Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Will Support Firefox For XP and Vista Until At Least September 2017 (venturebeat.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the expiration-date dept.

Krystalo writes: Mozilla today announced that it will continue to support Firefox for Windows XP and Windows Vista until September 2017. In March 2017, XP and Vista users will automatically be moved to the Firefox Extended Support Release (ESR) and in mid-2017 the company will reassess user numbers to announce a final support end date for the two operating systems. Firefox ESR is a version designed for schools, universities, businesses, and others who need help with mass deployments. Firefox ESR releases are maintained for one year. This means Mozilla will provide regular Firefox security patches for XP and Vista users for nine more months. After that, it may continue for a few more months, but eventually the browser won't get new versions on those operating systems. Mozilla correctly notes that "unsupported operating systems receive no security updates, have known exploits, and are dangerous for you to use." The company also tells enterprises that September 2017 should be considered the support end date for planning purposes and "strongly recommends" that all users "upgrade to a version of Windows that is supported by Microsoft."

73 comments

  1. XP FTW by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    long live the King

    1. Re:XP FTW by TWX · · Score: 1

      The King?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re: XP FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But Slashdot told me for ages that Windows 2000 was king, and XP was just a fisher price toy OS. Make up your mind, Slashdot!

    3. Re:XP FTW by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No, The King: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    4. Re: XP FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be old here.

    5. Re:XP FTW by antdude · · Score: 1

      In I finally retired my Windows XP Pro SP3 OS due to the HDD's death of clicks on 10/22/2016. I installed a brand new retail 64-bit W7 HPE SP1. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:XP FTW by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      The likelihood of future patches on their current operating systems suggest they're not secure either. SOP should be to assume your system is vulnerable at all times.

    7. Re: XP FTW by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      It was.. it's basically win2k with that ugly ass luna skin which made it look like a tacky fisher price toy, hence the rep.

    8. Re:XP FTW by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You have to remember the quote:

      The king is dead long live the king.

      And it died in a cesspool of viruses, crapness, and insecurity disease.

    9. Re: XP FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I demand free eternal support for my software!

    10. Re:XP FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you did not clone it 1:1 to another drive.
      Pure stupid actually.
      Acronis True Image, Filezilla boom 45 minutes probably

      I have a box that took more than a year to load and debug it's cloned ready for total disaster rollback. Just like a dead drive. IN that case I could be INSTANTLY BACK UP AGAIN.

  2. Still using XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still using XP. Behind a separate firewall and keep browser up-to-date.

    1. Re:Still using XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although i haven't used XP for several years and think you're much better off using Windows 7, XP is perfectly fine for many people.

      The bigger problem is that there's no legitimate technical reason for current versions of *any* browser to not work on XP. If your browser doesn't work with XP it's only because you're doing stupid shit, and you really need to stop that.

      Firefox's idea of an "Extended Service Release" is one year. Ridiculous. People are getting sick and tired of being stuck on a non-stop upgrade treadmill. That's why there are so many people using older operating systems and browsers.

      The web browser is a solved problem, and has been for quite some time. All you're doing now is adding more and more useless, pointless, bloated "features" that nobody wants.

    2. Re:Still using XP by tepples · · Score: 2

      I imagine that part of the problem is that Windows Vista was the first to support hardware acceleration features that make rendering complex CSS layouts tolerably fast, such as Direct2D and DirectWrite. In addition, because of changes to the behavior of the NT kernel, sandboxing features may need special case behavior for Windows XP vs. later versions. (Windows 2000 and XP use NT 5, and Windows Vista, 7, and 8 use NT 6.)

    3. Re:Still using XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am on XP and my old Chrome and old Firefox have support for hardware acceleration. Hardware acceleration on browsers _DID NOT_ start with vista, it started even on very old browsers running on XP.

    4. Re:Still using XP by dryeo · · Score: 2

      They're dropping support for Vista as well. Seems that they use Chromium code for sandboxing and Chromium dropped support for XP and Vista a while back. There's also the problems of the newest compilers not supporting Vista and earlier and the problems of testing, keeping old machines alive to test XP and Vista.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Still using XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The web browser is a solved problem, and has been for quite some time. All you're doing now is adding more and more useless, pointless, bloated "features" that nobody wants.

      HELL OF SPOT ON, INSPIRED.

      run a VM with a browser in linux. Virtual box runs just fine on XP. Keep the whole thing behind a hardware firewall.
      This method you can run ANY kind of browser you want. Screw the normal way.

