My Browser Builds (Part 5)

[Leokids123]

On 3/18/2026 at 3:44 PM, grey_rat said:

It would be better for everyone to choose a single browser engine for XP, develop it together, and build their own browser builds for XP based on it.
Since the conflict with the Palemoon developers, everyone has remained with their own developments to this day. And individual developers of the NewMoon and Basilisk browsers for Linux were added, which somehow exist on their own.

Yeah...there are many OSes and platforms that to this day,they may or not have touched...

 

1. DOS (Archanne provides a modern build with modern TLS but...)
2. Windows 1.x and 2.x (wait...?)
3. Windows 3.x (we're stuck at IE5 16-bit,Netscape 4.08 16-bit and Opera 3.63...and its win32s counterpart doesn't have much browsers)
4. Windows NT 3.x (Retrozilla cover this one)
5. Windows 9x (Retrozilla too covers it)
6. Windows NT 4.0 (Retrozilla too covers this one,i've tested this before)
7. Windows 2000 (uhh...New Moon 26 covers this one but i don't know...)
8. Windows XP RTM-SP1 (Not many...but you can argue they can use the same browsers as 2000)
9. Windows XP SP2-SP3 (widely supported)
10. Windows Server 2003 (well,who knows?)
11. Windows Vista (XP Browsers supports it,also supports r3fox...)
12. Windows Server 2008 (same situation as vista,last 32 bit version for servers,wonder if server 2008 is extinction for 32-bit servers?)
13. Windows 7 (unlikely,but many except Firefox for ESR stopped supporting it...)
14. Windows Server 2008 R2 (same situation as Windows 7,but who uses this server OS?)
15. Windows 8.x (Same situation as 7 but 8.x isn't widely used...so support seems to depend on Windows 7)
16. Windows Server 2012 R1/R2 (same situation as 7 and 8.x)
17. Windows 10 (unlikely,every major browser still supports it)
18. Various versions of Windows Server based on Windows 10,Windows Server 2016,2019 and 2022 (same situation as Windows 10,although also unlikely)
19. Windows 11 (unlikely,supported by Microsoft)
20. Windows Server 2025 (same situation as 11)
21. Linux GTK2 (this really needs one,but certain niche browsers do support it)
22. Linux GTK3 (widely supported,the base for every browser these days)
23. Mac OS 68k (No modern browser that even supports it)
24. Mac OS PowerPC (We had Classila for Mac OS 9 but it ended support,someone! Take it over quickly!)
25. Mac OS X PowerPC (so many browsers that's hard to count,Basilisk recently took this opportunity.)
26. Mac OS X Intel (Unlikely,but this depends on the version. some are supported by forks,and most browsers these days require at least 10.15,which is supported by Intel)
27. Mac OS X M1 (unlikely,too new,most already support this processor.)
28. Other OSes? I don't know...

Edited March 20 by Leokids123

[Leokids123]

On 3/17/2026 at 2:04 PM, feodor2 said:

Hey Palemoon is irrelevant at all as it not runs on winxp, but you tell please why would I hated it? Actually never and today just dont care

I meant that the team behind Pale Moon hated you and uses their own license to shutdown you...

 

On 3/17/2026 at 2:04 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Why do you say that ???

You don't remember what happened with the original Mypal?

[Leokids123]

@roytam1 Willing to merge changes from 2.3 to your branch?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

10 minutes ago, Leokids123 said:

You don't remember what happened with the original Mypal?

I do.  And you seem to be exaggerating it a tad.  It's really NOT worth bringing up again.  It's all over.  feodor *and* roytam are STILL STANDING.

And the person behind the DRAMA has been removed from the dev team.  TIME TO MOVE ON.  That saga has been OVER for a VERY long time.

There really is NO NEED to rehash ANY of it.

[Nicholas McAnespy]

1 hour ago, grey_rat said:

It would be better for everyone to choose a single browser engine for XP, develop it together, and build their own browser builds for XP based on it.
Since the conflict with the Palemoon developers, everyone has remained with their own developments to this day. And individual developers of the NewMoon and Basilisk browsers for Linux were added, which somehow exist on their own.

