Yandex seemingly is the only major Web browser for Windows 7/8.1 that still gets updated regularly

[Redaktion]

Whereas Chrome 109, Opera 95 and most other Chromium-based Web browsers for Windows 7/8.1 got their last update in January 2023, Yandex 24.1.4 is built around Chromium 120 and is therefore a lot safer to use. One will have to change several settings first to make the application useable, though.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Yandex-seemingly-is-the-only-major-Web-browser-for-Windows-7-8-1-that-still-gets-updated-regularly.819406.0.html

[Just someone from the WWW]

Firefox 115 ESR gets security updates occasionally but no feature updates

What 'feature updates' you need from Web Browser? They seem all to be only about collecting more telemetry and user data.
"No new features" seems more like a pro and less than a con for me.

[Hunter2020]

On my Windows 7 machine, I dual boot Deepin Linux.  I noticed some banking websites stopped working with the last Windows 7 FireFox. This is where Deepin Linux comes in handy as their built-in Deepin web browser is based on the latest Chromium open source project and always gets updated accordingly.

[Anonymous111]

Good attempt, comrade major.

[Sеrgey]

"No new features" seems more like a pro and less than a con for me.

I pretty much agree but it would be foolish to expect everybody to have the same opinion as the two of us do, would it not. Besides, it usually is easy to turn off features that are useless or annoying.

I dual boot Deepin Linux

Oh, I know what that is. It looked lovely when I tried installing it a year or two ago, but did not at all run well on my budget, Celeron N3350-powered laptop. The music player would make screeching noises every few seconds when playing back MP3 files (I guess it was a DPC latency issue) and the Wi-Fi adapter would be slow as hell at just a hundred kilobytes per second. Worse still, every other device connected to the same network would become just as slow.

But, hey, as long as it works for you, why not.

I noticed some banking websites stopped working with the last Windows 7 FireFox.

Seriously? Why would they? Have you tried changing the user agent to something like Firefox 119?

[A]

I wouldn't trust a Yandex browser to begin with. And there are likely other forked browsers out there. But end of the day, Windows 7 is not getting any more security updates, so you should switch away anyways. If your system can't run newer windows, go with Linux

Firefox 115 ESR gets security updates occasionally but no feature updates

What 'feature updates' you need from Web Browser? They seem all to be only about collecting more telemetry and user data.
"No new features" seems more like a pro and less than a con for me.

The spec is ever changing. For example take declarative shadow dom which is only possible in FireFox 123+. It lets websites server side render the shadow dom for web components, which would increase page loading for those using web components

On my Windows 7 machine, I dual boot Deepin Linux.  I noticed some banking websites stopped working with the last Windows 7 FireFox. This is where Deepin Linux comes in handy as their built-in Deepin web browser is based on the latest Chromium open source project and always gets updated accordingly.

All linux distros come with Chromium and FireFox for install that continues to get updates, this isn't limited to the Chinese government sponsored Deepin

There is no reason for websites to suddenly stop working with latest firefox unless they switched to some feature that isn't in firefox 115. But a website would be crazy to do that without deploying polyfills. Maybe it happened back when you had firefox 110? There was the weird thing where some software misread firefox's 110 useragent as IE 11 making it run some IE only code and breaking stuff but that issue has been fixed by temporarily locking it at 109

[NikoB]

Windows 7 is not getting any more security updates

A blatant and shameless lie. M$ continues to use taxpayer money, at least in the US, to create security patches for Windows. As part of supporting hardware on it for government agencies and the US Army.

It is immoral to create security patches (and possibly some functionality changes) using taxpayers' money and not publish them to everyone. Moreover, from human logic, this is immoral even in the case of patches made through a paid subscription to private companies around the planet. Simply because the work was done anyway and concerns safety.

Only the endless stupidity of ordinary taxpayers in the United States leads to such immoral consequences.

--
Hurry and shameless lies. M $ continues to create security patches for Windows for at least the US money for at least the US. In the framework of the support of iron on it for state structures and the US Army.