  3. Insecure King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "In the meantime, we strongly encourage our users to upgrade to a version of Windows that is supported by Microsoft. Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates, have known exploits, and are dangerous for you to use. " - Mozilla

    1. Re: Insecure King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Users are also free to upgrade their system to a newer Windows version *not* supported by microsoft, a.k.a RedHat Linux. Now with a hidden fun puzzle game: did it lock up yet, or is it still running. Look at that banner, what do you think? Is it still booting, asshole? Join now and... oh fuck this...

    2. Re: Insecure King by infolation · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, firefox pulled support for older but still reletively recent and secure osx systems, for example Mountain Lion (10.8). So why the continued support for disasters like XP?

    3. Re: Insecure King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      User count. It's not like they give shit about unixes either. They only support ALSA for audio output, which is linux specific. They don't support raster fonts any longer, and related bug reports are pretty much WONTFIX. Mozilla sold out long time ago.

  4. Firefox ESR is very good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am surprised Firefox doesn't more openly offer everyone the ESR which provides a better long term stable release. I think more would stop ditching Firefox for Chrome if they keep things more stable. I know I gave up on Firefox until I found the ESR, which does seem to be better in stability.

    1. Re:Firefox ESR is very good by TWX · · Score: 1

      In the context of open-source software I always read ESR as Eric S. Raymond...

      I just wish that FF would cut out the Chrome-style version numbering. They've screwed the pooch on major/minor/tweak versioning that I and a lot of other people were accustomed to, and it is annoying.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Firefox ESR is very good by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      But... but... they couldn't let Chrome hit version 100 before Firefox, right? What would people think if Chrome was 90 versions ahead of them?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Firefox ESR is very good by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I don't mind it so much, it's more "stable" in the meaning of not crashing.
      There hasn't been almost any new GUI feature since Australis in Firefox 29.
      Also, when using linux, people were stuck with Firefox 3.0 when 3.6 was out.

    4. Re:Firefox ESR is very good by donaldm · · Score: 1

      I don't mind it so much, it's more "stable" in the meaning of not crashing. There hasn't been almost any new GUI feature since Australis in Firefox 29. Also, when using linux, people were stuck with Firefox 3.0 when 3.6 was out.

      That's strange my Fedora 25 version of Firefox says its version 50.1.0. I suppose Gooogle Chrome is better since it is version 55.0.2883.87 which is a good five points in front. :-)

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  5. This is even more dangerous by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Software vendors should act in their interests and not take illogical stands that smack of collusion.

    You abandon a platform when either your customers abandon it or for some technical reason it becomes too cost prohibitive...NOT because a third party says so or pays you to do it.

    Mozilla supports Linux with a pathetic 1/3rd of XPs market share.

    They lump XP and Vista together rendering any technical justification unlikely.

    Who honestly expects XP users who don't care/accept/understand security arguments to be convinced to upgrade to the current version of Microsoft's malware operating system because their browser is no longer updating? Find it impossible to understand how such policy can be spun to be in the users best interests when it is only guaranteed to make a bad situation much much worse.

    If Mozilla wants to take the position they no longer care to support XP users this is a coherent argument. The PR statement on the other hand is pure bullshit.

    I love how vendors are using "security" as a bludgeon to beat people into boarding upgrade trains as if it's somehow normal or acceptable for customers to accept software that is inherently dangerous to use without continuous patching. Such irresponsible behavior on the part of any vendor engaged in it should be illegal.

    1. Re:This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, MS is still releasing patches for some versions of XP.

    2. Re:This is even more dangerous by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      I love how vendors are using "security" as a bludgeon to beat people into boarding upgrade trains

      And yet, how many stories do we see every week about the latest and greatest pieces of software riddled with holes and bleeding information? IoT devices anyone? It's almost as if these vendors have never heard of security.

      Just because something is new and shiny doesn't automatically mean it's better.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not just continue updating it, until it is sufficiently hardened against attack?

      Bits don't rot.

    4. Re:This is even more dangerous by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who honestly expects XP users who don't care/accept/understand security arguments

      All it takes on most MS Win10 installs to get a ransomware virus is to open the wrong email.
      To be brutally frank, if you care about security then the MS products are not for you. If you don't have it as your first consideration and want a tradeoff to run certain software then MS Windows XP is just as valid a choice IMHO as any of their malware-prone range - sometimes even more valid if it's more compatible with something the user wants to run.

      In security terms an XP install with Thunderbird is far more secure than a Win10 install with MS Outlook. I suppose that's relative because both are ridiculously fragile.

    5. Re:This is even more dangerous by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

      They lump XP and Vista together rendering any technical justification unlikely.

