Why Firefox 4 isn't abandoning Windows XP

[Thankful]

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/18/6294661-why-firefox-4-isnt-abandoning-windows-xp

[Someheresomethere]

Xp. Must. Die.

[dw426]

Mozilla might have a point, but, the flip side of that is that the longer that support is given for it, the longer it will take XP to finally go away. There can't be anymore "Alright, we'll support you until this point" and keep changing it.

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Xp. Must. Die." }-

agreed, people need stop living in the past

[Daveski17]

I admit that XP is long in the tooth & has security problems. But like I have stated on other threads, this is more to do with economics in many ways. Many colleges, schools, hospitals & businesses in my country have computers that just don't have the RAM to run Win 7. In the present economic climate they will run those computers into the ground rather than upgrade their hardware. At the end of the day, Linux or perhaps at least having Firefox 4 as their respective default browsers is a much cheaper way of keeping their ageing computers going.

[Kerodo]

Eventually, everyone must buy...

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "Xp. Must. Die." }-
Agreed.

I'm surprised that Mozilla decided to support Windows 2000 as well, is there any hardware acceleration there?

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Eventually, everyone must buy..." }-

Too true.

[davidlynch]

the business model of sell a 'new' OS every few years will end, surely.

no problem if ms won't give ie9 to XP users: today we can use Firefox or a Google browser, tomorrow a Google OS.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "the business model of sell a 'new' OS every few years will end, surely.

no problem if ms won't give ie9 to XP users: today we can use Firefox or a Google browser, tomorrow a Google OS." }-

Good luck with Google OS going far, but good point regarding IE9.

[acuariano]

just don't forget the monthly patch,service packs plus more vulnerabilities.

[Boost]

ROFL,

With this economy,companies aren't upgrading their PC's as a first priority.

[ABee]

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/18/6294661-why-firefox-4-isnt-abandoning-windows-xp

-{ Quote: "After all, Windows XP is almost 10 years old. Ten years old!" }-

Wrong. It's four years old.
XP wasn't superceded until January of 2007, when Vista was released to the general public.
Until that time, it was Microsoft's most current OS.

There's nothing at all wrong with supporting a four year-old OS.

I really couldn't care whether Firefox 4 is supported by XP or not.
It's supported in Ubuntu Linux, and the moment XP becomes a no longer viable OS for me is the same moment I begin using Ubuntu full time, rather than 'getting current' with Windows.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/18/6294661-why-firefox-4-isnt-abandoning-windows-xp



Wrong. It's four years old.
XP wasn't superceded until January of 2007, when Vista was released to the general public.
Until that time, it was Microsoft's most current OS.

There's nothing at all wrong with supporting a four year-old OS.

I really couldn't care whether Firefox 4 is supported by XP or not.
It's supported in Ubuntu Linux, and the moment XP becomes a no longer viable OS for me is the same moment I begin using Ubuntu full time, rather than 'getting current' with Windows." }-

Eh...the date of its "replacement" doesn't factor in to its age. It was released Oct 25th 2001, it's still being used, that makes it 10 years old now.

[Daveski17]

Well ... according to Wikipedia:

Release date RTM: August 24, 2001
Retail: October 25, 2001 (info)
Current version 5.1 (Build 2600: Service Pack 3) (April 21, 2008; 2 years ago) (info)
Source model Closed source, Shared source[1]
License Microsoft-EULA
Kernel type Hybrid
Update method Windows Update
Platform support IA-32, x86-64, Itanium
Preceded by Windows Me, Windows 2000
Succeeded by Windows Vista

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "Wrong. It's four years old." }-
What kind of logic is that?

Do you give people your son's age instead of your own when people ask you how old you are? I hope you weren't being serious. It's fine not wanting to upgrade, that's your choice, but people need to stop justifying their actions with such nonsense.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "I admit that XP is long in the tooth & has security problems. But like I have stated on other threads, this is more to do with economics in many ways. Many colleges, schools, hospitals & businesses in my country have computers that just don't have the RAM to run Win 7." }-
I just came back from my parents' house after summer vacation, and while I was there I upgraded every computer in the house to Windows 7 SP1, including a 7-year-old HP and 9-year-old Asus. Both run just fine, albeit without Aero Glass.