This is immoral - creating security patches (and possibly some changes in functionality), on the money of taxpayers, do not publish them to everyone. Moreover, from human logic, it is immoral even in the case of patches made by paid subscription to private companies throughout the planet. Just because the work has been done anyway and concerns security.

Only the endless stupidity of ordinary taxpayers in the United States leads to such immoral consequences.

As for the topic of supporting sites for Windows to a naive response from a participant in the topic "Just Someone from the www".

Literally this morning, I found in W7 that the site of a large marketplace in my country stopped showing pictures of goods in chrome 109, the last for W7. What forces will switch to W10, although it is disgusting as a system with its ugly and non -compact UI (compared to the classical theme in W7, which is perfectly compact) and much more inhibitory on the same gland. Which is also a proven fact.

Obviously, the reason for this was the illiteracy of stupid developers of the platform of this marketplace. Who do not care about compatibility even in such a primitive case. And they do not care, because the share of users on W7 has become not interesting for them. Despite the fact that W7 users were squeezed out from it initially on the filthy W10.

It is precisely such moments that lead to a forced transition of users to new OS, despite the fact that in reality the possibilities of even browsers are 5 years ago overlap all the necessary things on such marketplaces and other sites. Any screams that are not so - a lie of stupid and lazy sites of sites. They are so lazy that they cannot do elementary things without new heavy web frames.

I can write about even more idiotic things that happen on the Internet - I saw many sites that refuse to display correctly even in the last FF123, but perfectly displayed in chrome 89 (!) Versions, for example. What can be said about the developers of such sites? Only the fact that they are morons. Or rather, the owners of these sites who don't care about everything. And they do not care because Google is almost a monopolist in the market of browsers, with an overwhelming share, and FF has a smaller share, although this is clearly the best browser on the planet. It's just a browser. And the developer of the browser cannot survive without his ecosystem in the modern world, which Mozilla never had and did not have an attempt to organize it. And how the google rose (criminal methods) we all know well, because This happened before our eyes, except for generation Z, which then still wrote in diapers.

Google deliberately blocks normal work with his YouTube service in other browsers, especially FF. This is easily proving in practice and long -known facts.

Bastards in Google deliberately spoil people with muddy fonts, use erroneous black and white smoothing, which, again easily proved and I have proved many times, at least start reading the chain from here: www.notebookChat.com/index.php? Topic = 191611.45#MSG584618

So that all sites work normally and are compatible with old brothers at least at the level of basic functionality (like today's idiocy with chrome 109 and the inability to now see pictures of the goods on this marketplace under W7 due to the fault of stupid developers)
We need uniform standards and strong competition. And she simply is no longer there when monsters like Google reign on the market. Which had long been necessary to take away the YouTube and crush the company itself for a dozen others. Like Intel, like M $, as a bunch of other transnational corporations, which became dangerous for civil society and the real high -quality progress of civilization.

[NikoB]

Bastards in Google deliberately spoil people with muddy fonts, use erroneous black and white smoothing, which, again easily proved and I have proved many times, at least start reading the chain from here

www.notebookchat.com/index.php?topic=191611.45#msg584618

Just look at the posted screenshots and one of them (zoomed by me) was taken by the clown Neenyah, who denied these facts and shamefully fled from that topic under the pressure of the facts!
These facts 100% prove that Google on PCs/laptops deliberately spoils the owners' eyesight with cloudy fonts due to the fact that it deliberately does not correct the incorrect grayscale font smoothing scheme in Chrome for many years.
And they have a lot of messages about this on their bug trackers, but they deliberately ignore it biggest bug in Chromium and Chrome.

Now unable to bear it, M$ herself began to edit the stupid Chromium code instead of the villains from Google, but again did not solve the problem at the root, as it should be done with correct gray-scale antialasing for fonts as was do it in XP.

[NikoB]

As for the Yandex browser - never use KGB products! Neither Kaspersky nor Yandex. These are all companies owned through KGB front chains.

