Older web browsers

Page 1 of 2  
I think it was on this group that there was a discussion a while back about older versions of Firefox . Seems there was a particular version that was stable and very functional , but before it got too bloated . I have alink to the older version library , anyone remember which version was the "best" ?
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't know about that, but for years, I've been losing tabs when FF crashed, and maybe even when I closed it normally.
I'd definitely lose recently opened tabs and still have recently closed tabs. In one case, "recent" mean anything in the last 13 hours.
So I installed Session Manager and things are much better. Maybe perfect. I thought, since the whole purpose is to save sessions, it would do that autmoatically,m but I think I had to go into options and set a time that it would store the session, every N minutes, before it actually started working. I chose 3 or 7, one of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/26/2016 11:00 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:

For security reasons and site-rendering capabilities I'd recommend not using an older browser.
One thing that seems to degrade Firefox is some of the add-ons which I keep to an absolute minimum.
Additionally, there are so many alternatives.
Besides the well know Chrome there are these browsers as well:
Vivaldi
Maxthon
Brave Browser
Opera
I've been using Vivaldi a lot lately and really like it.
Maxthon is very good , especially for those who like an alternative to Internet Explorer.
Nice thing about Opera is that XP is still supported
Brave Browser is still in Beta but has the ability to block all ads.
I've tried it and found it works fine on Win10 but (at least for me) did not work at all on Win7
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 6:11:47 AM UTC-4, philo wrote:

+1
It isn't too long before older browsers typically start having problems with newer sites.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/27/2016 07:30 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I've been using Vivaldi extensively for the past few days and really like it.
Some here may want to give it a try.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wont even use FF above version 20. What once was a great browser is not a bloated memory hogging piece of shit.
Seamonkey and Kmeleon work well and are more what FF used to be.
I wont even touch Chrome with all the built in spyware.
I never even heard of Vivaldi. I'll have to try it.
Opera is total and complete garbage. I hated it in the 90's and still hate it after trying nearly every version until 3 or 4 years ago, when I decided that it will never get any better so the hell with it.
Never heard of Brave Browser either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/29/2016 08:35 PM, snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moo wrote:

You might try Pale Moon. Seamonkey is tied to the Firefox code base. Pale Moon is a fork going its separate way with the Goanna engine rather than Gecko.
Pale Moon does require processors with the SSE2 instruction set but that includes almost anything in the last 15 years other than elderly AMD processors like the Athlon XP.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

About 2 or 3 years ago, I tried to install it. It refused to install. The computer was not a top of the line new machine, but it was no slug either. I dont recall what processor it had. I no longer have the computer, since I sold it. All I know is I was running XP-pro, SP3.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/30/2016 04:20 AM, snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moo wrote:

It probably was an AMD processor. Intel came up with the SSE2 instructions and it took a while for AMD to implement them. There was nothing wrong with the AMD's and I preferred them but they just didn't have SSE2.
A few years ago we were trying to install software from a major GIS company. The installation went fine on most machines, but failed on others with no reported errors. I worked with the company to solve the problem and it turned out to be SSE2. They weren't even aware of it. The compiler optimizations used the instructions by default and everything they tested on was Intel. I wound up writing a little assembler program to incorporate into our installation package. It was only a few lines but tried to use a SSE2 instruction. If it failed, we knew the software could not be installed on that machine.
As a user, I have no problem with older machines and operating systems. However, when I put my programmer hat on for my day job, supporting older systems is a pain in the ass. My approach is if our software runs on your Windows 2000 box, great. If it doesn't, you're SOL.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stop using Firefox and change to Seamonkey. Seamonkey is from the same ppl who bring you Firefox (Mozilla), only Seamonkey is more like the older, much-missed, Netscape. More control, all-in-one suite, uses same plug-ins, etc. Seamonkey is like Firefox dragged back to its Netscape days. It has tabs, sure, but I turn 'em all off.
FF seem to be headed down that we-know-better-than-you road, the one where a "if it ain't broke, it needs more features" mindset prevails and non-stop bloat seem to be the goal. SM is yer solution. ;)
Actually, SM has a lotta issue, too. Like FF, it has an ungodly amount of bloat, already. While the user has much more control via "preferences". It also has more intuitive interface. FF has become so arcane, I cannot even find some features. Like, how does one "open file"? I can no longer find this feature on regular FF menus. 8|
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

