Firefox 52.9.0 ESR - This field is required

[Dave-H]

7 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

I can answer on @Dave-H's behalf. He also uses Firefox on Android and so relies on Firefox Sync, which hasn't been supported on, say, Serpent, in many years (specifically, since MCP created their own sync platform for Pale Moon and, at the time, Serpent, and @roytam1 followed suit).

True, he could probably "upgrade" to the last Serpent version prior to the changeover, but that really wouldn't improve his situation all that much.

Thanks @Mathwiz.
I also use the latest Firefox on Windows 10 on my desktop, and on the Windows 10 side of my dual boot netbook, which also has 52.9 ESR on its XP side.
So Firefox sync allows me to keep things like bookmarks and passwords in sync on five different installations, including the Android Firefox on my phone.
Having said that, I have recently gone over to using 360Chrome as my default browser on XP on my main desktop, simply because FF 52.9 is now having more and more problems with sites!

[XPerceniol]

9 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

You're absolutely right! Windows XP itself doesn't have the latest security features. It is an old, unsupported OS for years, but still my main and beloved operating system. Therefore, the user of such OSes has to be careful and wise.

We understand the risks involved.

[Mathwiz]

Come to think of it, even the word "insecure" overstates the case against FF 52.9. I'd probably describe it as merely "less secure" than 360EE, MyPal 68, and UXP-based browsers.

WinXP is even older, of course, but we XP users got security updates through 2019, thanks to the POSReady hack. So strictly speaking, I guess FF 52.9 is even more out of date than XP itself!

That said, the security risks involved are similar. IMO, they exist, but aren't terribly significant for most purposes. The best reason to move on from FF 52.9 is the one @Dave-H himself just gave; it just doesn't work well with the modern Web any more.

[AstroSkipper]

On 8/29/2022 at 1:46 AM, Mathwiz said:

Come to think of it, even the word "insecure" overstates the case against FF 52.9. I'd probably describe it as merely "less secure" than 360EE, MyPal 68, and UXP-based browsers.

WinXP is even older, of course, but we XP users got security updates through 2019, thanks to the POSReady hack. So strictly speaking, I guess FF 52.9 is even more out of date than XP itself!

That said, the security risks involved are similar. IMO, they exist, but aren't terribly significant for most purposes. The best reason to move on from FF 52.9 is the one @Dave-H himself just gave; it just doesn't work well with the modern Web any more.

@Mathwiz! Thank you for confirming my statements! The wording "less secure" or "insecure" means all the same in the end and seems a bit splitting hairs. This could be more the subject of a linguistic, philological, or philosophical investigation.  And, that such a browser can be used for syncing bookmarks or surfing secure, trusted websites, as long as they work in such browsers, is no problem at all, only, to emphasize this once again. I would do the same if I used Firefox Sync as @Dave-H does, for example. I already mentioned this browser was not maintained for more than 4 years. Nowadays, such a time span is no longer the same as it used to be. The development and change of websites has accelerated enormously. One year of development in today's times is several years in those. It goes without saying that such a browser has more and more problems opening current pages. I was also not surprised why the old, beloved Netscape Navigator could no longer open most pages in the good, old times.  Anyway, I stopped using Firefox ESR 52.9.0 about three years ago, especially because it didn't really run well on my low-resource system at the end. Its original installation still exists, frankly, rather for reasons of contemporary history. After the era of Firefox, I switched to Mypal (the old, abandoned versions by @feodor2) and was very satisfied. Today, New Moon 28, Serpent 52 and Mypal 68 are my main browsers in Windows XP, and I am very happy with them. And, even in these browsers, I do not expect all websites to work well. The internet has become too fast-moving for that. Chrome browsers, I try to avoid due to their enormous RAM consumption (unfortunately, there is no single process mode anymore for a long time. ). I only use 360Chrome v11 and, very rarely, v13 for reasons of comparison if "Googlized" websites cause issues.  Last but not least, we should be thankful and glad to have such a range of working browsers in Windows XP. ,

Edited August 30, 2022 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Mathwiz]

I've always understood the word "insecure" to mean "not" secure vs. "less" secure; that's why I would've used the latter wording. But as you say, it's linguistic hair-splitting; hardly worth arguing about.

