PaleMoon 26

[JackC]

I am hoping that Pale Moon 26 may have an app or provision that would be compatible with WindowsXP....
The biggest problem with XP is scripts hanging up in the browser regardless of what browser used. They all do it.
I am hoping PM 26 might improve on that situation for those of us who enjoy XP ...
I use PM on Vista and even that has the problem of hanging occaisionally, although FAR less frequently.
Thankyou, JackC

[LimboSlam]

There is a Pale Moon specifically for Atom/XP. Here it is: https://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-atom.shtml

[JodyThornton]

Sorry JackC, but XP support was finished a year ago. Matt Tobin took the reins and created an XP specific version of Pale Moon, but he'll cease support of that in two weeks. LimoboSlam has a good suggestion to try the Atom/XP build. My mom runs XP Pro still so I'll be swithcing her over to that as well.

[Moonchild]

Pale Moon 26 will continue to focus on current and active versions of Windows. There won't be any specific development for improving the experience on XP (if even possible). that being said, support for XP will be extended in the specialized netbook version (Atom/WinXP) for as long as technically feasible.

[Trippynet]

MC: Glad to see that an XP build of sorts will be maintained. I also still run XP on my old Mac Mini, simply because it will not play nice at all with Windows 7 (I have tried and just could not get it to run properly). Hence the options for what I use it for are XP or nothing (ie, the bin). And given that, it's nice to have a build of PM still available for it, even if it lacks some of the functionality and optimisations of the Windows 7+ versions.

It's not the oldest system in my house incidentally, I have a couple of classic Silicon Graphics machines as well, but I think a build of PaleMoon for IRIX really is asking too much

[Joel Cairo]

What am I like! The day XP (x64) support ends, I've reinstalled it! Having deleted all my XP software installers. Now I'm here looking for the last PM 4 XP. Is the Atom build okay for x64?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Technically Windows XP x64 ended a year ago because it was called Windows XP.. Though it was in a grey area because built on the Windows Server 2003 codebase it could have manual Server 2003 updates.

The Atom version will indeed work though.

[Joel Cairo]

Hi Tobin. I installed your PM4XP build 25.5.0. Guess I'll try the Atom, because PM is painfully slow so far - even with all add-ons disabled. And yeah, I've got all the latest (and presumably last) Server 2003 security patches installed. Well, it's not like I plan on doing a lot of surfing in XP anyway. Really it's a maintenance OS, so I can do things to 7 that are too much faffing about to do from 8.1; but just maybe I'll want to download something, or find some relevant info.

Edit: Actually, looking at the description on the PM Home Page, I'm guessing it won't actually harm my box, what with it being AMD; but will it otherwise be any different from the PM4XP I'm already running?
The Atom build is working well!

[ikar-us]

The biggest problem with XP is scripts hanging up in the browser regardless of what browser used.
I use PM on Vista and even that has the problem of hanging occaisionally,

Maybe you are visiting script-bloated websites on slow computers?

[Ex Pea]

I've got all the latest (and presumably last) Server 2003 security patches installed.

Don't forget to look into "POSReady 2009" which is keeping a whole lot of XP installations secure.

[Moonchild]

Don't forget to look into "POSReady 2009" which is keeping a whole lot of XP installations secure.

Sad to see you're so terribly misinformed about what it is, and how desktop use on it isn't secure or supported.

[JodyThornton]

Don't forget to look into "POSReady 2009" which is keeping a whole lot of XP installations secure.

Sad to see you're so terribly misinformed about what it is, and how desktop use on it isn't secure or supported.

Not be argumentative at all Moonchild, I just wanted some clarification of your opinion (after all I do respect it.)

From my understanding (and no source or publication has ever made me think otherwise), POSReady 2009 and Windows XP x86 are codebase identical. POSReady IS XP, just as Windows XP x64 IS Server 2003. Now perhaps POSReady updates don't fully update or secure XP from all exploits, but no differently can be said about a supported Windows 7 installation. I'm sure that there are still holes in the system there too, with all patches installed.

For example, I used MSE with Server 2003 (specifically the Vista/7 build). Now such a setup isn't supported by Microsoft, but it FULLY worked. I call that a win, because it worked no less to spec than what would be expected of a "fully supported" setup.

I guess what I wanted to understand is when you say unsupported, are you just going by Microsot (who let's face it, just want to obsolete a product line and improve sales - which I get that as a business you have to do), or are you saying that there is some codebase differential between POSReady 2009 and XP x86?

