Is this the end of the road for Windows 7?

Topic

New Reply

ON SECURITY By Susan Bradley Vendors start to draw the line. Ahh, Windows 7. I remember when you first came out. I remember when people hated — truly
[See the full post at: Is this the end of the road for Windows 7?]

Susan Bradley Patch Lady

5 users thanked author for this post.

jburk07, AlexEiffel, wEarwOlf505cole, lmacri, abbodi86

Reply | Quote

Replies

Nice summary of UAC and it’s goal. But there’s a snag – in my opinion. More and more programs install themselves in the Users Profile folder – including Microsofts own apps. No UAC kicking in. So users can (and will) install lots of applications as they like, without the system admin’s knowing. To me, this possibility looks like a giant back door for malware to enter a system. Or am I overlooking something?

Reply | Quote

That means the software was installed with user rights not admin rights. It won’t be able to change sensitive areas of the OS without further permission. Yes, there could still be malware but you’ll have to authorize its activities.

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Maybe the answer is yes and no? A user software on Windows can do everything a user can do, so unless you prevent running of any unapproved code, you could end up with malware that does pretty bad things even if it doesn’t run with administrative privilege.

What is most precious on a PC, the OS portion or the user files? Sure, the OS portion might allow a deeper infestation but for some, when all their files have been encrypted or if they have been spied on and their passwords stolen, the OS might not have that much value left and you would reinstall from scratch or restore everything from a backup anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, UAC was a great first step by having less software running with admin rights, but if you let any code run in user mode, you still have an open door. I think that was the point Simon made.

Enterprise tools like Applocker can prevent this, but it is not available on lower editions of Windows. You could use SRP or something like the hardened mode of Avast (which I found pretty useful for some scenarios when configured properly) to prevent unknown code from running.

Again, and I will sound like Susan because I think she is right on this, SMBs and home users get the short end of the stick with security as if it wasn’t important. A locked down ecosystem like IOS with a store that vets bad apps a bit can help, especially if you add a MDM that can prevent installation of unapproved apps. In that sense, Windows security is very old school compared to contemporary OSes where security is much stronger by design, especially considering that most people run only the same few apps. When I think about a standard Office PC with not much else than Office and Windows, it doesn’t make much sense to let anybody install whatever they want if you care a lot about security.

And I still don’t understand why with so many great features Windows could develop aside from centering the start menu button, they don’t make it very easy to be able to run any browser in low-integrity mode where it can’t write anywhere except the download folder.

Last, it was pretty depressing to read the very knowledgeable Mr.Brian here a while ago reporting that user code software could patiently wait to hijack an elevation prompt to get administrative rights by using special techniques, so it reduces the usefulness of UAC which has apparently never been presented in an official technical way as a way to truly run with limited rights like with the root/user distinction on Unix/Linux. Still, there is no denying that it improves security by the fact that it blocks some dumb code and force software to be less demanding in terms of access. Any progress is still progress.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Simon_Weel, Perq

Reply | Quote

You write: “Firefox will drop support for Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 sometime after January 2023.”

A quick Google search does not turn up any confirmation of this. Can you provide a link or a cite?

Reply | Quote

wdburt1 wrote:

You write: “Firefox will drop support for Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 sometime after January 2023.”

A quick Google search does not turn up any confirmation of this. Can you provide a link or a cite?

i’m not a plus member so i can’t see whatever susan wrote, but for the last couple of years i’ve been estimating that mozilla will pull the plug on win7 support sometime in 2024, maybe 2025 depending on how things go with esr updates – for all of mozilla’s countless flaws, they did at least support firefox on xp and vista until mid-2018 with esr52, two years longer than google did with chrome, so that’s something i guess. they just recently announced that firefox 100 (there is no valid reason why firefox should already be at version 100) will require kb4474419 aka sha-2 support on to run on win7, a former mozilla employee on /r/firefox (heh) said that they’ll probably use the telemetry data they’ve collected to decide when they’re nixing win7 support – it’s been slowly declining for the last couple of years but as of this april it’s still at 17%, you can look at it here: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware

personally i’m sticking to win7 until 2023 at the very least and with esr updates or 0patch, the right software, not to mention the same amount of common sense you’d use with literally any other os, i think it’ll be fine as a daily driver until at least 2025 or so which… isn’t exactly reassuring but it’s got a little while left at least before big tech abandons it entirely like they did with xp.  at least it’ll be entertaining seeing the sheer chaos that’ll arise when ms tries ditching windows 10 support around the same time…

1 user thanked author for this post.

jburk07

Reply | Quote

Hearing nothing but crickets, here’s my hypothesis.

