Jump to content

Instructions: Google Chrome End of Support Vista/XP


sdfox7
 Share

Recommended Posts

Info directly from mozilla:

1.

Spoiler

How can I get the latest version of Firefox on Windows XP or Vista?

Although Firefox will run on Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) or above, the latest installers for Firefox require Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (SP3) or Windows Vista with update KB2763674. To work around this issue, a two-step process is necessary to install the latest version of Firefox. Windows XP and Vista users should follow these steps:

Download and install Firefox up to version 43.0.1 (link to download).

After installing this version you can use the Firefox updater to install the latest version of Firefox. See the article Update Firefox to the latest version for details.

We're sorry for the inconvenience.

For advanced users:

On Windows XP SP3 or up-to-date Vista operating systems, you can download the full installer for the latest version of Firefox from either one of these download sites:

https://download-installer.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/firefox/releases/

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

For example, to download the Firefox 44.0.2 Windows English (US) full installer, navigate to /44.0.2/win32/en-US/ and choose the file Firefox Setup 44.0.2.exe.

Before downloading, read the System Requirements and see the Release Notes for information about the latest Firefox release.

Link to this item

2.
Here at the official download page of Firefox, on Windows XP, these cases only one version 43.0.1 is offered. Link

In how far the version 43.0.1 for Windows XP still a support is provided to me is unknown.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My understanding is that you need XP SP3 to do a clean install of versions of Firefox after 43.0.1, which is why only that version is offered on XP systems, presumably because the downloader can't verify that SP3 is installed.

Once you have version 43 installed, you can then upgrade it all the way to the current 46 provided that you have SP3.

There is no suggestion that versions after 46 won't support XP SP3.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dave-H
Ok, this is also clarified. Thank you for the correct interpretation.

@Sampei.Nihira
There is a problem in Slimjet Version 10.0.1.0/10.0.2.0 with encrypted pages, which is still partially resorted here to SHA-1 certificates, here at least would have a way to exist in this set with flags so that I can decide whether the browser should use this insecure encryption! The clearly lacks and is a no go!

 

This is Ok!

certok_slimjet.jpg

This is a fail!

certfail_slimjet.jpg

Too bad, if it fails in the encryption. Here necessarily needs to be improved at this problem again!

Update:
Meanwhile, I have a culprit. A certificate that is for "Equifax Secure Certificate Authority" issued (valid from 08/22/1998 to 08/22/2018), when it is imported into the revoked certificates, the problem no longer exists. Could that be this certificate, in this newer Chrome variant, is on a kind of exclusion list. Is obviously bad comparing to start since Google Chrome from the 50 version to Windows XP fails his service.

:)

Edited by heinoganda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has this been posted yet? :unsure:

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

I have yet to test v38, v43, and v46 (the ones I chose for tests for Video Enable). It seems that v38 is when the Video madness began. Ignore using Downloader (like I do by disabling AutoUpdate) and go for direct.

Or am I somehow missing the boat (again)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2016 at 10:29 PM, dencorso said:

I use Firefox 44.0 as the main browser, Pale Moon 26.0.0 as the second alternative and IE8 as the third.
But some months ago I was forced to add Chrome (as of today: v.48.0.2564.97 m), because none of the 3 above can play H.264 (HTML5) video (on XP SP3, obviously -- this issue doesn't exist on 7 or 8.1), while Chrome can, and many sites I read have changed to non-Flash content, so I had to cave in. :puke:  I did try the new Opera (which I never liked either, but I do have Opera 12 on my other day-to-day desktop), but it too isn't able to play H.264 (HTML5) video. Does anyone know of any good add-on for FF or PM, capable of solving this issue. I'd gladly remove Chrome from my machine, in case the other browsers became capable of playing H.264 video. TIA.

Firefox has addressed this, and stated that their are no plans to incorporate this.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541286

You can try to use the VLC Web Pluggin, however I did not have success with it.  :(

Possible fix in the distant future.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1057646

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Flasche! Long time no see! :hello:

Relax, the solution has been found already (as you'd know, if you'd actually read some more of this thread... but, then again, who does?) :P

On 5/24/2016 at 10:57 PM, dencorso said:

An undocumented solution has been found, that allows FF to play all kinds of videos... or, on other words, it has been fixed already!!! :yes:

Read all about it here: Enable MP4 (H.264 + AAC) HTML5 video in Firefox on Windows XP without Flash. cheerleader.gifcheerleader.gif

Isn't it great? We don't need Chrome for anything, anymore!!!  bounce8.gifbounce8.gif

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dencorso said:

Hi, Flasche! Long time no see! :hello:

Relax, the solution has been found already (as you'd know, if you'd actually read some more of this thread... but, then again, who does?) :P

Hello dencorso :)

That is good news, and I will immediately implement the workaround on my XP laptop. The funny thing is that I specifically checked each page to see if a solution was posted, before I made my post. Somehow I didn't see the smiley train.  :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, heinoganda said:

@Dave-H
Ok, this is also clarified. Thank you for the correct interpretation.

