cc333

Neat! Snow Leopard is the Mac equivalent of XP (despite being contemporary with 7; both saw their initial RTM releases in mid 2009). Does this work with 45 as well, or is it limited to 38? For late-model PowerPC Macs (Most fast G4s and all G5s), you want to target TenFourFox, whose latest version is forked from Firefox 45 (it lost source parity I think a couple years ago because there were some things that simply weren't portable). I think your script will be very helpful for that, as TFF is fairly decent, but it's configured as one-size-fits-most, so it could use some extra optimization, particularly on faster machines, to reach its full potential (it's extremely good as is, though!) If you could also try testing your script with ArcticFox, that would be useful too, as that is supposed to be a fork of Pale Moon (akin to Roytam1's New Moon, but for early Intel Macs), and thus should be more or less compatible with your script as is, but should be tested for any Mac-specific peculiarities. I can try it out on my Mac, if you like, as I have ArcticFox installed on it. Let's keep up the good work!! c

I'm going to look into trying this, but one quick note: your links are reversed! the link for 45 ESR leads to the 38 ESR UOC patch and vice versa. c

Indeed! c

As I do. There's no point in trying to respond to that vitriolic nonsense (now, the point of separating branding and redirecting help/support links to this forum thread instead of his site is a fair point and makes sense. What isn't fair is his seemingly compulsive need to viciously berate anyone who dares modify and use his product (or a derivative thereof) on an OS he doesn't support. Just let him do whatever he does, filter out whatever information is actually useful from that which is intended to insult or criticize, and move on. Some people just don't like to play fair. c

@digzu I agree. It seems that, among desktop PCs/laptops, there are three choices: Firefox based (which won't be much of an option much longer, with the way they keep jerking off their loyal user base by removing basic features that basically define what Firefox is; without those features (XUL/legacy extensions and advanced UI customization abilities, to name a couple), Firefox is little more than a distantly-related variant of Chromium), Chromium based or Apple's Safari (which is Webkit based; I believe Webkit is a derivative of Chromium, or vice versa, so maybe this one doesn't count?) I'm not sure what Opera is based on, but I think current versions are Chromium based, yes? Anyway, I suppose it's not unprecedented (look at the first "browser wars": we had IE and Netscape. All the others were marginalized, with tiny slivers of market share-- much the same as now, it seems....) I'm not saying it's ideal, but it's just the way things have always been, practically since the beginning of the modern Internet (the first few years were quite free, but then MS became interested and wanted to control the browser market, and the rest, as they say, is history. Others tried to compete (most notably, Netscape), but ultimately, MS was too big and powerful for them. Somewhat like Google now (Google basically invented Chromium, and my understanding is that they license out the Chromium sources, hence why we have so many different versions of it). c

Excellent work! Has anyone managed to get the WU website *itself* on the Wayback machine in some form? Perhaps if someone were to reverse engineer it somehow, it can be used to download updates in the future? c

@Jody Thornton Thank you for that, but I think I've found a workaround! It's called Personalization10 by WinAero: It was meant for Windows 10 and it's user hostile settings app, but it seems to work quite well on my Highly modified Windows 8.1 install (as you can see, I have the classic theme fully enabled and configured to look like Windows 7's classic theme, but with full hardware acceleration!) I shall still investigate your suggestion, however, as it would be nice to get the native Win8.1 version working, if that's possible. c

I'd like to know, is it possible to use the old Display control panel, in its entirety, from XP? I have enabled the somewhat buggy, but usable classic theme, but it breaks the Personalization control panel, so I can't change the desktop icons, wallpaper or screensaver. Altenatively, can we somehow get the Windows 7 Personalization to work? Thanks! c

I know this thread is old, but I wanted to share: This is my Windows 8.1 desktop! The classic theme is a little glitchy with some built in programs, like the photo previewer, and minimize/restore animations are aero style, but it's mostly perfect! c