This guy “Iron Heart” posted an unsupported opinion on the ghacks forum:

https://www.ghacks.net/2022/04/01/firefox-100-requires-the-windows-update-kb4474419-on-windows-7/#comment-4518591

Cybertooth relied on Iron Heart’s comment to post this here:

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/firefox-100-for-windows-7-require-sha-2-kb4474419/

And Susan relied on Cybertooth’s post.

In sum, a classic case of internet factoid, also known as jumping to conclusions.  It is evident that Iron Heart’s assertion that “Firefox will drop Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 support sometime after January 2023” is based on nothing more than his statement that this is when Windows 7 ESU and Windows 8.1 regular support run out.  He does not cite any information put out by Mozilla.

Other aspects of Susan’s article merit comment.  The opening discussion regarding Windows’ User Account Control is cute but unrelated to the clickbait title of the piece.  The article then moves on to the claim that “Support [for Windows 7] is beginning to wane.  Some vendors are requiring certain updates to keep running on Windows 7. For example, Firefox 100 requires that KB4474419 be installed.”  So how exactly does this demonstrate that support is waning?  KB4474419 is standalone update compatible with Win7.  It does not require a later version of Windows for it to be installed.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, jburk07, OscarCP, Microfix

Reply | Quote

Ironheart is a chromefanboi…pinch of salt with anything he scripts over there.
With no official confirmation from the distributors, windups are prevalent especially from that poster

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, wdburt1

Reply | Quote

Susan’s article was a missed opportunity.  The coming end of Microsoft extended support for Win7 does seem to represent a likely time for the purveyors of browsers to follow suit, but, based on past experience with Win XP, is this necessarily what will happen?  As one of those who may have to make some decisions, I would have appreciated reading some research on the question, or even some reasoning that would clarify what was known and what was merely assumed.  Instead, we get a provocative title (“end of the road for Windows 7”) and opening line (“Vendors start to draw the line”) that the article completely fails to substantiate.

I expect better for my Plus membership.

Reply | Quote

I suppose I am an outlier in this crowd, but when my oldest PC was unable to run Windows Vista any longer, I converted it to Linux Mint. I have not regretted that decision.

4 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, wavy, Steve, DrBonzo

Reply | Quote

I did exactly the same thing when Vista reached EOL!  The migration to Mint gave me about 4 more years of use before my PC died of old age.  Now I’m sorry to say that the replacement came with Win 10.  Sigh.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DrBonzo

Reply | Quote

The outlier list grows! When Vista went down I converted to Ubuntu, then Mint, on my old 2009 HP Pavilion. I just installed Mint 20.3 on it and it still hums along.

2 users thanked author for this post.

bassmanzam, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

you might get a kick out of learning that there’s an extended kernel available for vista: https://msfn.org/board/topic/181612-wip-windows-vista-extended-kernel/

Reply | Quote

and there used to be an extended kernel project for XP from MSFN forum as well but it was cancelled

Reply | Quote

I plan on continuing to use my Windows 7 systems for the foreseeable future, as they are well protected by multiple lines of defense as outlined in my thread Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come.

The looming end of browser support for Windows 7 is a hard blow, no question about it. However, by implementing a multi-layered defense strategy similar to the above, I continued to use Vista successfully for years after the major browser vendors stopped updating their offerings for that OS. I eventually made the move to Windows 10 for two reasons: (1) the aging hardware on the Vista system started giving me headaches, and (2) websites were introducing technologies that my Vista’s static browsers could no longer handle adequately.

If it were just number 2 above, I’d probably still be happily using Vista as my daily driver despite the inconvenience of sometimes not being able to print Web pages properly. Even so, there are still a number of small browsers that continue to support Vista, although entrusting my cyberlife to little-known developers is not a step that I’ve been willing to take.

As I’ve said elsewhere, come 2023 fans of Windows 7 will have some hard choices to make. My choice will be to continue using Win7 as normal until either the hardware stops working or the browsers can no longer handle the evolving technology of the Web. However, this choice requires a commitment on the user’s part to both learn how to protect their Win7 system and to apply the knowledge thus gained. I don’t recommend it to anyone otherwise, and certainly not in an enterprise setting as those targets are much juicier and their users are on average less attuned to cybersecurity concerns.

Long live Aero Glass!

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

4 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, Charlie, wEarwOlf505cole, Nibbled To Death By Ducks

Reply | Quote

by now i honestly trust amateur software devs with my security more than actively evil, anti-user companies like microsoft and google – the inherent problem with independent web browsers, however, is that chrome more or less is the internet now to most people and it’s been that way for a long time. almost all browsers are based on chromium, google has defined web standards for ages now and they implement new features nobody but them asked for at such a rapid pace that nobody else can keep up, modern day web developers only test their sites (ahem,”web apps”) on chrome, and browsers are so bloated now that it’s been impossible for anyone to develop a new one from scratch for years. i rarely use chromium-based browsers for a multitude of reasons, but i’m dreading january 2023 simply because the modern web is going to become progressively harder to even interact with on windows 7 after that point. it’s not going to be fun, to say the least

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

I am not going to get onboard this bandwagon until I see some documentation that Firefox is going to pull the plug on Win7.

Susan?

1 user thanked author for this post.

LHiggins

Reply | Quote

Not sure about pulling the plug on Win 7, but I posted a question in the Mozilla forums and got this reply:

Technically extended support for Windows 7 ended Jan 14, 2020 as it is only the pay for Extended Security Updates that will go as late as Jan 10, 2023. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-7

Firefox Releases works fine on Windows 7 now so why would it not after Jan 10, 2023 ?

Unless there is something OS dependent there is no reason for Firefox web browser to stop supporting Windows 7, 8 and 8.1 anytime soon. Win8.1 extended support ends Jan 10, 2023

If anything Mozilla may stop supporting 32-bit Firefox for Windows before Firefox is not able to run on 7, 8 and 8.1.

Microsoft stopped WinXP extended support on Apr 8, 2014, yet Mozilla supported the EOL WinXP (and Vista) til Fx 52.9.0esr released June 26, 2018. Over two years after Chromium, Chrome, Opera dropped WinXP/Vista support back in April 2016.

Also this on Win 7 and Firefox version 100 – direct from Mozilla:

Will Firefox version 100 work on Windows 7?

So – it sounds like FF versions beyond 100 will work as long as you have KB4474419 installed.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Charlie, jburk07, SueW, wdburt1, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

KB4474419 and KB4490628 were required to install Macrium Reflect 8, which came out a year ago.  They install just fine on Win7.

1 user thanked author for this post.

jburk07

Reply | Quote

not only that, newer versions of Malwarebytes on Win7 also require the KB4474419 & KB4490628 updates as well

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/276986-microsoft-security-update-kb4474419-and-kb4490628/

https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/276893-malwarebytes-latest-version-requires-a-windows-update/

no new program nor new software updates of Malwarebytes for Win7 users unless KB4474419 & KB4490628 are both installed – definition updates for Malwarebytes, on the other hand, don’t seem to require them

and a similar situation with Norton on Win7 as well:
Change in code signing support for Norton products from SHA1 to SHA2 on Windows 7

3 users thanked author for this post.

jburk07, JCpharm, wdburt1

Reply | Quote

Poking around the web today, I find this little tutorial about the changeover from SHA-1 to SHA-2 signing, from November 2020:

https://us.informatiweb-pro.net/virtualization/vmware/vmware-workstation-15-5-5-15-5-6-installation-on-windows-7.html

Although the writer mentions that Win7 does not support SHA-2 “by default,” he proceeds calmly to recommend that users download and install the necessary updates.

If Microsoft had designed them so they would install only on the most recent version(s) of Windows, that indeed might have signaled the “end of the road” for Win7.  But the updates work just fine on Win7.  As for software vendors’ starting to “draw the line,” the move from SHA-1 top SHA-2 originated with Microsoft and the vendors must comply.