@Sampei.Nihira
There is a problem in Slimjet Version 10.0.1.0/10.0.2.0 with encrypted pages, which is still partially resorted here to SHA-1 certificates, here at least would have a way to exist in this set with flags so that I can decide whether the browser should use this insecure encryption! The clearly lacks and is a no go!

  Reveal hidden contents

This is Ok!

certok_slimjet.jpg

This is a fail!

certfail_slimjet.jpg

Too bad, if it fails in the encryption. Here necessarily needs to be improved at this problem again!

Update:
Meanwhile, I have a culprit. A certificate that is for "Equifax Secure Certificate Authority" issued (valid from 08/22/1998 to 08/22/2018), when it is imported into the revoked certificates, the problem no longer exists. Could that be this certificate, in this newer Chrome variant, is on a kind of exclusion list. Is obviously bad comparing to start since Google Chrome from the 50 version to Windows XP fails his service.

:)

If you want you can enter your findings to help developers:

http://www.slimjet.com/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=998

TH.:)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.5.2016 at 3:20 PM, Sampei.Nihira said:

If you want you can enter your findings to help developers:

First, at Slimjet a minimum encrypting TLS1.0 should be standard again! Second, Java and Firefox its own certificate management have where ECC certificates (Info) work fine under Windows XP. Instead around to tamper with the minimum encryption should also own certificate management which should be considered to Slimjet future can still use Windows XP here. At Google Chrome browser on Windows XP by ECC certificates exists the same problem. Otherwise I do not see why I should have to invest time in this problem to post in Slimjet Forum since this problem is likely to be familiar to programmers!

Update:
New version (10.0.5.0), new luck with the same error. Too bad, so is Slimjet in Windows XP for encrypted pages a security risk!
The problem I have posted in Slimjet forum where I can only hope that is found here is a solution especially Google Chrome also does not resort to SHA-1 certificates when a secure certificate is available.

:)

Edited by heinoganda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@heinoganda: With all due respect: keep looking for ways to port the "Primetime Content Decryption Module" to Pale Moon for Atom/XP. That has future and we know for sure it will support XP for a long time. Let Slimjet's developers fix it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.5.2016 at 7:40 PM, dencorso said:

keep looking for ways to port the "Primetime Content Decryption Module" to Pale Moon for Atom/XP

The first attempts were unsuccessful, to times when PaleMoon Project this plugin is not supported, for obvious reasons and because maybe also various code has been removed in this respect does not make it easier. A very bumpy ride because it appears here is no simple solution. Despite everything, I stay tuned to find a solution.

:)

Edited by heinoganda
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, has anyone tried messing with Windows Vista's OS registry info or know enough coding to mess around with Chrome's Windows ver. checker?

Comparing Windows Vista to 7 is like comparing Windows 98 to ME, right? (Very little difference if any)
Every Windows 98 driver and application I've used on Windows ME worked with no problem (Unless there was a false compatibility blocker)
And well...I know comparing 9x isn't like NT, but you get the point!

Windows Vista and 7 are virtually the same, so Vista probably wouldn't have any issues running Windows 7 only software. Windows Vista ran every single Windows 7 only and later driver on an older-ish laptop I own. Does anyone know if there are certain files or updates in 7 that aren't present in Vista or something?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ said:

Excuse me, has anyone tried messing with Windows Vista's OS registry info or know enough coding to mess around with Chrome's Windows ver. checker?

Comparing Windows Vista to 7 is like comparing Windows 98 to ME, right? (Very little difference if any)
Every Windows 98 driver and application I've used on Windows ME worked with no problem (Unless there was a false compatibility blocker)
And well...I know comparing 9x isn't like NT, but you get the point!

Windows Vista and 7 are virtually the same, so Vista probably wouldn't have any issues running Windows 7 only software. Windows Vista ran every single Windows 7 only and later driver on an older-ish laptop I own. Does anyone know if there are certain files or updates in 7 that aren't present in Vista or something?

WIC , WDDM1.1 , Few Api Calls(Less than 20 or so)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad news.

I succeeded to launch Chrome 50 on Windows 2000.

But Chrome 51 blocks Windows NT 5.x.

When I set compatibility mode XP on Windows 7, Chrome 51 Window is gone gray out .

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=616425

I posted bug report.

I think that the dropping support is right but the not working on  compatible mode on Windows 7 and 10 is bug.

Edited by blackwingcat
add link bug report
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...