r3dfox, a modern Firefox based web browser for Windows Vista, 7, and 8!

[Mathwiz]

On 9/4/2025 at 12:53 PM, Jonathan-nighthawk said:

basically, something that none want, none use, none care, and appear is added just for cause problems to the users that don't want (or that cannot, for various reasons) switch to a different browser (that in almost all the cases means change also OS, and in most of these cases also change their machines)

I'd estimate that upwards of 75% of new CSS and Javascript features fall into that category.

On 9/4/2025 at 12:53 PM, Jonathan-nighthawk said:

i posted on their main site remarking this, and the reply was "just buy a new PC"

I wish I could say "unbelievable," but the arrogance of some folks is totally believable. Just go out to your money tree and pluck off some 100 Euro (or whatever your local currency is) notes, and hand them to your local PC dealer. Doesn't everyone have a money tree?

And even if you're willing to spend the money, does anyone have any idea how much work goes into making your PC, well, personal? No, they want you to just throw that old PC in the rubbish and start customizing your new PC from scratch - with a new OS version that removes support for much of the personalization that Win 7 lets us do. You will have the Win 10/11 "look" whether you like it or not! Because Micro$oft says so!

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I kind of have to "disagree".

We live in a world where everybody above the age of SIXTEEN or so (except me, I do not own a mobile phone!) will "upgrade" their PHONE every two to three and a half years, IF NOT MORE FREQUENTLY!

Seriously, why in *H#LL* should we, the consumer, "demand" a web site function on a PC that is MORE THAN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES OLD when the owner of that web site KNOWS D#MN WELL that the consumer ALSO OWNS A PHONE ???

[NotHereToPlayGames]

13 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Micro$oft

No offense, but people that spell Microsoft this way are OFTEN hypocrites.  But I shall refrain into explaining why I believe this to be true 80-plus percent of the time and NOTHING more than a personification of "have versus have not".

This is NOTHING against Mathwiz but more of a GENERALIZATION to "open the eyes" of anybody that has ever spelled Microsoft in this fashion.

Sorry, just my "two cents"...  ie, 2% of that $ used in said spelling...

To each their own, of course.

[EliraFriesnan]

On 9/20/2025 at 6:12 PM, Mathwiz said:

Just go out to your money tree and pluck off some 100 Euro (or whatever your local currency is) notes, and hand them to your local PC dealer.

Please don't mislead people. 100 Euro is nowhere near the price of even a budget PC from dealers. It's more like 2000 Euro.

100 Euro PC will never be able to freely run modern Firefox.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

It doesn't matter.

Not when 56% of European market share is doing their internet activity on a MOBILE DEVICE versus 44% on a desktop PC.

And the GLOBAL stats are 61% on a MOBILE DEVICE versus 39% on a desktop PC.

My point remains - we the consumer are being HYPOCRITES if we think a web site should taylor specifically towards a TWENTY YEAR OLD COMPUTER when "follow the money" shows everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, is using their MOBILE PHONE for their banking transactions or whatnot and the REASON that their computer is 20yrs old is BECAUSE "follow the money" REVEALS that the consumer would rather buy a brand new MOBILE PHONE every two years and will spend sizable portions of income on that MOBILE PHONE yet hypoctritically claim a computer is outside of their affordability.

Europe has the most affordable mobile data in the world, followed by Asia !!!    https://www.broadband.co.uk/mobile-data-world-affordability

By all means, DIG INTO THE REAL-WORLD NUMBERS, "numbers don't lie".  Cost of a personal desktop pc is IRRELEVANT because nobody really uses them, nor expect to be able to, as they prefer to do their TikTok, or Facebook, or banking FROM THEIR MOBILE PHONE.

[EliraFriesnan]

It doesn't matter.

Not when a new MOBILE DEVICE costs as a half of a budget desktop PC.

100 Euro is nowhere near the price of even a budget MOBILE DEVICE from dealers.

https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/products/smartphones/iphone.html

Switzerland and UK have the lowest iPhone prices Among Europe's five largest economies, 

UK offers the cheapest iPhone 16 Pro at €1,095, followed by Germany (€1,119) and Spain (€1,138).

https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/07/10/europes-iphone-price-gap-where-youll-pay-the-most-and-least

[NotHereToPlayGames]

5 minutes ago, EliraFriesnan said:

100 Euro is nowhere near the price of even a budget MOBILE DEVICE from dealers.

I never claimed that it is!

NOR did the person that originally cited the "100", it was just a passing PHRASE *not* intended to be taken LITERALLY.

