latest firefox for Win2000?

[jbclem]

I just downloaded and tried to install Firefox 13.01...but was informed that
it would only install on WinXP sp2. So, well done Mozilla...weren't you
supposed to be the antidote to Microsoft browsers, meaning that you weren't
going to force OS upgrades down our throats.

Can someone tell me the newest version of Firefox that will work with
Windows 2000.

Thanks...jc

[Greywolf]

On 18/06/2012 4:25 AM, jbclem wrote:
> I just downloaded and tried to install Firefox 13.01...but was informed that
> it would only install on WinXP sp2. So, well done Mozilla...weren't you
> supposed to be the antidote to Microsoft browsers, meaning that you weren't
> going to force OS upgrades down our throats.
>

[...]

This has been the case from several generations of FF now. However much
you may object to later OSs, sooner or later you'll have to make an
uncomfortable decision, I'm afraid. Therefore, I offer this

Unasked for advice:

If you don't want to spend the money on a new computer, and/or a newer
Windows, and/or upgraded hardware, consider Linux. If all you want is
the basics (web, e-mail, writing, and simple image processing), Linux
will do the job, and will run very well on old hardware. It's free. I
recommend Linux Mint, after trying about a two dozen different
flavours/versions of Linux over the past two years.

You can try most Linux flavours from a Live CD, which you create after
downloading the *.iso image on the installation disk. You have to be
able to boot from CD, so check the BIOS settings etc etc etc. If Linux
runs on your hardware, it will run the latest versions of FF, too.

Have fun!
--
Best,
Wolf K.

[Anthony Papillion]

On 06/18/2012 07:58 AM, Greywolf wrote:
> On 18/06/2012 4:25 AM, jbclem wrote:
>> I just downloaded and tried to install Firefox 13.01...but was
>> informed that
>> it would only install on WinXP sp2. So, well done Mozilla...weren't you
>> supposed to be the antidote to Microsoft browsers, meaning that you
>> weren't
>> going to force OS upgrades down our throats.
>>
> [...]
>
> This has been the case from several generations of FF now. However much
> you may object to later OSs, sooner or later you'll have to make an
> uncomfortable decision, I'm afraid. Therefore, I offer this
>
> Unasked for advice:
>
> If you don't want to spend the money on a new computer, and/or a newer
> Windows, and/or upgraded hardware, consider Linux. If all you want is
> the basics (web, e-mail, writing, and simple image processing), Linux
> will do the job, and will run very well on old hardware. It's free. I
> recommend Linux Mint, after trying about a two dozen different
> flavours/versions of Linux over the past two years.

<snip>

I definitely second this! At some point you're simply going to have to
update. Software gets too complex for older systems, operating systems
run out of support, developers want to implement new features that older
systems don't support, there's a lot of reasons for having to move users
forward. And that will happen on Linux too. But it will be a much easier
time for you on Linux than it is on Windows.

I'd also add that Linux might work for you regardless of what you're
doing. It used to be that it was great for people doing basic tasks like
checking email, surfing the web, etc. Now, it's good enough for everyday
use! I've used Linux almost exclusively for the last two years as my
main operating system, run my business completely on it, and do
software development, accounting, podcast and video editing, graphics
editing, all sorts of stuff with it.

Linux is ready for today!

I'd definitely give it a try!

Anthony

[Vic Pachelbel]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:58:18 -0400, Greywolf <wek...@sympatico.ca>

wrote Re Re: latest firefox for Win2000?:

>Unasked for advice:
>
>If you don't want to spend the money on a new computer, and/or a newer
>Windows, and/or upgraded hardware, consider Linux. If all you want is
>the basics (web, e-mail, writing, and simple image processing), Linux
>will do the job, and will run very well on old hardware. It's free. I
>recommend Linux Mint, after trying about a two dozen different
>flavours/versions of Linux over the past two years.

Even easier is to stop upgrading FireFox.

[Anthony Papillion]

True, but there are all sorts of nasties that can arise then. That's
probably not a good idea.

[WLS]

Why not? They are using an operating system that hasn't been upgraded
for 2 years, and they should have been aware of that for the last 7 years.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2005/05/27/422721.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mssmallbiz/archive/2010/06/16/critical-information-for-people-running-windows-2000-and-windows-xp-sp2.aspx
--
Thunderbird (16.0a1) Daily | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.8.4
Practice Safe Computing. Create user accounts for your OS.

[dillinger]

You can still use Firefox ESR, for another year or so...
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html

[Chris Ilias]

This article should help
<http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-no-longer-works-windows-2000>.

Operating system security and browser security are separate.

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

[James Moe]

On 06/18/2012 06:33 AM, Anthony Papillion wrote:
>>
>> Even easier is to stop upgrading FireFox.
>
> True, but there are all sorts of nasties that can arise then. That's
> probably not a good idea.

Given that one reason MS dropped support of Win2k is that it was a
security disaster. Likely any browser issues will pale to insignificance
next to the OS issues.

--
James Moe
jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

James Moe wrote:

> Given that one reason MS dropped support of Win2k is that it was a
> security disaster. Likely any browser issues will pale to insignificance
> next to the OS issues.

Given that Win2000 was state of the art (for Microsoft) from 1999 until
the "prettier" XP SP1 was released, I'll say it was not a security
disaster. I used it for seven years before I switched to Linux, and never
once had any kind of security problem. Some say (still) that it was the
best OS that Microsoft ever issued. And support continued through 2010.

As with today's Windows versions, users then and now are still being
infected by shooting themselves in the foot.

Follow-up set to mozilla.general

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

[Mark Rousell]

On 18/06/2012 19:39, James Moe wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 06:33 AM, Anthony Papillion wrote:
>>>
>>> Even easier is to stop upgrading FireFox.
>>
>> True, but there are all sorts of nasties that can arise then. That's
>> probably not a good idea.
>
> Given that one reason MS dropped support of Win2k is that it was a
> security disaster. Likely any browser issues will pale to insignificance
> next to the OS issues.

Intriguingly, the control consoles on the brand new Type 45 air defence
destroyers for Royal Navy run Windows 2000.


--
MarkR

PGP public key: http://www.signal100.com/markr/pgp
Key ID: C9C5C162

[Greywolf]

On 18/06/2012 4:39 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 18/06/2012 19:39, James Moe wrote:
>> On 06/18/2012 06:33 AM, Anthony Papillion wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even easier is to stop upgrading FireFox.
>>>
>>> True, but there are all sorts of nasties that can arise then. That's
>>> probably not a good idea.
>>
>> Given that one reason MS dropped support of Win2k is that it was a
>> security disaster. Likely any browser issues will pale to insignificance
>> next to the OS issues.
>
> Intriguingly, the control consoles on the brand new Type 45 air defence
> destroyers for Royal Navy run Windows 2000.

Ooh, goody. What's the URL?

Just kidding.


--
Best,
Wolf K.

[James Moe]

On 06/18/2012 01:39 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
> Intriguingly, the control consoles on the brand new Type 45 air defence
> destroyers for Royal Navy run Windows 2000.
>

ISTR that the US Navy tried doing that a few years back. It was a
disaster. But I do not know if it was inherently a win2000 problem, or
the usual shooting-for-the-moon-and-hitting-a-rock problem.