Me again So, why I haven't been here? Well, awhile back, I managed to get my Windows 7 install fixed (I used a different license), but somehow in the process, I managed to break the 8.1 install (probably because I tried to enable the Classic theme, and something went wrong), so I got rid of it. I was using the Mac side almost exclusively, so it wasn't really a big deal, but I did boot into 7 occasionally to keep it updated and stuff (and to let it know that it wasn't forgotten ) Fast forward to now, however, and I have built myself another PC, this time a Core2 Quad-based one because it was cheap (only cost me ~$30!), and I had most of the parts already (save for RAM and CPU, else it would've cost me $0), many of which were bought in 2008-2009, when Core2 was current-- my, how time flies! This was because my Skylake machine had to go to storage while we prepare for a big move, and I wanted a relatively expendable desktop (in case it gets destroyed or lost) I could use in the meantime. Anyway, it's only now that I've finally begun to appreciate the scope and severity of the performance penalties this Spectre/Meltdown patch incurs, particularly on older platforms. I say this because I have installed 8.1 on it, and, while it was no speed demon (XP was better), its performance was OK. After updating to the latest patch level, however, it became seriously slow. I figured that was just the way it is; I've seen the same thing happen to XP over the years - in the RTM and SP1 days, it was fast and lean, and felt very much like 2000 with a new coat of paint and some much needed performance enhancements, but when SP2 came along, it started to feel slower and more bloated, particularly on older PIII and Athlon stuff - so I didn't give it much thought (this *is* a PC based on 12-year old technology, after all! I never expected it to be particularly fast.) That being said, here are the basic specs: Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz 8 GB DDR2 800 RAM 1 TB SATA3 hard drive On paper, this machine's no slouch! It is among the best that 2008 had to offer. In practice, however, something's not adding up! So, as I was browsing round, looking for new threads and posts of interest, I came across this one again, and it reminded me that this could be one of the reasons for the slowness, because it occurred to me that this machine flew on XP (which never received a Specre/Meltdown patch), so I speculated that perhaps this patch was the cause of the extreme slowness I was experiencing. I subsequently downloaded InSpecre and disabled the Meltdown protection, and.... Aha!! It was the patch! This machine feels at least twice as fast now! Tasks that were a struggle yesterday, before disabling the patch (Firefox would take ages to load anything; Pro tools, which wasn't expected to be the sprightliest anyway, was downright miserable), today are an absolute breeze, relatively speaking! So, I'll add this anecdote to the discussion, as the "up to 50%" penalty this patch incurs is bad enough for modern Intel systems (as NoelC and others have seen), but it *really hurts badly* on Core2-era machines! Even the fast ones! However, there's still that 8% performance drop even with the patches disabled (but not removed), but after experiencing what a 50% drop feels like, 8% is not so bad! c

I know it's not supported, but is there a way to force the issue? I have a Firewire audio interface (Focusrite Saffire LE) which is supposedly compatible with XP x64, and yet, I can't get it to work. Is there a driver from Vista I can hack in or something? If not, I'd be content switching to 32-bit XP. Just wanted to know if there's any way to get 64-bit XP to work, as I'm not too keen on reinstalling everything for the *third* time. c

I don't think even Google is this devious! I think cloudflare.com and akamaitechnologies.com are relatively safe (in that I don't believe they're not being used by a foreign government to gather information), but those other ones are downright creepy! What happens when this browser is run on something newer, like Windows 7? c

