http://www.ghacks.net/2016/09/27/fi refox-53-no-support-for-

>>57073662

pay someone to backport it for you

>>57073662
>What the fuck am I supposed to use now?
A new OS

Do what everyone else who wanted to retain their old hardware did: move to a Linux distro with MATE or XFCE as the DE.

>>57073662
anything with the gecko engine that's not firefox(TM)

You're using a 15 year old operating system so why bother using an up-to-date web browser? Just stay with Firefox 52, it's not like there will be any major features added in the foreseeable future anyway.

>>57074065
This.
If you don't fidget about >XP O/S why do you about >52 Firefox?

>>57074065
There's no reason not to update to 53. 53 is an extended support release so you'll have an additional year to use it while you're trying to upgrade your OS.

Honestly I don't see how this is Mozilla's problem really they're like the last major vendor supporting XP

>>57074113
Oh no wait 52 is the extended release my mistake.

>>57074080
I know it's very laughable, but I do care about security, you know. I don't want to be running an old, unsafe version in the future and be doing banking stuff - I just have my priorities elsewhere; I don't want to buy a new damn computer.

Already running ESR 45, by the way, since it's lighter than the stable Firefox release.

>>57074181
>I don't want to be running an old, unsafe version in the future and be doing banking stuff
Makes perfect sense using Windows XP then :^)

>>57074181
While I understand what you mean by security I doubt there's a major chance of getting fucked in the ass using a old Firefox version, not any higher than using a overall outdated O/S that is.

Linux does not have this problem.

>>57073662
I guess it will be released but not (((supported))). It's OSS, so someone will do it anyway.
>>57074349
>tfw chrome dropped 32bit support on linux