Opera updates in Vista/XP?
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
So that's the standard, Opera's only going to come in with a patch after news breaks of a new known exploit or crash?
I guess it's not that easy to backport Chromium's security patches so Opera most probably will release an update with them only when there is an amount that justifies the release or if something really severe has been fixed.
They probably will not be releasing every month.
-
opermo last edited by
but they have promised that Opera 36 will remain safe, and I have no reason to think that they have reneged on that.
Why's that? They haven't updated 36 for Vista in two months already.
Or in a few years?
Maybe. It may depends on the severity of security issues.
Or what they deem important enough to create a patch for (which could be nothing).
I guess it's not that easy to backport Chromium's security patches
I guess it's easier for Slimjet to do so.
They probably will not be releasing every month.
Not probably, for sure. Question is if there'll be anything this year.
Anyway, from the discussions above and the debate over how many times a year Opera will deem it appropriate to send (only major) security patches it's clear that when Opera says: "We do care for our loyal users..." we're not to take that literally.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Why's that? They haven't updated 36 for Vista in two months already.
Well, they already said that Opera Presto (Opera 12.1x) would get security updates and the first one took around 3 years.
They said that Opera 36 would get updates but they didn't say how often those update would occur.
I guess it's easier for Slimjet to do so.
Well, i don't know Slimjet so i don't know how it is build or even how reliable it is.
-
opermo last edited by
Well, they already said that Opera Presto (Opera 12.1x) would get security updates and the first one took around 3 years.
And that tells you all you need to know about how much they "care" about their loyal users.
They didn't deem it appropriate to issue a security update for a web browser in three years?? Seriously??Well, i don't know Slimjet so i don't know how it is build or even how reliable it is.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-new-chromium-based-browser-Slimjet
http://www.thewindowsclub.com/slimjet-browser-review-download -
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
And that tells you all you need to know about how much they "care" about their loyal users.
They didn't deem it appropriate to issue a security update for a web browser in three years?? Seriously??Right, they should just have announced that support for Vista and XP had ended and focus on more recent versions of Windows instead of trying to keep releasing updates to those users in old and unsupported Windows versions.
Talking about Slimjet, i've unstalled it and noticed that it uses Chromium 50 while latest stable version is 51 and also it looks like Chrome with a skin and a few add-ons.
-
opermo last edited by
Right, they should just have announced that support for Vista and XP had ended and focus on more recent versions of Windows instead of trying to keep releasing updates to those users in old and unsupported Windows versions.
Exactly.
Openly dropping XP/Vista users would have been better than pretending that they did not.
If they make a promise of having the XP and Vista user's back (in terms of security), they have to keep it. Sadly they didn't.Talking about Slimjet, i've unstalled it and noticed that it uses Chromium 50 while latest stable version is 51
I've noticed that too, but it's the best there is for Vista users (aside from Firefox which is slower). Definitely better than Opera.
and also it looks like Chrome with a skin and a few add-ons.
That's great, I like that.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Exactly.
I was being ironic. It's exactly because Opera care for its users that they are working to deliver at least security updates to Opera for Windows XP and Vista.
If they make a promise of having the XP and Vista user's back (in terms of security), they have to keep it
=Again, because it seems that you are having some difficulty inn understand it: They never said anything about how often those security updates would be released.
So keep saying that they broke their "promise" is not right. So please stop doping it.
That's great, I like that.
So go use it and see for how long they will be releasing updates for XP/Vista.
-
A Former User last edited by
The Slimjet developers have obviously decided to do their own tweaks on the Chromium engine to keep it working on Vista and XP, and incidentally it still works with NPAPI plugins like Java and QuickTime as well, but how long they will keep the will to do that, or indeed will be able to, is a complete unknown.
Opera (and Vivaldi) perhaps sensibly, decided that it was better to just drop XP and Vista support in their current and future versions.
I still have no reason to disbelieve Opera's assertion that they will keep Opera 36 stable and safe for XP and Vista users.
Unless anyone has definite knowledge of a major security flaw that has not been patched in Opera 36 that should have been, I see no reason for anyone to assume that this is the case just because there hasn't been an update to 36 for a while.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
but how long they will keep the will to do that, or indeed will be able to, is a complete unknown.
Yep, that is the point. It probably will depends on Chromium and can become impracticable at any time.