Economics is a factor, but it's not about having to buy new hardware.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Xp. Must. Die." }-

Yup! If everyone buys whatever a company sells whenever the company desires, it will be very good for that company's stock price.

Looking forward to Win8.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "ROFL,

With this economy,companies aren't upgrading their PC's as a first priority." }-

Yet upgrading their browser is? Not exactly. That's why IE6 still has 12% market share.

If you want to use old technology then that's fine. But don't expect to build a brick house on a straw foundation.

-{ Quote: "Xp. Must. Die." }-

Agreed.

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "Wrong. It's four years old." }-
Wrong, that's how old Vista is.

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "What kind of logic is that?

Do you give people your son's age instead of your own when people ask you how old you are? I hope you weren't being serious. It's fine not wanting to upgrade, that's your choice, but people need to stop justifying their actions with such nonsense." }-I was being serious, and we're not talking about children, we're talking about an OS.

Yes, XP was first released in 2001. SP2 for XP, which some contend was closer to upgrading to a different OS than simply adding a 'service pack', was released in 2004.

The fact remains that until Vista was released, XP was Microsoft's most current OS. So perhaps it's ten years 'old', yet at the same time it's only four years 'superceded'.

My contention is that it's supercession date is a much more relevant figure here than it's inception date.

[The Hammer]

-{ Quote: "Yet upgrading their browser is? Not exactly. That's why IE6 still has 12% market share.

If you want to use old technology then that's fine. But don't expect to build a brick house on a straw foundation.



Agreed." }-
I've read that a lot of that market share was in China.

[Konata Izumi]

-{ Quote: "I was being serious, and we're not talking about children, we're talking about an OS.

Yes, XP was first released in 2001. SP2 for XP, which some contend was closer to upgrading to a different OS than simply adding a 'service pack', was released in 2004.

The fact remains that until Vista was released, XP was Microsoft's most current OS. So perhaps it's ten years 'old', yet at the same time it's only four years 'superceded'.

My contention is that it's supercession date is a much more relevant figure here than it's inception date." }-

Agreed :) :thumb:
and your linux path... I'm going that way too ;D


btw I think Mozilla should abandon XP when XP itself was abandoned by Microsoft... I heard it will be next year :D

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Yet upgrading their browser is? Not exactly. That's why IE6 still has 12% market share." }-

I don't exactly understand this analogy. I have not used an XP machine recently that has IE 6. They have all had IE 8 on them. Let's face it, Firefox 4 is a freeware alternative for XP.

-{ Quote: "If you want to use old technology then that's fine. But don't expect to build a brick house on a straw foundation." }-

With hardware, using old technology may be the only economically viable option. The UK government has recently made massive funding cuts in education & health care.

I'm sure Micro$oft want people to buy their new operating systems regularly (You don't work for MS do you funkydude? ;)).

My local library's computers all run XP. The machines themselves are not capable of running Win 7. In the present economic climate are they going to buy new computers with the RAM capability to run Win 7 & IE 9? Or are they going to soldier on with perfectly good computers with XP & IE 8 (&/or maybe Firefox 4)?


*Hmmm ... thinks .... *

What d'ya reckon?

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "The fact remains that until Vista was released, XP was Microsoft's most current OS. So perhaps it's ten years 'old', yet at the same time it's only four years 'superceded'.

My contention is that it's supercession date is a much more relevant figure here than it's inception date." }-
Do you have any valid arguments as to why that should be the case?

[Peter2150]

Frankly I for one am glad to see the Firefox decision, and honestly I don't care about what the age of XP is, there is one simple fact I can't over look.

It still works perfectly for me. I've played with Win 7 on my newest and biggest machine, and it was a challenge to get it working, and it doesn't work perfectly. The other machines would be even harder.

