Firefox ESR vs. R3dfox, Supermium

[michael diemer]

Since Firefox ESR is 115.26, and R3dfox, for example is something like 134, which would be best to use? Personally, I prefer Firefox to Chromium, so for me it's either FF ESR or R3dfox. Supermium also seems like a good choice though, for those who prefer Chromium. But how good are they all in terms of safety, the most important thing when running an unsupported system like Windows 7?

I'm currently using FF ESR. I have tried R3dfox on Vista, and it works amazingly well. But so far I'm sticking to Firefox on Windows 7, since R3dfox is still so new, and is a fork of Firefox, after all. Any opinions?

Thanks, Mike

 

[dg1261]

I have no special insight, but here are my guesses. (BTW, FF and r3dfox are both on version 140 now, but that's not relevant to your question.)

Givens (Firefox):

• Actively maintained versions include 115 ESR, 128 ESR, and 140
• Firefox 115 worked on Windows 7, while 140 does not

After perusing the change logs, my conclusions are:

• all three channels have the same security patches
• the ESR versions retain compatibility with older OSes
• 140 has the latest non-security "improvements" (although nobody asked for them and not everyone appreciates them ... but I digress)

Givens (r3dfox):

• Actively maintained versions include 128 ESR and 140
• Both channels still work on Windows 7

As they are ports of Firefox 128 ESR and 140, my conclusions are:

• both channels have the same security patches
• 140 has the latest non-security patches

The 115 ESR version of r3dfox hasn't been updated in over a year, so seems to no longer be actively maintained.

Since r3dfox 140 works on Windows 7, though, the ESR versions aren't there to maintain support for older OSes, so maintaining them would seem to have little purpose. Their only purpose would appear be for those who would rather avoid the latest non-security "improvements". (I hate it when browsers change things and move stuff around just for the sake of change.)

Unlike r3dfox, Supermium doesn't appear to maintain any ESR versions, but like r3dfox, it does backport support for older OSes whereas the official Chrome does not. Thus, I believe Supermium 132 has the security level and non-security patches of Chrome 132, but additionally supports Win 7 while Chrome 132 does not.

Personally, I use both Supermium and r3dfox, primarily because some websites work better on one or the other. That's not a criticism of Supermium or r3dfox, because those problematic websites showed the same idiosyncracies with Firefox vs. Chrome, as well. Before migrating to Supermium and r3dfox, I had to also switch between Firefox and Chrome on those websites.

As long as Supermium and r3dfox are actively maintained, I will continue to use them and will consider them every bit as secure as the latest Firefox or Chrome versions.

 

[michael diemer]

I didn't know that most of the "improvements" with Firefox were non-security-related. Makes me want to stay with FF ESR. I don't have any problems with it, but then my surfing is not very extensive. I don't experience broken websites, for example. I think software developers feel they have to keep making changes, as consumers have been conditioned to think that if something stays the same, it's no good anymore. Even free stuff, like FF, apparently does this, if you are correct in your reasoning.

 

[dg1261]

I didn't know that most of the "improvements" with Firefox were non-security-related. Makes me want to stay with FF ESR.

Yeah, consider the fact that new FF versions are released on a schedule, rather than when security patches warrant a new version. There's gonna be a new version every four weeks whether there's any security fixes or not.

Take a look at the version change history (here). Compare, for example, the change logs for versions 140.0 and 128.12 (an ESR), which were released at the same time. 140 has extra bells and whistles. 128.12 does not.

Under the "security fixes" sections, though, you'll notice both are nearly identical -- they both have the same security fixes. 140 has a few extra security patches, but my take is those are security vulnerabilities introduced by the added bells and whistles -- that aren't in the ESR version to begin with. Supporting that interpretation, note the 140 channel has four additional patches (140.0.1, 140.0.2, 140.0.4, 140.1.0) in the same time period that 128 ESR went from 128.12 to 128.13. Furthermore, a look at all those interim 140 patches shows they were all fixing bells and whistles that weren't working properly.

I don't experience broken websites

I've run across a couple, and they all are the result of FF locking down the browser tighter than Chrome. For instance, I have one bank website that won't print a PDF of my bank statement because it's programmed with a pop-up that FF blocks. Some websites give me a FF dialog box to "allow popups", but for this website FF just throws it away and doesn't give me a choice. In Chrome/Supermium the popup works as designed.

consumers have been conditioned to think that if something stays the same, it's no good anymore.

Ain't that the truth!

Many years ago I created a tiny program I called "Dsrfix" to fix a flaw with Dell's XP computers and their "Dell System Restore" feature. It became wildly popular and found it's way around the internet. Yet, by 2010 or so, in some online forums nitpickers were complaining the program wasn't being updated.

Uh . . . what? The DSR system was only used on Dell's XP computers, and Dell hadn't shipped a computer with XP for at least 5 years, so what was there to change? Yet some people seemed to think it was no longer reliable for its intended purpose simply because it hadn't been updated.

Oh well.

 

[michael diemer]

Now that I think of it, I do experience broken web pages. A site won't open, and I assume it's because the site itself is having problems; doesn't exist anymore, etc. More likely, it's probably my browser, it seems. Oh well. Maybe someday things will work the way they're supposed to. Unfortunately, until the techies who make this stuff learn to leave well enough alone, We'll just have to live with it, I guess.

