|
Patch reliability is unclear. Unless you have an immediate, pressing need to install a specific patch, don't do it. |
In case you missed this post, as we come up to the year anniversary of the extended support for Windows 7, we’re seeing reports of vendors starting to
[See the full post at: Windows 7 users – sites start to impact]
Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher
As the post indicates,, one ISP modem was about to be reset when a forum user indicated that they’d also reached out to CBS all access and they told them that Windows 7 was no longer supported. Thus using the tip User-Agent Switcher and Manager add-on for Firefox. I then switched the user agent string to indicate Firefox on Windows 10. That fixed it instantly. Thank you for the tip that CBS discontinued support for Windows 7.
Once again, they say “supported” when they mean “allowed.” They are different terms and they mean different things! If CBS doesn’t “support” Windows 7, it means that if you choose to use Windows 7, you’re on your own for troubleshooting and… wait for it… tech support. It does not mean that you are not permitted to use Windows 7! That’s “not permitted” or “not allowed” or “prohibited.” Stop trying to euphemize it… when you’re banning something, say so.
It is of no concern to CBS what OS the person is using, or which browser. If the browser on the OS has the features the site requires to function, that’s all they need to know about it.
This is why useragents have to go. I don’t always agree with every edict Google emits over how the web will evolve, but the deprecation of the user agent is long overdue. It first became a problem when every browser had its own way of doing things, and if the site tried to serve up the wrong page, it would not work correctly. But then the competition would gain the same feature, so as long as people were up to date, it would no longer be necessary to send one version for IE users and another for Netscape users, but the useragent strings and sniffers remained. That was why Mozilla led the charge to abandon the proprietary ways of IE and their own ancestor, Netscape, and to design according to W3C standards, so there would only have to be one version of the site that was written the W3C way rather than one for each browser (including the various versions of each).
That was a long time ago, and now all currently produced browsers are standards compliant. There’s no longer any need to know what browser your visitor is using (excluding the odd edge case). Feature detection (or alternately just assuming the client has the required feature, and it either works or it does not) is a better solution, and a more reliable one. If my browser has a certain feature that the site requires, the useragent string will let the site know that, but it won’t know if I have the feature enabled or not.
I’ve had a bank deny access to me because I’m using Linux, and it advised updating to the newest version of Windows and one of their “supported” browsers, which I think included IE, and this was supposedly for my security! Yeah, I’ma drop Linux and Firefox with script blocking in favor of Windows and IE to improve security.
Another bank just nagged me to update, and when I bemusedly followed the link to see what it would tell me, it directed me to the Apple site to download Safari, which has no Linux version. Apparently, if you’re not on Windows, it must be MacOS, and oddly, Firefox was only an accepted browser for Windows, not Mac. Because supporting the Mac version is so totally unlike supporting the Windows version, of course!
In both cases, my browser worked fine once I spoofed the useragent (or in the case with the nag, I just ignored it). Netflix gave me the same issues as Oscar when I used Waterfox Classic, but spoofing fixed that too. The funny thing is that none of the sites that blocked me on the basis of my “unsupported” browser (useragent) ever failed to work perfectly once I told it to pretend to be something else, while all the sites that genuinely were not compatible with Waterfox Classic just failed to work, with or without the useragent spoofed.
I found that one site that had a poorly-conceived “anti-bot” protection script (because bot authors can’t figure out how to change the useragent strings, apparently??) that refused to let me in to a site on the basis of my useragent string worked fine once I just removed the Firefox version from the string completely. If it said “Firefox/56.0” like Waterfox Classic did by default, it would block me, but when I changed it to just say “Firefox” with no version number, it had no problem with it. I’d similarly try replacing “Windows NT 6.1” with “Windows NT” or just “Windows” and see what it did, just for kicks.
The bad part of that is that very few people (if any) would have the same string, so you’re making fingerprinting really easy for the data slurpers. That’s why I don’t leave nonstandard strings in place after I’ve see what they do.