      As if there aren't any API's in Win7+ that might be useful to Firefox?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re: This is even more dangerous by corychristison · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mozilla supports Linux with a pathetic 1/3rd of XPs market share.

      This has nothing to do with Market Share and everything to do with a platform that's up to date and current.

      Microsoft abandoned XP and Vista a long time ago. There is a point where supporting old, outdated, unsupported platforms simply causes code bloat and makes it harder to maintain without breaking the older platforms.

      I surely would not expect Firefox 50 to run on Ubuntu 4.10... would you?

      In many cases the distro package maintainers will backport a little bit, but not for releases from 12+ years ago.

    7. Re:This is even more dangerous by donaldm · · Score: 1

      Why not just continue updating it, until it is sufficiently hardened against attack?

      Bits don't rot.

      You are quite right about "bits" but updates usually have version numbers and version numbers have a tendency to increase.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    8. Re: This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I care a lot about security and I'll stay with Microsoft because I know what I'm doing. Changing your OS because someone on the internet says so doesn't mean much. You can run any of the 250+ distros and still not be secure. At least all of my software will still work including all the open source software I use. And there still isn't a good replacement for Exchange/Outlook plus Office.

    9. Re: This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think code bloat is a problem when supporting older OS. A single switch entry in a makefile could compile your source into your target OS and CPU architecture. If we think about it, all OS vulnerabilities can be blocked by an internet browser. Even most security plugins and add-ons can be embedded and hardcoded into the the browser itself.

    10. Re: This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem with sticking to this type of business model like M$ is that your OS might be obsolete tomorrow because a new 4D virtual reality OS was pushed by the autoupdate system. And you end up with a crawling OS and forcing you to buy a new hardware which can support the latest, greatest, and shiniest OS.

    11. Re:This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are spot on. I remember the last 4 bugs in MS Windows which exploits Flash + OS bug chained together only affects Win7 and higher versions but that bug is not in older versions because that API was not on older version on the first place. But we understand their motivation, they need to publish new OS and new products so that their staff can be compen$ated well.

    12. Re: This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to run a computer on the Internet, you'd damn well better have security support, not just a smug sense of self-security. Security is NOT a simple matter of feeling secure because you "know what you're doing". It's about getting problems patched quickly and effectively. XP and Vista do neither of those things as well as any of the mainline distros. You should know this if you're an expert, and if you aren't then have fun being part of a botnet while thinking you're secure.

    13. Re:This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is plain and utter self-serving horseshit. If a million flies say something is great, do you follow suit? Or do you take a look at the lack of first-party support on that platform, the fact that it's increasingly difficult to build modern on it, and the fact that you're the only one crazy enough to still be supporting it anymore? It's plain nuts to keep supporting XP and Vista when the only people who still want it are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that there are very real security problems with running those OSes these days. Frankly it should count as criminally negligent to encourage people to still run those machines on the Internet.

      I especially like how Mozilla decided to grant people one more year of Firefox ESR builds on those platforms (to their own cost), and you call that a PR stunt. I'm sure their build server admins and developers appreciate the sentiment.

    14. Re: This is even more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HELO FRIEND
      WELCOME TO VIRUS AND ICE CREAMS PARK
      BOTNETS WELCOME
      FREE WIFI

      The little mistake you make is YOU wouldn't do it.
      Others however have no such quam.

      Try being internet-less. Then whine about that dos stack running trumpet winsock.

      In MY OPINION
      ecurity has a couple components and limitations.
      COST COMPONENT.
      KNOWLEDGE COMPONENT.
      also Security has a third component, EXPERIMENTAL.

      At any moment in TIME, There's two states of security.
      SECURE
      INSECURE

      a proper insecure botnet can communicate effectively.

      patching for security isn't even a consideration in some cases. a Middle finger to it. And in a lot of those, it don't matter anyway. You should know this even if your not an expert.

    15. Re: This is even more dangerous by dbIII · · Score: 1

      To be frank, built in security on MS is like a starlets underwear - either not there at all or if it is it doesn't actually cover anything properly.
      You need to secure these things from the outside and then run third party software on them in case that doesn't work.
      Whether it's Win2K, XP, Win7, Win8 or Win10 doesn't really matter since they are all incredibly malware prone. So if you have a good reason to run XP, then why not, it's the same third party and external solutions to keep it safe as Win10. Despite all the talk MS Win10 is still incredibly malware prone.

  6. Is Mozilla in some way related to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Godzilla, the Japanese 'father of Pokemon'?

    1. Re:Is Mozilla in some way related to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godzilla, the Japanese 'father of Pokemon'?