Obviously when I buy new machines, that will be different, but dollars aren't the only cost. For back protection, I use 3 different computers, and they are all configured identically. This way I can sync data and shift working to any one of them if necessary. To replace the OS on all of them even if it works would be very time consuming, and at the end of the day, I'd only be running what already runs well on the current machines and OS.

The time will come, yes, but I don't see any hurry. All my software is marketed towards the folks that are hanging on to XP, namely business.

Pete

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "I'm sure Micro$oft want people to buy their new operating systems regularly (You don't work for MS do you funkydude? ;))." }-
Wow, people are STILL crying about this?

The simple fact here is that XP will be supported until 2014. I'd challenge you or anyone who cares to accept it to name me any other software company that has maintained support for a program version - let alone an entire OS - for almost a decade and a half, but I won't, since it'll be nothing but a waste of time because you're going to fail.

The simple fact here is also that people like you are cheapskates who don't want to part with their money. And guess what? That's perfectly fine. It's your money, you earned it, you're the one who gets to decide what to do with it. But please, do yourselves a favor and stop feeling this irrational need to justify your decision by playing the "OMG M$ SO GREEDY" card. Your decisions are perfectly valid, there's no need to try to compensate for it and end up accomplishing nothing but making yourselves look like complete idiots.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "With this economy, companies aren't upgrading their PC's as a first priority." }-+1 :thumb:
-{ Quote: "I have not used an XP machine recently that has IE 6. They have all had IE 8 on them.
My local library's computers all run XP. The machines themselves are not capable of running Win 7.
In the present economic climate are they going to buy new computers with the RAM capability to run Win 7 & IE 9?
Or are they going to soldier on with perfectly good computers with XP & IE 8 (&/or maybe Firefox 4)?
Let's face it, Firefox 4 is a freeware alternative for XP." }-+1 :thumb:
As it seems, some college-boys have NO idea what's going on the Market:
World Economic Crisis and 'Corp. Expenditure' Reduction...
-{ Quote: "I'm sure Micro$oft want people to buy their new operating systems regularly
(You don't work for MS, do you funkydude?)" }-
:thumb: ;) ;)

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "... Your decisions are perfectly valid, there's no need to try to compensate for it and end up accomplishing nothing but making yourselves look like complete idiots." }-

The same applies to those who try to make out that moving to Win7 is essential. If something is inevitable, it will occur. Pushing and shoving (and insulting) just isn't necessary.

[lodore]

alot has changed in the computer world since 2001.
search on google and you will quickly find out that everytime microsoft releases a new OS people say its crap because guess what people dont like change.
I feel that people should be more willing to try things for themselves.

the more operating systems devolopers have to support the less they can improve their applications.
I only have windows 7 on my desktop because i managed to get a retail license for £50 as a preorder deal. otherwise I would of been happy to stay with vista.

why is it people want microsoft to improve windows but when they do people complain? example 1. vista made some big changes from xp but people complained because 3rd party devlopers didnt have fully functional drivers /software ready when vista came out. but they blamed microsoft and not nvidia creative hp etc...

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "
I'm sure Micro$oft want people to buy their new operating systems regularly (You don't work for MS do you funkydude? ;)).
" }-

*PalmToFace*

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Economics is a factor, but it's not about having to buy new hardware." }-
-Economics is a factor when you have to buy new Software: $(XP=>W7)*Many Work Stations (IF they can run W7).

-Economics is a factor when you ALSO have to buy new Hardware (apart from New Software: W7),
because your old PCs canNot run W7.

[ABee]

-{ Quote: "The fact remains that until Vista was released, XP was Microsoft's most current OS. So perhaps it's ten years 'old', yet at the same time it's only four years 'superceded'.

My contention is that it's supercession date is a much more relevant figure here than it's inception date." }-
-{ Quote: "Do you have any valid arguments as to why that should be the case?" }-Yes. The valid argument is within what you quoted.

For the third time: XP has been 'not the most current OS' for only four years.
That's a fact.
Whether or not you yourself consider that a valid point doesn't change the fact nor the validity of that point.

The devs at Mozilla might seem to believe there's something to that point, as they've made the decision to support XP usage with Firefox 4, eh?

Or perhaps they're just a bunch of senseless, addle-headed idiots as well?

[Mrkvonic]

-{ Quote: "Frankly I for one am glad to see the Firefox decision, and honestly I don't care about what the age of XP is, there is one simple fact I can't over look.

It still works perfectly for me. I've played with Win 7 on my newest and biggest machine, and it was a challenge to get it working, and it doesn't work perfectly. The other machines would be even harder.

Obviously when I buy new machines, that will be different, but dollars aren't the only cost. For back protection, I use 3 different computers, and they are all configured identically. This way I can sync data and shift working to any one of them if necessary. To replace the OS on all of them even if it works would be very time consuming, and at the end of the day, I'd only be running what already runs well on the current machines and OS.

The time will come, yes, but I don't see any hurry. All my software is marketed towards the folks that are hanging on to XP, namely business.

Pete" }-

Fully agree. It works, why replace it.
Age means nothing, unless you're into useless hypes.
Mrk

[MikeBCda]

-{ Quote: "Fully agree. It works, why replace it.
Age means nothing, unless you're into useless hypes.
Mrk" }-
That goes for me too. My system's antique and definitely couldn't handle Win 7, but for my purposes it works just fine. I imagine my hardware will die before MS ends its support for XP, and at that point (and not before then) I'll do again what I've been doing since I've been on computers, nearly 25 years now: replace it with a new system which includes whatever the current OS is then, most likely Win 7 (or even 8 ).

[Woody777]

My wifes machine still does use XP. I do have W7 x32 install disc ultimate. If I installed W7 she would need to change everything she does. It would be a huge change. The machine actually would allow me to install W7 but it is 6 plus years old. I am not sure it would be worth the effort. If the machine fails I will simply get her a new computer with an updated OS. Cost is not an issue. The computer does everything she needs it to do & she doesn't really care about all the latest bells & whistles of W7. Why should I go looking for trouble.

[Cudni]

Bunch of ot post removed. Stay on subject please.

[Someheresomethere]

Although Firefox 4 might be compatible with Xp, somehow I highly doubt those public institutions that can't afford upgrading to decent (Yes I say decent, because hardware that can't even meet Widnows 7's minimum system requirements is pathetic) will upgrade to Firefox 4 anyway. They'll probably keep using the latest Internet Explorer that comes with Windows Update and that's it. Certainly not enough of a reason for developers to waste time and resources for Xp development, stalling overall progress for the vast majority of PC users.

Microsoft has supported (and technically is still supporting) XP for way too long.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Although Firefox 4 might be compatible with Xp, somehow I highly doubt those public institutions that can't afford upgrading to decent (Yes I say decent, because hardware that can't even meet Widnows 7's minimum system requirements is pathetic) will upgrade to Firefox 4 anyway. They'll probably keep using the latest Internet Explorer that comes with Windows Update and that's it. Certainly not enough of a reason for developers to waste time and resources for Xp development, stalling overall progress for the vast majority of PC users.

Microsoft has supported (and technically is still supporting) XP for way too long." }-

Most corporations have contracts in place with PC vendors to receive new systems every year/couple of years, so I still don't see how major businesses don't have the minimum requirements for Win 7, if not over that. Home users are different, if they want to piddle around, that's fine. I can also see the "mom and pop" businesses delaying as well, since over the last few years, they're lucky if they don't shut down period, never mind upgrade things. For the rest, no, there's little excuse.

[Noob]

I currently work in a very big company, they have more than 2000+ computers all with Windows XP and IE 6.
I can stand the Win XP thing but IE 6?
They want us to perform very good (and that requires lots of browsing) and they give us IE 6? Some websites don't even load correctly.

XP should be long gone!! Get rid of iiiiiiiiiiit! ;D

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I highly doubt those public institutions that can't afford upgrading to decent (Yes I say decent, because hardware that can't even meet Widnows 7's minimum system requirements is pathetic) will upgrade to Firefox 4 anyway." }-

Probably not. When it comes to pathetic hardware or otherwise, Public Libraries are closing down in my country due to vicious ideological cuts in funding. I would rather have a library with pathetic hardware than no hardware at all.

-{ Quote: "Microsoft has supported (and technically is still supporting) XP for way too long." }-

Probably. But why not let it die gradually as people eventually & inevitably have to upgrade their hardware?

[Boost]

-{ Quote: "I currently work in a very big company, they have more than 2000+ computers all with Windows XP and IE 6.
I can stand the Win XP thing but IE 6?
They want us to perform very good (and that requires lots of browsing) and they give us IE 6? Some websites don't even load correctly.

XP should be long gone!! Get rid of iiiiiiiiiiit! ;D" }-

Start taking some of your $$$,donate it to the healthcare system,public libraries,etc.

Govt's are cutting funding,period. Start reading the news people! It's clear that alot of you do not understand the economic crisis the world is in.

[Someheresomethere]

I perfectly understand the spending cuts, what I'm saying is that it's not a valid reason for developers to keep supporting Xp.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "Yes. The valid argument is within what you quoted.

For the third time: XP has been 'not the most current OS' for only four years.
That's a fact.
" }-
So why is that fact important at all? You seem to keep avoiding explaining it.

-{ Quote: "The devs at Mozilla might seem to believe there's something to that point, as they've made the decision to support XP usage with Firefox 4, eh?

Or perhaps they're just a bunch of senseless, addle-headed idiots as well?" }-
I wouldn't put it so harshly, but a strong case can probably be made for that.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Eventually, everyone must buy..." }-If they can afford to.

[allizomeniz]

I started using Firefox back in 2004 simply because it had a pop-up blocker, which IE didn't have, and I've never looked back. Since then Mozilla have led the way leaving IE in the dust. If Microsoft expects people to spend their money with them they'd do well to learn from Mozilla. Why should I give Microsoft my $$ so they can keep developing crap? More and more I'm leaning toward the Ubuntu/Linux camp.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Most corporations have contracts in place with PC vendors to receive new systems every year/couple of years,
so I still don't see how major businesses don't have the minimum requirements for Win 7, if not over that." }-
I respectfully disagree.
The world economic crisis has severely decreased IT expenditure and made Corp. clients to reconsider their Policies/Contracts etc.
Many big Corp. clients will keep Windows XP as long as the world economic crisis holds on.
To avoid miss-understanding, I am not exclusively referring to the US market.

[LODBROK]

Wow. I'm sure glad about this FF4 and XP thing. When I heard I couldn't run IE9 on my XP system, I thought I was gonna have to go out and BUY SOMETHING! :ouch:

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: " When I heard I couldn't run IE9 on my XP system, I thought I was gonna have to go out and BUY SOMETHING! :ouch:" }-

"I thought I was gonna have to go out and BUY SOMETHING!"

LOL! ;D This has to be quote of the week! ;)

(I know how you feel)

[Thankful]

Firefox 4 soars, thanks to Microsoft’s luddite customers:
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/firefox-4-soars-thanks-to-microsofts-old-customers

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Firefox 4 soars, thanks to Microsoft’s luddite customers:
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/firefox-4-soars-thanks-to-microsofts-old-customers" }-

The name-calling begins :( . Next, XP users will be accused of poisoning the water supply and kidnapping children.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "I respectfully disagree.
The world economic crisis has severely decreased IT expenditure and made Corp. clients to reconsider their Policies/Contracts etc.
Many big Corp. clients will keep Windows XP as long as the world economic crisis holds on.
To avoid miss-understanding, I am not exclusively referring to the US market." }-