[Moonchild]

They aren't code-identical, from what I know. Feel free to install both side by side and do a binary comparison.
Server 2003 also is not XP Pro x64. There's plenty of software that will not run on server2003 but will on xp x64, and the other way around.

PoSReady is a version of XP that is designed specifically for embedded systems that will run mostly static software (cash registers, atms, traffic info). It's not, and never will be, a desktop OS.
Making a config change similar to the infamous "NTSwitch" tool by making a reg entry and pretending to be a different OS to get updates, is not smart. You will be getting updates for a different os and mixing code patches. if you want posready2009 then you should actually install it from installation media.

[Joel Cairo]

They aren't code-identical, from what I know. Feel free to install both side by side and do a binary comparison.
Server 2003 also is not XP Pro x64. There's plenty of software that will not run on server2003 but will on xp x64, and the other way around.

PoSReady is a version of XP that is designed specifically for embedded systems that will run mostly static software (cash registers, atms, traffic info). It's not, and never will be, a desktop OS.
Making a config change similar to the infamous "NTSwitch" tool by making a reg entry and pretending to be a different OS to get updates, is not smart. You will be getting updates for a different os and mixing code patches. if you want posready2009 then you should actually install it from installation media.

I wondered about that, with Server 2003, but figured it was close enough. Some of the patches still even included XPx64 in the name, as they usually did throughout XP's service life. There was probably a gamble involved, but a very small one; like Security Updates for Internet Explorer 11 for Server 2003 almost certainly also still worked for XP x64 (not that I used IE - but we all know how deeply embedded in the system it is!) In all the years using XP x64, though, I never once saw a patch applicable to any other versions than XP x64 and Server 2003. Which doesn't prove anything - so much as reinforce the feeling I had from the moment I found out the other updates were for said extremely limited-use POS terminals, the likelihood of them keeping XP x64 up-to-date security-wise was vanishingly small; that if just a handful of vulnerabilities were fixed, all it would really achieve would be a naively-false sense of security. I figured the Server 2003 route had a high probability of success, and the POS a low one.

Ironically, about five years ago I went into my local chemist's, who'd recently installed one of those photo printing terminals you put a CD or thumb drive into and print the contents off. As I walked past it I noticed it was displaying the Luna desktop. Unable to resist, I went back to it and started pushing the buttons to see what would happen and pretty quickly figured out the required key presses; I brought up the various configuration applets, noticing lax settings and changing them to my security-conscious preferences. When it occurred to me I'd probably be there the rest of the day, I quit and went to buy what I'd gone there for. Next time I went there it was gone anyway! Not everything was available, but I forget what. I would suppose that the things are internet-capable to receive bug fix updates? And by Automatic Update rather than Windows Update, though I expect AU is as much dependent on IE as WU is in XP. Anyway they're surely not configured for surfing? Surely most of the vulnerabilities do not apply to such a limited iteration. I wish I'd tried to go online with it, now, if only to know better what it was capable of.

Off-topic:
(Last time I was in A&E - a year ago - after waiting around, alone, for ages for scan results, when I had to get to the shops before they closed, to get food for my cat, I took a look at the computer in the department my bay was in. I was sort-of surprise it had internet access! So I Googled the main supermarkets, went to their sites to check their closing times. At which point a doctor came in. She was a little worried! I felt like I could see her wondering how much trouble she was going to be in, but she was reassured when I told her what I'd been doing - and since I'd already said if the results didn't come soon I'd be leaving to get to the shops...God knows why a terminal in a small room of bays in A&E needs internet, but at least it was Windows 7!).

[JodyThornton]

They aren't code-identical, from what I know. Feel free to install both side by side and do a binary comparison.
Server 2003 also is not XP Pro x64. There's plenty of software that will not run on server2003 but will on xp x64, and the other way around.

Hmmmm .... Windows NT 4.0 Server and Workstation both could not run all of the same software as each other, but they were indeed the same OS. And no differently than 2003 vs XP x64. You are the first person I've ever heard claim they are not the same OS. XP x64 was retrofitted from 2003. The server tools were removed and the XP-esque features were placed back in to simulate the functionality of XP SP2. So I fail to understand how that qualifies as different. (as meaning that they are directly based on each other. Even the updates were shared and service packs were identical)

PoSReady is a version of XP that is designed specifically for embedded systems that will run mostly static software (cash registers, atms, traffic info). It's not, and never will be, a desktop OS.

But isn't that like saying that Server 2003 was not a desktop OS? Yet make some adjustments, for a few people it may have been one of the best desktop OS systems there ever was. See what I mean?

