Chrome 50 Updates Push Notifications, Drops Support For Old Windows and OS X Versions (venturebeat.com) 168
An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat: Google today launched Chrome 50 for Windows, Mac, and Linux, adding the usual slew of developer features. You can update to the latest version now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome. As announced in November 2015, Chrome now no longer supports Windows XP, Windows Vista, OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, OS X 10.7 Lion, nor OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. Chrome 50 allows sites to include notification data payloads with their push messages. This eliminates the final server check -- the initial version relied on service workers to proactively fetch the information for a notification from the server, leading to problems when there were multiple messages in flight or when the device was on a poor network connection. Push notification payloads must be encrypted. Sites can now detect when a notification is closed by the user, resulting in better analytics and allowing for cross-device notification dismissal. The look of notifications can now be customized with timestamps and icons. Chrome 50 also brings support for declarative preload.
You have to authorize it first dinguss (Score:2)
Have you ever seen those two overlapping diamonds at the end of the address bar when you visit a site like Gmail? That's the desktop push notification feature that they are talking about, or at least it's the predecessor of it. So, yes you are correct in the sense that if you are stupid enough to authorize an spam service to push notifications to your desktop then you will receive these advertisements. Let's call this digital evolution, if you can't be bothered to read something before agreeing to it, then
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, expecting accountability and not blind button pushing is certainly inhumane. Expecting people to look before they leap is certainly inhumane. Expecting people to know what a button does prior to pushing it is expecting responsibility. We can't have that, now can we?
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying any browser that so much as supports <img> will be used for ads and thus support shouldn't be included.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is becoming more and more abusive, and more and more incompetent. Want to download the Google Chrome Browser? The download file name does not give the version number.
If you pay attention, that's probably because it doesn't actually have a version number associated with it. When you download chrome, you're just downloading a shim that downloads the latest copy of Chrome from Google's servers and then installs it.
The only way you can download a specific version of Chrome is if you get the MSI based installer, which is most often used for enterprise environments (because it can be deployed via group policy) but otherwise works the same.
An earlier version of the Google Chrome browser installs 3 system services.
That had to have been quite some time
MSI version of Chrome (Score:2)
The version number with the 3 system services is: Google Chrome Version 40.0.2214.91 m. The web site says Copyright 2016, but I think that is due to sloppiness we are now seeing everywhere with Google activities. That version is less than 2 years old, apparently.
You said, "Ok now you're just getting stupid. Sorry, I can't fix you." Maybe I can do something for
Re: MSI version of Chrome (Score:2)
I say stupid because it's taking a nosedive into the deep end of conspiracy theory territory. Physics is complicated, and I don't know it that well, but that doesn't mean I'm about to trust the assertions made in the loose change 9/11 video.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no... That's like saying John gets his money from Microsoft because Jill works at Microsoft and pays John to shovel her driveway. If that were the case then you could say that John bought a copy of Windows, who paid Jill, who paid John, so John broke even. It's always circular and stupid to take it past the first person. Have you murdered anyone? No? By your logic, you paid the government, which paid the salaries, of the guy who went crazy in Iraq and murdered people. You murder!
See? Stupid. Lots of peo
Sometimes new versions break old arrangements. (Score:2)
Software companies are taking more and more control. We are often not allowed to have a full program; often we are allowed to have only a program that downloads the full program and installs it.
It surprises me that most people accept what I consider to be the dictatorial behavior of Microsoft,
Did you read what I wrote? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I expect Google decision is based off of number of users more than the age of the OS's
XP is way too old.
Vista has such a small number of users who care about upgrading so why bother with them.
The same with the older OS Xs Apple provides an inexpensive upgrade path so there shouldn't be that much hassle if you have a newer system.
Supporting older systems is always a pain.
1. There is a small but obnoxiously vocal group of users. Who are very angry that they can't do newer stuff on a computer that is a decade
Microsoft supports Windows Vista until April 2017 (Score:3)
Vista has such a small number of users who care about upgrading so why bother with them.
