Opera 38 not installing in Windows XP
-
A Former User last edited by
Opera 36 is the last version working on XP. Later ones won't even install.
-
ggroeller1 last edited by
experiencing the same issue ... can I find, somewhere, a 'full install' of Opera 32 (or so, ie: earlier than 36) for download? the stub installers all seem to be the same, and all produce the same end result (failure)
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Support nfor Windows XP and Windows Vista has been dropped starting on Opera 37. It's not possible to install Opera 37+ on those OS.
Download the installer from www.opera.com to install the latest build of Opera 36.
-
-
operauser-1 last edited by
so it seems, that Opera will not inform about Bugfixes or Security Leaks für old System-Users Vista/XP. Great Stuff. Really really bad!
Latest Version is 36....75
"SurfPatrol has checked your browser and its plug-ins. Detected vulnerabilities: 1"
-
-
A Former User last edited by
For future reference, I notice they added a new branch on the FTP site specifically for XP/Vista. If you need to see what the latest version is, just check here.
Guess what?
The link doesn't load any proper page in Midori on Windows.
Just so you know there are peculiarities with that... :rolleyes: -
lando242 last edited by
so it seems, that Opera will not inform about Bugfixes or Security Leaks für old System-Users Vista/XP.
If you are still running XP or Vista then clearly security and bugs are not high on your priority list to begin with.
-
-
lando242 last edited by
I own 2 of those, but don't use them much.
Nor should they be used for anything internet facing. Its just like with old cars. Just 'cause it still runs doesn't mean you should expect it too have the same features as modern cars. If you want a car with seatbelts don't try to drive one thats so old it doesn't have any.
-
palikacska last edited by
lando242 your logic is ridiculous. Hundreds of millions of working and still functional computers are becoming electronic waste because of the same attitude as yours.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Hundreds of millions of working and still functional computers are becoming electronic waste because of the same attitude as yours.
Everything has a lifetime and computers and other technological devices aren't exceptions.
IMHO a desktop lifetime turns around 6 to 8 years. After that the user will probably start facing issues and stop being able to do lots of things.And it happens because technology advances fast,softwares advance fast. The computer that easily runs a program or game today may not be able to do it in 5 years.
Well, i guess it could be a interesting topic for the Lounge.
-
palikacska last edited by
Most of the old models can survive with small fixes. I have a 10-year-old computer without problems. Of course, bloated software won't run on it. However for the daily tasks it would be available with proper software. The advancement you talk about is 90% reinventing the wheel with more resource-wasting solutions and 10% real innovation. And this doesn't belong to the lounge. It belongs here because the fact that Chromium abandoned XP will force a lot of users to trash their old computers that are still functional and will be in the next 5 years.
By the way, how long will you release security and bug fixes for the 36.X branch (that is still supported under XP)?
-
blackbird71 last edited by... Hundreds of millions of working and still functional computers are becoming electronic waste because of the same attitude as yours.
The main problem for users running out-of-support OS software is that the OS maker is now longer 'fixing' it, nor providing answers to apps developer questions related to its APIs. Conversely, most users themselves are utterly incapable of writing and inserting code fixes into a Windows OS for newly-discovered vulnerabilities or changes/improvements to 'standards', both of which will only continue to occur over time.
Certainly an aging computer with old OS software is perfectly suitable for doing the same computational functions it previously has... that reflects its 'tool' aspect. But it is not necessarily capable of being taken on line as safely or comprehensively as it once was in order to network with other systems - a reality which has significant implications for the computer's 'communications' aspect, the software supporting that, and the networked terminals with which it connects, particularly websites. An unsupported OS is frozen in time, new vulnerabilities are left unremedied, and new web standards and coding techniques remain unsupported. That's a situation with far different safety and usability impacts compared with continuing to use an old car or an aging tool.
The expectation that software apps designers should devote extensive, quality time/effort to supporting an OS that is no longer supported by its own maker is simply not reasonable. The user-base represented by the obsolete OS will only rapidly diminish over time, regardless of current usage stats. Concepts that can be incorporated into apps' coding methodologies would either be restricted by supporting an old OS that itself doesn't support them, or the apps' code would necessarily have to include all manner of 'special' code blocks and code-calls just for the obsolete OS and how it needed to operate. That, in turn, would open up additional avenues to unique security vulnerabilities that would have to be headed off or otherwise be dealt with in the app.
The simple reality is that users are free to use an old, unsupported OS and/or computer for as long as they want and their computer remains suitable. However, they have no right to expect that software makers will see things the same way. For users of an unsupported OS, the harsh reality is always a coming world of fast-diminishing availability of OS-compatible apps software and increasing performance/security degradation when accessing sites in the outside world. If the unsupported OS is running on an unsupported computer, odds are that such a user's reality will also soon include a fast-growing inability to replace critical hardware elements on his system in event of failure.
-
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
And this doesn't belong to the lounge. It belongs here because the fact that Chromium abandoned XP will force a lot of users to trash their old computers that are still functional and will be in the next 5 years.
And the fact that Microsoft abandoned XP? And what about other programs that have already abandoned or will abandon XP sooner or later?
So, this discussion belongs to the Lounge. BTW, when i said that i wasn't making a suggestion.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Most of the old models can survive with small fixes
Right, as well as old computers also can work. However, most probably they will not be able to do what newest ones do, will not have nor be able to have the sane features and the same security. Also, those fixes may become difficult to do as spare parts stop being manufactured.
However for the daily tasks it would be available with proper software.
It may depends on what those daily tasks are.
-
lando242 last edited by
If you want to continue to use a computer incapable of running a modern version of Windows while still receiving the benefits of an up to date OS just install some flavor of Linux on it. They make a version of Opera for Linux and just about every other program made for Windows has a half way decent analog available for Linux.
-
palikacska last edited by
I don't want to receive the benefits of a recent OS. I think that both business ethics and common sense would suggest that if there are bugs and security flaws in an operating system, it's due to the negligence / mistake of developers so it must be fixed even if they don't plan to add new features to that OS. Keeping up an old OS like XP is not important because I say no to progress and I think everyone should use it. Keeping up XP would have been important because Windows 7 is full of bloated and heavy-weight components that require a lot more resources than XP. So there are a lot of (older and low-end like some Intel Atoms) hardware platforms that can't run Windows 7 the way it would give a decent user experience, but Windows XP manages to do the job well. So what does this lead to? A lot of computers that are in good standing will be trashed because the average user won't risk using an outdated OS thanks to the anti-XP propaganda all around the IT news channels.
-
lando242 last edited by
I think that both business ethics and common sense would suggest that if there are bugs and security flaws in an operating system, it's due to the negligence / mistake of developers so it must be fixed even if they don't plan to add new features to that OS
Nope. Thats like saying if a book you bought has a spelling error then its the authors/publishers responsibility to send you a replacement page every time you find one. Even if the 'spelling error' is the result of the spelling changing after the book was published.
Keeping up XP would have been important because Windows 7 is full of bloated and heavy-weight components that require a lot more resources than XP.
People said the same thing about Windows XP when comparing it to Windows 3.1. Its system requirements were much steeper.
A lot of computers that are in good standing will be trashed because the average user won't risk using an outdated OS thanks to the anti-XP propaganda all around the IT news channels.
If your car can't travel at highway speed you don't bitch and complain until they lower the speed limit so your Model T can travel on them again, you get a faster car. Thats the way life is. You can cry and moan and complain all you want, its not changing. Deal with it.
