Pale Moon forum

Firefox support for the "ESR" editions will end in August 2018 for Windows Vista users. When does Moonchild plan to end support for Pale Moon for Vista?

Contrary to what many reports claim, Vista is still support for Windows Updates. In fact Windows XP is also still supported for Windows Updates.

I found out the truth after installing both Windows XP Home and Windows Vista Home in VMware Workstation to restore my test bench following a rebuild of my main PC.

Both Windows XP and Windows Vista are still updating after a couple days at a time. XP has finally slowed down and is now only updating for new found Microsoft applications as I install them.

Vista means Death - in general.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2pxbye

According to the Minimum platform requirements for UXP minimal Windows kernel version required to run UXP is 6. This includes Windows Vista kernel. But that is the platform minimal requirement. Pale Moon minimal requirements may be different.

WilliamK wrote:Contrary to what many reports claim, Vista is still support for Windows Updates. In fact Windows XP is also still supported for Windows Updates.

There's a difference between "patches are still being served to existing installations" and "new patches are being made for the OS".

As for our support: support for features will be limited in Vista, but since it matches the minimum platform requirements there's no reason to change that on a per-application basis.
UXP applications including Basilisk and Pale Moon 28 should continue to run on Vista in the foreseeable future.

Some OS statistics.
Vista on the second page

Al6bus wrote:Some OS statistics.
Vista on the second page

.40% hahaha.

yereverluvinuncleber wrote:Vista means Death - in general.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2pxbye

XP and Vista is dead. Why support dead system ?

RMK99 wrote:XP and Vista is dead. Why support dead system ?

Windows XP is not supported and support for Windows Vista will mostly come for free if you support other systems that use NT 6.x kernel.

After installing 1,480+ XP updates, there is still more...

So are you really not understanding what I said or are you just choosing not to?

Moonchild wrote:There's a difference between "patches are still being served to existing installations" and "new patches are being made for the OS".

From his screenshot I looked up the first two that was specifically for XP:

kb2808679 for XP was released on 10-8-2013
kb2632503 for XP was released on 1-9-2012

If he didn't understand before that he's only getting old "updates," hopefully he does now.

Yes, I always realised that and also realise that the updates provided are not by date released. Otherwise why would those updates be provided after already installing 1,490 other updates, of course unless I still have another 1,000 to go?

Yes, support has stopped and updates for bugfixes may have stopped also, but as you can see, one can still install XP from an original OEM disk with SP3 and then get all the updates that were ever available.

To activate both XP and Vista now I had to use the phone method as it is no longer permitted to do so online.

Why my interest in XP? Because I have corporate clients with 600+ workstations still using it!

But all this is getting rather off-topic.
The fact remains that all this is irrelevant in terms of support for a specific OS by the browser. Vista will be supported as part of being an NT6-class OS, but because of its limitations, support will be limited as well. Not everything will work or work smoothly on Vista.

Those corporate intranets are still working (just like my partner's computer), so why throw more money at them and lose time and production in process?

Or, to put it another way... if it aint broken, why try to fix it?

WilliamK wrote:Those corporate intranets are still working (just like my partner's computer), so why throw more money at them and lose time and production in process?

Or, to put it another way... if it aint broken, why try to fix it?

From a business perspective, what would it cost to upgrade 600 workstations that may be scatttered through 2 or 3 different manufacturing plants?

Keeping in mind that the hardware will need upgrading as well to support the newer software. Also take into account the downtime and the fact that a "network rollout" will not work.

WilliamK wrote:From a business perspective, what would it cost to upgrade 600 workstations that may be scatttered through 2 or 3 different manufacturing plants?

Less than it would cost to be completely hosed by Ransomware. I hope none of those machines are connected to the internet, because taking over an XP machine is beyond trivial.