Yet Microsoft is continuing to support these users for one more year, with support ending in mid-April 2017 [microsoft.com]. This will just push users back onto Internet Explorer 9 for this final year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Build for Mountain Lion and the code will run on later versions. Mountain Lion is extremely popular and while upgrades to it are cheap/free they are not popular and there's no reason to endure an upgrade to get them. Mountain Lion is essentially new, it's from 2012.
Products are for the customers, not the developers. If developers only did stuff that they felt was convenient then we'd never have software because they'd all be sleeping in to noon every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Products are for the customers, not the developers.
In the case of Google Chrome, who are the customers? I've been using it since it first became stable but I don't recall ever paying a penny for it.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of Google Chrome, who are the customers?
Advertisers, duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome doesn't display ads. So, no, advertisers are not the customers of Google Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome shows Google ads, so Google is Google's customer.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't drop support for OSes just because of them being "old". They drop for not being broken unstable bleeding edge.
They dropped support [debian.org] for Debian wheezy before jessie was even out. If they can't manage to build on the latest stable release of a major platform that's only 1.5 years old, you shouldn't consider using them for anything that needs to be reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
What's worse is that they dropped Windows Server 2008, which has the same kernel used for Vista. In corporate environments where switching out the OS is a hell of a lot easier said than done, this hurts significantly.
Re: (Score:2)
I found this odd. OSX Mountain Lion is essentially new. Apple may be hasty in getting people to upgrade, but Mountain Lion is basically the Windows 7 of the Apple world only newer in that it's the stable version without the newer unloved UI changes.
XP I understand (Score:4, Insightful)
No one should still be running XP unless it's on a specialized system, and those shouldn't be used for general web browsing anyway.
But OS X 10.8? That came out in 2012, not 2001. Even 10.7 is still fairly modern. 10.6/Snow Leopard is getting long in the tooth, so that might make sense to drop support, but this will just make people using the older Macs run out of date browsers or find another product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But OS X 10.8? That came out in 2012, not 2001. Even 10.7 is still fairly modern. 10.6/Snow Leopard is getting long in the tooth, so that might make sense to drop support, but this will just make people using the older Macs run out of date browsers or find another product.
Every version of OS X since mavericks in 2013 has been free and runs on pretty much any mac built after 2007. So really folks, get with the program and update.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have a system running 10.6 and can't update it without spending a pretty large chunk of change. It's running protools 8 ish and use it for my voiceover business. I don't need to spend at minimum close to a grand to update protools hardware/software to 12 just so I can run the latest mac os and chop up mono audio files. This isn't google's problem and I get eventual dropping support, but it's legacy, and like other folks out there, it's not just as simple as updating my os. If I do, the protools hard
Re: (Score:2)
If all you are doing is chopping up mono audio files then I am not sure why you need Pro Tools, large number of other products out there including free and or open source ones for Mac.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, except for the fact that I've been using protools since, well, longer than I can remember. Know all the hot keys, and exactly what I'm doing to get exactly what I want. So, switching to audacity or some other audio clunkware, well, that dog don't hunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but Audacity is a sound file editor, not a DAW. It simply doesn't have the functionality a lot of people need. You could have recommended Reaper, BitWig or something else that runs on Linux, but suggesting Audacity as a replacement for a DAW just makes you looks ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, this is oh so true. And even if I switch, what are the possibilities that I will run into issues with getting another daw to work with my audio interface? Probably pretty high. I need balanced i/o running through a fairly high-end preamp and comp/limiter from my neuiman. so, ya, rca and miniplug is not an option. I undoubtedly will have to upgrade software/hardware, but just trying to hold off a bit. And a lot of the files wav/aiff are delivered through google drive and a self hosted owncloud, so yep,
Re: (Score:2)
Snow Leopard is no longer supported (Score:2)
Is that a machine you need the latest browser on, though?
Probably not. Like Windows XP, OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is no longer supported [computerworld.com]. Security updates to a web browser won't help if the operating system itself has forever-day vulnerabilities [schneier.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Security updates to a web browser won't help if the operating system itself has forever-day vulnerabilities.
Sure they will. If the browser is secure, OS flaws won't be exposed.
