Why Firefox v43.0.1 in Windows XP Pro SP3?

[Ant]

Hello.

Why is http://getfirefox.com/ giving me v43.0.1 instead of v45 in
Windows XP Pro SP3?
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/system-requirements/ says
Windows XP SP2 is supported. I assume SP3 as well. Is this a bug or by
design? :(

Thank you in advance. :)
--
"... Our latest evil plan and create an army of giant ants to take over
the galaxy..." --Dark Helmet from Spaceballs: The Animated Series (S1 E3).
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see
this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Good Guy]

On 18/03/2016 20:56, Ant wrote:

Hello.

Why is http://getfirefox.com/ giving me v43.0.1 instead of v45 in Windows XP Pro SP3? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/system-requirements/ says Windows XP SP2 is supported. I assume SP3 as well. Is this a bug or by design? :(

Thank you in advance. :)

Have you tried clicking on syatems & Languages link?  See this picture:

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.482.1458341153...@lists.mozilla.org>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Why is http://getfirefox.com/ giving me v43.0.1 instead of v45 in
> Windows XP Pro SP3?
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/system-requirements/ says
> Windows XP SP2 is supported. I assume SP3 as well. Is this a bug or
> by design? :(
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

It's by design. The >43.0.1 installers won't run on all patch levels of
Win XP and the site can't tell what SP level you have.

If you must have a 45 installer, dig down from
<https://archive.mozilla.org/>.

[Ellen Hall]

 

"Good Guy" <hello...@example.com> wrote in message news:mailman.515.1458341611...@lists.mozilla.org...

++++++++++++++++++

 

Ant: I have XP SP3 and got 45.0.1. It scrambled a bunch of settings (vertical tabs & tree stuff) but it's here.

Ellen

[Ant]

>> Why is http://getfirefox.com/ giving me v43.0.1 instead of v45 in
>> Windows XP Pro SP3?
>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/system-requirements/ says
>> Windows XP SP2 is supported. I assume SP3 as well. Is this a bug or by
>> design? :(
>>
>> Thank you in advance. :)
>
> Have you tried clicking on syatems & Languages link? See this picture:
>

> Systems & Languages
> <http://content.screencast.com/users/JT19560819/folders/Jing/media/0d1bb7c2-c176-4062-bb4e-6ab93d391563/2016-03-18_2250.png>

Yes, but why not v45 by default?
--
"Whence we see spiders, flies, or ants entombed and preserved forever in
amber, a more than royal tomb." --Sir Francis Bacon in Historia Vitæ et
Mortis; Sylva Sylvarum, Cent. i. Exper. 100.

[Ant]

>> Why is http://getfirefox.com/ giving me v43.0.1 instead of v45 in
>> Windows XP Pro SP3?
>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/system-requirements/ says
>> Windows XP SP2 is supported. I assume SP3 as well. Is this a bug or
>> by design? :(
>

> It's by design. The >43.0.1 installers won't run on all patch levels of
> Win XP and the site can't tell what SP level you have.
>
> If you must have a 45 installer, dig down from
> <https://archive.mozilla.org/>.

Interesting. What happened to change the installers?
--
"When the water rises the fish eat the ants, when the water falls the
ants eat the fish." --Thai Proverb

[Mayayana]

| Yes, but why not v45 by default?

I just go here:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

The website is too "helpful" to use. :)

[»Q«]

> > The >43.0.1 installers won't run on all patch levels of Win XP and
> > the site can't tell what SP level you have.

> Interesting. What happened to change the installers?

I don't remember any details, but the change was made to support some
security feature or requirement of later Windows, and compliant
installers can't be made compatible with some XP patch levels.

[»Q«]

> > Have you tried clicking on syatems & Languages link? See this
> > picture:
> >
> > Systems & Languages
> > <http://content.screencast.com/users/JT19560819/folders/Jing/media/0d1bb7c2-c176-4062-bb4e-6ab93d391563/2016-03-18_2250.png>
>
> Yes, but why not v45 by default?

Clicking that won't work either, as long as you're using a browser
which identifies your OS as XP.

[Christian Riechers]

On 03/19/2016 02:58 AM, Ant wrote:
>>> Why is http://getfirefox.com/ giving me v43.0.1 instead of v45 in
>>> Windows XP Pro SP3?
>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/system-requirements/ says
>>> Windows XP SP2 is supported. I assume SP3 as well. Is this a bug or
>>> by design? :(
>>
>> It's by design. The >43.0.1 installers won't run on all patch levels of
>> Win XP and the site can't tell what SP level you have.
>>
>> If you must have a 45 installer, dig down from
>> <https://archive.mozilla.org/>.
>
> Interesting. What happened to change the installers?

