Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 52 Is The Last Version of Firefox For Windows XP and Vista (mspoweruser.com)

Posted by msmash on from the end-of-road dept.

Mozilla has confirmed that Firefox 52, the new version of its browser it made available earlier this week, will be the last major version to support two legacy operating systems - Windows XP and Windows Vista. The company said future versions will require Windows users to be on a machine that has at a minimum Windows 7 running on it.

77 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Why drop Vista? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not that I have any Vista machines any more, but why drop Vista support? What's available on 7 but not Vista, API-wise?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Why drop Vista? by Calydor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Users.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Why drop Vista? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      api.sanity

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Why drop Vista? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Not that I have any Vista machines any more, but why drop Vista support? What's available on 7 but not Vista, API-wise?

      It has 1/5th the market share of XP, end of extended support next month and killing off Vista counts as a mercy kill. Probably mostly the first one though, XP got supported because there were too many users to leave in a ditch. Vista, not so much.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Why drop Vista? by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sometimes dropping support is not because it won't work, but because the cost/benefit ratio of testing to guarantee it will work is not worth the effort.

      Pertinent facts:
          Vista represents less than 1% of the market, we're talking 3 to 4 times less than linux
          Vista exited mainstream support FIVE YEARS AGO
          Vista extended support expires this week

      At some point you just stop beating the dead horse.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    5. Re:Why drop Vista? by H0p313ss · · Score: 2

      I kind of love that Microsoft's expiry notice basically says if you're still running Vista you should probably buy a new computer.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:Why drop Vista? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Vista extended support expires this week

      That's probably the single most relevant fact, thanks. As far as I'm aware, pretty much anything which will run on 7 will run on Vista, but any excuse to drop a platform.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Why drop Vista? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I kind of love that Microsoft's expiry notice [microsoft.com] basically says if you're still running Vista you should probably buy a new computer.

      Last year I replaced my nine-year-old Vista-compatible motherboard with a newer motherboard.

    8. Re:Why drop Vista? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      vista supports dx11.

    9. Re:Why drop Vista? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Actually there's a bit of irony to that. We have about 30 Dells we had bought that had Vista on them. Last year upgraded them all to Windows 10, which seems to run perfectly fine on hardware that was, at that point, seven years old. Of course there are a lot of other things to dislike about Windows 10, but it actually runs fairly well on those old machines.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Why drop Vista? by dryeo · · Score: 2

      I was following the discussion on mozilla.dev.platform when the decision was made. It actually is an API problem of which I forget the specifics, it might have even been wanting to update the compiler. Google made the same decision when they dropped support for XP and Vista.
      Mozilla is/was also considering maintaining 52ESR support for longer then the usual 16 months depending on how many XP users are left next year.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:Why drop Vista? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Considering its release date, it equivalent to Fedora saying "We're no longer supporting Fedora Core 7, please update to a more recent version."

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    12. Re:Why drop Vista? by darkain · · Score: 1

      What is missing from this summary: Windows Server 2008 also uses the same kernel as Vista. Server 2008 is already extremely limited in administration support because Chrome has already dropped it. With Firefox gone, this means Opera will be the only browser left supported on this platform.

    13. Re:Why drop Vista? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      That's probably the single most relevant fact, thanks. .

      That and the testing cost.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    14. Re:Why drop Vista? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it's not the same code at the supported windows 7 build?

      It's simply not tested on Vista anymore, and therefore not guaranteed to work.

      But seriously, who gives a crap about Vista in 2017, it was largely disliked even when it was the new hotness and that was four major releases back, 2006... man I feel old. That was a decade ago and I was almost over the hill even then.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    15. Re:Why drop Vista? by Ramze · · Score: 4, Informative

      Win 10 runs even better than Vista did on the old hardware -- due in part to streamlining the OS to fit on low-resource PCs to compete with tablets and Chromebooks. Win 10 loads things more intelligently, uses RAM compression, and tries to only load one copy of a cached shared library instead of multiples - one for each app using them. If it weren't for the spyware, adware, and cost, It'd be a decent OS.

      I put Ubuntu on our 8 year old Vista machine, but only because it wasn't worth purchasing a Win 10 license.

    16. Re:Why drop Vista? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Vista represents less than 1% of the market, we're talking 3 to 4 times less than linux
          Vista exited mainstream support FIVE YEARS AGO
          Vista extended support expires this week

      At some point you just stop beating the dead horse.

