End of Firefox Support for Windows 2000

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/01/end_of_firefox_win2k.html

 

Win 2000 users who want to run FireFox might want to look at these pages for solutions.
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/155384-future-versions-of-firefox-on-windows-2000/
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/120936-kdw-fcwin2k/

 

This is how it should be. Support for Win2k should be done in forks, leaving the main Firefox distribution the ability to move forward with new technology. Not dragging along support for an EOL OS kicking and screaming "just in case".

 

Forking FireFox is one option. Using unofficial upgrades like KDW with Win 2000 is another. More advanced users might also want to look at this tool.

 

Finally. There are significant improvements when you pull this ridiculous support.

 

Right. Completely ridiculous when a vendor doesn't jump fast enough to suit you when MS says drop support. Just once, stop trying to provoke the newer is better debate.

 

Palemoon project was one of the first Firefox builds that cut support so that it could use new compilers that take advantage of the latest OS's and hardware.

The performance gains were considerable and that's just one developer with a new compiler. If Firefox were actually written to make use of these things natively it would have significant performance improvements.

Windows 2000 is as good as dead. Support officially ended, very few people use it, you don't buy new machines with it, it doesn't support basic security and performance features without unofficial patching. It's nice that Mozilla is finally stepping up and cutting the rot.

 

Agreed... Windows 2000 is long gone. Let's move on...

 

Exactly. I haven't used Windows 2000 in 11 years. If Microsoft doesn't support it there is no reason for anyone else to.

 

@ noone_particular:

What are the actual statistics of people that still truly run Windows 2000?

How much does it cost to continue Firefox support for it?

Do you think the law of diminishing returns applies here?

 

I believe it holds either a .2 or .02% market share. I can't remember.

Of course, no point talking about market share stats on wilders =p

As for "cost" it's not really quantifiable. The code for Firefox is larger because of supporting the old OS's. This means it's harder to compile and more time has to be spent on it.

The performance cost is rather large both in memory footprint and overall rendering performance. Properly optimized C++ is comparable to Assembler and they aren't able to properly optimize because, for whatever reason, they've held onto that tiny market share for this long.

@Jack,

I agree. No one else should be supporting it either - they do not have the source code so whatever "patching" they're doing can not possibly be on the level of what MS would be able to do.

It's nice that those projects exist but I think it's more of a "oh that's fun" than "Oh well Win2000 is viable now."

If Firefox starts using a modern compiler and is making use of a sandboxed Flash I might start thinking about switching back.

 

Here's a link on Mozillazine about this topic. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2423705&p=11719787#p11719787 If interested about how Fx is planning on how to communicate with the users of the old OS's then click on the links given in the first link of this post. Switching to Firefox ESR version gives one a bit of time although ESR is meant for business use only. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ Downloads are at the bottom of the page.

 

You do like twisting what I say while you post the same old "get with the times" rhetoric. The links I posted didn't say that FF should keep supporting 2K. They were options for 2K users. KDW is to 2K what KernelEx is to 9X, unofficial upgrades to the OS that enable them to run the newer software.
Regarding,

and

That is up to those who develop these projects and those who use them. It's not for Microsoft or anyone else to decide what they choose to support. Dedicated 2K users choose it because it doesn't have the bloat of the newer versions, just as dedicated 9X users don't want service based operating systems. It's obvious that you don't haven't looked at the unofficial upgrades, therefore you have absolutely no basis to judge their abilities or performance. They've gone far beyond patches.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that some of us don't agree with Microsoft's definition of the latest and greatest and don't like being told when we should open or wallets? We don't care about market share or using what is popular. We use what we prefer because it does what we want, which is far more than you'd ever believe or accept.

 

Ah, well I think I misunderstood you the first time, noone_particular. I thought you were advocating that FF & MS continue to provide support. Which as I said is subject to the law of dimishing returns.

As for continuing to use Win 2000, I can't see why anyone would be against someone (with the time and gumption) hacking an old OS to run new programs. Especially when official support has ended.

 

Windows 2000 is a very old OS now so I feel that removing support for it is a wise thing for Mozilla to do. I have never understood that people dont mind spending lots of money on hardware but dont want to spend a little amount of an Operating system.

 

Simple - MS has the source code. Patching, updating, whatever. There's only so much you can do without understanding the code.

I think it's just that you "don't like being told when [you] should open [your] wallets" and you've taken that to an extreme by using unofficial patches to stay on an ancient OS.

I think those unofficial projects are cool and people can use them. They should just understand that they're on an older OS that's being supported by people who haven't seen the code themselves. I don't think a lot of people will appreciate what that really means though.

 

As a Firefox user anyway I VERY much look forward to those things.

 

How about not spending OMG-huge amounts of money on new hardware and new OSes every few years? How about not contributing to the absurd amounts of e-waste currently filling dumps all around the world, or being recycled by poorly payed workers under hazardous condition? How about not dumping yet more money into an industry that considers slave labor to be a valid strategy?

- The latest version of Windows probably won't work
- Linux and BSD may(!) work, but have hardware compatibility issues, a severe lack of available software, and are in fact rather hard to learn (and most Linux distros are fantastically bloated)
- OSX is a nonstarter unless you feel like eating lawsuits (and Apple is frankly evil)
- Alternative OSes like Haiku and AROS do not have enough software available to be useful for anything at all

I realize that continuing to use obsolete OSes is not the greatest long-term solution, but what we have here is a vicious cycle, and it needs to stop somewhere.

