(split off) Pale Moon and Windows XP (reprise)

[moonbat]

including techies who should know better

Said techies were probably in preschool when there was a surfeit of independent browsers with their own rendering engines in the 00s, instead of being wrappers around Blink.

[THX-1139]

I happened to think of a possible solution, or at least a Buffer of sorts; Pale Moon could set up on this forum, a dedicated entry/thread...something like XP Help (or something similar) and have a Re-direct back to Roytams support thread/subforum on MSFN when clicking on that thread...or inside the thread?

I would think if the subject is Obvious enough they just might bite at it, and I would think might dissuade them some.
For the record; Technically this should be possible? I really don't know.

[Moonchild]

No.

We aren't here to promote roytam's stuff. Doing so would give the additional wrong impression we actually have an official supportive stance on it. We don't. If things weren't so much a one-way street my approach would be different but that's not the reality we live in.
We aren't here to provide support for a 10-year discontinued O.S. either. Move on already.

[frostknight]

We aren't here to provide support for a 10-year discontinued O.S. either. Move on already.

Not to mention, XP has been as of 2019 no longer supported even on an enterprise level. At least last I checked anyhow.

That and once Microsoft drops the hammer, its no longer possible to support it reasonably.

Yeah, I understand the feeling a bit.

No one should use outdated windows OS with internet functionality.

Off-topic:
Although I also include windows 10 and newer with that as well in my personal opinion.

Windows 7 is probably the most benign that has professional support still left.
Actually edit to that: windows 7 has been unsupported enterprise level as of 2023 January

This of course means all the supported ones have forced upgrades except windows 8.1 which...yeah no one really ever liked I recall.. even when I didnt use linux, windows 8 was like windows vista to me... only uglier and UI was even worse on productivity level. Never mind again, just 10 and 11 supported.

What a shit state that is

[moonbat]

The overall desktop PC experience peaked with Windows 7. It was the most beautiful of the lot, and made use of your 3D hardware if you had while scaling back to 'classic' as every earlier version did if you didn't want them or your hardware didn't support them.
After that it's become actively user hostile - telemetry, steady removal of useful features, forced updates, inability to change certain settings even as administrator, resetting default programs after updates, uglification of icons and dumbing down the UX towards mobile and touchscreens in the name of 'simplicity'.

The sad part is even if you move to Linux, most environments have started aping these features. Replacing Control Panel with Settings for example - you can only change one setting at a time as compared to having multiple control panel applets open as needed.
Now looking at XFCE and now KDE Plasma - both have directly copied this dumb behavior in their respective settings apps. Currently Windows 7 lives on for me in the form of a Plasma theme - same icons, window decorations, Aero style transparencies and the blue wallpaper.

[Kris_88]

Programs that are developed for Windows XP also work on Windows 7, 8, 10, 11. That is, if you do nothing, then the compatibility of your program with Windows XP will be preserved. But in order for the program to stop working on XP and work only on newer versions of the system, you need to actively use new functions of the OS or create an artificial limitation. It would be logical to hear "we have too few developers to rework the code to use the new capabilities of new OS", and not "too much work is required to maintain compatibility with the old OS".

[suzyne]

Programs that are developed for Windows XP also work on Windows 7, 8, 10, 11.

That may often be the case, but there are certainly games I used to play that won't run on my Laptop 1. So there must be a little more to it than a universal, if it's developed on and for XP, then it can run on Windows forever more?

[Kris_88]

then it can run on Windows forever more?

Indeed, some features disappear. For example, support for Win16 applications or programs for DOS. However, FF52 works on Windows 11.

[suzyne]

One particular game that I am thinking of (Need For Speed Pro Street) is from 2007, so I don't think it uses any Windows features that have since disappeared? But it won't run on Windows 10. All I am suggesting is that I don't think it is accurate to imply that all Windows software from the XP era will (must!) work today.

[moonbat]

Sometimes just setting compatibility on the executable's properties fixes it.

[Kris_88]

All I am suggesting is that I don't think it is accurate to imply that all Windows software from the XP era will (must!) work today.

I didn't say "XP era", I said "programs that are developed for Windows XP".
By the way, FF20 also works on Windows 11.

[andyprough]

One particular game that I am thinking of (Need For Speed Pro Street) is from 2007, so I don't think it uses any Windows features that have since disappeared? But it won't run on Windows 10. All I am suggesting is that I don't think it is accurate to imply that all Windows software from the XP era will (must!) work today.

That game currently has a gold rating when working with wine. Latest test is from 2023 with Artix Linux: https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager. ... 4#testdata

[Moonchild]

The only reason there is backwards program compatibility in Windows is because Microsoft went out of their way to try and not break a lot of discontinued commercial software with new releases of Windows. Even with the combined effort of all of Microsoft, it's definitely not perfect.
That situation is, however, completely different from the compatibility applications have for the O.S. While old software can run on newer operating systems, it will by definition not be using new O.S. features. This perfectly underlines why applications should not be using the "lowest common denominator" unless specifically aimed at systems running old operating systems and willing to make large compromises for that target. There's a good reason why almost all modern games require at least Windows 10, for example. They must be able to use the new kernel and DX features. Could they compile with XP compatibility? Maybe, if they can have DX9... But it would look and run like absolute dog shit.

