Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

for those into such things.

I'm running a Dell Precision desktop with the old dinosaur WindowsXP. Been using the Mozzila Firefox browser for two years and now it suddenly went stupid on me. I'm running Firefox version 52.9. In August last year Mozilla ceased providing updates for 52.9 and Windows XP will not support later versions of the browser.

Everything was fine up until a month ago, then Firefox put on the brakes. Some webpages are nearly impossible to access, the loading is so slow that I simply stopped it and went somewhere else. I can no longer access online streaming audio, such as from a radio station, and MP3 podcasts encounter an error. I have no problem with youtube videos, other than common glitches. Managing graphics while online is sometimes a joke, especially .gif images. Lots of other crap going on with Firefox right now. For example, it takes approximately 5 to 10 seconds to log in to my email account, but 15 to 20 minutes to get from my bank's homepage to my checking account.

I looked to Mozilla support for info and found a bunch of tweaks that might speed up the browser. First recommedation is to "refresh" Firefox (return it to default settings). Did that. No cigar. I opened the browser with add-ons disabled (Safe Mode). No cigar. As for the rest of the tweaks, I'm not the guy to mess around with system files, configs, and other internal procedures. One suggestion was to go online with my Internet Security and firewall software shutdown. What that was supposed to do, I haven't a clue. The problem is not in or caused by the security software.

I have no problems at all working on the computer off line. With an Intel Core Duo CPU, 2.4 GhZ, and 4 Gigs of RAM, the hardware meets system requirements for hefty browsers, but old XP isn't up to it anymore. Thing is I am not financially capable of replacing this computer or installing a better operating system, so I'm pretty much stuck with what I have.

So, I did some research on the best browsers for Windows XP. Found some interesting stuff. Seems the big boy browsers like Firefox, Chrome, Google, are RAM hogs, each to one degree or other. I found the website "WindowsReport" where 5 browsers are listed that run well with XP, Firefox is number 5, the others are K-Meleon, Midori, Pale Moon, and Maxthon 5. After reading the specifics on each of these, I took a closer look at K-Meleon and Maxthon 5. I was rather impressed with Maxthon, seems there are 670 million users worldwide. Took an hour to download Maxthon 5. Haven't installed it yet.

Wanted to know if any of you have a similar situation and are familiar with any of these streamlined browsers. You can check them out HERE

Common_Sense_Matters

Try this: https://www.robolinux.org

I have never tried that variant but I do run Linux personally, just not that variety. I do not know what all programs you use, whether they depend on being able to run .exe's but according to what I read, that one may be the best bet if you only know Windows and use Windows based programming and it is free to download, install and use. I learned of it just now from: https://www.maketecheasier.com/best-linux-distro-for-windows-users/

I hope that helps you. XP is no longer supported and to buy a newer version of Windows costs money as does buying a newer computer and you seem to be saying you can't afford it so there is a free way for you to hopefully get better performance.

Squiddiddler Loc: Phoenix

Check this one out:

https://brave.updatestar.com/en

I've been using this browser for about 2 to 3 yrs now I like it. It's fast straight forward and so, far no bugs.

You can install and run multiple browsers if you like nothing holding you back. Try and if you dislike, uninstall it.

Common_Sense_Matters

That would be one way to deal with the immediate issue, it doesn't deal with the larger issue though, that being that XP is no longer supported and everything will eventually fail since Microsoft has pretty much declared that OS as OS non-grata. I personally would recommend a new OS but since the poster says he can't afford a new paid OS, it might be time to try a free OS. Most if not all Linux systems can be run along side Windows and until one decides they can manage under Linux, that would be my recommended setup, Linux AND Windows running along side one another until he sees if he can get by under Linux.

The version I found for him claims to be able to run Windows flawlessly within a VM environment for if/when he needs to run some software that requires Windows. I am looking to test that version of Linux, just to see if I like it and also so that I know more about it for other Windows users that may consider the switch.

Rose42

Another v**e for the Brave browser

Have you considered trying Linux? It runs well on older hardware and you can try it without installing it with a Live CD. There are a number of good versions with a lot of people who are generous with help.

Common_Sense_Matters

I recommend a live distro on a flash drive over running one off of a CD or DVD ROM, the flash drives typically runs faster than those on optical media. But yes, it is highly recommended that one runs from a live distro before deciding to install a variant, though I would still recommend maintaining a workable Windows along side at least for a while after committing to an actual installation of Linux because wanting Linux to run faster is likely to push one to install to get a better feel for it sooner than they can be certain that they won't need Windows for other things.

I do many dual boots even though I have been on Linux for years and never actually fire in the Windows, that I keep along side of Linux. My latest dual boots have Windows 10 along side of Linux and I STILL never fire in Windows. I have several Windows 7, windows 8 and one Windows 10 dual boot systems with most of those systems running more than one version of Linux and if it wasn't for my one clean Windows machine, I think I would forget what Windows even looks like. Well, that and the machines I repair for others...

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

on both recommendations!

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Older processors can't handle all the ads, many of which are video's that take up a lot "space" at any given time.

Rose42

You can block a lot of ads with a hosts file. I've also used it on Linux and OS/X.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Rose42

I never liked dual boot - no patience. Lol. I used virtual machines. But that's not always an option on older hardware.

Still lots of options with older hardware. If all you want is to use the internet a small Linux distro like Puppylinux will run in memory and is very fast.

Common_Sense_Matters

Dual booting isn't to be switching back and forth for every other task, it is for keeping another option around in case you find you need it for something. A dual boot doesn't require much more time to load than normal booting does, I think default wait timer on GRUB menu is like 10-15 seconds and you can alter that even if you like.

As for Puppy Linux, yes, that is a great option for very outdated hardware, though EVERY Linux distro can be run strictly from RAM. That is how I "redo" my OS whenever I decide to and how I often times try new "flavors", I store an ISO on a specific partition and create a GRUB entry for it and then I can run the live distro from HDD which loads even faster than from Flash drive AND I can have it load to RAM which makes it run faster still.

Most (if not all) distros can load to as little as 4 gigs of RAM (I have yet to find one that requires more than 4 gigs to load to and run) and most people have at least 8 gigs if they have a newer computer, at least 4 gigs if their hardware is older (less if older still but...) so running from RAM gives the best experience and is likely the closest to a fully installed experience.

Rose42

Its not boot time I care about with dual boot. For accessing multiple OSes without rebooting and having the advantage of networking them together - all on one machine - virtual machines are better. I've done both many times and know what both are for. Virtual machines are also good for trying out new OSes.

For the beginner on an old machine the easiest option remains distros like Puppylinux and a few others that are designed to run in ram.

Common_Sense_Matters

But sometimes those stripped down variants lack user friendliness that may just be a MUST for those not quite as computer literate and only used to the more user friendly OSes such as Mac OS and Windows. that was why I recommended the version I recommended due to the fact that it comes preloaded with a VM that according to the site recommending it can virtually seamlessly get one capable of using all their already installed programs from their Windows install running in the virtual machine without having to reinstall them into the VM. I suspect it images their actual Windows installation and creates a VM with that image.

I learned long ago that not everyone is even minimally computer literate regardless of how long they have used computers. For them, the switch over to Linux can be traumatic if they start off with the wrong Linux distro and they can refuse further attempts to convert them due to that traumatizing experience. That is why we must ease them into the t***sition with the most user friendly variant we can find, then after they get familiarized with Linux, we can test different "flavors" with them to find the best fit for their circumstances.

Rose42

Sorry we veered off a bit. lol I have used the Pale Moon browser and it worked well. Had no issues with it.

Common_Sense_Matters

I use Vivaldi. But I think the original poster needs to vacate XP as it is no longer supported and therefore will become more and more vulnerable to malware as the updates to counter new malware won't be available to those still under XP.