{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreighvpu7afdupxyapqhhp6jemkhwymznbrlb5y7qoouupiyk3ox2fm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mo54736l5cs2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33365&p=275563#p275563",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-13T00:36:16.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> My opinion is that there's a difference between being a bit behind but trying to move forward slower, and just picking an era and freezing it. That's the frustration. See, my mental model was that the users expected X number of years of legacy support, maybe wanted a longer tail, but now I'm getting frustrated because they seem to want a specific era of hardware/software to be supported forever no matter how far out it gets. They don't care if it's 10 years, 20 years, maybe even 30 years out, they want the exact same thing and won't bring their expectations in line at all. I think that's what I'm getting annoyed with... like, let me explain my mindset a little. I don't think staying on XP during the Vista era and early during the 7 era was so bad. I don't think staying on 7 through the Windows 8 and early Windows 10 era was so bad... like, yeah, you can use older stuff... but after a certain point it gets a little ridiculous.\n>\n> People think I am a tech optimist or something... it's really more like I'm looking at this in terms of years of legacy support and the difficulty of supporting an aging stack as it gets further and further out of date. There's just... in my mind, a certain point at which it stops being reasonable to use something older as a daily driver. Hopefully that makes sense and will be enough to get people to stop calling me out. LOL. :/\n>\n> The way I look at it is this... no one gets mad we don't support Windows 3.11, no one gets mad we don't support Windows 95, no one gets mad we don't support Windows 2000. Some people get mad we don't support XP... then all of a sudden, you go past that era, and everyone is screaming at you that it's not okay to drop anything and acting like you're a traitor or thinking like a big corporation if you even suggest it. It's really annoying.\n>\n\nHello, Windows Vista, 7, 8 user here, and I think it may be valuable to add another perspective to the discussion even if it's a bit off-topic in the GTK2 thread here\n\nFirst thing I want to say is the **reason** I use Pale Moon is **not because it supports Windows 7** , nowadays there are also forks of both Firefox and Chromium for older systems and both work well, even have the nice Aero Glass effect on the titlebar ,\nI use Pale Moon for privacy, addons, security and it not getting in the way with popups and weird behavior.\n\nWould I stop using Pale Moon if no variant of it worked on Vista/7/8 - **yes, but** this is quite unlikely to happen as there already is a well-maintained XP fork by Roytam1, I don't prefer it because it has more of a beta-style release schedule, and I like the official logo and about banner art, but these are still pretty minor things and you get the point. And another one for Windows 7 may very well be created.\nI also believe that people back then could have been more mad at the way one of the developers who is no longer working here handled the situation than the fact of the support being removed. (That being said XP and 7 are kinda special in a way they are the last ones of an era, and at the same time still very much usable to this day unlike say 95 or 98)\n\nSo as long as there is a clear path for a community fork for Windows 7 to exist (official branding or not), I don't mind that much that it won't be the official build (I already have to use the SSE2 buid on Vista). So I think the current way the project is being handled which is staying on VS2022 while reasonable and than moving forward is the right way to go, just please don't break things where it actually requires effort do so, like artificial version blocks, like some corporations do.\n\nNow a little bit of rationale why I still use those older Windows versions:\n1. When buying PC hardware without infinite budget, there is often the choice of either going for the old flagship thing or the new mid/low end. The current mid/low end usually has the advantage of being higher performance, but the old flagship usually comes ahead in the build quality, keyboard and overall feel. So why not have both advantages by buying the old model and installing the older operating system for a responsive snappy experience\n2. The older the software and newer the hardware the faster everything runs (assuming it runs at all and drivers are available). Devs usually optimize for the current era hardware until it runs well-enough so running an older operating system on new hardware is the only way you can get the best performance and lowest background activity percentage & battery savings.\n3. Older software usually has much better privacy and less annoyances\n4. Perhaps the most important one: updates on both current Linux and Windows sometimes break things and I like knowing that the next day when I have something important to do my computer will work in exactly the same predictable way it did the previous day. And if it doesn't it's much easier to diagnose hardware failure if you know software hasn't changed.\n5. I like the Aero design\n\nSo there are valid reasons for using older operating systems, yes, I didn't mention the downsides the most important being the lack of security patches. I do what I can by blocking ports with firewall and disabling services, and I also wouldn't run an old server, so it's not for every use case and not for everyone.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Other/future projects • Re: GTK2 revival",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-13T00:36:16.000Z"
}