XP has been as of 2019 no longer supported even on an enterprise level. At least last I checked anyhow.

XP as a desktop O.S. was discontinued in April 2014 (end of extended support - mainline support ended in 2009!). The "enterprise support" to 2019 was only for embedded systems (think e.g. cash registers, points of sale, and other single-use environments) and actually wasn't even called Windows XP.

[Kris_88]

One particular game that I am thinking of (Need For Speed Pro Street) is from 2007, so I don't think it uses any Windows features that have since disappeared? But it won't run on Windows 10.

If I understood correctly, the problem is not in Windows 10, but in the hardware being too fast. There are workarounds on the Internet to solve the problem (but of course I haven't tried anything).

[Kris_88]

This perfectly underlines why applications should not be using the "lowest common denominator" unless specifically aimed at systems running old operating systems and willing to make large compromises for that target.

However, it is highly desirable that websites on the Internet use common features to be compatible with all browsers, including very old ones that run on old tablets and embedded OS. I think the vast majority here would agree with that.
We need to be consistent. Why not apply this principle to other programs (not just JS and CSS on websites) ?

[suzyne]

Off-topic:
Thanks for the tips about how to get Pro Street working, but I wasn't asking for help, and instead was trying to make a point that I do believe that there is XP software that won't run on Windows 10 or 11. I am reasonably sure that in my folder of old programs (games and other applications) from an earlier computer that I can find something that was written for XP that won't run any more (and it won't be because my Laptop 1 is "too fast"), but I have better things to do tonight, which don't involve trying to confirm that my hunch is right. 

[athenian200]

Programs that are developed for Windows XP also work on Windows 7, 8, 10, 11. That is, if you do nothing, then the compatibility of your program with Windows XP will be preserved. But in order for the program to stop working on XP and work only on newer versions of the system, you need to actively use new functions of the OS or create an artificial limitation. It would be logical to hear "we have too few developers to rework the code to use the new capabilities of new OS", and not "too much work is required to maintain compatibility with the old OS".

So, you're suggesting that the browser should be frozen in time and that the only thing you regard as "logical" is spinning out the FF52 codebase and sticking within the limitations of the operating systems it originally supported? It sounds like you're saying it's illogical to try and move the codebase forward the way we are doing with such a small team, and that supporting an old OS is the only "logical" choice for such an old codebase? That is precisely what a lot of people think, they've been saying it since we first started the project, and it's an old argument, not a new one. I would hardly call using a newer compiler that supports newer C++ standards an "artificial limitation," or for that matter using newer versions of libraries an "artificial limitation," especially when that actually helps us in a number of ways.

The issue is precisely that we don't want to "do nothing," we want to move forward, and there seems to be this idea that we don't have a right to do that in the manner we are attempting, that we should do nothing and avoid relying on anything from a newer version of Windows, work within limitations that we don't care for, all because we forked from something that did work within those limitations. You are making exactly the argument I just complained about.

If you think this way, then I'm sorry to say you don't understand the intentions of Pale Moon as a project, probably never have understood, and have been presumptuously applying your own logic demanding we adhere to it and respect it without any consideration for who we are or what we want. In reality, your thinking seems more consistent with other projects that have been critical of Pale Moon for a long time. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but perhaps you'd be happier contributing to one of those? I think you'll find that your brand of "logic" falls on deaf ears around here.

However, it is highly desirable that websites on the Internet use common features to be compatible with all browsers, including very old ones that run on old tablets and embedded OS. I think the vast majority here would agree with that.
We need to be consistent. Why not apply this principle to other programs (not just JS and CSS on websites) ?

I'll just leave this quote here:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Moonchild]

We need to be consistent.

You should be consistent in your context. Web pages are content, not programs.

[Kris_88]

Off-topic:

was trying to make a point that I do believe that there is XP software that won't run on Windows 10 or 11. 

Suzyne, I think you are right. There are probably such programs. But still, there is mostly backward compatibility for new versions of Windows and there is a discussion context - FF and PM. So, formally, it cannot be said that "all programs written for XP will be guaranteed to work in Windows 11 without problems". But in fact, they work.

(and it won't be because my Laptop 1 is "too fast")

By the way, this is not a joke and something like this has happened before.
Google "Turbo Pascal runtime error 200".

[frostknight]

By the way, this is not a joke and something like this has happened before.
Google "Turbo Pascal runtime error 200".

Or instead, you could look up "Turbo Pascal runtime error 200" and not feed the data centers of google.