Developing a single browser engine for Windows XP is quite an interesting goal. My short list is Gecko 24, Goanna 2.2 (slow, but should build on XP), Gecko 38/Goanna 3.x (Faster, but will need a lot of work to compile using Visual C++ 2005 or 2008), Gecko 1.9.1 (Fast, and works with Visual C++ 2003). Personally, I'm in the process of Building Firefox 24.0a1 from May 30th 2013. K-Meleon 74 was originally based on Gecko 24, but @roytam1 does his builds using the Goanna 2.2 rendering engine. I would like to learn how to build K-Meleon 74.

[basilisk-dev]

2 hours ago, Leokids123 said:

Yeah...there are many OSes and platforms that to this day,they may or not have touched...

1. Windows 7 (unlikely,but many except Firefox for ESR stopped supporting it...)
2. Windows 8.x (Same situation as 7 but 8.x isn't widely used...so support seems to depend on Windows 7)
3. Windows 10 (unlikely,every major browser still supports it)
4. Windows 11 (unlikely,supported by Microsoft)
5. Linux GTK2 (this really needs one,but certain niche browsers do support it)
6. Linux GTK3 (widely supported,the base for every browser these days)
7. Mac OS X PowerPC (so many browsers that's hard to count,Basilisk recently took this opportunity.)
8. Mac OS X Intel (Unlikely,but this depends on the version. some are supported by forks,and most browsers these days require at least 10.15,which is supported by Intel)
9. Mac OS X M1 (unlikely,too new,most already support this processor.)

Basilisk supports all of these. We started supporting PowerPC Mac OS X in the last release. We have released GTK2 binaries since I took over the project.

[basilisk-dev]

On 3/17/2026 at 6:38 PM, Leokids123 said:

I'd call this kind of situation FINOSS,which means Free Is Not Open Source Software...

Software can be open source software while not meeting the definition of free software. For example Unreal Engine and the unrar CLI tool on Linux match this description.

On 3/17/2026 at 6:32 PM, Leokids123 said:

I'd call this kind of situation FINOSS,which means Free Is Not Open Source Software...

  I want to make it very clear I did not support the Pale Moon team's actions at that time and I had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Edited March 18 by basilisk-dev

[roytam1]

2 hours ago, Leokids123 said:

@roytam1 Willing to merge changes from 2.3 to your branch?

there is no need for me to merge if upstream is good enough, just use upstream version.

[Leokids123]

4 hours ago, Nicholas McAnespy said:

Developing a single browser engine for Windows XP is quite an interesting goal. My short list is Gecko 24, Goanna 2.2 (slow, but should build on XP), Gecko 38/Goanna 3.x (Faster, but will need a lot of work to compile using Visual C++ 2005 or 2008), Gecko 1.9.1 (Fast, and works with Visual C++ 2003). Personally, I'm in the process of Building Firefox 24.0a1 from May 30th 2013. K-Meleon 74 was originally based on Gecko 24, but @roytam1 does his builds using the Goanna 2.2 rendering engine. I would like to learn how to build K-Meleon 74.

What about the fact you forgot about your fork of Retrozilla?

[Leokids123]

2 hours ago, basilisk-dev said:

Basilisk supports all of these. We started supporting PowerPC Mac OS X in the last release. We have released GTK2 binaries since I took over the project.

Yep... Your browser's one of the niche browsers who supports such systems...

 

In the future,since you're experimenting with old systems,maybe one day,you might attempt older OSes of Windows! Haha...

 

3 hours ago, basilisk-dev said:

Software can be open source software while not meeting the definition of free software. For example Unreal Engine and the unrar CLI tool on Linux match this description.

Yeah,but when i say FINOSS i mean more like their actions or demeanor...

 

3 hours ago, basilisk-dev said:

  I want to make it very clear I did not support the Pale Moon team's actions at that time and I had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Yeah...but why?

[dmiranda]

" I want to make it very clear I did not support the Pale Moon team's actions at that time and I had absolutely nothing to do with that. " For those who were there, we remember, and thank you for your continuous presence and collaboration in this forum. It's highly appreciated. For those who weren't there (ola), you can read about it in github and elsewhere. Do not bring here stuff that doesn't belong here (obrigado).

