{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreih5frjiduy6dohsekyg2uprawik3jc3zb3a6sez2rxaovokt6jzzy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkqxousjco52"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33248&p=273079#p273079",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-01T00:30:51.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> I want to support both XP and new Windows, but with how roytam1 handles his fork, I don't think that will be possible.\n\nYeah... you may actually have to keep two versions of the tree if you want to do XP. One for Windows XP (and earlier if you go that route), based on roytam's work... and another for everything else, based on ours. We use a lot of newer libraries and such that are known not to work on XP. In fact, them continuing to use that old version of NSS may well have been partly because newer versions can't be made to work on XP or earlier easily.\n\nIt's just... NT5 is too old. We can still support Windows 7 and later for now because later Windows versions are not too different under the hood, and we haven't seen a lot of newer versions of libraries we use refuse to work on 7 so far.\n\nLet's put it this way. Hypothetically if I wanted to release a version of Epyrus for Windows XP (and I don't)... I'd just build against roytam's fork for that one version and keep using real UXP for everything else. Granted, I wouldn't do that because I feel like supporting XP requires compromises I am not comfortable with, but that is what I think would be needed. I'd probably also include a nag screen reminding them exactly what version of NSS is in use, what the latest version is, describe in detail all the compromises made to support XP in the worst possible light, and beg them to use a newer version of Windows, LOL. Or least a quick \"This software has several known vulnerabilities. Use with caution.\" written in red text, maybe flashing a bit that the user would have to click away.\n\nThe roytam1 version might be a good foundation if you're wanting to do something like you were thinking earlier... like take it back further, make it compile on Windows 2000... then NT4, then maybe NT3.5 (for the cool Windows 3.x look), etc. But that's really all it would be good for, and really a thing like that is more something that should be done to show you can do it because it's cool, not something people should be relying on as a daily driver.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Other Applications • Re: Dactyloidae Browser (Basilisk fork)",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-01T00:30:51.000Z"
}