cc333

I'm sure someone will release an FF fork that can run on XP (and maybe even 2000) without any fancy hacks. That being said, Waterfox still claims XP-64 support with a 64-bit executable, which Mozilla dropped some time ago (though the 32-bit release still works), so maybe they'll continue supporting XP-32 beyond Mozilla's XP EOL? Time will tell.... c

Wasn't this also available for Windows 2000? c

Huh. Interesting. Well, at least XP doesn't phone home constantly! And, XP in recent years, has become rather solid (albeit somewhat bloated and slow) relative to its RTM self, so it's not super outlandish to have such a thing actually work somewhat. c

Thanks! I'll take a look at that. c

Yeah, I noticed that Firefox x64 didn't support XP-64. Anyway one could get around that? Can the normal Firefox code be compiled for 64-bit? Or is it too different? IF not, 32-bit FF works okay. c

dencorso: Ha ha, of course! I thought we were on 49 or something. Can't keep track. Well, no news is good news, I suppose? c

I haven't heard anything about Mozilla dropping XP support any time soon. Is this still true? I know they dropped 2000 years ago, but with BWC's Extended Core and Extended Kernel, I can still run Firefox 48, which is reasonably modern (the latest development versions can work with a quick and dirty hack, but I don't want to bother with that until either a clean and simple method for applying it is found, or the Firefox source code responsible for the "bug" is fixed). c

So, would this thing work on Window 8.x and 7? I doubt it'd work on Vista, but maybe so? c

Is Avast supporting XP still? c

I can corroborate all this. It seemed to start this morning, and is very confusing. I haven't been affected by the "please wait for -xxxx seconds before posting" thing yet, but it sounds like it's only a matter of time (interesting pun!) before I do. I hope it gets fixed soon. c

Confirmed! I have Dropbox installed on Windows XP x64, and setting the compatibility to "Windows 2000" got it working perfectly! It seems like such an arbitrary block. That's the sort of stuff Apple does (for instance, the 2009 Mac Pro is not supported by the upcoming macOS Sierra, but the 2010 Mac Pro is. And guess what? The 2009 Mac Pro's hardware is identical to the 2010's!) I just realized that this could theoretically allow Dropbox to work on Windows 2000 itself. Couldn't it? Now I have to test it out.... c

Yes, it does. It's almost perfectly linear? c

Indeed! It's like Apple arbitrarily dropping support for perfectly fine machines. For example, my 2008 Mac Pro was dropped from the latest release, even though all hardware aside from the WiFi card is perfectly compatible. To add insult to injury, I bought a 2009 Mac Pro to replace it, and that isn't supported either. But, if I simply update the firmware to make it look like a 2010 Mac Pro, it's suddenly fully supported! The bloody hardware is identical!!! c

You know, that is a very good point. After reading those articles, I don't feel much like using it anymore (it reaffirms my distrust in "The Cloud"), and deleting the application from all my Macs. Maybe it being discontinued on XP is a blessing in disguise, then? Then again, perhaps it doesn't to that on Windows? If it hacks up OS X (which is generally thought to be relatively secure), then it's probably doing all kinds of nasty things behind the scenes on Windows as well. And I can indeed use a browser to upload/download stuff, and that's probably what I'll do going forward. So, at this point, this is no longer something I want to do for myself, but I will continue researching it, as it's educational, and it may help out anyone else who might be stuck on XP, by necessity or by choice, and requires the application for whatever reason. c

It's amazing. That one feature has endured from Windows 98 (or 95 with Active Desktop Update), where it was first introduced, all the way through 7 and 8.x, where it was deprecated in favor of "pinning." Like XP, the Quick Launch simply won't die So, since it's now been rediscovered yet again, it's probably the *only* thing in W10 that's actually good, Right? c

vinifera: I agree wholeheartedly! I'm sick to death of flat and boring. This whole anti-skeumorpism movement has gone too far. iOS 6 was the last Apple iPhone OS to have the nice, 3D, skeumorphic look. iOS 7+ is okay, but I prefer the old look. Likewise with Snow Leopard, though Mavericks is okay too (Yosemite is when it starts to get ugly). And the Windows Classic theme is superbly usable and looks clean and crisp. One of my gripes regarding Windows 8 is that the classic theme can no longer be enabled. It's still buried in there, but it's half broken now, and the methods I know of are incomplete and glitchy at best, which only adds insult to injury. Oh, well. It still beats Windows 10 any day! c

That's dreadful! I shudder at the thought of a Windows 10-powered microwave or refrigerator. That being said, maybe it doesn't have the telemetry nonsense. That, if nothing else, would be an improvement. c

Ah, I see. Could one redirect all calls to their proper XP versions instead of the WinVista/7/8/8.1 ones, for example: redirect calls from to user32.dll to, say, user32_xp.dll? And have it work?? It might be worth trying on something innocuous, like DESK.CPL. Couldn't hurt to try. It'd likely be useless, but whatever. It *could* be modified to seek display/appearance settings in their proper Vista/7/etc places instead of the expected 2000/XP ones, but I'm not certain how trivial that would be. c

Would that version be exempt from the seemingly arbitrary block? I suppose the only way to find out would be to give it a try. c

Has anyone figured out how to run the old DESK.CPL (or, indeed, any .CPL from XP or 2000) on Vista and newer with their native interfaces relatively intact? I ask because I don't like the "webby" control panels tremendously. They're OK, and they're certainly better than Windows 10 in my opinion, I just want to see if I can somehow get some of the tried-and-true interfaces back. c

I hate this! I don't want to pay a subscription for everything. What happens if you don't pay? They'll shut down your computer and Windows will refuse to boot again until you pay up for the month (plus a late fee, to add insult to injury). Sounds like the beginnings of ransomware-like behavior to me. c

Reading this and other similar threads, I've been recommending all my friends to upgrade back to Windows 7, and I'm testing the viability of moving to a carefully-tuned 8.1 when 7's support is dropped. However, I have recently chosen not to give in to all the fear mongering ("one MUST run the latest, most up to date software on the latest, most up to date hardware AT ALL TIMES, or the entire Internet will die"). So, with that, I will begin running XP as my main Windows OS again, hardware permitting (running XP on modern hardware has become increasingly difficult, and in some cases, impossible, so I'll run 7 in those cases). The main thing I'd need a newer version of Windows for (Pro Tools) I use on a Mac anyway, so there's nothing holding me back. c

I'll look into it. In the meantime, this post provides some very promising information that could allow me to have a proper driver. Of course, I won't know until I try. c

OK. I'll give that a try tomorrow when I'm home. c

I don't have to do that; the executables themselves run fine. They're just being artificially blocked from accessing Dropbox's servers. I suspect there's a version check of some kind, and if it reports that it's running on XP, it will not connect. If we can fake the version being reported, I think it will work. Problem is, I don't know how to do it. c