Posting this hers since I know certain users are still on IBM T23 like me. Which are pentium 3 models.

I know nothing about single core atom cpu support.


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://news.softpedia.com/news/firefox-53-0-won-t-work-on-linux-pcs-with-cpus-older-than-pentium-4-amd-opteron-513716.shtml"
linktext was:"http://news.softpedia.com/news/firefox- ... 3716.shtml"
====================================

'Luckily' stretch is to support 52 esr

I don't understand why FF won't make a simple lightweight browser without all of the resource hungry unnecessary crap that never gets used.
My old single core desktops just aren't capable of running modern browsers any more. Too Slow.

I have not dug yet into what SeaMonkey is up to yet. It is what I usually roll with as a full featured firefox type of browser on my IBM T23 laptop and Atom cpu netbooks.

Maybe others here can enlighten us on this thread.

Edit. Some info

SeaMonkey 2.49 will be the last version supporting Windows XP/Server 2003 and Vista/Server 2008.
The last version with Mac OS 10.8 support was SeaMonkey 2.40.
The last version for Windows with support for older CPUs not supporting the SSE2 instruction set was SeaMonkey 2.40.
The last version with Windows 2000 and Windows XP without SP2 support was SeaMonkey 2.9.
The last version with Mac OS 10.4 and PPC support was SeaMonkey 2.0.14.
The last version with Windows 98/Me support was SeaMonkey 1.1.19.

2.46 minimal requirements for linux computers are

Linux
Software Requirements
Please note that Linux distributors may provide packages for your distribution which have different requirements.

The following library versions (or compatible) are required:
GTK+ 2.18 or higher
GLib 2.22 or higher
Pango 1.14 or higher
X.Org 1.0 or higher
libstdc++ 4.3 or higher

Minimum Hardware

Pentium 2 800MHz (Recommended: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz or greater)
768 MB RAM
500 MB of free hard drive space

citiation:

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/system-requirements"
linktext was:"http://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/sy ... quirements"
====================================

March 7 article titled"SeaMonkey, Thunderbird to join forces after Firexit?"

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.ghacks.net/2017/03/10/seamonkey-thunderbird-to-join-forces-after-mozilla-split/"
linktext was:"http://www.ghacks.net/2017/03/10/seamon ... lla-split/"
====================================

I'm beginning to HATE Mozilla as much as I already HATE Google Chrome.

SeaMonkey is an excellent browser.

Guess I better find alternatives before I'm left without.

Me too.

antiX has shipped with seamonkey as default browser in the past. The main reason we stopped was to provide better localisation.

Oh well, back to the past, for a better future. __{{emoticon}}__

Does anyone know the technical reason this is the case? I get that they might only be distributing 64 bit builds now, but why couldn't the source be built for a 32 bit machine?

I bet Palemoon will get some more traffic from this decision; They'll provide an x86 build for years to come.

Although I do think this is a bit unfair to users of older hardware, I bet 32 bit downloads of firefox were becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of their traffic.

.
The following is not"fake news".
Because this news may seem unbelievable, I'm citing references:

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/jpX_z5zieD4"
linktext was:"https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... pX_z5zieD4"
====================================


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=814009"
linktext was:"https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=814009"
====================================

Mozilla Discontinues 64-Bit Firefox Browser

Despite considerable interest, Mozilla has discontinued Firefox 64-bit development and asked developers to stop working on it.

Mozilla engineering manager Benjamin Smedberg asked developers to halt nightly builds for Firefox versions optimized to run on 64-bit versions of Windows.

A developer thread posted by Smedberg on the Google Groups mozilla.dev.planning discussion board, which is titled"Turning off win64 builds", discussed ceasing development for the 64-bit builds of Firefox.

He claimed that 64-bit Firefox is a"constant source of misunderstanding and frustration," and stressed the builds often crash, as well as the fact that plugins are not available in 64-bit versions. Hangs are also apparently common because of a lack of coding, subsequently causing plugins to function incorrectly.

Smedberg argues that the aforementioned issues causes users to feel"second class," while crash reports between 32-bit and 64-bit versions are said to be difficult to distinguish between for the browser's stability team. Users, meanwhile, will still be able to run 32-bit Firefox on 64-bit Windows.

"Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread," he said."Given the existing information, I have decided to proceed with disabling windows 64-bit nightly and hourly builds. Please let us consider this discussion closed unless there is critical new information which needs to be presented."

Following his message, the engineer then posted a thread titled"Disable windows 64 builds" on Bugzilla. He asked developers to"stop building windows [sic] 64 builds and tests."

One participant suggested that 50 percent of nightly testers were using the system, but Smedberg said it was"not the place to argue about this decision, which has already been made."

Note the date(s) of the cited googlegroups discussion and the bugzilla ticket ~~ approximately 1,740 days ago.

Oh well, back to the past, for a better future. __{{emoticon}}__

Firefox52-esr will continue to receive security updates thru June 2018 ~~ 300+ days from today.

imcg wrote:Does anyone know the technical reason this is the case?
I get that they might only be distributing 64 bit builds now, but why couldn't the source be built for a 32 bit machine?

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/user_profile?user_id=7044"
linktext was:"Benjamin Smedberg"
====================================
didn't"get it wrong" 1,740 days ago.
He didn't get booted for announcing that decision; he's still a high-ranked (Release Engineering) mozillacrat.
The decision was based on telemetry data from crashreport statistics, which reputedly still motivates their decisions in August 2017.
Although ASLR is valid"technical reason", the attention of the Mozillacrats is primarily toward defending their brand:

========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefox-64-default-64-bit-windows/"
linktext was:"https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/firefo ... t-windows/"
====================================

64-bit Firefox is the new default on 64-bit Windows
August 14, 2017

Users on 64-bit Windows who download Firefox will now get our 64-bit version by default. That means they’ll install a more secure version of Firefox, one that also crashes a whole lot less. How much less? In our tests so far, 64-bit Firefox reduced crashes by 39% on machines with 4GB of RAM or more

64-bit Firefox has more security and fewer crashes

What’s the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit?

Here’s the key thing to know: 64-bit applications can access more memory and are less likely to crash than 32-bit applications. Also, with the jump from 32 to 64 bits, a security feature called
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomization"
linktext was:"Address Space Layout Randomization"
====================================
(ASLR) works better to protect you from attackers.

macOS and Linux users, fret not. You already enjoy a Firefox that’s optimized for 64-bit.

couldn't the source be built for a 32 bit machine?

The source? The sourcetree for current firefox v55?
No. . . . ( or,"good luck with THAT!" )
Across versions,"the (official) source" has been incrementally optimized to accommodate OpenGL and other non-performant-under32bit _"features".
Consider the parallel question:"couldn't Palemoon still be built for use with machines lacking a SSE2-capable CPU?"
(1)
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.romanstefko.com/pale-moon-sse/"
linktext was:"http://www.romanstefko.com/pale-moon-sse/"
====================================
(2)
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=10003&start=80"
linktext was:"https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=80"
====================================