Yes, I remember using IE 5.x and 6.x back in 2003-2006 (before I discovered Firefox) and it seemed to be the most well supported at the time. Looking at now, I think Google has employed similar anti competitive tactics with regard to Chrome; it isn't necessarily a better browser, it's just that Google has deliberately done some shady things to make it look better than it really is (for example, deliberately using a deprecated JS API in YouTube which *no other browser supports*), and has leveraged this on their user base to unfairly increase Chrome's market share at its competitors' expense, primarily by making them look bad. It reminds me an awful lot of how MS made Netscape look bad by deliberately configuring Windows (and manipulating various key standards) in such a way that Netscape would break in various subtle ways. The unsuspecting user, of course, didn't care and went to IE because it rendered pages better, ran faster, and didn't crash. It's been my observation that history tends to repeat itself, and I find it particularly ridiculous that Google vs. Firefox is playing out almost *exactly* 20 years after MS vs. Netscape, and in virtually the same manner to boot! c

That graph speaks volumes! I'm often dismayed by how poorly all the other search engines work compared to Google, which I'd prefer not to use. However, the sad fact is that it's virtually impossible to not use, and I'm beginning to understand why that is: Google either owns, or plays a part in maintaining, virtually all the services and technologies the modern WWW operates on (about the only thing they don't have direct control over are the back hauls and fiber optic lines that make everything work; AT&T and Verizon own most of that in the US, apparently). Most of the rest (in the US, anyway) is owned and/or operated by Amazon or Facebook And even if none of this were true, it might as well be, given how Google treats its competition (in terms of browsers, Firefox has probably been the only significant competitor for awhile now, and it seems to be losing). c

I like those two DEs. They make sense, and also remind me of what it was like when I first dabbled with Linux way back in 2004 when I got a book with a copy of Fedora Core 2. With Trinity, some minor tweaks and choice icon and theme packages, I can make a modern distro look very similar, if not identical, to FC2 since KDE 3 (one of two default choices; the other was GNOME 2) was the latest and greatest for quite some time, and Trinity is basically an updated version of it. c

Here we go with Browser Wars 3.0! I came of age just as Netscape vs. Microsoft was wrapping up, and MS, of course, won that war. Then Firefox vs. Microsoft (aka Browser Wars 2.0). Firefox won! Now Google vs. everyone else! Google is employing the same sorts of tactics (and worse) that MS was trying back in the 90s, and sadly, it seems it's working in their favor, much as it did MS back then (the only difference is that they got sued for it; nobody wants to try suing Google now-- they're too big!) When will they ever learn? c

OK, I can think of a couple: Roytam1's port of Pale Moon, called New Moon Ports of various experimental browsers by the makers of Pale Moon, also ported by Roytam1 Chrome360, which is somewhat shady, but appears to be more or less equivalent to official Chrome 69 There are probably more, but these are among the most useful and important ones that I know of. c

Fair point. The official canon does seem to have some interesting inconsistencies. Some of them (such as the almost complete role reversal between the Klingons and Romulans) are pretty obvious. If you look at the events of ST VI, however, you can see that the Klingons, desperately trying to survive after a moon blows up and severely damages their home world, sign a peace treaty with the Federation, realizing that they can't survive without their help, and thereby setting the stage for Klingons as we see them in TNG, which took place maybe 60-80 years after the treaty was signed. As for the Romulans, I'm not sure. If you think about it, their behavior isn't *too* different, but perhaps they were purposely developed that way to provide a new villain after the Klingons became allies, and since there was only one TOS episode in which they were directly involved, maybe the TNG writers (particularly after season 1) thought they were free to be more creative with them? I don't know.... I like every series except ENT, because I'm not terribly fond of all the acting (particularly the Vulcan woman, whatever her name is). I don't know about Discovery (the newest one), because CBS is only broadcasting it on their streaming service, which I don't subscribe to, so I can't watch it (maybe they'll put it into syndication on their main TV network someday?) Hmm, I didn't realize it was based on such a recent version! I guess they basically took the rendering engine and such and grafted the pre-28 UI onto it? That's very interesting! I suppose it would be pointless, but as you said, Pale Moon (and all other related projects, presumably) are open source, and anyone is free to do exactly what roytam1 has done. At least legally. But, at what point does New Moon become different enough that it would warrant changing things internally such that it has it's own separate profile folder? and would it really break things to simply change that path? I'm not the most adept at programming (yet!), so please pardon my ignorance here! c