But note that starting with the latest version of its software, VMWare is indeed requiring Win8 or later.  Checking further, I see that VirtualBox starts with Win 8.1:

https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch01.html#hostossupport

Reply | Quote

(This for Cybertooth-for some reason it didn’t go under his post as a Reply, though I hit that button. (?)

That’s the spirit!

I’ve watched this relentless drumbeat of:

“You must upgrade your OS!

“You must upgrade your hardware!

“If you don’t, the Internet Monsters will get you!”

(signed, Silicon Gulch Oligarchs.)

…for three decades, and decided all of it is strictly P.T. Barnum.

Guys and gals, I ran XPSP3 on the net until 2017, and never had an issue.

End of vendor software support in the form of browsers and email clients is probably going to be the determinant factor for me along with a catastrophic hardware fail, but I’m not going to abandon Win 7 until it’s virtually impossible to continue to do so.

Good AV, sanitary Net practices, a supported browser and common sense will keep you safe.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to resist that band of looters in Silicon Gulch who’d just love to Hoover more money out of my pocket.

Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit, Dell Latitude E6330, Intel CORE i5 "Ivy Bridge", 12GB RAM, Group "0Patch", Multiple Air-Gapped backup drives in different locations. Linux Mint Greenhorn
--
"...all the people, all the time..."Peter Ustinov ad-lib in "Logan's Run"

6 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, SueW, Cybertooth, Charlie, wdburt1, Alex5723

Reply | Quote

I totally agree, of course!

Twice in the last two weeks I have observed a friend’s laptop go into the Windows 10 update screen (“Don’t turn off your PC”) just as he was trying to run an event at our club, rendering the laptop unusable for hours at a time. This business of “active hours”, “pausing updates”, etc. etc., is so unnatural and unintuitive compared to the pre-Win10 model of “update when I tell you to and otherwise leave me the heck alone”. Nobody I personally know (i.e., normal people) seems to have a handle on these rigid, artificial new updating models.

And that’s when the process actually works as designed. Another friend’s desktop PC has gone into an update/restart loop that she can’t get out of. As soon as the PC boots back up after (supposedly) patching, Windows announces again that it needs to restart to install updates. She’s in about the fifth cycle of this bovine excrement. I told her she can ignore the notices for now, but they keep popping up and interrupting, plus she finds it disconcerting to have those notices pending. Since she needs to get her taxes done, I told her to pause the d*mn updates for a week until we get past the tax deadline and then maybe we can look deeper into it.

I would wish Windows 10 or 11 on an enemy.

 

Keep Running Windows 7 Safely for Years to Come  
Make Windows 10 look and work like Windows 7

2 users thanked author for this post.

Charlie, wdburt1

Reply | Quote

As someone once said regarding change:
“You don’t want to be the first, but you don’t want to be the last, either.”

Carpe Diem {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1778 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox114.0b8 MicrosoftDefender

Reply | Quote

EricB wrote:

Now I’m sorry to say that the replacement came with Win 10.  Sigh.

You can format your PC, install Linux and get $50 from Microsoft for not using Windows.

Reply | Quote

Susan, I just couldn’t help myself replying to your description of UAC in Win 7.  It was Windows Vista that had UAC first and got on people’s nerves so much.  With Vista, UAC was either on or off.  When Win 7 came out the UAC had been toned back with a middle ground setting and it didn’t pop up each and every time.  This was but one thing that made Win 7 so popular.

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake as soon as you make it again.

Reply | Quote

Charlie wrote: “When Win 7 came out the UAC had been toned back with a middle ground setting and it didn’t pop up each and every time.”

Yes, I remember reading about that, getting disgusted by reading about that, but then found I could run the PC with Win 7 in the same way I always had with their predecessors, because Windows now allowed gaining a sufficiently elevated status as to do anything I needed to do by choosing to “Run as Administrator.” The UAC never got in my way. Maybe others were not so lucky?

I always thought that this business of the “secret Administrator password”, etc. was because Win 7 was derived from a version, or actually was that version, meant to be used at offices of companies and the government where there were actual network administrators, so MS was just being cheap, or could not care less, and so it was not changing that feature in the Win 7 meant for home and small business users. Was I unjust to MS in thinking so?