Also, as changes and updates in Chromium are no longer aimed on those OS, we don't know if their users will really be safe.
Opera (and Vivaldi) perhaps sensibly, decided that it was better to just drop XP and Vista support in their current and future versions.
Probably their developers could also have tweaked Chromium to allow it to be used in XP/Vista for more time but considered it too much risky and opted for another solution.
-
opermo last edited by
I was being ironic.
I know, my response was with that in mind.
It's exactly because Opera care for its users that they are working to deliver at least security updates to Opera for Windows XP and Vista.
Except that they aren't (unless every three years is good enough, and for me and most others it isn't).
=Again, because it seems that you are having some difficulty inn understand it: They never said anything about how often those security updates would be released. So keep saying that they broke their "promise" is not right. So please stop doping it.
Technically you're right about the "promise", but the fact is that they aren't releasing security updates for Vista, and I kind of doubt that they will in the next few months, seeing the way they're taking this.
The Slimjet developers have obviously decided to do their own tweaks on the Chromium engine to keep it working on Vista and XP...but how long they will keep the will to do that, or indeed will be able to, is a complete unknown.
So go use it and see for how long they will be releasing updates for XP/Vista.
At least currently they are.
And all Vista users need is for the OS to be supported by browsers till April 2017 when MS supports ends. (And that is the whole point really: as long as MS supports Vista, it's reasonable to want browsers that support it as well, and not be forced to call a early quits on a still supported OS that users payed for.)Opera (and Vivaldi) perhaps sensibly, decided that it was better to just drop XP and Vista support in their current and future versions.
Even though Vista is still supported till April.
I still have no reason to disbelieve Opera's assertion that they will keep Opera 36 stable and safe for XP and Vista users.
After how many months of no updates (in today's world where we don't need news every month of vulnerabilities to know they exist) will your trust in them wane?
Unless anyone has definite knowledge of a major security flaw that has not been patched in Opera 36 that should have been, I see no reason for anyone to assume that this is the case just because there hasn't been an update to 36 for a while.
Not a smart calculation to make in today's age and the current state of the IoT where problems are being discovered all the time. Just check the tech blogs.
Probably their developers could also have tweaked Chromium to allow it to be used in XP/Vista for more time but considered it too much risky and opted for another solution.
Risky?
Please don't respond with "These are free browsers and they could do what they want..."
We all know that. But just as they have the freedom to do what they want with their browsers, users have the freedom to expect (and voice the expectations) that browsers not force them to part with a OS that's still being supported and updated by its manufacturer. -
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Except that they aren't
Yes, they are. Unless you can show that they left a severe security issue unfixed for a long time and this put users in risk.
(unless every three years is good enough, and for me and most others it isn't).
Even 30 if no severe security issue has been found during that time.
Saying that a software will get security updates means that it will receive those updates when needed not that it will receive constant updates.
Technically you're right about the "promise", but the fact is that they aren't releasing security updates for Vista, and I kind of doubt that they will in the next few months, seeing the way they're taking this.
You just contradicted yourself. If you agree that they never promised about the frequency of releases then you can't say that they broke the promise.
Even though Vista is still supported till April.
Well, go blame Google for ending support for it in Chromium.
Anyway, it's not because MS still supports an OS that all software makers need to support it.
After how many months of no updates (in today's world where we don't need news every month of vulnerabilities to know they exist) will your trust in them wane?
It may be 1 or 10 or 100. It will depends on if there are severe security issues not patched putting users in real risk.
Risky?
Yes. Every line of code in Chromium that they had to change to allow it to work in XP/Vista would increase the risk of breaking something.
Also, there is the chance of a change in Chromium code at any moment so making it usable in XP/Vista become very difficult.
-
lando242 last edited by
Except that they aren't (unless every three years is good enough, and for me and most others it isn't).
For someone running an insecure OS you seem to be really agitated that your web browser isn't being updated every month. Mainstream support for Vista ended back in 2012 and you've got less than a year left on on extended support. Move on.
Except that they aren't
How many security updates have been released for the main branch of Opera since the last update to Opera 35?
NONE.
End of line.
-
opermo last edited by
Yes, they are. Unless you can show that they left a severe security issue unfixed for a long time and this put users in risk.
Even 30 if no severe security issue has been found during that time.