 

[dg1261]

You may want to consider keeping Supermium around as a backup for possible use with those sites. Since it won't be your daily driver, I'd suggest the portable version. That way, it won't mess with your system, it's easier to update, and it will be easier to toss if you eventually decide you just don't use it enough to keep it around.

I wouldn't bother keeping Firefox as your backup browser because I just don't think you'd find that much of a difference between FF and r3dfox -- if a site won't work with r3dfox, it likely won't work with FF, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Just another thought . . .

When you got those broken webpages, were you using FF or were you using r3dfox? If FF, were you spoofing your User-Agent string? Remember that without a spoofing extension, FF will tattle that you're using Win 7, whereas r3dfox will say you're on Win 10. Some websites may not like it if they know you're using Win 7 but may not be failing smoothly. Even though it's a fork, r3dfox might do better with some of those sites than official Firefox.

But still, there are differences between the FF browsers and Chrome browsers, so I still recommend keeping one of each around.

 

[siliconbeaver]

I had tested all three but am sticking with FF ESR as it doesn’t run into any problems.

After Windows 7, I am setting FF and EDGE both on Windows 10/11. FF with Adblock, if a web wouldn’t allow Adblock, then I switch to EDGE (a browser no way to add Adblock).

 

[michael diemer]

When you got those broken webpages, were you using FF or were you using r3dfox? If FF, were you spoofing your User-Agent string? Remember that without a spoofing extension, FF will tattle that you're using Win 7, whereas r3dfox will say you're on Win 10. Some websites may not like it if they know you're using Win 7 but may not be failing smoothly. Even though it's a fork, r3dfox might do better with some of those sites than official Firefox.

Good point about spoofing. I only do that when I'm trying to download some music software, and it's W10 and up. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If not, I just do without that software. There isn't much new that I can't live without, if anything. Just more reinventing the wheel. At some point there may be something that actually is a game changer. Then I will need to make a decision. I may upgrade my music rig to 10 once it's no longer supported, and updates are no longer forced on you. If I can hold my nose long enough to get it updated to that point. So far, I haven't been able to.

 

[townsbg]

I've used both Supermium and R3dfox yet I still find myself using FF. The only thing I can't do with that is browse google maps correctly. I've discovered that Chrome based browsers display highway numbers and FF doesn't. Everything else I do works on FF 115. I have other Chromium derivatives installed. The one I use the most is Opera GX. They are backup only. I will not have Chrome or Edge on my computer!!!

 

[dg1261]

Try the github and sourceforge repositories:
installable versions
portable versions

(I prefer the portable versions whenever available.)

 

[Aardvarkly]

Thankyou for the links. The Github one offers 7 different "assets". I assume this means versions of the download. I don't know which one to choose.

 

[dg1261]

According to CoPilot:

How to Choose the Right One

• Casual users: Go for the setup.exe matching your system (32-bit or 64-bit).
• Advanced users or testers: Use the nonsetup.zip for portability.
• Windows 10/11 users: Prefer the setup_win10_11.exe if you’ve had compatibility issues.
• Developers: Grab the syms.7z files and source code for deeper inspection or debugging.

Allegedly, the "nonsetup" versions are quasi-portable in that "No installation required—just unzip and run." In my own experiments, though, I've noted that it will still create registry entries, so by my definition that's not fully portable.

In contrast, the portableapps version seems to unzip to the same thing but when the app is launched from the extra portable launcher it does not leave registry entries behind.

I use portable versions extensively, of this and a multitude of other apps. I run the exe downloaded from portableapps and have it extract the package to a folder on my desktop. Then I rename the folder (if desired) and move it to somewhere else -- in my case, I put them in "D:\PortableApps". Finish by creating a shortcut with which to launch the app, and you can then put the shortcut either on your desktop or Start Menu.

Subsequently upgrading is as simple as deleting the subfolder from D:\PortableApps and downloading/extracting a different version. No "uninstall" or registry cleaning required.

 

[Aardvarkly]

Thankyou once again for the useful explanation.

 

[dg1261]

Just to put these all in one place for future reference, here are links to the repositories of current and past versions of all three:

• Firefox [installable*] [portable]
• R3dfox [installable and portable]
• Supermium [installable] [portable]

* (Beware: the Firefox archive may appear in alpha rather than numerical order, such that ver 143 may appear before ver 15 in the directory list instead of at the bottom)

 

[ranett]

I've used Cent browser in the past on Windows 7 and didn't have any issues with it.

I believe the last updated one is 134.00 Chromium.

You can find it at MajorGeeks or Filehorse.

​

 

[dg1261]

I haven't heard of the Cent browser before, but it looks interesting enough to be kept on the radar. I'd rather get it directly from the Cent website, though, as you can choose from multiple versions in both 32-bit and 64-bit installable and portable versions.

I don't know what to make of the change history, though. It looks to me like the only fixes are to fix things the developer probably broke, and the only security updates I see are about once a year. Anybody else have any better insight into the back story?

I can't tell who makes it. On the home page they seem to list several Russian and Polish "partners", for whatever that's worth.

On the plus side, Cent does munge the User-Agent string so that it reports to websites that you're using Chrome 134 on Windows 10. At least they're on the right track there.

 

[townsbg]

I have FF 115 and opera gx on Windows 7 (latest supported for each). Also FF 140 ESR and Opera GX on 10 and FF nightly and dev on 10 to play with.