A more interesting question is whether it's possible to restore Firefox Sync functionality to either version of Serpent. In the case of St 52, this would involve reverting some very old changes, which sounds risky: no telling what subsequent changes would be rolled back in the attempt. And St 52 users may be using Palemoon Sync now, and wouldn't want to lose that functionality. So probably best to leave St 52 alone, at least unless MCP blocks it from accessing Palemoon Sync.

But St 55 still has the original Sync functionality it inherited from FF 53; it just doesn't seem to work for some reason. It may be feasible to fix Sync in St 55. Another possibility that comes to mind is MyPal 68; an XP-compatible FF 68 fork that may support FF Sync. (I haven't tried it.)

Either could be the ultimate answer to @Dave-H's conundrum, since he could then use St 55 or MyPal 68 on XP, and Firefox on his other platforms, and could browse most modern Web sites, even on XP, without having to move to 360EE and lose Sync functionality.

[AstroSkipper]

10 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

I've always understood the word "insecure" to mean "not" secure vs. "less" secure; that's why I would've used the latter wording. But as you say, it's linguistic hair-splitting; hardly worth arguing about.

I totally agree! 

10 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

A more interesting question is whether it's possible to restore Firefox Sync functionality to either version of Serpent. In the case of St 52, this would involve reverting some very old changes, which sounds risky: no telling what subsequent changes would be rolled back in the attempt. And St 52 users may be using Palemoon Sync now, and wouldn't want to lose that functionality. So probably best to leave St 52 alone, at least unless MCP blocks it from accessing Palemoon Sync.

But St 55 still has the original Sync functionality it inherited from FF 53; it just doesn't seem to work for some reason. It may be feasible to fix Sync in St 55. Another possibility that comes to mind is MyPal 68; an XP-compatible FF 68 fork that may support FF Sync. (I haven't tried it.)

Either could be the ultimate answer to @Dave-H's conundrum, since he could then use St 55 or MyPal 68 on XP, and Firefox on his other platforms, and could browse most modern Web sites, even on XP, without having to move to 360EE and lose Sync functionality.

Speaking only for myself, I do not use any Sync Services, neither Firefox nor Pale Moon Sync. I generally try to store as little data as possible on cloud services. But, one thing is clear. No matter what would be changed in this functionality, someone will always come up short and be dissatisfied. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by AstroSkipper
addition

[Mathwiz]

7 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

I generally try to store as little data as possible on cloud services.

Me too! But if I did want a sync service and were free to pick one, PM Sync is more secure (there's that word again), and both are free, so all else being equal I'd choose PM Sync.

If one were very ambitious (and had enough free time and programming skill) the best solution might be to add code to, say, St 52, offering a choice of PM Sync or FF Sync. That way, if you (a) wanted a sync service and (b) used FF on other platforms, you could choose FF sync; if (a) applied but not (b) you could choose PM sync. Best of both worlds!

[Dave-H]

Back on topic guys please. I know I made a post about Firefox Sync myself, but I didn't anticipate that it would trigger a discussion!
I'm sure we could have a whole new thread about browser synchronisation systems on XP compatible browsers, but that's not what this thread was originally about.

[Mathwiz]

It appears that the site issues that prompted this thread have been resolved. You could ask @xper, but there may be nothing more to discuss about the original topic. As such, you may wish to close this thread to further replies.

Although I wouldn't object to having the last several posts moved to a new thread about browser sync systems. Up to you; it's fine with me either way.