Agreed that any browser flaws that do get exploited on an old OS ensure the OS does get pwned too... but there is no reason not keep updating and securing internet facing/accessing tools after the OS isn't being updated.
Provided the OS is behind a working firewall, any exploits that do hit are going to come through those internet facing/accessing programs. So if they are secure, then nothing reaches the holes in the OS.
And as in all things
Exploitable system libraries; nonworking firewalls (Score:2)
If the browser is secure, OS flaws won't be exposed.
Flaws in the IP or TCP implementation, in other services that the same machine exposes, or in system libraries that the browser uses can still be exposed. For example, computers have been broken into through web fonts that exploit defects in the operating system's font parser. (Google: truetype exploit)
Provided the OS is behind a working firewall
That's a big "provided". How many users of home or small office firewall appliances keep said appliances' system software updated?
Re: (Score:3)
Every version of OS X since mavericks in 2013 has been free and runs on pretty much any mac built after 2007. So really folks, get with the program and update.
My iMac still works perfectly fine but can't run Mavericks. So what program should I get with?
Off topic. I was considering replacing it with a mac mini, but with the last refresh gutting the mac mini's specs I now don't know what the best upgrade path is. I'm almost to the point of building a hackintosh.
Re: (Score:3)
So what program should I get with?
The program you need to get (with) is firefox since it'll run on your mac just fine!
ba dumm tschhh
I'll be here all weak, try the steak!
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure, I'll take that pig over Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a very weak upgrade, but I wouldn't call it "gutted." For real life purposes the new Mac Mini is still faster than what preceded it. It's still a small, quiet, power-sipping, relatively inexpensive computer that runs fine, if you just want to run it for basic purposes. I expect a new version will come out this year. Who knows, but I'd be tempted to hold out.
Mac OS X is nice but not magical. Before running a Hackintosh and all the potential issues, switch to Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're running an ancient iMac, then any mac-mini will be better than what you have today. Hell, you could get a 2year old *used* mac-mini and be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I am in this position right now. I don't want an iMac, but their current Mac Mini lineup is... well... garbage.
So I said "Hell with it" and took a decently spec'ed PC, and turned it into a hackintosh. I had spend a little time doing some tweaks, bluetooth and audio is slightly quirky, but beyond that it runs perfectly fine for my needs.
I really hope Apple doesn't let their entire desktop line slide downhill even further, but I'm not holding my breath. They don't seem to understand that there is a class of
Re: (Score:2)
older OS X versions (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there IS a reason some people may not want to upgrade OS X: some older Macbook Pros have a hardware flaw in their GPUs [apple.com], and later versions of OS X panic (i.e., crash) with these machines where the older versions don't. Then there are the poor souls who just can't bring themselves to retire their PPC-based models. I mean, c'mon - the Luxor Lamp iMacs [pinimg.com] still look pretty damn cool. Generally, OS X upgrades are very worthwhile, but some people with hardware that's 5+ years old but otherwise working fine are getting the pinch.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about ancient OS versions, but a version from 2012 which is the most stable version out there. Updating an OS just because there's something newer is the sort of stupid thing that Windows users do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The updates are not worth it. Who cares if it's free or not free, it's not worth the pain to upgrade and get a new and broken UI, new broken features (have to turn on secret settings to get root to be root on ElCapitan). Apple has not abandoned those stable releases either. It's like a free tattoo, some may not want the pain or the disfigurement.
Wirth's law and the minimalist WM treadmill (Score:2)
In Open Source land you can run full-blown desktop environments with fancy 3D effects (check out Compiz or modern KDE-Plasma) and all the bells and whistles. You can also run minimalist window managers. You can do anything in-between. "I updated my system and now it's slow" generally doesn't happen, not unless you go out of your way to actually add a new service or the like.
Or unless an operating system update adds it for you, as Ubuntu 11.10 did to people who had been happily using GNOME 2. After a month of wrangling with Un(usabil)ity, 11.10's replacement for GNOME 2, I said F it and installed Xfce, one of said "minimalist window managers": sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
The general case is that a user can start off with a mainstream window manager, but as time passes, the mainstream window manager will bloat up with Wirth's law [wikipedia.org], and the user will need to retrain himsel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more to do with development.