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

IT folks CONSTANTLY moved that zipper down in Windows 7.  Ergo my cartoon.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

When I got my “new” computer in 2012, I got Win 7 with SP1 (Service Pack 1).  I’m not sure and I’d have to check to see if the UAC taming was done before or after SP1.  I thought it was before.

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake as soon as you make it again.

Reply | Quote

Windows Xp is still being used in the company I work for. Supplier of programs used on daily uses has not moved to Windows 7 yet.

Reply | Quote

Charlie: “I’m not sure and I’d have to check to see if the UAC taming was done before or after SP1”

SP1 came out in early February of 2011, before I bought, in June, my HP Pavilion laptop with Win 7 installed. Until then I had an IBM/Lenovo running XP. I don’t remember having problems because of UAC then, in fact, I’m pretty sure I didn’t, but that was over ten years ago …  So it might have been fixed with SP1.

This was written in September of 2012:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-server-2008-R2-and-2008/dd446675(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

May I ask if your company is using MS Premium Support to keep Windows XP fully updated or are these systems offline?

If you are using MS Premium Support, are you receiving patches for XP every Patch Tuesday and did you receive any for April?

Reply | Quote

I still run Windows Xp, even posting this from it. Only using agent switchers to trick websites to work.

Windows 7 computer is sitting without network cable connected. I did not want it to get infected by Windows 10 sypware that MS was forcing. Might have to plug it in one of these days and start using it. My Windows Xp is starting to show it age and might fail at some point. Sad day that will be

Even my Windows 98 that failed from power supplies was used until 2010. Long after the EOL.

There are people that are not rich and can not spend money on the brand new item every 6 months it seems now a days. If it works, than keep using it. If it is not broke, no need to replace it.

2 users thanked author for this post.

7ProSP1, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

[Charlie]

There is a list of Windows 7 Updates to steer clear of on this AskWoody website to prevent you from getting all the Win 10 nags, etc. which sized up Win 7 computers for Win 10 installation back around 2015.  I’m very thankful to Woody and his crew for posting these at that time and saving me from any headaches in that regard.  Hopefully these updates are still listed in the old archives here on AskWoody.

If you find them, check your installed updates and see if they’re installed.  If so, uninstall them.

Edit:  Here’s one – post #46288.  It’s in the Bad Patch List thread.

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake as soon as you make it again.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Charlie.

Reply | Quote

Link to the post mentioned by Charlie: https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/bad-patch-lists/#post-46288

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

Windows 7 computer is sitting without network cable connected. I did not want it to get infected by Windows 10 sypware that MS was forcing.

We have at home a ~10 years Windows 7 PC which has been forced into Windows 10. I immediately restored it to Windows 7 and disabled updates.
The PC is in use online every day for long hours. Not a single virus, malware, crash…running Kaspersky A/V.

My brother also use ~10 years old (3rd gen Intel i3) Windows 7.
I block Windows 10 with a block10 app and registered the PC with 0Patch Pro.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Charlie, OscarCP, SueW, Cybertooth, LHiggins

Reply | Quote

Even if you like Windows 7, if your system drive is not an SSD, you should install one.  It is amazing how fast a say 10 year old computer feels with an SSD, and how slow a brand new computer feels without one.  Old computers usually need SATA SSDs instead of NVME ones, check of course.  In the US you can get a 500gb SATA SSD for around $50, the higher quality ones are $70.

6 users thanked author for this post.

Alex5723, Microfix, DrBonzo, OscarCP, SueW, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

I installed a $50 Sandisk 480GB SSD in a 2009 HP Pavilion laptop with 4GB RAM. It had been running Mint 19.2 and did alright with it. Took a couple minutes to boot and maybe 15 seconds to load Firefox. OK for a computer to test updates.

After I put the SSD in and reinstalled Mint 19.2 to the state it had been in, I booted it up and literally started laughing. The thing just flies on anything that’s disk intensive. The 13 year old RAM is the bottleneck now.

Get an SSD.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Alex5723, Microfix

Reply | Quote

My OCZ Solid SSD is still going strong with Win7, now at circa 8 year old mark 🙂
Best computer upgrade buy EVER when HDD’s were becoming a throughput bottleneck.
The only thing I use HDD’s for, are backups (bought external enclosures for redundant system HDD’s)

Keeping IT Lean, Clean and Mean!