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)
+1 to pretty much all of this. Saves a bunch of explanation that I would probably have done myself. Some additional comment…
As noted, enforcement of minimum browser level or operating system level typically is done with checking the User Agent string presented by a browser. It’s frequently done by “sniffing”, that’s done with scripting, but not always. (Besides scripting, it can also done with a .htaccess file on an Apache server, although that approach only drops connections, rather than providing any kind of user-facing dialog, other than a “403 Access Forbidden” error. I do this on my own web site, where I block a lot of access from bots that show UA strings that are either obviously invalid, or very old, such as showing IE 5 or Windows 98).
A normal UA string usually shows the identity of both the browser and the underlying operating system, and as a result, it’s easy for a script to detect what system you’re running (or what it thinks you’re running), and then decide to refuse access.
The effect of “unsupported” is also familiar to people who have reason to use something like Firefox 52.9 ESR or Mozilla Seamonkey, and even Mozilla derivatives such as PaleMoon or Waterfox. Some sites will reject a connection that claims to be Firefox, but doesn’t explicitly show a stock Firefox UA string. Others will reject a connection that doesn’t show a minimum version. And often objections/rejections are phrased to complain that an older version isn’t capable, but that’s rarely true. With the current version of Seamonkey, it’s still based on Firefox 52.9, because Seamonkey’s coders haven’t made the transition to supporting WebExtensions, instead of Mozilla’s older XUL API, even if nearly all of the security fixes for the current version of Firefox have been backported. To lessen the issues of rejections, Seamonkey UA strings now themselves as Firefox 60.8 ESR, but there’s a growing number of sites that will reject Firefox versions older than 78.0
As noted, the issue is not the underlying capacity of the browser (or even the operating system), only what levels that the site is willing to accept connections from. For this, an easy work-around is User Agent spoofing, where it’s possible to show a site a UA string that it likes, regardless of what the user is actually using. With Mozilla-derived browsers, it’s possible to permanently spoof a UA (both browser and operating system) globally, or for individual sites, or with one of several available extensions, it’s possible to temporarily spoof, when needed.
I have found that financial institutions tend to be the most aggressive about demanding <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>only</span> Chrome, IE (or Edge), Safari and Firefox as acceptable browsers, and usually, it’s not a question of underlying capacity, but what they’re willing to support. For the Mozilla derivatives, such as PaleMoon, Waterfox and Seamonkey, they all have the same capacities as Firefox proper, but they’re just enough different (especially in navigation of UI settings) that support desks are unwilling to deal with them. Thus, if the user tells a support desk, “I’m using PaleMoon”, the only response to that will be a curt “we don’t support/allow that” and an end to the conversation. They don’t care that the capacity is there, just that they don’t have time to try to find something in an unexpected location.
In the same way that sites were IE-only a generation ago, a lot of sites pretty much assume Chrome now. It’s just so much easier for them to expect everybody to use Chrome, and not bother with more than token attention to anything else.
The same thing applies to Linux. Unfortunately, desktop Linux has small enough mindshare that for practical purposes, it’s a cult product that “nobody” uses.
The problem is that for people who use a setup that’s outside the popular mainstream, there’s a difference between what is supported by a site, and what is permitted. For the latter, there really needs to be more space for people who make their own choices, but not expecting support, other than what they do for themselves.
Quickbooks, Quicken, My tax software program, the tax software program I used to use, my time and billing program…. etc etc.
Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher
Where is that tip to let my win 7 Firefox pretend it’s on win 10?
User-Agent Switcher and Manager plugin for Firefox.
Tools\add-ons – search for it.
As well this works on Windows 98 computers that are used at several hospitals and businesses. This shows that most sites work on old OS and have nothing new add to improve them. These systems are use with machines that are not support on newer OS system.
0patch Pro might also work for home users. They just extended their W7 micropatches for the next 2 years.
I was one of those that commented on the original thread as I have a Win7 PC running my television using Window Media Center and a cable card tuner. MSFT stopped development and support of the software which is a pity as it allows one to get DRM encoded shows and record them to a PC. The program is not supported on Win10. It’s not just CBS all access that I have had issues with but other streaming services as well. I’ve had issues with almost every browser and it always affects live sports streams. Normal shows hosted by the CBS All Access play just fine. I didn’t know about the various add ons that spoof the user agent and it’s a moot point now as an $18 Amazon Fire Stick works just fine for all my streaming needs.