You can't legally VM Mac OS. It just doesn't have compatible licensing.
So to make apps for these old versions, you REQUIRE specific versions to test with, which means a physical machine each, which means lots of Macs just to test and each has to be managed, updated and imaged separately.
And, no, you can't just use the latest XCode to compile and expect it to work on older MacOS, and nor can you use the latest XCode on an old MacOS, etc. And, pretty much, if you're targetin
Re: (Score:2)
This makes perfect sense. Thanks!
Re: (Score:1)
"You can't legally VM Mac OS. It just doesn't have compatible licensing."
Licensing has changed, and you should verify this. While I'm not familiar with your exact scenario, virtualizing OSX on Apple hardware is (and has been) permitted for a while now...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never got why people like development on Mac.
Because of this:
https://developer.apple.com/li... [apple.com]
Yeah in Windows you have PowerShell, which is so awesome Microsoft is doing this:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3... [theverge.com]
Re:XP I understand (Score:4, Interesting)
Is a shell really a big deal for most developers? For what I do with it as an embedded and desktop developer I only make light use of it, and the web/cloud guys hardly use it at all. If you are administering servers it's all SSH anyway and Windows has plenty of good SSH clients like Putty.
What sort of development tasks does an advanced shell help with?
Re: (Score:2)
Complicated build and deploy environments. I know guys who have scripts set up to auto-provision VMs with newly updated code to run regression tests.
Most of the web development guys I know are Mac guys - mainly for *nix-centric tools (using grep/awk for log parsing, finding stuff quickly in source files, etc...)
Yeah there are ports on Windows but they are kinda hokey to use with DOS style paths.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the fact that Mac has a bash shell, although that's a major component.
A Mac, out of the box, can interact with any operating system seamlessly, using the exact same toolset, whether it's Redhat, Ubuntu, AIX, Solaris, or Free/Open/NetBSD. I'm sure it could probably interact with mainframes as well, but I've never personally tried so I can't say for sure. With windows, you are unable to do a single blessed thing until you start downloading and installing craptons of 3rd party utilities to do a
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Not to defend Microsoft, but the way Windows works goes all the way back to MS-DOS over 30 years ago, and MS-DOS is based heavily on CP/M from the 1970's. In the same time frame, Apple had the Apple II, Mac OS, and OS X, all of which are completely different and pretty much incompatible with each other too. And if you
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct, however, I (if it wasn't clear) was talking about *today*, not 30 years ago. In the early days of computers, *everybody* went their own way, because there was no established path to take. Now that time has passed and the dust has settled, we're basically down to two camps: Windows, and everybody else.
Windows has a very very long history behind it, and forces a bajillion compromises when a new version comes out. It also makes Apple's move to OSX that much more interesting, cau
Re: (Score:1)
For web dev it's great because you have a UNIX environment... it comes with apache, php, python and ruby out of the box, so it's as easy as it is in Linux to run package managers like npm, composer, gem, build tools like make or gulp, deployment tools like capistrano, cli compilers and precompilers like sass, less, coffeescript, and other useful UNIX stuff like rsync, scp, etc. ... you'll also find configurations in /etc, logs in /var/log, modify permissions with chown and chgrp... which allows to use the s
Re: (Score:2)
Is a shell really a big deal for most developers? For what I do with it as an embedded and desktop developer I only make light use of it, and the web/cloud guys hardly use it at all. If you are administering servers it's all SSH anyway and Windows has plenty of good SSH clients like Putty.
What sort of development tasks does an advanced shell help with?
Anything to do with searching/munging text files which your IDE doesn't natively support?
I can't imagine trying to develop -- for any platform -- without find, grep, awk, cut, paste, sort, wc and the ability to combine them in various combinations with pipes and wrap those combinations in loops, etc.
I suppose young'uns who never learned just how powerful the shell is might not see a need for it, but their lack of knowledge makes them less productive.
Re:XP I understand (Score:5, Informative)
It's more to do with development.