[Moonchild]

Server 2003 is not a desktop OS. The fact that you can use it as one doesn't mean it was designed for that purpose. Server OSes can still be used as desktop OSes and the other way around because the target hardware is fairly similar, but it will take some work. The main reason why PM4XP was supported until the end of the Server2003 life was exactly this.

Off-topic:
There is, however, a good reason why Microsoft always shove XP x64 to the side whenever possible, because they realized it was a far superior product than their new "Vista x64" was ever going to be

And maybe you missed by part about a different configuration making it a different piece of software. Compare it with "unified drivers" -- a package like that will use different code paths based on the hardware that is found, may even be loading completely different libraries. So, if you look at pure data, it may actually have the same content, but it's not the same in use.

As far as PoSReady is concerned though, the differences are much larger - XP is a desktop OS. PoSReady is not a server OS for similar hardware but a specialized OS for embedded systems - those are essentially different and in a whole different class of OS. I cannot and will not support this.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

In the old pre-vista NT days the Windows codebase was unified yes..

Server was built from the same common source as Workstation (Windows XP broke that tradition when build 2600 was so piss poor that the server team demanded another year of development to stabilize it for Server). However regardless of a common source there are several codepaths taken during compilation.

From what I have seen from the NT4 source leak and mini source leak of Win2k (that was largely IE and some core components) this is still true.. Depending not only on the binary runtime flag of the all mighty NT switch which determined basic system role there were some conditionals in the actual source code that would follow if the code was compiled for Server or Workstation roles.

Now, when you talk about NT 5.1 or NT 5.2 which both have a wide variety of variants beyond the NT Switch and the fact that the server team DEMANDED another year of development for Server.. Microsoft did indeed release a 64bit version based on the original NT 5.1.2600 codebase for itainum processors.

When Intel Itianum became a flop in the client market it was just forgotten. Later on Microsoft seeing that AMD64 was starting to make a way into users hands they developed the 64 bit version of XP we know today but remembering the lessons of the Itainum flop AND the server team having finished producing a much more stable base in the common shared Windows codebase they told it to compile for workstation (in the professional sku) and released Windows XP Professional x64 edition.

This release did VERY poorly in sales because the hardware was rather rare except for enthusiasts and it remained that way for a very long time.

Even today some things that would run on Windows XP (NT 5.1.2600) will not run or will not run properly on Windows XP x64 (NT 5.2.3790) for one reason or another.

Also, there are subtle differences between those two operating systems due to the year of development difference. In fact the last atom version neeeded a change in code for NT 5.1.2600 because it did not have something that NT 5.2.3790 indeed had.

AS FOR NT 5.1.2600 Embedded.. THIS version of Windows despite compiled from the same common source as Windows XP is majorly different. Which is why for one it had its own updates from the START. It has changes in how it is compiled and what code paths it follows. While most of these codepaths MAY be determined by the all mighty NT Switch that would obviously mean the Normal workstation code path may be compromised or busted because frankly.. They don't need to care about that anymore.. Only the code for it to run as it should on Embedded systems.

The bottom line is.. All RETAIL versions of the NT 5.x Windows are now End of Life and so is our support for them save Atom.

[hayc59]

I am also running Windows XP Home and I am glad your
still helping out the poor who cant afford and upgrade or new computer

[Thehandyman1957]

Or for those of us who simply refuse to leave XP because it ain't broke so why fix it

[JodyThornton]

Well I have an old notebook PC with XP that I wanted to test the Atom build with (before I accidentally killed my Mom's machine. I uninstalled PM4XP, left the settings intact, and dropped in the Atom build. It upgraded seamlessly, plugins, add-ons and all. It seems to run well.

Or for those of us who simply refuse to leave XP because it ain't broke so why fix it

I am on the fence on this one. In one sense, I never like seeing third-party software vendors drop support just because Microsoft does. Microsoft is not on our side, so why play by their rules? And I will say that at work, I am using one of the few XP machines that are left running Firefox (sorry Moonchild I installed Pale Moon six months ago and got crap for it... sniff). And I've have no known issues with XP. It does still run well. And most current browsers still run on it.

However, I have moved to Vista (now just over a year ago) and I've been playing extensively with Windows 8.1, and I find that once you get used to these systems, XP becomes long in the tooth. Things I used to hate (like flie-> open/save "breadcrumb" style dialogs) I now love. I still detest the Component Store inefficiencies, but at least Windows 8.1 has come up with ways to rid of some of the bulk.