They are now trying to force the population, as previously in Kyrgyzstan and other former Asian republics of the USSR, to switch to state root-level "security" certificates, simply by disconnecting from state services all citizens who refuse to use their backdoor root certificates. And in much the same way they force citizens to give up foreign postal services, not allowing them to register on government and now private services. At the same time, the main email services in Russia - Mail.ru and Yandex force users to enter a phone number, de-anonymizing the owner in the legal field. Much the same as the villains at Google also force you to enter a phone number when registering (and as I wrote earlier, they meanly refuse to copy a backup ordered from an old account, without being linked to a phone number, for the absurd reason that double authorization has not been established, although the owner I've already logged into my account and can easily read everything that's there!). Or like the villain Pavel Durov, who lies to ordinary fools that his service is safe and anonymous. I lied like that from the start. Fools write seditious things there in Russia, and then these fools are imprisoned. As in Facebook/Instramm, which is officially banned in Russia, which does not prevent the totalitarian authorities of Russia from submitting requests to Meta and seizing people through forced linking of phone numbers to accounts at the request of Meta and the totalitarian Zuckerberg.

Or how Google blocks the return of opposition sites and data in search queries in Russia (by directly writing in the search results that some content has been removed at the request of the Russian authorities), despite the fact that it allegedly does not officially cooperate with the Russian authorities.

Or like the entire immoral Western business, which duplicitously declares that it does not work in the Russian Federation, but in fact remains there, 90% of companies, and 10% simply hide the fact of their presence and spending advertising budgets through shell companies.

And all these immoral things are being done in front of the "civil" society in the West. Which clearly shows that the majority of the Western population are the same mental slaves. like the population of Russia or China. Nothing better. Better is only a narrow layer of people who are being destroyed everywhere and who are becoming fewer and fewer in order to resist the duplicity and immorality of the majority of the population and the authorities they have chosen with their active or passive assistance.

Recently, Volozh, one of the creators and beneficiaries of Yandex, was immorally removed from the EU sanctions list. Under the pretext that he left Russia, but this is all a cynical facade, because... in reality, it was he and the other owners of Yandex who led to the formation of the Kremlin's totalitarian machine. And they are the ones responsible for this and should be under sanctions for the rest of their lives.

The West is quietly immorally merging, gradually eliminating Ukraine from the information field. They are no longer interested in it, once it has done its job in terms of informational cover for the previous scams of the kleptocracy of the West.

Normal people see and remember all this. The only question is: how many normal, respectable and principled people are left on planet Earth?

[A]

Windows 7 is not getting any more security updates

A blatant and shameless lie. M$ continues to use taxpayer money, at least in the US, to create security patches for Windows. As part of supporting hardware on it for government agencies and the US Army.

It is immoral to create security patches (and possibly some functionality changes) using taxpayers' money and not publish them to everyone. Moreover, from human logic, this is immoral even in the case of patches made through a paid subscription to private companies around the planet. Simply because the work was done anyway and concerns safety.

You are talking about extended support, which you have to pay a yearly fee per computer

Only the endless stupidity of ordinary taxpayers in the United States leads to such immoral consequences.

I guess you naively believe that all software bought by the government should be free? Software is bought on a per license bases, the license includes security updates up until the EOL date. Beyond that, you have to pay an annual fee

There is nothing shady about this practice, Microsoft does not want to waste resources maintaining old code. You upgrade. But if for some reason you can't update, then you have to pay for Microsoft keeping staff to maintain old code. The cost of it is based on how many people they estimate would pay for it. If US government paying for it would mean everyone gets it free, MS would have to charge US government 100x the current cost

Even Ubuntu which is free, once it hits EOL you upgrade for free, but if you insist on staying on old version, you have to pay an annual fee for security updates

As for the topic of supporting sites for Windows to a naive response from a participant in the topic "Just Someone from the www".

Literally this morning, I found in W7 that the site of a large marketplace in my country stopped showing pictures of goods in chrome 109, the last for W7. What forces will switch to W10, although it is disgusting as a system with its ugly and non -compact UI (compared to the classical theme in W7, which is perfectly compact) and much more inhibitory on the same gland. Which is also a proven fact.

Obviously, the reason for this was the illiteracy of stupid developers of the platform of this marketplace. Who do not care about compatibility even in such a primitive case. And they do not care, because the share of users on W7 has become not interesting for them. Despite the fact that W7 users were squeezed out from it initially on the filthy W10.