You can't legally VM Mac OS. It just doesn't have compatible licensing.
From the El Capitan license agreement:
(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software
within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control
that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b)
testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, noncommercial
use.
http://images.apple.com/legal/... [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Unless those terms also exist in the licenses for earlier versions, it is no help: one cannot legally run OSX Lion in a VM on an El Capitan machine.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, you can. Mac OS X can be run in a VM officially and legally as long as the host hardware is a Mac and the host OS is Mac OS X. Mac OS X 10.6 or older must be the server version of the OS though.
You may notice all the "Apple OS X" options available in VMWare Fusion when you go to create a new VM (if you use VMWare).
Re: (Score:2)
You can if it's 10.7 or newer and your host is a Macintosh itself.
Prior to 10.7, you had to run the server flavor of the OS and be on Macintosh hardware. Which is why I own a copy of OS X Server 10.6 -- lets me run it in a VM.
But after 10.7 came out, Server changed to an app you run on top of the regular OS instead of a distinct version of the OS, and they updated the licensing at that time.
If you're confused about what you are and aren
Re: (Score:2)
The down side of free OS upgrades and very high adoption rates is that people who really need an old version for some reason aren't well supported.
Re: (Score:2)
No one should still be running XP unless it's on a specialized system
Does "XP Mode" in Windows 7 count? I use it because it's a free (semi)supported virtual machine (semi)built-in to Windows 7, including features like Undo Disk with rollback (free VMware doesn't offer this, IIRC).
I'd love to replace it, but I don't know of anything else that's free. There's VirtualBox, but I've had difficulty with the cut-and-paste to and from the host, and in any case I'd have to pay for another license for the copy of Windows I run in there. XP Mode is basically a free XP license built-i
Re: (Score:2)
Does "XP Mode" in Windows 7 count?
No, because you have Windows 7.
Advertisers broke the web! (Score:2)
Dropping Vista support?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't get them upset anymore. After all, they have vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Vista eventually ran properly after MANY updates. I would argue an updated Vista is probably better than a non SP1 Windows 7. VISTA was garbage at launch, that I won't argue. I still have 3 users running VISTA on older laptops that we are about to replace and I have yet to hear complaints. Maybe they've lost the will to live... I don't know.
Global stats shows Vista at 2% of North American desktops. Won't be long before it's gone.
Re:Dropping Vista support?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do any sort of speed test you want on Vista and then upgrade to Windows 7 IN PLACE and that same speed test will be improved.
That is true of ANY OS from MS. Win95 Win98 WinXP ... I left out ME because it was as dress up, not a new OS. The H/W level optimizations are only as good as the OS support for it.
My comments were more inclined towards common complaints about Vista at the time. In this case, OS stability.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The bump that Vista got around the XP end-of-life was kind of amusing, when everyone decided that with XP being dead they might as well use that Vista sticker on the side of their computer. The place I was at had more Vista machines running in 2014 than it did in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a non-profit org as he specified in this comments. You do with what you have when there's no money rolling in or allocated to your department.
50!? (Score:1)
God, why can't Firefox use a sane versioning system like Chrome!? It seems like there's an update every week! Everybody really should just ditch Firefox and use Chrome instead because of things like this.
Oh... wait! This *is* Chrome. And nobody cares when Chrome does something, but when Firefox does it, this place turns into one long bitch fest.
Re: (Score:2)
People bitched about Firefox because it turned into Chrome Junior. Chrome went to the higher version numbers, so did FF. Chrome changed the interface to hipster minimalist bullshit and so did FF.
Re: (Score:2)
People bitched about Firefox because it turned into Chrome Junior. Chrome went to the higher version numbers, so did FF. Chrome changed the interface to hipster minimalist bullshit and so did FF.
GP's point is people bitch when Firefox does it, but not when Chrome does it
Re: (Score:2)
Degrading an ad delivery platform doesn't hurt, degrading a functional browser does.
Re: (Score:1)
They ride him because he comes off as a raving lunatic, sort of like that TimeCube guy. I've never seen him say anything like "hey, that's a great point" because he knows everything, at least if you ask him. If you do counter a statement he makes, he tends to throw a tantrum - not respectable.
They also ride him because he uses proxies, bots, VPNs, or whatever to absolutely FLOOD discussions with dozens and dozens of very long trollish posts that Slashdot admin can't/won't do anything about. See, when you
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for linking this in a reply to me. Wrong again, yet again I will reiterate, I don't post AC. I only ever post as this account unless there are login issues, then I sign my posts just like you do. That isn't me posting, and style should easily give it away.
Frankly, I wish I could write as well as that AC, as s/he makes a pretty good case why you should never be able to post to Slashdot again. Perhaps you should read it and consider the points before trying to just write it off as one of your foes.
Re: (Score:2)
I deny I made any lies in anything you quoted. You are the one who claimed that hosts files were better than DNS in an AD environment. That indicated you know nothing about the way which AD works. You claimed to have been a systems administrator on a AD domain, and using your hosts files instead of DNS. If you did that, the domain would not function, which indicates who the liar is here.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you will change what you said yet again to try and make it fact after your failure is pointed out to you? Love how you keep doing that.
I'm delusional for holding you to account for your statements? I'm not the one who keeps changing the story every time, you are. I prove you incompitent, you act like what you said really wasn't what you said, and try and twist it to be something different. I quoted you, you stated AD didn't need DNS, and it was better to use a hosts file, I had a whole convers
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quoted quoting you quoting me quoting you?
Do you even hear yourself? I QUOTED you, but yet, that isn't good enough in your demented brain. You claimed that a hosts file solution was better than AD DNS for filtering, because DNS can be exploited. I can't make it any clearer, I am QUOTING YOU!
So keep up the campaign of disinformation and walking back your incompitence.
I'm glad you have enough time on your hands proofreading my posts, keep up the good work and maybe one day you can be a Slashdot editor
Re: (Score:2)
No support for 32-bit Linux, either (Score:1)
Don't know if it was at version 50, but Chome no longer supports 32-bit Linux. Chromium still does, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Chromium doesn't support "32-bit Linux". It supports i386 only. In total, it supports only 2 out of 22 [debian.org] Debian architectures.
removing support for older versions (Score:2)
Is this lack of support for XP, Mountain Lion, etc, because the code is now using API calls available only in the later OSes? Or are they simply checking the environment at install or run time and refusing to run if it detects an earlier OS version?
The first reason, I could understand. But since it's occurring across OS's, I have to think it's the later. Which makes no sense. If someone is using their browser as their primary interface, it would seem like, even though it's not recommend, it is their preroga
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly Chromium is dropping support for XP and Vista too. Though it's open source so you should, in theory, be able to go in and make it work. Now, there's a bunch of changes with the Windows API between XP and Vista, so my guess is that Chromium is using parts of the API that are just not available on XP. On the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of difference between Vista and 7, so if it runs on Windows 7 I would expect it to run on Vista without too much difficulty.
Bastards! They killed the 32-bit MacBook! (Score:2)
When Chrome stopped issuing Mac updates for the 32-bit processor in 2014, it was the death knell for my venerable 2006 MacBook (now running Mint Linux). As the 8-Bit Guy demonstrated in his YouTube, the 32-bit MacBook can run the latest 32-bit Windows OS and 32-bit Chrome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJw8aSxEFwQ [youtube.com]
Unhappy that Google dropped support for Linux (Score:2)
Google sure hates Linux these days.
They've also dropped Ubuntu 12.04 (Score:2)
They have a nasty message that Ubuntu 12.04 is EOL - despite that from Canonical's POV it's still supported for another year.
Not just more dev features (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
At some point running XP will be more secure than running a popular OS just because it will stop being a target.
In fact I will upgrade my Windows 2000 box to XP as soon as everybody has forgotten about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to Vivaldi a few days ago. At first the new UI pissed me off, but after fiddling in the enormous amount of options I was able to get the browser that I want. Chrome - Google + Vertical Tabs. Haven't encountered a single bug so far, but that could be because I have turned off almost all of the new features like thumbnail tabs and tab stacking.