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/get-latest-version-firefox-windows-xp-vista

[VanguardLH]

Ant wrote:

>>> Why is http://getfirefox.com/ giving me v43.0.1 instead of v45 in
>>> Windows XP Pro SP3?
>>> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/45.0/system-requirements/ says
>>> Windows XP SP2 is supported. I assume SP3 as well. Is this a bug or
>>> by design? :(
>>
>> It's by design. The >43.0.1 installers won't run on all patch levels of
>> Win XP and the site can't tell what SP level you have.
>>
>> If you must have a 45 installer, dig down from
>> <https://archive.mozilla.org/>.
>
> Interesting. What happened to change the installers?

Something of the latest versions of Firefox require a minimum level of
service pack 2 for Windows XP.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/43.0/system-requirements/

I figure winver.exe can show the service pack level so there is probably
an API to return the OS version, edition, and service pack level.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/423391/windows-api-to-determine-service-pack-version
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724451%28VS.85%29.aspx

So once the Windows version has been determined, the code would know
whether to use GetVersionEx or IsWindowsXPSP2OrGreater. So it looks
like checking for service pack level is doable but needs to be added
into Firefox's installer program.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-no-longer-works-some-versions-windows-xp

I found that article but it has no datestamp. The Firefox versions seem
a bit ancient. A few more details at:

http://readwrite.com/2012/01/28/firefox-support-ending-for-win/

At the page below, Mozilla talks about a 2-step process if you want to
do a full install and then follow with incremental updates using the
built-in updater in Firefox.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/get-latest-version-firefox-windows-xp-vista

So you could start with 43.0.1 and then incrementally update to 45.0.1
or just get the 45.0.1 full download (or whatever is the latest
available) and start from that.

[Mayayana]

| So you could start with 43.0.1 and then incrementally update to 45.0.1
| or just get the 45.0.1 full download (or whatever is the latest
| available) and start from that.

See Christian Reichers' link. There should be no
problem on XP SP3 once the installer has been
obtained. It's just a problem getting past the
guidance at the main website.

There must be very few people on XP who do
not have SP3. One wonders why they don't just
build a check into the installer and then show
an informative message if it's XP without SP3.
(As in: "Hey Swifty! What's with not installing
SP3?!" :)

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.545.1458396058...@lists.mozilla.org>,

"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> There must be very few people on XP who do
> not have SP3. One wonders why they don't just
> build a check into the installer and then show
> an informative message if it's XP without SP3.
> (As in: "Hey Swifty! What's with not installing
> SP3?!" :)

Building extra checks into the installers is more work, and even with
such a check won't help Swifty until Swifty has already downloaded an
installer that's useless for him. Giving all XP users an installer
that works plus the built-in updater to get them to the latest Fx seems
like a better idea to me. The percentage of the XP-using population
who is annoyed by this must be even smaller than the percentage on
SP1. ;)

[Mayayana]

| Building extra checks into the installers is more work,

But really very little work. Convenience and
system integrity are the whole point of an installer,
after all. If it can't be depended on to know
where and where not to install then it's a faulty
installer.

What is Mozilla making now? Something like
$300 million/year? Surely they can afford a
day to have someone fix and test the installer.

| such a check won't help Swifty until Swifty has already downloaded an
| installer that's useless for him. Giving all XP users an installer
| that works plus the built-in updater to get them to the latest Fx seems
| like a better idea to me.

The check will tell Swifty what's wrong. People
can then make an informed decision. And anyone
who actually has SP1 may be helped. They probably
don't know.

The problem with the current approach is demonstrated
by the very existence of this thread: Ant had no way of
knowing what to do until he asked and was told. He was
not informed that his download was being restricted, or
why. Even then, the official solution is a hassle. Once Ant
knows the problem there's no sense installing v. x just to
update to x+. He now knows he can install x+ directly.
He only needed to know how to get it. Surely someone
could take the time to mark the download links as
"XP SP3 Only. Click here for details."

So really the problem is with Mozilla's overboard
attempt to control access from the website. Very
little software or hardware will now run on XP
without SP3, so SP1/2 will be rare. I understand that
the website filter is meant to simplify things, but
that's at the cost of clarity. It assumes people have
zero ability to think for themselves. And it can't
actually work properly because the userAgent cannot
tell you the OS version dependably, much less whether
SP3 is installed. (There is a marker for SP2, which is
inexplicably "SV1". But even that shouldn't be depended
on.)

