Why Firefox 4 isn't abandoning Windows XP

[Thankful]

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ing-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]

Originally Posted by Someheresomethere

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]

Originally Posted by Someheresomethere

Xp. Must. Die.

Agreed.

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

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by Kerodo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...ing-windows-xp

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XP wasn't superceded until January of 2007, when Vista was released to the general public.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]

Originally Posted by ABee

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ing-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]

Originally Posted by ABee

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Someheresomethere

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]

Originally Posted by Boost

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.

Originally Posted by Someheresomethere

Xp. Must. Die.

Agreed.

[J_L]

Originally Posted by ABee

Wrong. It's four years old.

Wrong, that's how old Vista is.

[ABee]

Originally Posted by Eice

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]

Originally Posted by funkydude

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]

Originally Posted by ABee

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
and your linux path... I'm going that way too


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

[Daveski17]

Originally Posted by funkydude

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.

Originally Posted by funkydude

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]

Originally Posted by ABee

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?