Odd Firefox system requirements recommendation

Odd Firefox system requirements recommendation

Summary: I'm left puzzling over an odd system requirements recommendation posted for Firefox ...

TOPICS: Browser

Maybe I'm just focusing on nothing, but Mozilla's system requirements recommendations for Firefox 3.0 beta struck me as odd:

Odd Firefox system requirements recommendation

Anyone any ideas why XP would be recommended over Vista?  The same pattern is repeated for Firefox 2 and Thunderbird 2 too:

Odd Firefox system requirements recommendation

I guess it's easier to understand why this applies to Firefox 2, but for the same recommendation to be in place for Firefox 3 seems odd to me.  I've got the beta running just fine on Vista.

I wonder whether the recommendation isn't more political than technical.

Anyone able to shed any light on the matter?

Topic: Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Easy

    They haven't implemented UAC restrictions into Firefox. Hence you may as well use XP.
  • Would agree with ju1ce

    I have 3b2 running with AdBlock Plus and NoScript on SP3--all seems fine but I can't tell any speed difference.

    Ideally, your about:config should have network.http pipelining enabled as:


    Thanks Adrian
    D T Schmitz
  • I recommend XP...

    over Vista for everything.
  • Maybe because

    the Firefox folks are really not the biggest fans of MS and that recommendation is just a little twist of the knife?
  • Probably because...

    Mozilla is doing the actual development and most of the testing on XP, so it's safer to recommend XP, rather than Vista.
    John L. Ries
  • RE: Odd Firefox system requirements recommendation

    Adrian, Asa from Mozilla here.

    The "(Recommended)" label means that we recommend at least that level of operating system. We will run on Windows 2000, but we recommend that users use at least Windows XP.

    I've spoken with the Firefox 3 lead and I think he agrees that it's a bit confusing so it's going to be removed or re-worded.

    - A
    • Thanks Asa,

      That actually makes sense, thanks for posting here.
    • Could you tell us why?

      Has testing has uncovered problems with 2000 and Vista, or it simply that your software has been more thoroughly tested on XP than elsewhere?
      John L. Ries
      • Read carefully, he is saying that they meeat to say XP is the MINIMUM

        requirement. In other words, Vista is ok too. There may be a lot of problems with Vista, but FireFox is good to go.
        • no, they didnt...

          they said that XP was the minimum recommendation... not the minimum requirement.
          • Right, sorry, but in any case, Mozilla was not trying to say that XP

            was recommended above Vista. Vista may have a lot of problems, but FireFox is good to go on Vista.
          • Said that XP was "recommended"

            but Vista was supported.

            I mean, I'd recommend XP or 2000 over Vista for lots of reasons, but I'd like to know what Mozilla's rationale was.
            John L. Ries
          • It was in his reply

            Just read the guy's response. They recommend at a minimum XP. It is fine to run on either XP or Vista. They aren't recommending XP over Vista. It will run on 2000, but they recommend [i]at least[/i] XP.

            I can't believe this is still up for discussion. It was pretty clear in his reply what their motivation was, as was the statement that they agree it is confusing and will be changing the way it is stated.

            What else do you need to know about it?
    • Thanks for clarifying that Asa

      Much appreciated!
      Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
  • RE: Odd Firefox system requirements recommendation

    Perhaps Firefox is as unenthusiastic about Vista as a lot of other people are????
  • XP over VISTA ?

    Because XP is more stable than Vista.
    I run 2000 PRO/SP4 simply because of the stability problems I have experienced with XP/SP2.
    As far as VISTA is concerned, it looks like Microsoft would have been better off concentrating on a SP3 for XP instead of the VISTA Project.
    Their corporate mind set of having to come out with a NEW O/S instead of fixing and upgrading the existing O/S prompted them to release VISTA before it was a stable platform.
    This is not only my opinion as a user but that of the majority of computer manufactures and IT Professionals.
    I have 1 desktop and 3 laptops running 2000 PRO/SP4 and 1 desktop with XP PRO SP/2. The only system problems are with the XP machine. A release of XP SP3 would have served Microsoft and it's customers much better than VISTA has.
    • Re: XP over VISTA ?

      I'm curious as to what you're running for hardware. I've run 6 different configurations and maintained many others with XP SP2 and have never run into any stability problems. If your hardware is 8 years old, you might consider that as the culprit.
      Just my $0.005
    • How do you know?

      You run 4 machines with W2K and 1 with XP, how can you decide that Vista runs poorly? Are you basing that on others who also do not run Vista? Thought so.

      I now run Vista on 4 machines now, 2 notebooks, 1 TabletPC, and 1 desktop. On the 2 machines that I upgraded from XP, it is much faster and more stable. (The other 2 were bought with Vista with good hardware to run it, and run very well and stable.) By far, this is the best Windows OS for notebooks and tablets.
    • SP3 for XP is comming

      MS is releasing a SP3 for XP. It's in beta testing now! :)
  • RE: Odd Firefox system requirements recommendation

    I have used all Windows OS's. 98SE was the best and Microsoft got rid of it right after all the bugs were worked out. Vista sucks, it messes with your programs. And you'll have to buy all new hardware (cameras) to be combatible. XP is a decent OS, but still has a few bugs to be fixed.