?
My Firefox menu: File -> Open File
Of course one could always type a URL beginning with:
file://
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have Firefox 24.1, which is at least 2 yrs old. The "menu" button is 3 horiz lines, stacked vertically. I selected it and there is no "file" selection to be seen, anywhere.
So, I finally found the "customize" feature and eventually found the "open file" icon and I dragged/dropped it to the "regular" menu. B4 that, I used Ctrl-o from my keyboard to open a file. Problem solved, so thanks fer that. ;)
I use Seamonkey as my primary browser, but all locked down with NoScript and cookies disabled. If I need real interaction with a certain website, I'll use FF with no security plug-ins and cookies enabled. The reason I didn't know about FF's "open file" icon is simple. I don't use it, much. Also, Seamonkey has all that cool old-school stuff, like full menus. It's Firefox that keeps hiding all it's security features and claiming, "NEW! and improved". Whatta crock.
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I have Firefox 24.1, which is at least 2 yrs old. The "menu" button | is 3 horiz lines, stacked vertically. I selected it and there is no | "file" selection to be seen, anywhere. |
You have to find the View options and select Menu Bar. Then it will be back to normal. I can't imagine what inexperienced people do. Those bars don't imply that there's something useful to click there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2016-04-27 1:21 PM, Mayayana wrote:

--
Froz....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a case of difficulty, but of knowledge.
I knew of ALT-f (first letter of menu group) from my old browser days, but did not know merely "tapping the ALT key" would pop-up a usable menu. Again, more due to ignorance from lack of use, than anything else. Thank you, kindly, fer that excellent tip. ;)
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have no "View" selection nor can I imagine what yer talking about.
nb --experienced enough to dump Windows
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course you have no View selection, you have the menu bar turned off. Try Alt-V.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have the Menu Bar turned off. Select View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar

I've been using NoScript for a while now. Every once in a while I'll get confused since one or more site functions won't work. But for someone that is willing to deal with those kind of issues, I almost recommend NoScript.
Stopping cookies? I don't see the point. There is private browsing.

Hmm...
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I think it was on this group that there was a discussion a while back | about older versions of Firefox . Seems there was a particular version that | was stable and very functional , but before it got too bloated . I have | alink to the older version library , anyone remember which version was the | "best" ? |
There are stable versions periodically that get supported. Those are designed for companies and Linux builders who want to keep one version for awhile. 24, 31, 38, 45 all have those "esr" versions.
http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/
It doesn't mean much for most people. It's more important to corproate IT people who like to test any software changes.
I currently use Pale Moon 24 with most things disabled. I then have FF 36 wwith NoScript for times when I need to allow an interactive webpage. Why 36? No real reason. I generally install a new version when necessary for some reason. If it works I avoid anything newer because these days newer is usually worse. One big factor is extensions. Newer extensions won't work with older versions. So you need to either keep copies of the older extensions or update FF to support newer extensions.
Aside from that I don't find any big differences. The Mozilla people keep breaking things, so with each new FF I install I need another 1 or 2 extensions to fix it. So far that's worked for me. I now have FF38 on a life support system of about 8 extensions and some userChrome customization. But I always fear that the next update will be unfixable.
There are also tradeoffs with functionality. Google, especially, has become obnoxious with their constant demanding of newer browser versions. But you can avoid that problem to some extent by spoofing the userAgent. (I'm on XP with FF 38 but I travel as Win7 with FF45 or some such. I update it periodically to look generic.)
It's a rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. Firefox is going downhill. IE was never safe to use. Edge has broken all IE functionality and still has the fatal flaw of being built into the OS. Chrome is spyware. Vivaldi, which many people are talking about, is extremely limited crapware. I can't understand why anyone likes it.
I suspect the big difference in preferences comes down to functionality. FF is still the only browser for people who like to get under the hood or customize. Browsers like Chrome and Vivaldi are a new trend in convenience: Consumer browsers with few controls or settings to fret about. Just lots of big buttons on the home screen to take you to your shopping destination. They repesent the changing face of computers. If you want to use a highly functional computer to do various things then you probably want FF. If you want to shop on a tablet or phone then Chrome may seem better designed. I get the feeling that the Mozilla people may be trying to straddle those two camps, creating a self-driving shopping vehicle but also allowing 3rd-parties to put back the steering wheel for people who want that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/26/2016 11:00 PM, Terry Coombs wrote:

How about the original Mosaic if you have a turn of the century computer... ftp://ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Mosaic/Windows/v3.0/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.