      Yes, they are second cousins.

  7. XP Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I could get security updates for XP forever without any feature updates, I would be happy with it forever. I would just install the apps that I need.

  8. Let's get this out of the way.. by enrique556 · · Score: 0

    Oh, just another stumble for the Mozilla "expets"!!!!
    Another nail in the coffin for the bloated, outdated old Fire$sucks browser. Put this old cat down, grandma! Nobody user's firefoc's anymore!!!@!! I always use chrome becase chrome is better, faster and more knew!!
    When will these Firefox fanboys learn the truth of the matter? hm? Windows 10 is better becase it has secure updates. Put XP down! Trust mozilla hacks to add more bloat to their computer codebase by supporting a downlevel OS. Everybody knows that you keep your codebase clean, like google chrome!!
    But, don't listen to me, listen to these so-called, mozilla expets and their dying browser which is dying becase its bloated and user's too much memory!! it uses over 2gb or memory when im trying to use my computer!! my computer needs that memory to be free at all times or it crasher's!

  9. Mozilla, Firefox, XP, Vista by Clived · · Score: 1

    Waste of resources, Mozilla! Does anyone still use these dinosaurs ?

    --
    Clive DaSilva Email: clive.dasilva@gmail.com Ubuntu 18.10 Kernel 4.18
    1. Re:Mozilla, Firefox, XP, Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's multimedia, and Internet!
      Also, seen the hardware that comes out nowadays? 2GB soldered RAM, 32GB low end flash with external SD as the only upgrade, 11" screen. Sometimes the old dinosaur garbage is just as good or better. Too bad HTML5 video is such garbage that isn't optimized to play fast when unaccelerated, after all these years you couldn't find a way to make it run as fast as Windows Media Player, VLC, mplayer and the rest?
      Why do I need a 4GHz CPU (which I don't have) to watch HD porn?

  10. They lump XP and Vista together... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that is the primary marketshare for 32 bit x86 versions of Firefox.

    I imagine omitted from that is the fact that at the same time they drop XP and Vista, you will also see them dropping 32 bit versions of 7, 8, 8.1 and 10, similiar to how current talk about dropping i386/i686 arches from Linux distros is happening right now.

    The silly part to me about all this is that keeping 32bit/x86 arch versions of firefox updated (especially using mingw32 or something in place of Visual Studio.) could allow support for a variety of people stuck on later netbooks and tablets which despite supporting x86_64 in hardware, were limited by the operating system to only operate in x86/32bit mode. Sure you might have to support some corner-case API differences between XP/Vista and 7 (7's equivalent Visual Studio, for at least a couple versions broke executables on earlier operating systems for people who didn't bother to regression test against them. Support was added back in for XP, but not until almost a year later and then dropped again with the next visual studio release. Should be a quick search to verify.)

    1. Re:They lump XP and Vista together... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I doubt so, that would be going too far.

    2. Re:They lump XP and Vista together... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if you compile an executable program using Win8.1 and Win10 targeting an XP executable, then that executable won't run on _ANY_ XP OS. Planned obsolescence by M$ because planet earth have unlimited resources and unlimited dumpig ground for our hardware garbage.

  11. XP = Good Enough by kackle · · Score: 1

    The problem is, a lot of people only use their computer for email and web browsing - seniors come to mind.

    My main machine at home runs XP because it does everything I want it to do, generally even faster than my much newer work machine (which runs 7). If I upgraded this machine to a newer OS, its mono-core, sub-3 GHz processor would cause things to crawl, and I'd have to buy new frickin' hardware; and for what? craigslist.com? Don't give me the security argument because that's mainly for marketing folks selling products as no one can prove that XP is less safe than the latest Windows OS with its yet unknown vulnerabilities, and the thousands of hackers (some state-sponsored) working daily to find more.

    You have no proof? Then you have no case, only a guess.

    1. Re:XP = Good Enough by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      A single core is enough to run a modern OS, it's the RAM and hard drive or SSD that count more.
      Although yes, Windows 7 is a dog, and so are Gnome 3, Cinnamon, KDE.

      Oh damn, you can easily use and install debian+lxde by getting the file named "debian-live-8.6.0-i386-lxde-desktop.iso" here : http://cdimage.debian.org/debi...
      It won't win a beauty contest and you will lose the ability to play almost any video game, but everything will be up to date. The requirements are similar to Windows XP without malware, and lower than Windows XP with malware.

