Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Proposal: Raise minimum requirements for 1.9.2 on Windows to WinXP SP3
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Michael Connor  
View profile  
 More options Apr 14 2009, 12:37 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Michael Connor <mcon...@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:37:58 -0400
Local: Tues, Apr 14 2009 12:37 am
Subject: Re: Proposal: Raise minimum requirements for 1.9.2 on Windows to WinXP SP3
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On 13-Apr-09, at 11:33 PM, Mike Beltzner wrote:

> On 13-Apr-09, at 11:25 PM, Rob Arnold wrote:

>> There are new features in SP2 (mostly security related) such as the
>> IAttachmentExecute interface which the download scanner uses. We  
>> could
>> eliminate the old IOfficeAntiVirus code if we drop support for  
>> Win2k and XP
>> SP<2. The APIs are mostly the same however. We can also drop the  
>> theme
>> hackery that currently exists entirely due to supporting Windows  
>> 2000 (since
>> it lacks the uxtheme api).

> Yes, I understand the case for dropping W2K support (though we  
> should get our approximate user counts there and do that with our  
> eyes open) and think it's virtuous. It was the SP1/2 bit that I  
> didn't quite get. Aside from the IOfficeAntiVirus API, any other  
> wins that anyone knows of?

There's a number of other places this occurs.  There's also been bugs  
that were SP1-only (i.e. bug 366643, which turned up from an mxr  
search).  There were significant architectural changes with Service  
Pack 2 around security, which benefits users if it doesn't impact  
compatibility.  (Someone on IRC described it as the "Internet is  
Scary" service pack.)

Put another way, XP (no SP) and XP SP1 have been unsupported and  
unpatched for years now.  Users on those OSes are almost certainly  
vulnerable, if they're not already owned.  Any effort expended in  
supporting those users is the technical equivalent of throwing good  
money after bad.  I don't know of any software that would require  
SP1.  Other than slow-to-upgrade corporate environments (which will  
_surely_ migrate by SP2 EOL), I am unaware of anyone choosing to  
remain on lower service packs past the support date for any reason  
other than being unaware of the very real risk involved.  IE7/IE8/
Chrome already require XP SP2 or higher (I can't find data on whether  
Safari has any Service Pack-level requirements) so I don't think we  
lose anything by catching up.

>> I think we should see how Windows 7 pans out. If the result is good  
>> and
>> users migrate from XP, then we should consider dropping XP. Of  
>> course, there
>> will always be people who cling to old systems like Win2k and XP  
>> and they
>> will be vocal.

> Indeed, I think it will be a function of schedule (when will Gecko  
> 1.9.2 drop?) and market function. From what I hear in the latest  
> rumour mills, though, Windows 7 may not be as early as originally  
> expected, meaning that the XP market share is likely to stick around.

I don't think completely dropping XP is feasible for 1.9.2 unless it  
ships in 2012, given that many machines (notably netbooks) are still  
shipping with XP Home right now.

-- Mike


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google