Dibya Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 13 hours ago, JodyT said: Linux builds like Ubuntu are already bloated I use Puppy Linux on an old notebook that had XP on it. You'd probably like it Dibya. SOmething going to try on Virtual Box , its a linux puppy Thanks
Jody Thornton Posted December 30, 2016 Author Posted December 30, 2016 Yeppers. I use a Dell D610 (circa 2005) - not my daily driver. It came with Windows XP, has a Centrino M 1.8 GHz CPU and 1 GB of RAM. Puppy Precise v5.7.1 is what is installed (I used a full installation on an ext2 partition). It kinda looks like OS/2 the way I have the fonts setup. I browse and email with SeaMonkey on it.
cc333 Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 XP x64 with Waterfox (a Firefox derivative that claims to support 64-bit operation under XP x64) works quite nicely with the modern world, despite being almost a year and a half past EOS. That being said, at least until 2019, XP x86 is probably safer due to the fact that it still receives security updates vis-à-vis POSReady 2009. c
Jody Thornton Posted January 1, 2017 Author Posted January 1, 2017 It appears that there were issues running the latest Waterfox builds on XP x64 Edition. It also appears that SeaMonkey is headed for a world of trouble. A lot of integrated tools were removed for the new v2.46 release, which itself took nine months for a completed release. And it appears that a lot of the code for Gecko was already removed for XP compatibility (from what I've been able to gather at MozillaZine.) It's estimated that v2.49 of SeaMonkey will likely get something similar to an ESR-style release. Though I think SeaMonkey is in even deeper trouble.
cc333 Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 On 1/1/2017 at 5:02 AM, JodyT said: It appears that there were issues running the latest Waterfox builds on XP x64 Edition. Shame. It appears to be one of the few mainstream browsers to support native 64-bit operations on XP x64 (that I know of; ther could be others). Oh, well, at least the ESR of Firefox will still work in 32-bit mode (which seems adequate for most uses). c
Jody Thornton Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 Uh .... OK! So for January 2017, other than the Adobe Flash Player Update (KB3214628), there is no security update for Windows 8.1 or any flavour of Windows Server 2012. Is there a precedent for this? I'm very surprised.
NoelC Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 It must be hard to improve on perfection. Nah, that can't be it. I haven't seen any Windows 10 updates in a long time either. -Noel 1
greenhillmaniac Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 The updates probably haven't been released yet... For Windows 10 a new CU has already been released: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4009938/windows-10-update-kb3213986
greenhillmaniac Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) Wow, according to Microsoft's Server 2012's Update History page: "There are no security fixes or quality improvements for release on January 10, 2017. As such, there is no Security-only update nor Monthly Rollup release for this month." https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/22811/windows-server-2012-update-history I saw the same thing on the 8.1's Update History page... Guess @NoelC was right, you can't improve on perfection Edited January 10, 2017 by greenhillmaniac 1
Jody Thornton Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 This has to be unprecedented. I don't think when Windows Update was introduced for Windows 98, that Patch Tuesday was a thing yet. I think that part was established with Windows 2000. But I don't think that there has been a month for any Windows NT OS since then. This has to be a first.
Vistapocalypse Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) On 2/10/2016 at 2:33 PM, JodyT said: ...this also gives Vista users added hope (since they're in a similar situation). They'll likely be able to do the same with patches from the original Server 2008. Oh NO! If what you say is true, then the last "supported" browser for Vista might be...Internet Explorer 9. Let us pray to the Pale Moon... Edited January 19, 2017 by Vistapocalypse added emphasis
Jody Thornton Posted January 20, 2017 Author Posted January 20, 2017 It appears that Moonchild was fixing the installer to work with Pale Moon under Vista, so it appears safe. However, Pale Moon has been experiencing rendering issues with Facebook and Netflix, likely because of new code and DRM-related issues, that aren't experienced in other browsers. It's been getting a bit tense over there.
dencorso Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Moonchild's iron-clad decision never to support prprietary H.264 content will be the demise of Pale Moon (forsaking XP users also helps speed that, of course)... 1
Jody Thornton Posted January 21, 2017 Author Posted January 21, 2017 11 hours ago, dencorso said: Moonchild's iron-clad decision never to support prprietary H.264 content will be the demise of Pale Moon (forsaking XP users also helps speed that, of course)... Somewhat agree but these recent Facebook issues are a real doosie. 1
Jody Thornton Posted January 30, 2017 Author Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Well it appears that the theater mode refresh issues in Facebook have been found in Pale Moon. Odd, I find it, that the thread sat dormant for days. Then I posted that I was testing K-Meleon (which uses Gecko 38) and it exhibited the same issue. Next morning, it was found to be corrected in an early v40x series of Gecko. Posters are thanking Moonchild for his perseverance, and I thought, "What perseverance"???. He and Matt A Tobin were willing to just sit on the problem. https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=13005&start=300 Edited January 30, 2017 by JodyT
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now