Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Support board for people running on (retail/OEM) Windows XP (32/64-bit).

Moderator: satrow

Forum rules
This is a self-serve support board for our community. The development team can't provide any support for Windows XP (and compatible versions of Pale Moon for it) any longer.
ali215215

Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by ali215215 » 2017-09-05, 03:35

Hi
Why do not you support other Windows XP-based Windows Server 2003 clients?
1. Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is still upgraded and its security screws are updated as often.
2-By Firefox's own, Windows Server 2003 and XP are also well-supported, why do not you support?
3 Many users still use Windows 2003 on their networks, why not support and not upgrade your browser?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimize Windows Server 2003 to prevent users from getting into trouble
Usually in undeveloped countries, Windows XP and Server 2003 still have many users; for example, my passion for Iran
If you plan to install the new update for 2003 and XP, be sure to go faster because there are a lot of problems.
Thanks

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 24449
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2017-09-05, 08:33

ali215215 wrote:1. Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is still upgraded and its security screws are updated as often.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/cloud-platform/windows-server-2003
"Windows Server 2003 extended support ended on July 14, 2015"
ali215215 wrote:2-By Firefox's own, Windows Server 2003 and XP are also well-supported, why do not you support?
http://www.palemoon.org/PM_end_of_WinXP_support.shtml
Also, Firefox no longer supports XP in their release products (they also don't support Vista any longer, that we still do)
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/end-support-windows-xp-and-vista
ali215215 wrote:3 Many users still use Windows 2003 on their networks, why not support and not upgrade your browser?
Because of (1) and (2). 8-)
"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne
Image

illiad
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 169
Joined: 2016-05-15, 13:04

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by illiad » 2017-09-05, 15:19

just have a look on amazon, there are plenty of 'windows 7 licence's for sale around £20.. **make sure you check feedback first!!**
VM 150Mbs in london england :coffee: on Intel Core I7 3GHz on Gigabyte X58a.
PM 28.6.1(64bit) on win7(64bit) sp1, modded to run and update despite no access to 'program file' folder on active directory domain:ugeek:
Updated ram to 24G, and new GPU - GTX 1060 :D sorry, dont need 4k, (not rich! :( ) not gamer, that is the only plus to newer $$$ GPUs!

ali215215

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by ali215215 » 2017-09-06, 04:35

There is no problem with Windows XP now
Still, a lot of people all over the world have used Windows 2003 and the Firefox Firewall problem is heavy because they work harder and easier with your browser.
You must at least have Windows Server 2003, because this Windows is different from Windows XP and Vista
Be sure to have epidemic for 2003
Or
Create a specific version of Windows 2003 for use
Thankful

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 24449
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2017-09-06, 08:46

People, moving from XP to 2003 will not change the fact that it's discontinued. They are both based on the same NT kernel family (NT 5) and have the same reasons apply to them as far as Pale Moon is concerned.
What you're doing is moving from a desktop OS to a server OS, with a different set of tools included with it. There is no fundamental difference at the kernel level between the two.

We have discontinued support for XP and other operating systems of the same era, that are all building on NT 5 technology. Period.
"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne
Image

Thehandyman1957

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by Thehandyman1957 » 2017-09-06, 17:35

I was an avid XP user for a long time and dragged my feet forever before moving to W7 last month.

And though there are a few things I miss, (like having two task bars, one on top and one on the bottom) (What the heck M$) :wtf:

I have since been able to get past that with free docking software.

The point being, PM 27.4.2 solved all my issues with web browsing that I had with v26.

There is just some things that can't be done anymore with NT5 and it's not worth the time for the team

to keep trying to patch it for a kernel that is simply outdated and seen it's day.

The writing is on the wall, it's time to move on.

Though, I have to say. This will be the last upgrade I do in Windows. ;)

GigaWatt

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by GigaWatt » 2017-09-28, 07:21

Moonchild wrote:What you're doing is moving from a desktop OS to a server OS, with a different set of tools included with it. There is no fundamental difference at the kernel level between the two.
The 2003 R2 kernel is more stable... and it supports PAE out of the box. Someone would have hacked the PAE lock under XP too, if it wasn't for layers of encryption around that part of the code.

That being said, I have no idea if those things are considered as a fundamental difference between the two kernels.

I still use 2003 R2 as a workstation OS on one of my PCs. Works fine with an older version of PM.
Thehandyman1957 wrote:And though there are a few things I miss, (like having two task bars, one on top and one on the bottom) (What the heck M$) :wtf:
I think you can bring that back with True Launch Bar. I actually missed the option to add a toolbar at the top of the screen. Vista still had this option but Win7/2008R2 didn't, so the best solution I found was using TLB.
Thehandyman1957 wrote:Though, I have to say. This will be the last upgrade I do in Windows. ;)
That's what I thought too... and than I gave Win8 and 10 a chance :roll: :D. Remove the bloathware/spyware and you'll see, they're not that bad ;).

NT Five

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by NT Five » 2017-10-12, 00:33

GigaWatt wrote:Someone would have hacked the PAE lock under XP too, if it wasn't for layers of encryption around that part of the code.
The "PAE lock" in the XP SP3 kernel has been unlocked. There is a 64 GB chinese patch floating around on the net and more recently "Dibya" created a 128 GB patch.
There seem to be minor stabilty issues with some drivers/hardware but these patches appear to do their job.

mainziman

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by mainziman » 2017-12-19, 13:46

GigaWatt wrote: The 2003 R2 kernel is more stable... and it supports PAE out of the box.
do you mean with PAE the support of more than 4 GB of RAM with 32-bit?
Win 2000 AS supported 8 GB of RAM ...

the reason why Win 20000 Prof (the Desktop counterpart) didn't and WinXP does not support more than 4 GB of RAM can be found
in the buggy driver support for hardware;
I found a patch for Win 7 32-bit with which I could use 16 GB of RAM ...
as this was a virtual machine and there was no 3rd party device driver this worked stable ...

User avatar
satrow
Forum staff
Forum staff
Posts: 1776
Joined: 2011-09-08, 11:27

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by satrow » 2017-12-19, 20:00

The MS Windows x86 4GB limit is down to their licensing restrictions.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 24449
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: Why did you get these troubles and problems for users without supporting Windows Server 2003?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2017-12-19, 21:54

For the record: XP supports PAE and 4GT. How much memory is actually addressable depends, are satrow stated , on license restrictions, but is not a technical limit.
Even so, all of that is actually unrelated to the subject of this thread, and the fact remains that both server and workstation versions of NT 5.1 are discontinued.
"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne
Image

Locked