YOU CAN AFFORD A COMPUTER OR A MOBILE DEVICE.  I have 1-million-percent confidence in that statement.  YOU CAN AFFORD ONE!

I did not say that a computer costs 1% of your annual income or that it costs 10% of your annual income.

The bottom-line REALITY is that EVERYBODY reading this CAN afford a computer or a mobile device.

And I'd all but "bet" on it that EVERYBODY reading this has MORE THAN ONE (ie, one computer plus one mobile, or one computer plus two mobile, or two computers plus one mobile, or two computers plus two mobiles).

You requested another member to "Please don't mislead people".  SO WHY ARE YOU DOING THE SAME?  You are ACTING LIKE you have to SELL A LUNG OR A KIDNEY to "buy a computer".

And I am telling you, THAT IS MISLEADING PEOPLE.  

 

[Mathwiz]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

We live in a world where everybody above the age of SIXTEEN or so (except me, I do not own a mobile phone!) will "upgrade" their PHONE every two to three and a half years, IF NOT MORE FREQUENTLY!

Not me. I've never understood that. I'm still using a 10-year old 4G phone. People like you describe act as if they actually have money trees, throwing away an over-$1000 piece of equipment every 2-3 years just because there's an even more expensive version out!

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Seriously, why in *H#LL* should we, the consumer, "demand" a web site function on a PC that is MORE THAN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES OLD when the owner of that web site KNOWS D#MN WELL that the consumer ALSO OWNS A PHONE ???

Because that's how the World Wide Web was designed to work, that's why! The original idea behind HTML was that, no matter how many fancy bells and whistles were added later on, a Web page should still look the same to folks using a browser that didn't support the new bells and whistles. The page may be slow and look like one of those ugly pages from the '80's, but it's still supposed to work. (And for the most part, the WWW really did work that way for its first couple of decades.) I know we got away from that ideal long ago, but I still think it's an ideal worth striving for, rather than Discourse (or whoever) shutting you out of their sites completely because your browser/OS doesn't support all the HTML features they think they might want to use someday.

Someone once told me there's a difference between dealing with organic change like the shifting seasons, and the change forced on you by someone who is whipping you forward like a drover, toward a destination of their choosing, not yours.

On 9/4/2025 at 11:31 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I haven't wasted time altering a UA string for almost TWO YEARS.

Sure, they often times still work, but that is OLD SCHOOL and we (all) should be learning the NEW SCHOOL methods and not hold ourselves back by not looking outside that old-school-box.

You misunderstand the situation. We don't get to choose whether to use "old school" or "new school" methods! If the Web designer used the "old school" method of sniffing the UA (e.g., chase.com), then we have to use the corresponding "old school" method of spoofing the UA just to get in! Of course, we often have to use "new school" methods as well, like those built into a Web browser like R3dfox or Supermium, or the site will likely not work well (see above) but that doesn't mean we can ignore UA spoofing just because it's considered "old school."

[Mathwiz]

8 hours ago, EliraFriesnan said:

100 Euro is nowhere near the price of even a budget PC from dealers. It's more like 2000 Euro.

I wasn't misleading anyone. I said "pluck some 100 Euro notes", not pluck ONE 100 Euro note," or even "pluck a few 100 Euro notes!" We're all well aware that the cost of a modern PC is more than a few 100-Euro notes. I figured the reader would know how many notes would have to be plucked!

But quibbles over adjectives aside, I think we actually agree! My whole point was that there's no such thing as a money tree! Most of us actually have to work quite hard to earn enough money to buy a modern PC; thus it was quite arrogant for someone to respond to a complaint about a Web site being deliberately blocked from working on an older PC with "just go out and buy a new one," as if that were a trivial thing for anyone to do!

[NotHereToPlayGames]

6 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

People like you describe act as if they actually have money trees, throwing away an over-$1000 piece of equipment every 2-3 years just because there's an even more expensive version out!

Not the folks that I know.

They live paycheck to paycheck, not a dime in savings, but can't keep a phone more than a mere six months or so without cracking it.

They upgrade OFTEN, *very* often, not because they can "afford to", but because they eventually get tired of the cracked screen that their NEGLIGENCE added to the phone they do have.

But that is also just *PROOF* that anybody and everybody can "afford" a phone.

These folks were very likely raised BREAKING their toys left and right, with their parents ALWAYS telling them, "This is why you don't have NICE THINGS."

So here they are, young adults, STILL BREAKING their toys, but EVERYBODY has choices to make in life, "Hmm, should I buy a new phone or pay for car insurance?"

These folks opt for the phone over car insurance.  Sure, not "all" of these 'kids these days', but you know what I mean, lol...