[Mathwiz]

Well, of course, not 10 minutes after I posted the above, I found a new potential issue. Is anyone able to expand a long quote? For instance, this quote should "fade out" after a few lines, with an "expand" button at the bottom to reveal the whole quote. Does the "expand" button work with older browsers? For me on Serpent 55, it appears to work inconsistently; i.e., I can expand the quote below, but not some others:

On 8/29/2022 at 5:35 AM, AstroSkipper said:

@Mathwiz! Thank you for confirming my statements! The wording "less secure" or "insecure" means all the same in the end and seems a bit splitting hairs. This could be more the subject of a linguistic, philological, or philosophical investigation.  And, that such a browser can be used for syncing bookmarks or surfing secure, trusted websites, as long as they work in such browsers, is no problem at all, only, to emphasize this once again. I would do the same if I used Firefox Sync as @Dave-H does, for example. I already mentioned this browser was not maintained for more than 4 years. Nowadays, such a time span is no longer the same as it used to be. The development and change of websites has accelerated enormously. One year of development in today's times is several years in those. It goes without saying that such a browser has more and more problems opening current pages. I was also not surprised why the old, beloved Netscape Navigator could no longer open most pages in the good, old times.  Anyway, I stopped using Firefox ESR 52.9.0 about three years ago, especially because it didn't really run well on my low-resource system at the end. Its original installation still exists, frankly, rather for reasons of contemporary history. After the era of Firefox, I switched to Mypal (the old, abandoned versions by @feodor2) and was very satisfied. Today, New Moon 28, Serpent 52 and Mypal 68 are my main browsers in Windows XP, and I am very happy with them. And, even in these browsers, I do not expect all websites to work well. The internet has become too fast-moving for that. Chrome browsers, I try to avoid due to their enormous RAM consumption (unfortunately, there is no single process mode anymore for a long time. ). I only use 360Chrome v11 and, very rarely, v13 for reasons of comparison if "Googlized" websites cause issues.  Last but not least, we should be thankful and glad to have such a range of working browsers in Windows XP. ,

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Mathwiz

[Dave-H]

It all still seems to be exactly the same to me on FF 52.9 ESR.
Still a collapsed posting area which can't be used, and the quotes on posts are not collapsed.
Also some images missing.

 

[grey_rat]

With the WRP - Web Rendering Proxy - Firefox 52 open any site

https://github.com/tenox7/wrp

 

[AstroSkipper]

4 hours ago, grey_rat said:

With the WRP - Web Rendering Proxy - Firefox 52 open any site

https://github.com/tenox7/wrp

 

WRP - Web Rendering Proxy

Quote

A browser-in-browser "proxy" server that allows to use historical / vintage web browsers on the modern web. It works by rendering a web page in to a GIF or PNG image with clickable imagemap.

But, it won't restore the functionality of a website as, for example, MSFN, which stopped working properly in FF 52.9.0 ESR. So I'm afraid that won't be a desired solution here. Anyway, nice find for historical browsers to view websites if someone wants to! 

Edited September 5, 2022 by AstroSkipper

[Mathwiz]

WRP might be useful for some environments, but ...

Quote

Download a WRP binary and run it on a machine that will become your WRP gateway/server. This machine should be pretty modern, high spec and Google Chrome / Chromium Browser is required to be preinstalled.

... so it might solve @Dave-H's conundrum, since we know he has a PC that can run Windows 10; thus, has at least one PC in his home network that can run "modern" Chromium. It also solves any security concerns with FF 52.9, and would even let him use FF Sync! (He'd have to set FF to bypass the proxy for the FF sync server, of course.)

But I don't think WRP can do everything. For instance, I don't think image maps can emulate the "hover" functionality of many sites, where (for instance) a menu drops down when you merely move the mouse over the top of the menu without clicking. (Try it with the "Activity" and "Browse" menus at the top of MSFN.org, and see. Maybe WRP is smarter than I'm giving it credit for, but I don't think they will drop down with WRP without clicking on them, and clicking will likely perform an unwanted action.)

More to the point, many folks are running older browsers on older OSes because they simply can't afford a new PC that can run modern ones! WRP won't help them.