I go around in circles myself trying to simply find
the download links. (After I've found the right domain!)
After doing that a few times I stopped visiting the
site at all. I now just go directly to the FTP site.

| The percentage of the XP-using population
| who is annoyed by this must be even smaller than the percentage on
| SP1. ;)

I doubt that. As noted, *very* few people using
XP will have SP1 at this point. But why quibble
over whether it's better to eat with no fork or to
eat with no spoon? Why not just fix the installer
and stop second-guessing? If the website can't
recognize SP3 (which it can't from the userAgent)
then there's just no justification for the current
design. (I happen to use XP SP3 myself, but have
a userAgent saying I'm on Win7, for the sake of
better privacy. Anyone who knows enough to
use Firefox is far more likely to know about userAgent
options than the average person.)

I do appreciate, though, that Mozilla at least
still makes FF for XP. The people at Pale Moon
stopped awhile back, unfortunately.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.515.1458400254...@lists.mozilla.org>,

"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | Building extra checks into the installers is more work,
>
> But really very little work.

More than should be spent on XP users. ;)

> Convenience and system integrity are the whole point of an installer,
> after all. If it can't be depended on to know
> where and where not to install then it's a faulty
> installer.

There's no integrity issue here -- it won't install Firefox on the XPs
where it can't.

> | such a check won't help Swifty until Swifty has already downloaded
> an | installer that's useless for him. Giving all XP users an
> installer | that works plus the built-in updater to get them to the
> latest Fx seems | like a better idea to me.
>
> The check will tell Swifty what's wrong.

The present set-up is better because it prevents Swifty from going
wrong in the first place.

> And anyone who actually has SP1 may be helped. They probably
> don't know.

> The problem with the current approach is demonstrated
> by the very existence of this thread: Ant had no way of
> knowing what to do until he asked and was told.

He didn't say he didn't know what to do. I can't speak for Ant, but I
believe he knew that he could run the installer the site offered him
and that the updater could get him to the current Fx. And that's what
would happen to people who *don't* know, since the auto-updater is on
by default.

> He was not informed that his download was being restricted, or
> why. Even then, the official solution is a hassle. Once Ant
> knows the problem there's no sense installing v. x just to
> update to x+. He now knows he can install x+ directly.
> He only needed to know how to get it. Surely someone
> could take the time to mark the download links as
> "XP SP3 Only. Click here for details."

You've convinced me that if this is a problem at all, it is an
extremely trivial one and that any effort to solve it would be a
complete waste of time.

> I go around in circles myself trying to simply find
> the download links. (After I've found the right domain!)
> After doing that a few times I stopped visiting the
> site at all. I now just go directly to the FTP site.

I think (ICBW) you posted links to ftp.mozilla.org. Now that they've
stopped ftp access, that subdomain might go away any time, though for
now it's still an alias for their Cloudfront server(s). They recommend
archive.mozilla.org, another alias for the same thing.

> | The percentage of the XP-using population
> | who is annoyed by this must be even smaller than the percentage on
> | SP1. ;)
>
> I doubt that.

Not me. I've only run across two people, including you, being annoyed
by it. (Well, a few people became annoyed after the first annoyed
person, in another group, brought it to their attention, but otherwise
they would have remained blissfully unaware.)

IMO, us typing back and forth opinions about this trivia is more effort
than should be expended on it. ;)

> I do appreciate, though, that Mozilla at least
> still makes FF for XP. The people at Pale Moon
> stopped awhile back, unfortunately.

They decided to support it, but only with builds optimized for Atom.
<https://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-atom.shtml>

[crossposted, followups set to mozilla.general]

[Mayayana]

| > | Building extra checks into the installers is more work,
| >
| > But really very little work.
|
| More than should be spent on XP users. ;)
|

As 10% of Windows users? Then I think you're
right: We're wasting time talking about this. All
the more so if you represent, in some measure,
the official views of the Mozilla people.

But thank you for the updated archive URL. I
wasn't aware of that.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.550.1458408236...@lists.mozilla.org>,

"Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | > But really very little work.
> |
> | More than should be spent on XP users. ;)
> |
>
> As 10% of Windows users?

I wouldn't advocate against doing *any* work to benefit XP users, and
Mozilla do work to benefit them. But the unnecessary effort you
advocate spending in this case would at most benefit some extremely
small percentage of that 10%, and even for that tiny group the benefit
would be negligible.

> Then I think you're right: We're wasting time talking about this. All
> the more so if you represent, in some measure, the official views of
> the Mozilla people.

I don't represent any official views of Mozilla, but whatever their
reasons, they've made the same decision I would have about how to handle
this installer business.

> But thank you for the updated archive URL. I wasn't aware of that.

I'm glad something a little bit helpful came from this
digression. :)

[Ant]

Interesting and thanks. :)
--
"An ant can do more than an ox that is lying down." --unknown