Email for XP?

John,

With OE-Quotefix, I presume.

Without. I reformat by hand. Yes, I realize that that is rather "old
school". :-)

Last time I powered up my W98 machine, the Firefox 2 (.0.0.20, IIRR) on it
still worked with some sites!

Up until just a couple of years ago I still ran v3.x (on both 98se and XP).
Though at some point it looked as if it got problems with a number of sites
I frequent, so I decided to upgrade to v52, hoping it would serve me for a
few years. Alas ...

There's also a version of Chrome that runs on XP;
.....
(Sorry can't tell you version number.)

If Chromes browser versions are documented as well as Mozillas I'm not even
going to try to find them. Sorry.

Also, is Chrome not Googles product ? That ad-driven company ? In that
case I would feel like giving a known thief the keys to my front door - not
a good idea.

I already had enough work to keep FireFox v52 from calling home every day
for ... whatever. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
John,

With OE-Quotefix, I presume.

Without. I reformat by hand. Yes, I realize that that is rather "old
school". :-)

Last time I powered up my W98 machine, the Firefox 2 (.0.0.20, IIRR) on it
still worked with some sites!

Up until just a couple of years ago I still ran v3.x (on both 98se and XP).

I think to go beyond 2.x on '9x needs kernelex, which I never got round
to learning to use properly.

Though at some point it looked as if it got problems with a number of sites
I frequent, so I decided to upgrade to v52, hoping it would serve me for a
few years. Alas ...

There's also a version of Chrome that runs on XP;
....
(Sorry can't tell you version number.)

If Chromes browser versions are documented as well as Mozillas I'm not even
going to try to find them. Sorry.

No problem. The better old-version sites often tell you (I think mostly
relaying what users have told them) which versions work with what OSes,
so if you did go looking for it, you'd probably see which was the latest
for XP.

Also, is Chrome not Googles product ? That ad-driven company ? In that
case I would feel like giving a known thief the keys to my front door - not
a good idea.

True. Though the last XP-compatible version is probably not all that
sinful in itself - the offenders probably being the websites themselves.

I already had enough work to keep FireFox v52 from calling home every day
for ... whatever. :-(

)-: indeed. I don't _think_ my v27 calls home at all, though whether
that's intrinsic or because I've cut bits off when it tried, I can't
remember now. But sadly there are a lot of sites it now won't run (run
being the operative word, as websites are now programs).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

John,

Up until just a couple of years ago I still ran v3.x (on both
98se and XP).

I think to go beyond 2.x on '9x needs kernelex, which I never got round to
learning to use properly.

In that case I must have been using v2.x too, as I never got around to
trying KernelEx out.

The better old-version sites often tell you which versions work with what
OSes,

Its not just that. I would (now) like to know beforehand what kind of
"features" a browser comes with. Like the blasted "tiles" (ad injection),
"pocket", that infamous "lense" fiasco and others that come with different
versions of FF. And thats apart of the "calling back" behaviour ofcourse.
I was never able to choose a version that would /not/ have them, as the
pertaining info was simply not there to be found (by me).

True. Though the last XP-compatible version is probably not all that
sinful in itself - the offenders probably being the websites themselves.

I would not know about Chrome, but if I may take FF as a yardstick than I
consider some of its "features" rather sinful indeed. Especially when the
disabeling of it takes a /lot/ of work deep-down - and even than does not
always stick (never been able to disable the "tiles" and "location"
callbacks)

Oh, and don't forget that "Mr Robot" fiasco either. I think that has
(also) hurt trust in them quite a bit.

But sadly there are a lot of sites it now won't run (run being the
operative word, as websites are now programs).

I consider that to be of a while different level, with the choice to "give
in" wholly mine (and I normally don't).

For the record: I've got all scripting disabled, and a plugin which blocks
all third-party content (until I white-list it on a site-to-stite base - a
webpage from domain A may connect to domain B, but a webpage from domain C
must get its own permissions).

And yes, that blocks me from most "social media", "file download", "news
outlet" and alike websites. But for some reason I do not find that all
that problematic ... :-)

Regards,
Rudy wieser.

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
[]
The better old-version sites often tell you which versions work with what
OSes,

Its not just that. I would (now) like to know beforehand what kind of
"features" a browser comes with. Like the blasted "tiles" (ad injection),
"pocket", that infamous "lense" fiasco and others that come with different
versions of FF. And thats apart of the "calling back" behaviour ofcourse.
I was never able to choose a version that would /not/ have them, as the
pertaining info was simply not there to be found (by me).

I've long thought that there should be a table of what major changes
came with what versions - Atlantis from (I think) 29, new-format-only
extensions from I think 53, and so on. Probably not practical because
(a) people would never agree on what is a "major" extension
(b) the rate of new versioning has got ridiculous.

(There probably _is_ at least one attempt at such a table, somewhere.)
[]
But sadly there are a lot of sites it now won't run (run being the
operative word, as websites are now programs).

I consider that to be of a while different level, with the choice to "give
in" wholly mine (and I normally don't).

For the record: I've got all scripting disabled, and a plugin which blocks
all third-party content (until I white-list it on a site-to-stite base - a
webpage from domain A may connect to domain B, but a webpage from domain C
must get its own permissions).

And yes, that blocks me from most "social media", "file download", "news
outlet" and alike websites. But for some reason I do not find that all
that problematic ... :-)

(-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A good pun is its own reword.

John,

I've long thought that there should be a table of what major changes came
with what versions -

That would be a nice thing to be able to look at, especially when its
maintained by Mozilla/FireFox itself.

Probably not practical because
(a) people would never agree on what is a "major" extension
(b) the rate of new versioning has got ridiculous.

:-)

The thing is that I can't even find a list of versions that contain just the
few items I mentioned (and already have been spotlighted as (putting it
mildly) not being in the users interest). Not even a basic list perhaps
created by a privacy-concious group or person.

I did find /something/ though: a list in which the standard line was
(something like) "look at the previous version, and apply the changes
mentioned here". Alas, the top of the lust (earliest versions) was gone,
making it as usefull as a long series of incremental backups - without
having the first, full backup. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser