(like a home router or modem with firewall, port filters etc). On the other hand, I think it's fungible to have XP connected to the net ifĪdditional safety measures exist, like using Virtual Machines or a dedicated ("hardware") firewall that take action if something goes wrong For one, I understand the risk of using certain old systems in a modern web,ĭue to security/safety issues and out-dated standards. Personaly, Ive been torn between in this respect. In parts it seems to be the case because many IT administrators and companies there can't or refuse to upgrade existing XP systems. Perhaps it's just a national thing, not sure. I've noticed a strong aversion in German computer forums against having XP "on-line" in these days. No offense, but this is just stupid, stupid FUD.įor give me, I don't mean "to pour oil into the fire", but. No matter which browser, that's just irresponsible. No offence, but anyone accessing the Web with XP or older should be flogged. Browsing the web without noscript is nigh impossible with Firefox on very old hardware. In fact Pale Moon was compromised for some time and unknowingly distributed trojaned versions of its browser: … -browser-hackedĭoes Slimjet require SSE2? If not I might definitely try out, although it'd need to also support noscript / ublock origin as well for an optimal experience. I agree that the Firefox forks are somewhat underwhelming. It is based on older Chrome and is surprisingly compatible with a lot of th I did lose a bit on addon compatibility, but the overall experience is better for me.ĭr_st wrote: I personally use Flashpeak Slimjet 10 with XP/Vista. Lo and behold, no such problems with Slimjet. Never found a solution, and decided to try something else. I haven't tested this aspect of it, since I all systems I currently use have at least 2GB RAM.īefore Slimjet I was using Firefox forks - Pale Moon / Basilisk (also by Pale Moon team), but grew steadily unhappy with two things - loss of compatibility with modern web on old versions and unexplained sluggishness on new versions (where the browser starts fast and gradually slows down to the point that even switching tabs feels slow). The browser is fast, but may not be as memory-efficient (Chrome was never great about memory efficiency). Vista's situation is better because Vista supports more ciphers than XP natively. On XP I have a growing number of websites that won't open due to cipher mismatches. It is based on older Chrome and is surprisingly compatible with a lot of the modern web still. I personally use Flashpeak Slimjet 10 with XP/Vista.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |