Basilisk and New Moon Ports: Best Options For Vista

[Jody Thornton]

Pretty soon, those using Firefox ESR on Vista will be kaput when it comes to support and updates. You guys should be keeping an eye on New Moon by Roytam1 over at MSFN. He is compiling XP and Vista-compatible versions of Basilisk and Pale Moon (both x86 and x64 builds). These browsers are pretty much current and able to browse the modern web.

My build of New Moon (temp. name) a.k.a. Pale Moon for XP

Just thought you should know.

 

[Vistaar]

...You guys should be keeping an eye on New Moon by Roytam1...

New Moon's reason for existence was to reinstate support for Windows XP after it was dropped by Pale Moon (which you formerly recommended, but which now plans to drop support for Vista before long: see Basilisk and Windows Vista - Pale Moon forum). I was definitely not encouraged by roytam1's statement in an April 12 reply to you (on page 45 of your link), "I don't own any Vista copies." Hmm, maybe someone should give roytam1 a Vista key? Then again, many XP diehards wouldn't be caught dead running Vista...

It appears unlikely that any developer's fork will ever backport a Firefox version higher than 52 to Vista. Believe it or not, I recently updated to Firefox Quantum 58.0.2 on Windows 10. Time flies, doesn't it?

 

[Jody Thornton]

I was definitely not encouraged by roytam1's statement in an April 12 reply to you (on page 45 of your link), "I don't own any Vista copies." Hmm, maybe someone should give roytam1 a Vista key? Then again, many XP diehards wouldn't be caught dead running Vista...

You misunderstand. I was asking Roytam1 if the LAV codecs for x64 for run under official Pale Moon. He was not sure of that. However, as for New Moon, it works on Vista x64 (which I'm typing with right now.) And Roytam1 is working on the beta of v28 which he has users running on Vista with success.

As it stands right now, Roytam 1's versuion of Basilisk (which is basically a replacement for Firefox v52 with newer updates) will run on Vista (while Moonchild's will not), and New Moon will run on v28 using Vista. And so big deal if XP was the original OS he was trying to save. Vista at least has an option now.

My the pessimism here

 

[Vistaar]

Well if you had specified "Best 64-bit Options for Vista," then you might unfortunately be correct. Of course Pale Moon 27 supports Vista anyway; but as you have found, the 64-bit version has video issues on Vista (see Palemoon 27.5/6/7 x64 doesn't support "MSE & H.264" on Windoiws Vista x64 SP2. - Pale Moon forum). Those of us running Vista x86 couldn't reproduce that issue if we wanted to, whereas those of you running Vista x64 could always use the 32-bit version of Pale Moon at this time (e.g if you wanted a browser from better-known developers that does not require installation of LAV open-source decoders, allows you to use Flash Player if you want, and even supports Aero).

I will be keeping an eye on a.k.a Pale Moon for XP as you suggested. BTW I do not misunderstand: Developer roytam1 of Hong Kong does not own a copy of Vista (and neither does Moonchild for that matter), and roytam1 also doesn't have XP64 (see April 7 reply to Sumanai on page 44 of your link), so pardon my pessimism.

 

[Jody Thornton]

I was speaking about the x64 builds (I almost think of x86 as non-existent now). As for Roytam1 not having x64 builds of XP and Vista, seems there are enough users including me to test those builds out. And UXP build also test well. Plus the MP4 codec issues have been dealt with by using the LAV decoder.

 

[Vistaar]

I see you have recently changed to roytam1's build of Pale Moon 28. What Firefox version is that ultimately based on? If I understand correctly, it does not require LAV decoders like roytam1's PM 27. Have you tested H.264? Much of that thread disappeared as a result of MSFN's server crash, including your early adventures and the posts that I cited previously. However, one thing I never saw was any promise of continued support for Windows Vista.

 

[Jody Thornton]

That's funny @Vistaar (I just posted the same info on Ghacks almost verbatim). But yes, that would be based on Firefox 52 (with some slightly updated code from newer builds - so more of a "Franken-52", if you will).

It works on Vista, and yes it was indeed promised by Roytam1 (I'm sorry you missed that). I am awaiting his new build based on the now Beta release of v28. But I'm using the last alphas on Vista x64. It renders sites astoundingly. And Twitter and YouTube all work out of the box.