Edit: FWIW I don't disapprove of Mozilla Corp.'s decision. But I would like to see some effort put into, shall I say, sustainable OS development.

 

I agree that nobody has to do that. However, as someone that does I don't feel I should be held back by those that don't. Anybody that wants to run a 12 year old OS is welcome to do so. But I personally don't believe they have a valid complaint that they should be able to run the latest and greatest of everything else on it. I paid a nice chunk of change to run a 4.8 GHz quad core with 16 GB of RAM and 64 bit Windows 7 Ultimate. The idea that my software has to be crippled to run on someone else's 12 year old Windows 2000 machine seems unreasonable. I understand why they want it, but the preference should go to people that spend money.

 

That is a fascinating argument.

As a former techno-phobe, I'll suggest that perhaps it's not the folks on this forum that are contributing to the e-waste filling up those dumps.

I bought a win xp computer in 2003. I had no computer knowledge or skills beyond word processing. Imagine that- I caught a root kit & suffered hard drive failure in 2007. Being clueless, I just bought a new computer. Still didn't know how to work it really, so... imagine that! I caught malware & it quit working in 2011. So I bought a new computer instead of tackling the daunting task of fixing it.

So maybe a huge amount of the waste you're complaining about is actually being generated by morons like my former self- clueless and uninterested in learning how to fix it.

Solutions:
-raise the price of computers, that would force everyone to get the old ones fixed (liklihood = 0%)
-get everyone to learn how to actually use & maintain their computers (liklihood = 0%)

As far as hazardous conditions at recycling centers, where do you see that? I've visited several facilities in my area and they're well paid, work good hours, and they were surprisingly clean. In fact they did environmental monitoring to ensure they weren't hazardous.

"slave labor as a valid strategy-" in regards to software & OS development? Not sure where you're going with that. In what way are educated IT workers slaves?

 

If the argument is "Don't buy a computer, you're supporting XYZ awful system" or whatever... I don't even know how to respond to that one lol

 

@Gullible Jones,
Im glad you at least see that apple is worse than microsoft in regards to cost and software support cycle.
You dont need to spend a huge amount of cash every few years on hardware and software. if you buy decently priced hardware it will last along time. my first computer (viglen) that I got in 1995 still worked perfectly (before i got rid of it) but do you really expect me to run windows 95 and use a 1gb harddrive with only 32mb of ram forever? my second computer runs fine as well (dell dimension pentium 3 with 256mb of ram which is currently being used as a teamspeak server running debian linux). do you expect microsoft to be able to support their older operating systems for say 15 years or more? they may be the biggest software company but they still have limits of money and man power.

I feel that printers are more wasteful than computers in regards to recycling and the environment. if you buy a cheap printer its cheaper to buy a new printer each time you want new ink which means you talking about potentially dumping the printer every few months. Going back to the old argument of buying a decent pair of shoes is better than buying a cheap pair and buying three or four.

 

I bought a cheap printer once (Canon) & I thought it was a great bargain, especially as I had quite limited funds at the time. After a while the inkjets get blocked & when I enquired about this I was told it would be easier & cheaper to buy a new cheap printer than fixing it. I think that is a waste, my mobile phone is over four years old & its still going strong! I'll keep using that until it finally expires.

 

It goes far beyond that. Gullible Jones hit several of the reasons. The e-waste problem is major if you don't live close to such a recycling center. The closest here is many hours away. A lot of that hardware is completely functional, thrown away only because MS says it's unsupported. Their planned obsolescence policy is directly responsible for generating that waste. They should bear the cost of recycling it. Lodore mentions an early Win95 unit with 32 MB RAM. No, it's not really suitable for running a modern browser, but that same hardware can run a hardware firewall. I use one of those same units for that very task.

Regarding the slave labor, this refers to where these products are made. It's not just Apple who regards workers as slaves or "animals". Supporting companies that use such business models only serves to spread it. Labor jobs in this country are gradually going that way. The companies get rich while the workers are virtual slaves. There's a price to be paid for "cheaper" that's paid by the employees of these companies. In the end, that will be most of the jobs.

He's definitely right on one score. It is a deliberate, viscous circle. There's no reason an OS has to continually get heavier, demanding new hardware. They're designed to go obsolete. They're deliberately designed to cause incompatibility problems with earlier systems, especially with their many versions of the same DLLs. They could just as easily design them to be upgradable. We don't use operating systems. we use the software that runs on these operating systems. There's no reason for the deliberate incompatibility other than to part users from their wallets. I have better things to do with my money than giving it to one of the richest companies around every few years to replace something that isn't broken.

There is no good solution as long as corporate greed is allowed to dictate when we spend money. The unofficial upgrades aren't an ideal solution by far, but they're much better than some would imagine. They're not good options for the average user, but for someone who enjoys working with their system, the results can be amazing. No, it will never be an ideal solution, not as long as the processor, chipset, and hardware vendors march in lockstep to Microsoft's demands.

 

Ain't that the truth!