      One of those is relevant, that's the user base. When MS decides to end mainstream / extended support for their OS is entirely irrelevant, especially given the announcement that Mozilla is dropping support for both systems at the same time, despite those systems ending extended support a few years ago.

    17. Re:Why drop Vista? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      basically says if you're still running Vista you should probably buy a new computer.

      Well if you're stupid enough not to upgrade to Windows 7... frankly there shouldn't be anyone left on Vista. If your computer ran on Vista it ran Windows 7. No need to buy a new computer. Only people who rested on their laurels so long that they can no longer buy Windows 7 need to consider a new computer.

    18. Re:Why drop Vista? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet
      'nuff said.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    19. Re:Why drop Vista? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      At some point you just stop beating the dead horse.

      We're talking about Windows Vista, right? Poor thing was dead out of the gate.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re: Why drop Vista? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Yeah let's pay Microsoft another $100 for something that should've been free with an apology for Vista.

    21. Re:Why drop Vista? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Win 10 runs even better than Vista did on the old hardware

      Sure, but so does Windows 7. The biggest difference between Vista and 7 is that they really improved memory management. It's largely the same underpinnings.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Why drop Vista? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that?

      I see crappy netbooks on offer at my local retailer with 32GB SSDs (16GB of which is taken up by an already trimmed-down version of Windows 10) and 2GB RAM.

      They run like molasses. I'm amazed anyone would consider a 2 minute boot time acceptable, and forget about trying to actually run any programs on it within the next two minutes.

      I had to troubleshoot one for a client. Ended up replacing Windows with Fedora Linux and XFCE, and the difference is night and day. Five second boot time, and applications start nearly instantly.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    23. Re:Why drop Vista? by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Win 10 loads things more intelligently, ... tries to only load one copy of a cached shared library instead of multiples....

      What? That's how DLLs have always worked. Even Windows 3.0 did that.

    24. Re:Why drop Vista? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Win 10 runs even better than Vista did on the old hardware

      I realise I've already replied to you, but it just occurred to me that what you're claiming is a lot like what climate change deniers often say about the year 1998:

      Atmospheric temperatures haven't increased since 1998.

      This is, of course, due to 1998 having an abnormally strong El Nino so being prime for cherry picking as a starting data point.

      (It also happens to be wrong, as several subsequent years have been hotter but that's beside the point).

      The point: Vista is an anomaly and I've yet to see a PC that runs Windows 10 better than it did XP or 7.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    25. Re: Why drop Vista? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There was nothing wrong with Vista. Blame driver manufacturers for thoroughly fucking up every driver shipped with the OS. Blame the media for criticising memory usage graphs they didn't understand.

    26. Re: Why drop Vista? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah it's always someone else's fault

    27. Re:Why drop Vista? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Not that I have any Vista machines any more, but why drop Vista support?

      It's a dry run for their dropping XUL later this year. In their ongoing pursuit of zero percent market share they want to trial a smaller drop now before they go for the big one when they kill all their plugins.

    28. Re:Why drop Vista? by evultrole · · Score: 1

      There was something wrong with his windows install. I get these in my shop with fair regularity (they don't have a large enough hard drive to install windows 10 updates, so I have to wipe them and start from scratch with new builds for people because of Microsoft's boneheaded update methods) and they turn on in about 4 seconds. I've always been absolutely amazed at how fast these things run given that they're garbage. They only run "like molasses" if you do something CPU intensive.

    29. Re: Why drop Vista? by evultrole · · Score: 1

      Why not blame vista for being designed around hardware that wouldn't be commonly available for another 2 years?

      Was it the media's fault that Vista required 2GB of RAM to be usable when at release most XP systems were still being sold with 256MB of RAM? Or I guess the driver manufacturers were to blame for Microsoft throwing away the actually usable Windows Longhorn and throwing together a piece of garbage from scratch in 1 year instead? They scrapped pretty much 100% of the planned technology improvements and just went "Let's make it really damn pretty instead"

      There is nothing wrong with Vista SP2 on modern hardware. That doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with Vista when it came out.

    30. Re:Why drop Vista? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I didn't explain it very well. They run like molasses at the shop, and I haven't seen them do anything that could be considered CPU intensive. Perhaps the bloatware isn't helping.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    31. Re: Why drop Vista? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why not blame vista for being designed around hardware that wouldn't be commonly available for another 2 years?