      ..as no one can prove that XP is less safe..

      nor can I prove or disprove anything myself, but fuck you, you're unqualified. It's not so much your opinion is wrong, but that you're not entitled to waiving it around and ask for it to be taken seriously, because you know nothing about the subject matter.
      How can you prove your machine is not infected? Likely, your PC is so much powerful (can do a billions shits per second) that you won't notice slow down from small enough, modern, mostly dormant malware.

    2. Re:XP = Good Enough by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the.. bad wording in one of my sentences above. I don't know if it's from reading at -1, or if uncivil words have gotten widespread much, you had my blood boil a bit by suggesting a conspiracy from "marketing folks selling products" but otherwise I wish you the best.
      I remember when Windows was somewhat polite and well meaning : "You can now safely turn your computer off".

    3. Re:XP = Good Enough by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      PPS : that recent "Raspberry Pi desktop's x86 edition" in the news is pretty much debian and lxde, with a fun skin / icon theme. Might be a useful, hopefully good Windows XP replacement for those interested.

    4. Re:XP = Good Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single core is enough to run a modern OS, it's the RAM and hard drive or SSD that count more.

      No, a single core can be a pain, a dual core with 2Gb+ of RAM is a nice compromise, and an SSD would surely bottleneck the CPU on most workloads.

    5. Re:XP = Good Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 10 runs on low power hardware much better than Windows 7 ever did.

      You seen the networking in XP? It's atrocious.

    6. Re:XP = Good Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know there is Linux if all you do is Craigslist and checking your yahoo mail account. It runs well on older hardware and you can stay current and secure in case you want to use your credit card online.

  12. Re: Proof that Firefox is LUDDITE SOFTWARE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey there Appy. We hadn't heard from you lately, and guessed you were sick. Glad you're feeling better again.

  13. Great! by raind · · Score: 1

    I'm reading this on a Vista laptop- lol it's what's I have at the moment....!

    --
    Get up!
    1. Re:Great! by donaldm · · Score: 1

      I'm reading this on a Vista laptop- lol it's what's I have at the moment....!

      I'm reading this on a Skylake Core i7 6700 desktop running the most up to date version of Fedora 25. I also have a 10-year-old HP dual core laptop which originally came with Vista that I overwrote with Fedora at the time of my purchase. Today that same laptop runs Fedora 25 surprisingly well although for the best performance I would suggest "Puppy Linux" however since I use that laptop for testing my major upgrades (one every six months) I will stick to Fedora. That laptop is great for when I am traveling.

      Note: I always do a fresh install for major upgrades since I have found that is the fastest. Twenty minutes for the install, 20 ~ 25 minutes for customization and the machine is fully functional except for updates which don't interfere with anything I want to do.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  14. Major version vs. patch level by tepples · · Score: 1

    updates usually have version numbers and version numbers have a tendency to increase.

    Then why increase the major version number rather than the patch level? There's a difference.

  15. Beauty of FOSS like Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ........................is that anyone, like a lone programmer/ non-profit organization or a bussiness entity, can fork this Firefox browser into another browser which can support XP OS. Come on, stop this FUD just so everyone buys Win10 for their archaic machines.

    captcha: republic

    "for the republic!!!"

     

  16. webpage loading slow on browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. once noted that web browsers are becoming very slow on loading pages, but my XP loads un-cached pages in less than a second. Slow loading of pages are only experienced on newer OS doing background caching and probably background encryption of pages which would be uploaded to mothership later while updates are being downloaded.

  17. upgrade to a version of Windows that is supported by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    Or better yet a version of Ubuntu that is supported!

  18. Re: Proof that Firefox is LUDDITE SOFTWARE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love you apps guy, I hope some day I can rise above my LUDDITE ways and be a true app apper.

  19. Pity the poor Windows Server 2008 users by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    2008R2 is the equivalent of Windows 7 and has support for the more modern browsers, but Server 2008 is still supported until 2020 - but it's the server equivalent of Vista, so it runs IE9 and Chrome no longer gets updates, so Firefox is the only major browser still updated on it.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  20. Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox 12 is the last version that runs on XP SP2. For security, I use NoScript and block all images. Nice not to worry about updating all the time.

  21. A good example of why FOSS sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla is DIRECTLY contributing to insecurity online. Basically free and open source software advocates are the anti-vaccination imbeciles of software. Doing shit they CLAIM is healthy but hurting everyone as a result. This is why I always refuse to use open source or free software and prioritize better quality, more secure closed source software alternatives.

  22. Consider this by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The security is third party and works on both.
    Yes there is hype about the security software that comes with MS Windows 10 but I've seen a lot of infections it did not stop which could have been stopped by decent third party software.