Point well taken, I do admit I was speaking of the U.S market. You're right, it is a changed environment, but there are still plenty of huge corporations out there that aren't hurting, crisis or not. In many other countries, it's a matter of pirating and not so much money (India, China and such). You have to look at the security aspect of it too. Windows XP has been pretty much turned to Swiss cheese, and with so very many still using it (and this really affects the corporate world), it doesn't help the issue of malware spreading. Now that isn't me saying if everybody switches to Windows 7, the world will be a better place, that's foolish. But 7 is designed a lot differently from the nature of XP, where programs can go wherever and do whatever they want.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "...(India, China and such). You have to look at the security aspect of it too. Windows XP has been pretty much turned to Swiss cheese, and with so very many still using it (and this really affects the corporate world), it doesn't help the issue of malware spreading. Now that isn't me saying if everybody switches to Windows 7, the world will be a better place, that's foolish. But 7 is designed a lot differently from the nature of XP, where programs can go wherever and do whatever they want." }-

1. The cost of Win7 Ultimate (not SP1) + the latest MS Office + a variety of other cracked software goes for about INR 350 (45 INR ~ 1 USD).

2. Since XP is as insecure as we say, evolution will take care of things, won't it? Which is why I wonder at the nearly frantic calls to upgrade. Those using Win 7 will be at an advantage over those with XP and stand to benefit in a competitive environment. So why remove the advantage? Pure altruism?

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Point well taken, I do admit I was speaking of the U.S market. You're right, it is a changed environment, but there are still plenty of huge corporations out there that aren't hurting, crisis or not. In many other countries, it's a matter of pirating and not so much money (India, China and such). You have to look at the security aspect of it too. Windows XP has been pretty much turned to Swiss cheese, and with so very many still using it (and this really affects the corporate world), it doesn't help the issue of malware spreading. Now that isn't me saying if everybody switches to Windows 7, the world will be a better place, that's foolish. But 7 is designed a lot differently from the nature of XP, where programs can go wherever and do whatever they want." }-Things outside the US market are much worse (in terms of IT Spending decrease due to the World Economic Crisis).
Another factor is Compatibility:
Many Corp. Clients (e.g. Hospitals, Industrial Plants etc.) are running old Apps that have been very problematic under Windows 7.
As a result, these Corp. Clients decided to stay with XP.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "Since XP is as insecure as we say, evolution will take care of things, won't it? Which is why I wonder at the nearly frantic calls to upgrade. Those using Win 7 will be at an advantage over those with XP and stand to benefit in a competitive environment. So why remove the advantage? Pure altruism?" }-
I'm sorry, but since when has more botnets and spambots on the Internet been beneficial to anyone?

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "I'm sorry, but since when has more botnets and spambots on the Internet been beneficial to anyone?" }-

That'll happen regardless of whether XP gets killed off or not. But, "remove the advantage"? The advantage would be getting everybody off of a hole-filled OS. There should be no competing, no pointing and and laughing out "haha hacked!". I don't want to sit here on Windows 7 smugly touting some "competitive advantage", I want less chances for malware to spread its ugly little mug over the internet and on to systems, whether they be in a corporate office or the living room.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "That'll happen regardless of whether XP gets killed off or not. But, "remove the advantage"? The advantage would be getting everybody off of a hole-filled OS. There should be no competing, no pointing and and laughing out "haha hacked!". I don't want to sit here on Windows 7 smugly touting some "competitive advantage", I want less chances for malware to spread its ugly little mug over the internet and on to systems, whether they be in a corporate office or the living room." }-
That's true. It's just a pity some people have to stoop to trying to shame others into not debunking their nonsense by insinuating that those who simply make factual statements do so with some sort of ulterior motive in mind.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "XP users will be accused of poisoning the water supply and kidnapping children." }-

I thought that was people who run McAfee AV ... ;D

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "I thought that was people who run McAfee AV ... ;D" }-

Are they capable of doing even that?

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Are they capable of doing even that?" }-

If they were, no doubt it would be a false-positive LOL! ;D