[Dave-H]

This is not the place to discuss and argue over disputes which are now ancient history.

Please stay on-topic discussing current issues.

[Leokids123]

3 hours ago, Dave-H said:

This is not the place to discuss and argue over disputes which are now ancient history.

Please stay on-topic discussing current issues.

Okay.

 

But why say it's now ancient history?

[Dave-H]

Because in this context, it is.

[user57]

On 3/18/2026 at 9:31 PM, Leokids123 said:

Yeah...there are many OSes and platforms that to this day,they may or not have touched...

 

1. DOS (Archanne provides a modern build with modern TLS but...)
2. Windows 1.x and 2.x (wait...?)
3. Windows 3.x (we're stuck at IE5 16-bit,Netscape 4.08 16-bit and Opera 3.63...and its win32s counterpart doesn't have much browsers)
4. Windows NT 3.x (Retrozilla cover this one)
5. Windows 9x (Retrozilla too covers it)
6. Windows NT 4.0 (Retrozilla too covers this one,i've tested this before)
7. Windows 2000 (uhh...New Moon 26 covers this one but i don't know...)
8. Windows XP RTM-SP1 (Not many...but you can argue they can use the same browsers as 2000)
9. Windows XP SP2-SP3 (widely supported)
10. Windows Server 2003 (well,who knows?)
11. Windows Vista (XP Browsers supports it,also supports r3fox...)
12. Windows 7 (unlikely,but many except Firefox for ESR stopped supporting it...)
13. Windows 8.x (Same situation as 7 but 8.x isn't widely used...so support seems to depend on Windows 7)
14. Windows 10 (unlikely,every major browser still supports it)
15. Windows 11 (unlikely,supported by Microsoft)
16. Linux GTK2 (this really needs one,but certain niche browsers do support it)
17. Linux GTK3 (widely supported,the base for every browser these days)
18. Mac OS 68k (No modern browser that even supports it)
19. Mac OS PowerPC (We had Classila for Mac OS 9 but it ended support,someone! Take it over quickly!)
20. Mac OS X PowerPC (so many browsers that's hard to count,Basilisk recently took this opportunity.)
21. Mac OS X Intel (Unlikely,but this depends on the version. some are supported by forks,and most browsers these days require at least 10.15,which is supported by Intel)
22. Mac OS X M1 (unlikely,too new,most already support this processor.)
23. Other OSes? I don't know...

the todo list for XP is like extremely high, so high that we probaly never have all done
there also like not well solutions that could be improved 

that being said to port redfox like v122 or something contained over 300 functions 
thats a big job its not a small thing (like the assumtions like that often going around)
the science is probaly to high ? sure i could do not but its not like a small thing that can be done in like 5 minutes 
im unhappy to see that i would be the only one - rather i want some being able to do so

but everytime it goes around, we just llvm, we use a openglwrapper, we just use LAV - works
its by far not that simple

to me it would be a fault to go to win2k, it take away the power we need for XP 
if we would dig in all the named OS´s we would be just stuck forever and have not a single thing done

also notice - there are guys around who only try to ruin us - i noticed that severial times (dont want to make do many connection o tell to much here)
but a idea to try to give a trouble would be to ask for a win2000 support 

and its not like a small problem like placing a few dll´s or files - no its not you little ask for many work - like building a a house a bigger for free

the others did not share their codes with us, i did share the codes - but still vista and win2k´s are unhappy
like that firefox function roytram literally wants me to write this function for him 

i do not think win2k is a good idea because xp is a well successor too, there are like numbers
nt 4,0 5.0 and 5.0 named to win2k 
so why would somebody now come and ask for nt 4.0 ?
after that xp apeared called 5.1 - it had by far the most support 
the x64 version never was extremely popular - if you follow the progress the patches and ugprades are a are lot less
so like everything leads to XP aka 5.1

you actually can install xp on like every win2k computer - xp is even faster for example because the sysenter command that was added in xp
a issue with win2k was that its performance was slower then win98 

i do not think they want something good it might be just a split up method
so i would warn if that somewhere somewhat is to see
 

it would be time to show us what you guys got - the codes for xp are around the internet already - the others i dont see that much around - instead of always asking us doing your job