 

[Vistaar]

I suspect that Moonchild chose Firefox 52 ESR only because it was the last version to support NPAPI (see Mozilla deprecates NPAPI / Pale Moon will keep NPAPI Thread - Pale Moon forum). On the bright side, that will make things relatively easy for roytam1, since 52 ESR x86 has been in use on XP and Vista since March 2017. There was another security update on June 25 (52.9.0). On the down side, Firefox 61.0 was recently released for Windows 7 and above, and nobody will ever backport that to Vista I'm afraid.

So Moonchild now says that official Pale Moon 28 will work on Vista (oh, that's good) - but WinClient5270 at MSFN has demonstrated that it will not (oh, that's bad). We will just have to stay tuned.

 

[Jody Thornton]

So Moonchild now says that official Pale Moon 28 will work on Vista (oh, that's good) - but WinClient5270 at MSFN has demonstrated that it will not (oh, that's bad). We will just have to stay tuned.

I saw that on the Pale Moon Forum and commented on that over at MSFN this morning. Dizzying isn't it? Because it was the Moon-Matt team that espoused the anti-Vista tripe on the Pale Moon Forum, which in my mind just added to the confusion.

Now UXP was originally going to be developed with Firefox 55 code, but I guess there were too many dead ends, and they rewrote UXP from scratch based on v52. .... HOWEVER .... Roytam1 has a working build of Basilisk (based on UXP-55) that works on Vista and XP (x64 builds included). It is quite praised by the MSFN crowd and they say it works faster and better than the Basilisk-52 rewrite.

 

[Vistaar]

UXP was originally going to be developed with Firefox 55 code...Roytam1 has a working build of Basilisk (based on UXP-55) that works on Vista and XP (x64 builds included). It is quite praised by the MSFN crowd and they say it works faster and better than the Basilisk-52 rewrite.

I have paid relatively little attention to discussion of Basilisk builds until quite recently. VistaLover (running x86) has pointed out a few minor issues lately, but Basilisk does sound promising.

 

[erpster4]

I have paid relatively little attention to discussion of Basilisk builds until quite recently. VistaLover (running x86) has pointed out a few minor issues lately, but Basilisk does sound promising.

but Basilisk requires Win7 or higher to use - does not support XP/Vista

and Pale Moon v28 came out a few days ago, which does not seem to work on Vista (wahaha )

 

[Vistaar]

but Basilisk requires Win7 or higher to use - does not support XP/Vista

and Pale Moon v28 came out a few days ago, which does not seem to work on Vista (wahaha )

You are correct. However, @Jody Thornton is not advocating Moonchild's official builds of Basilisk or Pale Moon 28, but rather roytam1's builds with support for Windows XP (and therefore Vista) added back in (see link in post #1).

 

[Vistaar]

Now UXP was originally going to be developed with Firefox 55 code, but I guess there were too many dead ends, and they rewrote UXP from scratch based on v52. .... HOWEVER .... Roytam1 has a working build of Basilisk (based on UXP-55) that works on Vista and XP (x64 builds included). It is quite praised by the MSFN crowd and they say it works faster and better than the Basilisk-52 rewrite.

@Jody Thornton I see you are now using roytam1's Basilisk 55 build! Can you clarify the situation regarding add-ons for that version? Firefox versions higher than 52 do not support NPAPI plugins (now called "classic" or "legacy" - although there is still an exception for Flash Player). On the other hand, Moonchild has expressed a determination to retain NPAPI support, and Basilisk "Moebius" was his project before being "deprecated." I note that TechnoRelic recommended a "legacy extension" for it on page 51 of the "New Moon" thread, but also mentioned an issue with the extension. I wonder if users who are fond of certain add-ons might be better off with a browser based on Firefox 52? FF 55 was not an extended support release, so there have been no updates from Mozilla for at least a year - and yet it is the most recent browser version than any developer has backported to XP and Vista.

This roytam1 certainly has quite a few irons in the fire (New Moon 27 and 28, Basilisk 52 and 55, K-Meleon, and even a patched Firefox 45 for non-SSE2 processors) - so many that I think we must be talking about an organization rather than an individual. IMO supporting multiple browsers in a single cumbersome thread is getting ridiculous.

 

[Jody Thornton]

@Jody Thornton I see you are now using roytam1's Basilisk 55 build! Can you clarify the situation regarding add-ons for that version? Firefox versions higher than 52 do not support NPAPI plugins (now called "classic" or "legacy" - although there is still an exception for Flash Player). On the other hand, Moonchild has expressed a determination to retain NPAPI support, and Basilisk "Moebius" was his project before being "deprecated." I note that TechnoRelic recommended a "legacy extension" for it on page 51 of the "New Moon" thread, but also mentioned an issue with the extension. I wonder if users who are fond of certain add-ons might be better off with a browser based on Firefox 52? FF 55 was not an extended support release, so there have been no updates from Mozilla for at least a year - and yet it is the most recent browser version than any developer has backported to XP and Vista.

This roytam1 certainly has quite a few irons in the fire (New Moon 27 and 28, Basilisk 52 and 55, K-Meleon, and even a patched Firefox 45 for non-SSE2 processors) - so many that I think we must be talking about an organization rather than an individual. IMO supporting multiple browsers in a single cumbersome thread is getting ridiculous.

Well actually my understanding is that Roytam1's New Moon is a further mod of another XP/Vista capable flavour of Pale Moon., so maybe the workload is not quite as bad as we;re imagining. Don't quote me on that though. I can't speak about all of the other ports that he has done.

As for Basilisk 55, I haven't installed Flash at all. The old Sumatra PDF plug-in I have works. And I'm able to install the legacy uBlock Origin and Classic Theme Restorer. Now at one point, uBlock would automatically upgrade to the current WebExtesnsions version, but I defeated that so it stay with the legacy build.

However, I'm finding that the current build of New Moon v27.9.4 seems to be working with pages that it was previously having slowdowns and trouble rendering before. So I've abandoned the v28 build and returned to New Moon v27. Go figure.

 

[Vistaar]

If New Moon v27 is roytam1's best option for Vista, then there are no good options for Vista IMO. The latest NM27 builds may no longer require LAV decoders (is that correct?); but as I explained in post #4, I think it makes more sense to use Moonchild's official Pale Moon 27 (except for a video issue that only affects the 64-bit version on Vista). There are more good reasons not to use official Pale Moon 27: (1) it is based on ancient Firefox 38, (2) it is no longer being actively developed because Pale Moon 28 is out, and (3) NoScript is blocked.

 

[Jody Thornton]

Sounds like Basilisk 55 does support NPAPI plugins.

If New Moon v27 is roytam1's best option for Vista, then there are no good options for Vista IMO. The latest NM27 builds may no longer require LAV decoders (is that correct?); but as I explained in post #4, I think it makes more sense to use Moonchild's official Pale Moon 27 (except for a video issue that only affects the 64-bit version on Vista). And there are other good reasons not to use official Pale Moon 27: (1) it is based on ancient Firefox 38, (2) it is no longer being actively developed because Pale Moon 28 is out, and (3) NoScript is blocked in Pale Moon 27.

Probably New Moon v28 or Baslisk v52 are the best options (the closest version of Firefox that these are based on would be v52). Plus there are still security updates backported to these.

All I'm saying is that I find New Moon v27.9.4 seems to render sites faster (at least those that work), and yes I had to use the LAV codecs. And since I'm moving to a new machine next week, the rest for me is all for nigh.

Still, would not v28 or Basilisk 52 make good choices Vistaar? At least you have an x64 browser that can browse the modern web.

 

[Tatl]

I believe this last Opera (36) is starting to show difficulties with some websites.
Firefox seems ok.
Any other browsers available? I don't understand this chromium at all.

 

[Jody Thornton]

Matt Tobin from the Pale Moon crew is working on a SeaMonkey/UXP rewrite that will target Windows 7 and higher (but again, Roytam1 has recompiled it to work on Vista and XP.)
Check out Borealis.

 

[Tatl]

I couldn't find this borealis.
But found UC browser. Any opinions?

 

[wither 3]

I have to agree about Borealis. I looked at a website with around 50 alternate browsers and it wasn't listed. Also, it's not listed in the mainstream browsers.

Maybe Matt will help us out.