That is just poor developers, most likely outsourced. These days, most javascript is ran in bundlers and bundlers can automatically handle polyfills. Bundlers is what killed jquery 1.x as instead of everyone using old outdated code features, bundlers can automatically produce backwards compatible versions, so you can use latest features without worrying about backwards compatibility.

I can write about even more idiotic things that happen on the Internet - I saw many sites that refuse to display correctly even in the last FF123, but perfectly displayed in chrome 89 (!) Versions, for example. What can be said about the developers of such sites? Only the fact that they are morons. Or rather, the owners of these sites who don't care about everything. And they do not care because Google is almost a monopolist in the market of browsers, with an overwhelming share, and FF has a smaller share, although this is clearly the best browser on the planet. It's just a browser. And the developer of the browser cannot survive without his ecosystem in the modern world, which Mozilla never had and did not have an attempt to organize it.

Unfortunately, there are people who don't test on all browsers, even if there are tools to automate testing. On top of that, with outsourcing many developers have 0 commitment to what they make and just copy and paste code without a care or understanding.

A reason why something may work on Chrome 89 and not FireFox 123 would be things like:

They are using an experimental feature that never made it to spec and was replaced by something else. Examples would be things like websql

Or things needing a -moz or -webkit css

Dead standard that exists but needs to be activated via expiremental flags, like webgpu which has been replaced by webgl but firefox keeps it under experimental flag

[NikoB]

Microsoft does not want to waste resources maintaining old code.

You're contradicting yourself. If M$ has already released a patch using taxpayer money, then it has already done the work. And not posting ready-made patches for everyone, made with taxpayers' money, is immoral, at a minimum. This has nothing to do with licenses, but only with the immorality of M$ management.

The normal position of a respectable person and business - if someone paid for the work and it was done with the money of all taxpayers - is to post the patches for free.

But since almost all businesses operate in accordance with the famous quote by Thomas Dunning, only civil influence on the elected authorities can oblige at the legislative level all such companies to compulsorily post corrections made with taxpayers' money.

Good question - why hasn't this been done in the US yet? But A himself answered it earlier - this is the land of corporations and systemic corruption of legislators.

They all falsely and price-consciously scream in the press about public "security"; in reality, these deceitful creatures only care about money - they don't care about public security in society at all. Despite the fact that a person has old hardware and does not want to buy new one, on which only W7 works normally.

It's one thing to yell that it requires work and money, and it's quite another immoral, like our troll A, to pretend that there are no patches, although they already exist and are paid for by taxpayers in the United States and a bunch of other countries.

The normal position of a respectable person and business - if someone paid for the work and it was done with the money of all taxpayers - is to post the patches for free.

But since almost all businesses operate in accordance with the famous quote by Thomas Dunning, only civil influence on the elected authorities can oblige at the legislative level all such companies to compulsorily public post software/firmware corrections made by taxpayers' money.

Good question - why hasn't this been done in the US yet in law? But A himself answered it earlier - this is the «land of corporations» and this mean of systemic corruption of legislators.

[A]

Microsoft does not want to waste resources maintaining old code.

You're contradicting yourself. If M$ has already released a patch using taxpayer money, then it has already done the work. And not posting ready-made patches for everyone, made with taxpayers' money, is immoral, at a minimum. This has nothing to do with licenses, but only with the immorality of M$ management.

I am not contradicting myself. You are not understanding how licensing works. The government pays $ per computer per year. They did not pay for your license.

The normal position of a respectable person and business - if someone paid for the work and it was done with the money of all taxpayers - is to post the patches for free.

That is nonsense. If the government buys 1 license of photoshop for 1 computer, you think adobe has to give it our for free to everyone simply be?

But since almost all businesses operate in accordance with the famous quote by Thomas Dunning, only civil influence on the elected authorities can oblige at the legislative level all such companies to compulsorily post corrections made with taxpayers' money.

When a price is set per year on the license, companies calculate the estimate cost for them to maintain that cost and charge that amount. If software is to be maintained longer, they will charge higher prices. If you say that government paying for it means you should get it for free means they will have to charge government a 100x higher price

I repeat again, government is not paying for the patches. They are paying for annual subscription per computer. If government pays for netflix for their offices per tv, you don't get netflix free.

End of the day, it isn't like your hardware is locked. If W7 reached EOL and you can't run the latest windows, you are free to switch to Linux

[NikoB]

I am not contradicting myself. You are not understanding how licensing works. The government pays $ per computer per year. They did not pay for your license.

You have no sense of integrity and no intuitive desire to benefit society.

You simply do not have the mindset to distinguish between licensed software and the concept of "work" with public money, which has already been paid for and can easily be made publicly available as a result, because it does not require any additional work other than posting patches on servers for everyone to download .

The government doesn't pay 100,500 times for M$ to make the same patch for the same OS or software 100,500 times for each copy. Or is it not getting through again? The patch is made 1 (one) time for all 100,500 licensed copies.
If M$ considers that 100,500 licenses multiplied by the fee for each is not enough to develop 1 (one) patch, i.e. labor costs do not pay off with a profit, upon receipt of payment in the amount of a conditional $100 x 100500 copies, then M$ refuses to develop a patch or demands an increase in the payment amount. But if she herself agreed to the level of payment, she is obliged to develop a patch as part of the contract.

And once the patch is ready, it is already paid for by all taxpayers and M$ has received payment for this work and profit. Further, this patch must be posted publicly, because it improves public safety and allows owners of old OS to secure them, because M$ made this patch with the money of these people too.

But this does not mean that someone has the right to use the software if they do not have a license for its copy, although this can be argued if a certain fee is collected from everyone in the country, in favor of all copyright holders.

For example, in my country, all storage media are subject to such a tax automatically at the state level, and this automatically excludes the average person as a defendant from any claim for the use of content (video/music, etc.) from the network, except in cases where this citizen receives from this, a clear profit - and the profit will have to be proven to the copyright holder in court, as a plaintiff.
Those. a legal entity will still have to pay to obtain the right to use the content for business purposes. But an individual can receive any content for free for personal viewing. Because the government itself forced everyone to pay a content tax and copyright holders lost the basis for lawsuits in courts against individuals, but not against entrepreneurs - because for entrepreneurs, it is possible to prove profits, and therefore losses, of the copyright holder.
If someone paid FOR WORK, which is socially useful to everyone and is copied simply by pressing a button (and not by labor costs for copying), then not posting ready-made patches with taxpayers' money is IMMORAL.

And it is immoral that US legislators have not yet passed a law on software security, according to which any company that has performed work for government agencies and services to develop patches with taxpayers' money will be obliged to make this patch freely available to everyone.

hat is nonsense. If the government buys 1 license of photoshop for 1 computer, you think adobe has to give it our for free to everyone simply be?

You're stupid? It has already been explained to you several times that no licensing has anything to do with this. The patch is made not for the license, but for the software as is. It certainly amuses me to watch you bang your head against the wall in your stupidity.

If you say that government paying for it means you should get it for free

You are lying. I never wrote that. We are only talking about patches and fixes to the system and software that people legally own.

You really are from that cohort of dishonest people who, unfortunately, have filled the entire planet. You have no understanding of integrity and the desire to benefit society. Apparently your parents and teachers raised you with such an ugly mentality. I am very sorry that you mentally cannot understand what is obvious to any sane person, because you simply don't have common sense or rational thinking.

[Quack Therapist]

stupid

I think Microsoft is currently making way too much money from cloud/AI and subscription services to care about the 3% desktop marketshare that is win 7.

[NikoB]

I don't care what M$ management thinks.

The fact is that they are already making, at the expense of taxpayers in different countries (and not just private companies), security patches for the OS that are not officially supported. And it is immoral for the authorities not to oblige them to post such patches to the public, just as it is immoral that the M$ management does not post these patches on its own. The work has already been done, the patch exists - make it publicly available. If they don't want to, they should be forced to do so by law. Like all companies, without exception, who make these corrections at the expense of taxpayers' money.