To be fair, in the last two seasons of DS9*, the Romulans finally do make peace with everyone else and unite to fight the Dominion; Everyone gets along pretty well, though the new relationship is rather tense at first due to a strong sense of mutual distrust. (*I'm a pretty big fan of the whole franchise, except the reboot movies (too much modern bling and shallow, cliche-ridden characters for my liking)). Anyway, back to the topic at hand (such as it is): Why does Matt Tobin feel the need to troll everyone (particularly roytam1) so badly? It's just plain mean-spirited and unfair. If he could just stick to one opinion and let everyone do their thing, it would be OK. I *guess* I can kinda sorta see his point, but I really think he should lighten up and just let it go. All he's doing right now is building animosity and resentment, and there's already *way* too much of that going around these days.... I realize this would be absolutely nontrivial, but what about forking the main Firefox source from the same point as Pale Moon (which I think was somewhere around 27.x.x), or perhaps something newer for better feature support, and backport the necessary security patches and stuff? Kinda like a clean room re-implementation of Pale Moon, if you will. It would certainly take a long time to accomplish, but it would get Matt off your backs by rendering the branding issue completely moot, wouldn't it? It's just a thought.... c

I have a legitimate, valid key I'd like to use, but no media. However, everywhere I look, I can't find any info regarding XP x64. There's plenty out there for 32-bit XP, however. I'm sure the procedure is 100% identical, but I'd like to know for certain, because when I try changing the PID in setupp.ini (which is in \AMD64 instead of \i386) for the media I downloaded from places best unknown (it is clean, however), nothing happens... it still won't accept the CD key I have (which comes from an Action Pack or something?) So, let me know! c

I use New Moon 28, and I'll probably give the others a try to see how they compare to Firefox 52. Just a quick mention of the other thread, which I follow (I'd have said this there, but it was locked for 24 hours): I think that certain developers, one of whom has been trying to incite some sort of flame war for some time now, are just selfish, mean-spirited trolls who need to lighten up and be more generous with their code (it is open source, after all!). Roytam1 has done a fantastic job keeping these browsers alive for XP, and hopefully can continue to do so for some time. c

I have seen some desktop motherboard with a combo Keyboard/Mouse PS/2 port, so they do exist. I don't think one can take a board that only has a single use port and make it do both, though (I'm not sure, but doesn't the port require extra hardware to be able to do both at once? The standard PS/2 port specs don't mention that feature, do they?) c

Does this mean that things like Classic Theme Restorer will work? I ask because I really like it because it makes Firefox (and, by extension, Waterfox and any fork based on FF => 3x.x) resemble a somewhat modernized version of the Firefox 24.x UI, before the Australlis UI, which I'm not super fond of, was introduced. That being said, I'm not very fond of Photon (is this the name of the new UI introduced with 57.x?), either. The custom CSS scripts made by the creator of CTR helps, but it's not the same, and customization, compared to earlier versions, is virtually nil. Also don't like the flat look (FF 56 and earlier have a subtle gradient in the toolbars, tabs, and (in macOS), the menu bar). Again the custom CSS helps, but it's not the same. c

This is what Microsoft would like us to think. FUD at it's finest c

I was looking for a thread in the XP forum today, and accidentally clicked the last page button, which transported me all the way back to September 11, 2001 (definitely not a day worth reliving), and among those threads, there was one regarding XP, of course, and it goes as follows: This reminded me exactly of Windows 10, 18 years later! What MS was doing back then is nothing compared to what they're doing now. I also remember a whole bunch of hoopla regarding Activation (XP, as we all know, was the first Windows version to have it), but now we all pretty much accept it as a force of nature, for the most part. Goes to show that some things never change, and MS will never let up on some of their shady business tactics (if anything, they've gotten worse). c