      Because there was nothing wrong with the hardware of the day. There was plenty wrong with the hardware support on the day, but aside from idiots attempting to install Vista on their 5 year old XP machines, and manufacturers pushing the bare minimum hardware for all their new machines in an epic race to the bottom, the hardware of the day was perfectly adequate.

      Actually Microsoft does get some blame here. Their "Designed for Visa" certification had both the hardware and the quality bar set too low.

      Sorry but passing the blame of the hardware back to Microsoft is a strawman. Vista was in active beta and developmental release for well and truly long enough for proper driver testing. Manufacturers just didn't give a shit. They continued to not give a shit when Windows 8 hit the market, and that had an even longer development preview release with far less changes to the driver models, and it was still fucked.

    32. Re: Why drop Vista? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's only someone else's fault when it is.

    33. Re: Why drop Vista? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      In this case it was Microsoft's fault for taking 5 years to produce a half arsed upgrade to NT 5 with no upgrade path that left loads of users stuck on XP. Microsoft were the ones that pushed for Vista Ready stickers to be placed on machines that weren't.

      Vista wasn't a massive flop because you're a super genius and everyone else is an idiot, it's because it was a mess that was pushed out of the door before it was ready.

  2. The last real version of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will be the last ESR that supports proper extensions, proper operating systems and proper plugins. We need to set up a new browser foundation that will continue updating this browser for real users and not Chrome drones.

    1. Re:The last real version of Firefox by fisted · · Score: 1

      >2006
      >vintage

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    2. Re:The last real version of Firefox by sgage · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you are talking about the Pale Moon project. They claim to have no intention of dropping old-school NPAPI plugins and whatnot.

    3. Re:The last real version of Firefox by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      there were other problems with that series of Intel based laptops, namely the inability of the Intel chipset to effectively support more than 3 GB of RAM, even unofficially. They were rock solid though. My 64 bit SL system is still running, although firefox just about kills it today after a few page views. Probably need to tweak the settings a bit to reduce memory usage and eliminate swap usage.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:The last real version of Firefox by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      2006? That's like a baby's toy. Upgrade or die

      I paid $1200 for the Black MacBook in 2006. The "temporary" replacement laptop I got in 2015 was a $200 Dell laptop. Similar hardware specs even though different generations of hardware. Either laptop can run Windows 10 without issues.

    5. Re:The last real version of Firefox by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They claim to have no intention of dropping old-school NPAPI plugins

      Irrelevant. With such a tiny market share NPAPI plugins will be dropping them. Either way Mozilla is partially responsible for the death of plugins even on other browsers.

    6. Re:The last real version of Firefox by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      It's also the last ESR where you can recompile to have sound on Linux. In 51, it worked flawlessly. In 52, you need to rebuild. In 54, pulseaudio will be a strict dependency.

      And pulseaudio works (if it does at all) about as bad as you'd expect on something from the author of avahi and systemd.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    7. Re:The last real version of Firefox by roca · · Score: 1

      Mozilla measured, and 1.2% of all Firefox Linux users are using ALSA with Firefox.

  3. Good by kackle · · Score: 1

    Good; that means it won't be getting any slower.

    The Firefox browser on my XP machine recently stopped working with some of the sites I often visit, so I upgraded it to the latest version, from 3.6! I miss the speed.

    1. Re:Good by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      My brother pulled his ancient xp pro gaming rig out of the closet so he could set it up as a media server... he connected it to the network and it had a virus before he could back up the few photos he had on it.

      We killed the boot sector, partition tables, and completely re-formated the drive before we stuck a minimal linux on it...

  4. You Know They Want Adblock Dead by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. Unless essential extensions like adblock (read: ublock origin) retains functionality, Firefox will have (even more of) a shitstorm on their hands.

  5. This is actually great news for XP/Vista users! by ToTheStars · · Score: 2

    Those of us with XP and Vista machines get the last laugh -- it means we get to keep using our favorite addons, like Classic Theme Restorer, NoScript, and AdBlock Plus (or uBlock Origin), while the rest of you get left out in the cold come November. Thanks, MozColonSlashSlashA!

    1. Re:This is actually great news for XP/Vista users! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, until newer browser features become more common and more and more sites don't render properly. This is like proclaiming "I don't get browser malware because I use links!" Well, yes, but...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:This is actually great news for XP/Vista users! by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      shitty bloated sites built under the direction of marketing wanks and sales shitheads, linking in multiple "partners" full of spyware and malware won't work, correct.

    3. Re:This is actually great news for XP/Vista users! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      sites pandering to old people, those family photo album apps written in php should render ok

    4. Re:This is actually great news for XP/Vista users! by ToTheStars · · Score: 1

      (To be clear, I'm being mostly sarcastic. As much as I shake my head at MozColonSlashSlashA's continued retrograde trajectory in the UI space, I am of course aware that skipping out on updates will result in losing functionality over time...though sometimes I wonder how much 'modern web functionality' I really need.)

  6. So... by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

    So... any PC with Windows purchased after mid-2009 will run the newest version of Firefox. That's what keeps me to Windows. No need to upgrade the OS if you don't want to, and no need to wait for someone to "package" the app specific to your OS version to be able to enjoy the app or mess with stuff like 0install which is a pain. Just download the same generic exe or msi everyone else if downloading, double click on it, next-next-finish and enjoy the app.

  7. Suggestion for /. by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    While I believe that this is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", I'm wondering if there needs to be a new category for news items like this: "Announcements" or "FYI: Version Support Information"

    No surprise that Vista has only 0.78% of the market (https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0), although it is something of a surprise that XP has 8.5% (same source), but Microsoft ended support almost three years ago. I'm of the feeling that any software ending support for these platforms is reasonable and should really be presented as FYI.

    I know I'm opening myself up for a lot of responses as to why it is unreasonable for a browser to end support because systems using these browsers are being used for , it is impossible to update them and they need to access the latest information on the web for their users. But, time marches on and as user bases shrink, regardless of how worthwhile the final users are, developers need to let go of support projects.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Suggestion for /. by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      WinXP has 8.5% because really old PCs get "refurbished" (aka have WinXP re-installed on them using the existing license) and then are sold for peanuts to the third-world. It's legal and people can buy a PC for 50 bucks or so. They don't care if they are vulnerable to two-year-old font exploits (sadly).

    2. Re:Suggestion for /. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I have a refurbished $50 first generation c2d computer, it came with a license for Win7 refurbished edition, which I never activated but assume is just Win7 Home edition. I'd assume the license was quite cheap.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Suggestion for /. by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "Win7 refurbished edition". There is Win7 (some_valid_version_here) licensed under the OEM DSP license if that's what you you meant. But there is no "Win7 refurbished edition" and you should not see something like that in any control panel screen or boot screen. If you see something like that you may have bought a PC with counterfeit software. But anyway, the actual price (50 bucks or not) is irrelevant, the point is that WinXP computers along with their license are still being "refurbished" and sold to the third world for peanuts, which explains XP's 8.5%

    4. Re:Suggestion for /. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      No surprise that Vista has only 0.78% of the market (https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0), although it is something of a surprise that XP has 8.5% (same source), but Microsoft ended support almost three years ago. I'm of the feeling that any software ending support for these platforms is reasonable and should really be presented as FYI.

      If Microsoft had provided a replacement for XP, then the continued use of it would be surprising.

    5. Re:Suggestion for /. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      WinXP has 8.5% because really old PCs get "refurbished" (aka have WinXP re-installed on them using the existing license) and then are sold for peanuts to the third-world. It's legal and people can buy a PC for 50 bucks or so. They don't care if they are vulnerable to two-year-old font exploits (sadly).

      Add to this that the current Windows does not support older PC hardware at all.

  8. Lubuntu perhaps? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why can't Lubuntu likewise be used for this sort of "refurbishing"? It'd have the advantage of continuing security support. Or does it use significantly more RAM than Windows XP Service Pack 3?

    1. Re:Lubuntu perhaps? by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      Does Lubuntu rely on distro-specific repositories as the recommended way to install software? Answer: Yes, it does. If so, it cannot be used for this sort of refurbishing because this is not what Does Lubuntu rely on distro-specific repositories as the recommended way to install software? Answer: Yes, it does. If so, it cannot be used for this sort of refurbishing because this is not what people want. Repositories delay users from getting new apps at best and preventing them at all usually (for example, I can't gave people want from their OS. Repositories delay users from getting new apps at best and preventing them at all in the most common scenario (for example, I can't have the latest VLC and LibreOffice on my Ubuntu 14.04 despite being a relatively release, while my 6-year old Windows 7 netbook runs these apps perfectly). So, no, Lubuntu can't be used. When WinXP support gets completely dropped in the following months from most apps, I expect people to switch to pirate Win7 which gives them instant access to new apps just by downloading a generic exe without having to wait for the repository middlemen. Android is similar, aka one or two generic apks, and they work on all (non-completely-ancient) Androids from Nexus to Sansung TouchWiz Android to LG Android to ODROID. No need for specific repos. But Android doesn't have a mouse friendly UI (yet).