Saying that a software will get security updates means that it will receive those updates when needed not that it will receive constant updates.
You just contradicted yourself. If you agree that they never promised about the frequency of releases then you can't say that they broke the promise.
It may be 1 or 10 or 100. It will depends on if there are severe security issues not patched putting users in real risk.
What you say above would suggest that the regular security updates from Windows and browsers on Win7/8/10 are all only for minor issues. I would disagree with that.
Anyway, it's not because MS still supports an OS that all software makers need to support it.
True. But again, users are allowed to ask that they should and question when they don't.
For someone running an insecure OS
Which was payed for.
Mainstream support for Vista ended back in 2012 and you've got less than a year left on on extended support.
And I'd like to take advantage of those 9 remaining months.
Move on.
As of April 2017 when MS support/updates end (or if I get a new OS before that), I shall.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
What you say above would suggest that the regular security updates from Windows and browsers on Win7/8/10 are all only for minor issues. I would disagree with that.
I didn't say that but i guess i could say that 99% are related to minor issues. Major ones are usually disclosed in the media.
True. But again, users are allowed to ask that they should and question when they don't.
Instead of just update the OS and solve the problem for every software in it.
Which was payed for.
What doesn't mean that you need to use it for the rest of your life or even for the period of its expiration time.
-
opermo last edited by
I didn't say that but i guess i could say that 99% are related to minor issues. Major ones are usually disclosed in the media.
Some major ones are disclosed in the media (and of those, months or even years after the flaws were created or exploited).
Instead of just update the OS and solve the problem for every software in it.
As my current OS was payed for, and the future one will be payed for too, I will continue to milk this one out while I search for a good computer that meets my needs with the next OS.
What doesn't mean that you need to use it for the rest of your life or even for the period of its expiration time.
So if someone pays for something and then others decide he shouldn't use it anymore, he's supposed to just drop it and go for the next thing (until he's told to drop that one, etc.)?
-
blackbird71 last edited by...
And that tells you all you need to know about how much they "care" about their loyal users.
They didn't deem it appropriate to issue a security update for a web browser in three years?? Seriously??Or, it tells you how few new consequential security issues have arisen in 3 years for such a well-seasoned browser as was Presto Opera. Look at the CERT exploit records for named software to find out...
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
As my current OS was payed for, and the future one will be payed for too, I will continue to milk this one out while I search for a good computer that meets my needs with the next OS.
And you have the right to do it as well as anyone has the right to drive a 1960's car. However, both need to face the consequences of their decisions.
So if someone pays for something and then others decide he shouldn't use it anymore, he's supposed to just drop it and go for the next thing (until he's told to drop that one, etc.)?
Nope, i'm not saying that someone has to stop using something just because others are saying so.
What i'm saying is that you can stop using something for which you have paid for even before the end of its lifetime. The person can upgrade or replace it if s/he wants or needs better performance, access to newest features, etc and thinks it's worth.
-
A Former User last edited by
would it be so hard for those of you to drop XP/Vista an move on to Windows 7 atleast you'd get the most up to date version of Opera and then you wouldn't have to moan and groan about not getting updates IF it is to hard for to get over then I suggest you get used to the idea of your OS becoming more and more unsupported by everything and stop with the grouching your OS is EOL so your SOL
-
opermo last edited by
would it be so hard for those of you to drop XP/Vista an move on to Windows 7 atleast you'd get the most up to date version of Opera and then you wouldn't have to moan and groan...
Sure. You got a free Windows 7 upgrade for me?
And you have the right to do it as well as anyone has the right to drive a 1960's car.
You mean a 2000's car.
-
lando242 last edited by
You mean a 2000's car.
Computers age out much, much faster than cars do. A nice car or truck from the late 80's, if it was high end for that period, would still be a decent car to drive today. Any computer from that era would not be.
The fastest computer in the world from 1985 to 1990 was the Cray 2. I cannot stress enough how amazing a feat it was to design a computer in 1985 that remained the most powerful in the world for 5 years. Computers were basically doubling in performance every 2 years. No other computer has ever even come close to reigning that long. The Cray 2 consumed up to 195 kilowatts of power and required a 480 volt three phase power supply. It weighed 5500 pounds.
It was about as powerful as an Apple iPad 2 from 2011.