1 user thanked author for this post.

DrBonzo

Reply | Quote

regarding UAC, I still use TweakUAC, even under Win7 when I want UAC enabled but in “silent” or quiet mode (no prompts)

btw, dragging the UAC slider in Win8, Win10 & greater all the way down just turns off all notifications but UAC is still enabled though silent

Reply | Quote

EP wrote:

regarding UAC, I still use TweakUAC, even under Win7 when I want UAC enabled but in “silent” or quiet mode (no prompts)

I don’t understand how the UAC can be enabled but not prompt you for your approval.  This seems to be defeating its purpose.

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake as soon as you make it again.

Reply | Quote

[James Bond 007]

As far as I am concerned, I see no reason to abandon Windows 7, especially on the older systems. It still works great on them, and there are no more updates from Microsoft to potentially destabilize the OS, haha.

Firefox 100 (and above?) requires SHA-2 support in Windows 7 to run? Well, if I have to there is no problem, as the required updates are already present.

However, I am still using Firefox ESR 78.15.0 (with the latest version of NoScript) as I strongly dislike the “Proton UI” introduced by Mozilla since Firefox 89, especially the large bookmarks spacing, which I find very awkward. It seems to me that in the past few years Mozilla just removes useful features (or hide them) and introduces these unwelcome changes (Example : Save image files in webp rather than JPEG / PNG even though the source file is not webp. I have to install an extension to workaround this unwelcome change.) in Firefox and ignores user feedback.

I know the spacing can be somewhat reversed by including some code in an userchrome.css file in the profiles folder, but I would never able to figure out the required code on my own, and who knows if Mozilla will remove this capability also in some future update?

I am increasingly frustrated by the direction Mozilla is going with Firefox, and with NoScript also now available on Chrome, I may have to eventually switch to Chrome. It will be a shame after such a long time using Firefox (from version 1 on Windows 98), but even though I don’t want to switch, I believe I will eventually reach a point of no return with Firefox.

Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by James Bond 007. Reason: Addition

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, Charlie

Reply | Quote

Chrome switches to Manifest V3 by January 2023.  I believe some of the more powerful extensions like Noscript will lose some functionality.  https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/

Reply | Quote

I have been using Waterfox, a fork of FF and a member of the Mozilla family, that recently started using the Proton skin, same as FF. That killed its capability to search for words and character strings in online text, a feature that has always been very useful to me.

I have started using Vivaldi instead, more and more often; it is Chromium based and, so far, it works OK.

If it works with Win 7 you could give it a try, if you haven’t already, to see how you like it.

 

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Good man, staying on the last Flash-supporting version too.
I too continue to use 78.15
It works, that’s all I need. Unfortunately it’s not my IDEAL version, as 69 introduced Pocket and messed New Tab/Window/Homepage controls, 71 also messed with about:config
I have delved into userchrome.css on other devices, mostly using pre-made ones off the net, it makes a big difference and it’s very safe to tweak.
Still more comfortable with about:config tweaks, of which I have made many even on 78.15
I don’t understand how every software update seems intent on making UI less dense/compact, and less accessible at the same time. They waste so much real-estate while simultaneously hiding functions behind sub-menus and dropdowns.
Want to guess how much space my UI takes up? 81 pixels on my 1080p screen. That includes the Menu Bar, which gives me faster access to more features than what’s hidden in the modern “Hamburger” menu. So menu bar+URL+tabs=81 pixels
I could shrink the URL bar and tabs a little more but this is still way less space than 99% of the default UIs I see these days, which are more like the Ribbons that Microsoft seems to think are good design.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth, Charlie

Reply | Quote

Cormy1 wrote:

I don’t understand how every software update seems intent on making UI less dense/compact, and less accessible at the same time.

Yes indeed!  It’s very frustrating.

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake as soon as you make it again.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Cormy1 wrote:

I don’t understand how every software update seems intent on making UI less dense/compact, and less accessible at the same time.

The same goes for web sites that suddenly change appearance…which is very frustrating.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote