 ??
We need some type of "e-waste prevention and recomendation" checklist on an offical firefox website. That would be great. Something like Pentium 3, 256MB RAM, best choice is Ubuntu 7.10 FireFox 3.05, Flash Player 9, blah blah blah. Here's a link to download them:
thanks for the helpful posts thus far, good luck on the taxes, or evading them.
>Using Firefox (or even IE) on a production server to hit support.microsoft.com
No, Idon't think so. You should download files on a different computer, check them, and only then transfer them onto the server. That is even more so if you do not use https for the download (and very few downloads do that).
Why? I can understand it is lightweight, but can it use your multicore processor or all of your RAM?
Who cares? Hardly anything uses all our CPU or RAM anymore. So my interest is more in ... can I stand the pace it runs at? Increasingly, with newer software... the answer is NO, and buying bleeding edge hardware just to break even on performance is a poor tradeoff.
Maybe DOS ruined me forever, but I still expect the computer to respond pretty much instantly.
[Side note: Yesterday I tried AbiWord for the first time. Why on earth does it take 2 minutes to load a simple 30k textfile?? I know this lowly P3 is ancient, but that's ridiculous.]
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This is a great point right here. Windows 2000 is relatively light weight and snappy, perfect for virtual machines. There are very few applications that actually don't run on it. Windows XP takes up about 3x the disk space as Win2000 and is roughly 2x as slow.
I put windows 95 on one of my laptops a few days back, then took it to starbucks. While I didn't pull in any chicks (my wife would kill me anyway), I did get a few laughs. I can't believe I put up with all those blue screens back in the day. It's not nearly as good as I remember it being.
So stop it. It does sound much too much like MS...
Sir, your post is one of the strongest cases I've seen in a while for installing Linux on their boxes. Installing Firefox on that machine in but putting a bandage over a gaping wound. Unless the machine is too old to get the Conficker worm, it is probably already part of the botnet.
Then why don't they just state that instead of saying the minimum requirements is Windows 95?
In my case, there is some good amateur radio software out there that won't run on any Windows higher than Win98. There is also some games that don't run on NT based Windows at all.
To be perfectly honest, I've not found a modern graphical (xserver) Linux distro for older PCs that performed better than Windows 95, on older hardware, feel free to point me to one though.
In all honesty, I was replying to the great grand parent who claimed Opera would run on Windows 95 without an issue and I accept the fact that Firefox doesn't officially support Windows 95 or most browsrs these days (although I actually got Firefox to run with a few tricks).
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Useless? Not at all, pointing out a logical fallacy.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
If the computer still does what is needed why spend the money to replace it?
Its always funny when I hear businesses cry poverty but they always have enough money to pay excessive bonus's, private jets, first class travel and expensive functions.
Its humorous when I see these same people talk about the need to tighten the belt but quite happy to waste money on something that ads NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to the bottom line of the company. So instead of upgrading the hardware during a recession - the best time to upgrade equipment as it allows YOU to have leverage over large vendors: management has decided to line its own pockets.
Fan-fucking-tastic.
Neither 2k3 nor 2k8 is going to be dropped from the Firefox list of supported platform, so they aren't really relevant for this argument.
I like your non-GUI Citrix server.
Security updates end for Windows 2000 in 2010.
Windows XP goes to 2014 (I think). But you really should have SP3 installed if you are going to use a browser on anything but a LAN disconnected from the internet.
Makes sense to drop these.
The real question is: Why would you need Firefox 3.5 in order to perform these tasks? FF 3.1 or Chrome or Opera or IE should be sufficient.
I do have a new computer.
I think you are confusing hardware with the OS. Why should I buy XP when 2000 still works fine, just because of Firefox?
More people use Windows 2000 than Linux. Should Linux users "BUY A NEW COMPUTER"?
Nobody cares about 1 idiot using an outdated OS.
Sure, some people do... but how many people are actually in this category? And is it worth the Mozilla Foundation's time and money to provide official support for it?
More people use Windows 2000 than Linux.
So they're going to drop Linux support too, right? No point wasting the Mozilla Foundation's time and money on it, according to you.
If you don't want to upgrade to XP or Vista because of the typical reasons I hear (don't like activation, too bloated, whatever), then switch to Linux or something
Why would I use Linux? I have nothing against XP, I just see no reason to pay out for an OS, when the one I have works perfectly fine. Maybe I will one day when it's no longer supported by anything I want, but I haven't yet.
Since Linux has even fewer users, I don't see how encouraging Windows 2000 users to switch to Linux will help. You might as well encourage Linux users to switch to Windows 2000...
And if you're using it as a desktop system...well, I hope god help you.
Er - why?
(Honestly, I find the Windows 2000 hate funny. I remember when XP first came out, people here hated it. In a few years' time, I bet Vista will be praised as the best OS ever, and anyone on XP will be mocked!)
Actually I would avoid Win95. It was just too buggy. I am guessing you put it on an older laptop, yes? I would recommend either Win2K or one of the light Puppy Linux builds. For compatibility you can run Win2K through Nlite and as you can see from the FAQ you can get it down to 60MB for the .iso. I have used it on many an older machine and can testify that with Nlite you can have Win2K running well in 64Mb of RAM and have it be a screaming demon in anything 128Mb or better.
With an Nlited Win2K and Kmeleon CCF ME you can have a VERY fast and stable experience on as little as a 233MHz with 64Mb of RAM. Great for older laptops. Give it a try and I'll bet you'll like it. But if you want to run Win9x, run Win98SE. Win95 was never a stable OS.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You can install KernelEx http://x86.neostrada.pl/KernelEx http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=ST&f=91&t=130936 and install some (not all) 2K/XP applications under 95/98. You certainly can install and run FireFox 3.
I have some educational games that only work under 98 so I have an old notebook that runs that. It would be nice to have the latest version of FF running but it's good enough that cygwin runs and I use ssh as a thether to the network.
Let's get this straight: "Raise the minimum requirements to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher," with no benefit, and no rationale other than for breaking compatibility for its own sake? If that's the case, I venture to say that Mozilla has seriously lost its way.
What they did by breaking code to switch off "Awesomebar" without requiring extensions already proved they'd lost their way. For me, it's really simple. I'm not upgrading my fucking operating system to support a web browser. That is THE most replacable piece of software I have, apart from possibly simple text editors. They can drop support, stop testing, do whatever they like but I won't be upgrading other software to meet their minimum requirements. Firefox USE to be an awesome browser. Every day I use it a little more begrudgingly due to features not found in other browsers.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
When Win9x support was dropped, it was in order to end the dependency on legacy code and to enable new features. And I am sure that a complete Mozilla build on Win9x was pure hell.
This discussion does not mention software issues at all, but merely the level of effort for official (paid?) support. So I would not be surprised if Firefox continued working on Win2k for a while. Will their compiler -really- check OS level?
Who cares how old it is or how many versions behind it is? The only thing that matters is how many people use it.
The mistake you are making is that you think Mozilla shares your goals.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
So?
It may not be necessary, but there are many times when it's convenient.
And then you're going to need a screen, a keyboard, what next ? A mouse ? Sound ? A webcam ? A USB feet warmer ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
They should move to Linux then.
At least you can have a modern OS and browser then.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Firefox 3.5 will support both the operating systems in question. This is a discussion about the release after 3.5, Firefox.next/Gecko 1.9.2. As was pointed out in the thread both Chrome and IE 8 already have these restrictions.
These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
So what the hell have I been testing for the last 7+ months?
Shiretoko to be named Firefox 3.5
As recently proposed, the version number of the Shiretoko project will be changed to Firefox 3.5 before the upcoming fourth beta release. The process of changing the version number will have an effect on many systems, and will be co-ordinated by Sam Sidler (ss on irc.mozilla.org). Add-On developers should stay tuned for announcements about what this means for their extensions and themes hosted on addons.mozilla.org. We expect to be able do this with a minimum of inconvenience to our community.
I remember running several games on Windows 2000 that were marked-as Windows XP ONLY. One that stands-out was Battlefield 2: when I loaded the game disc, it popped-up a warning that Windows 2000 was unsupported, and proceeded to install anyway. It worked fine.
The reality is, some companies may even do cursory testing on these unsupported platforms; the "unsupported" mantra means they don't have to do thorough testing, and they don't have to handle support calls.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Would you like.. no.. YOU WILL bow down to your OS overlords at Microsoft [Cancel/Allow]
"You can't say you "support" a platform these days unless your tests pass on it."
Um, Mozilla is still a FOSS project, yes? So support is basically on a best-effort, volunteer basis anyway, right? It's not like they're promising Firefox will work for sure on Vista, and it's not like I get my money back if it doesn't. I could seem them saying "Hey, we're not going to go out of our way to fix problems that only show up on Windows 2000", but the use of the term "support" seems strange. They're taking away the nothing they already promise.
So, like, if someone submits a patch to fix a bug that shows only up on Win 2000, does that mean the patch will be rejected?
"Supporting it also means crippling any software that wants to use APIs that later versions of the platform supports. "
Firefox already runs on several different platforms, including the radically different Windows and *nix, and the fairly different Mac OS X and traditional *nix, plus all the many *nix variants. It's already multi-platform all over the place, and already implements a great many things internally because they can't depend on the host OS providing any given function. They don't even appear to use the Windows native common dialogs; they appear to implement their own. So there isn't much difference across Windows versions that should matter to Firefox, I would think.
One thing that may be an issue, though, is the build toolchain. I don't know what tjhe Mozilla people are using, but I know Microsoft drops support in their compilers and other tools for old versions of Windows just like they do with everything else. So maybe it's a question of having to run two different toolchains to target older platforms. I could see where *that* would be a pain.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
There's a lot of software that by default the web interface is only available from/to the localhost under the assumption that you have to be on the local system to install it, thus you will have access, and allowing access to other hosts may allow someone to break in and configure it before you're ready to.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Or even worse "Who knows if it works or not, we're just going to refuse to install"
Making claims like yours are easy without backing it up. Look through Mozilla's Gecko 1.8 source code. This is exactly how they do it.
The support status of Windows has nothing to do with anything. And Mozilla's support for its application running on OSs may be based on many things but forcing people to upgrade their operating system should not be one of them.
Why would one *not* be using win2k in 2010? Still runs great for me. The only issue I really have is that both itunes and foobar2000 don't run on it. So I just use a PC with XP or amarock.
My Netgear USB wireless adapter's encryption doesn't work in SP3.
Actually, W2k is getting security fixes until 13.7.2010, as the extended support phase covers them:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3071
As I have one W2k box (mostly for playing some older games every now and then, but also for some random surfing and other lightweight use; the hardware isn't very new and shiny either; 650 MHz Slot-A Athlon etc), I can confirm still seeing a fairly steady trickle of fixes every now and then.
Regarding worms and viruses, I have yet to see any on that machine, even though the OS installation is now quite a few years old and in semi-active use.
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
If you need to wing it in a small company: don't use firefox then.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not always as easy as that. Or indeed, it's *usually* not as easy as that.
You say I need to backup my claims? What about your claim that it's always that easy? But fine, I'll give you an example: support for file descriptor passing in Phusion Passenger, a Ruby on Rails deployment platform. File descriptor passing is supposed to be a POSIX standard, but apparently it requires different code on different platforms. Fixing it on one platform (MacOS X) breaks it on another (Linux) and vice versa. Fixing it on 32-bit Linux breaks it on 64-bit FreeBSD, etc. Look at ext/apache2/Utils.h function writeFileDescriptor(). Look at the announcements for the 1.0.x releases to see the history of struggle. Had it not been for testing, this problem and the fix would never have been found. Simply checking for the availability of the API is not enough.
If you are still using windows 2000- BUY A NEW COMPUTER!
Actually, the W2k machine I have and use semi-frequently is a newer acquisition than my current primary Linux box, so in a sense it might be called the most recent machine I have, even though the hardware and OS are older :) While I wouldn't be satisfied using it as my only computer, it's really quite good enough for surprisingly many tasks.
Regarding Mozilla guys and gals possibly dropping the support for it, it's too bad, but OTOH I suppose the end of W2k security updates is either getting pretty close or has already happened at that point, making it increasingly risky to have the machine connected to Internet anyway, so I can live with that if it happens.
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
The minimum requirement IS Windows 95. You need Windows 95 or newer to run Opera. Opera runs on Windows 95.
Clever signature text goes here.
Should be worth noting that most of the nasty worms (Blaster, etc.) that killed WinXP systems, never actually worked on Win2k, because 2k either didn't have or didn't enable by default much of the functionality that makes it such a breeze for a web page or email to hijack your computer.
Security is only a critical issue if your OS is critically insecure to begin with, AND there are enough systems deployed to tempt the malware authors. Win2k is comparatively safe for much the same reason as Mac or Linux.
A screen and a keyboard are pretty essential at some point in most servers' lives. I don't see a mouse being a particularly heavy burden.
A KVM in the rack suits the keyboard, screen and mouse requirements, and is pretty standard equipment - it may even be a KVM with remote access, so you can use the foot warmer under your own desk.
Advanced users are users too!
TFS reads "Firefox.next" - not "Firefox.NET" or somesuch.
Fierfix.NeXT? An even deader platform. At least .NET has lusers.
Can haz teh next fierfix to be getting a speelchick? I needz onez0r.
My company put off upgrading from w2k to XP until this year. You cannot surf the web with IE6 on w2k at all. Just about any site with any complexity crashes the browser. We had to install firefox so people could surf the web.
Looks like anyone sticking with w2k will be forced to use Opera. Not sure why Mozilla wants to do that though.
Well, this really doesn't help to reduce the IE6 marketshare.
Firefox should help us to eradicate this backwards browser from the net. Dropping support in the OS that IE6 runs doesn't help.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
I'm with you. Built a new 2k PC just a few months ago, and all I had to do was put a small patch on Bioshock to get it to run. Other than that, I haven't had any problems running "XP" games.
StarCraft 2 might be a deal-breaker though... if it's ever released.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
+Yea and I really resent that I can no longer get support for my Commodore 64.