    2. Re:Lubuntu perhaps? by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      Does Lubuntu rely on distro-specific repositories as the recommended way to install software? Answer: Yes, it does. If so, it cannot be used for this sort of refurbishing because this is not what people want. Repositories delay users from getting new apps at best and prevent them at all usually (for example,I can't have the latest VLC and LibreOffice on my Ubuntu 14.04 despite being a relatively new release, while my 6-year old Windows 7 netbook runs these apps perfectly). So, no, Lubuntu can't be used. When WinXP support gets completely dropped in the following months by most apps, I expect people to switch to pirate Win7 which gives them instant access to new apps just by downloading a generic exe without having to wait for the repository middlemen. Android is similar, aka one or two generic apks, and they work on all (non-completely-ancient) Androids from Nexus to Sansung TouchWiz Android to LG Android to ODROID. No need for specific repos. But Android doesn't have a mouse friendly UI (yet).

    3. Re:Lubuntu perhaps? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Because they want to run pirated Windows apps on their $50 computer. Not open source Linux apps that you have to compile.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  9. Re:Windows XP and Vista are LUDDITE operating syst by bazorg · · Score: 1

    Actually... they are!

    After all the extensions XP Enterprise ended its support period 3 years ago, according to the MS life cycle DB.

    When people in this site talk about supporting old software that they dislike, stuff that old is way overdue for a replacement. People at Microsoft probably are no different, maybe expect about the reaction they get whenever they have to tell anyone their day job was to support Vista or XP :)

  10. Define "run" by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    On vista I kept having issues with the File Explorer malfunctioning. /i quickly upgraded to 7 annd didn't experience any more problems.

  11. $100 by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I just bought an AMD A8 computer for $100, http://support.hp.com/us-en/do... because the previous owner said it ran slow and apparently had more money than sense. I uninstalled Norton Anti-virus and now it runs just fine,

  12. Re:Windows XP and Vista are LUDDITE operating syst by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Well, at least you appear to be 'appy about the news.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  13. hard lockout? what about an this may not work by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    hard lockout? what about an this may not work and your are at your own risk opt in choice?

  14. waterfox 64 bit with java and other plugins by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    waterfox 64 bit with java and other plugins

  15. Well that's the final straw. by ckatko · · Score: 1

    Damn billion dollar corporations controlling us.

    It's the last straw.

    I'm going to Linux.

  16. Re:Windows XP and Vista are LUDDITE operating syst by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

    How about win 3.X, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, vista, 7, 10.... you may have notice that win 8 was skipped; that was intentional because I've never been stuck supporting it.

  17. Re:Microsoft is terrible at backwards compatibilit by Ramze · · Score: 1

    It used to help run Windows 95 games on Vista, 7, etc... dunno about now as it's painful to try to play 640x480 games on today's monitors even stretching the windows to fit a bit. I've found it easier to just load the games in a VM like Dosbox or Vmware Win95, etc.

  18. Re:Just in time by zekica · · Score: 1

    Not true, the version that supports XP is Firefox 52 ESR which still supports Java and will until mid 2018.

  19. Re:Some can't afford new OS or hardware by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    They can always back up their data and load a low-footprint distro of Linux like Puppy or Linux Lite.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  20. Vista hits end-of-life in a month, no more updates by doug141 · · Score: 1

    No sense making a secure browser for an insecure OS.

  21. Minimum Version 53 by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Next step: Release a Firefox 53 so that 52 indicates an outdated OS.

  22. Re:Some can't afford new OS or hardware by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    There's two situations here:

    In some third-world cases, Microsoft offers cheap software compared to American prices... so do something and get the latest operating system just like here in the USA.

    In other cases, Microsoft is not popular. Long live Linux.

  23. Controlling Parents by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    A key factor in XP support is that there's no user-to-user encryption, which is required by Win7+... in other words, parents can't steal cookies and stored passwords.

  24. PPA by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you need the latest version of a popular free application for Ubuntu, there's usually someone building a PPA of it. For example, I'm using the firefox-next PPA, which provides Firefox Beta.