All I can say is a problem with Win7 and various browsers and when one has two minutes to sit down and turn on a soccer match, trouble shooting is the last problem one wants to face. All the other PCs in the house run Win10 where there are zero issues.
In quickly reading all the above, it seems that many are taking the ‘aggrieved user’ or ‘victim’ position. Apparently, few have been in a position of being the vendor and discontinuing a product or line of business that has an ever dwindling customer base and requires increasing corporate expense to support that dying product.
Consider an automobile manufacturer. Any manager that proposes a budget for producing parts (original or modified design) to fit 10 year old vehicles will soon be in the unemployment line. I’ve had cars recalled account defects and what did they replace the part with? In one case, a newly designed electrical ‘wiper’ inside the steering column that affects airbag functioning. In another case, an identical part to that being replaced which naturally failed several years later, after the warranty expired.
In short, why should any software company such as Adobe, Symantec, Youtube, and countless others spend technician time and expense supporting a system that Microsoft or Apple no longer supports? I saw the same thing happen on a friends XP computer about 6 months after XP support was dropped. First, Facebook videos refused to play, then Youtube, then the cable-company-provided internet security product stopped getting updates, etc. I moved him to Win 7 and a year ago, to Win 10, shortly after I made the move to Win 10 on my computers.
In a non-computer related forum I participate in, one user was bemoaning the fact that his 10 year old slide scanner couldn’t be made to work with their brand new Windows 10 computer. The vendor ‘failed’ (‘poor me, poor me, the vendor doesn’t care about their customers…’) to support their outdated product. Another favorite was one person bought the latest and greatest digital camera and bemoaned that his multi-year old version of Adobe Photoshop couldn’t access the images. No surprise there. Some months later, I had a similar camera upgrade problem and had to upgrade my Photoshop Elements version, but that version wasn’t XP compatible, so I was forced build a Win 7 computer at that point!
For what it’s worth, back in the DOS days, I wrote and started marketing a software product that although superior to my only competitor, didn’t sell well as I was a small company and couldn’t afford extensive advertising. As new hardware came to be such as the Hercules card, I had to purchase a Hercules card and change the screen handler to accommodate it without ‘breaking’ existing mono and color handling. Successive versions of DOS created new ways to access floppies and hard drives which had to be supported, and so on. But I still maintained compatiblity with DOS 1.0. When Windows 286 hit the street, I had no desire whatsoever to ‘kill myself’ writing new I/O handling to suit Windows, so I let the product die. It was clear then that DOS days were numbered. So I went back to mainframe contracting again.
No business can remain in business supporting money-losing efforts. As much as I detest every successive version of Windows more than the previous one and have to struggle to get acclimated and upgrade some software, it simply has to be done to be able to continue functioning as I had previously.
In quickly reading all the above, it seems that many are taking the ‘aggrieved user’ or ‘victim’ position. Apparently, few have been in a position of being the vendor and discontinuing a product or line of business that has an ever dwindling customer base and requires increasing corporate expense to support that dying product.
That’s not what is happening here. There is no product line that is being discontinued. The problem is that the owners of these sites have not removed anything, but have instead added a script to sniff useragents (widely known to be a bad practice) and to hassle those (paying) customers based on the result of that ill-advised sniffing. No one’s asking for their support… they’re just asking not to be artificially barred from a site that works exactly the same on their PC as it does on one with Windows 10 when running the same browser because of a completely irrelevant useragent string.
If the browser has the attributes the site requires to function, it makes no difference what OS the user runs that browser on, so what’s the point of blocking some of the users?
In short, why should any software company such as Adobe, Symantec, Youtube, and countless others spend technician time and expense supporting a system that Microsoft or Apple no longer supports?
Microsoft and Apple are not their customers.
That’s also not what is being discussed in this thread. It takes literally zero effort for the site owners to “support” Windows 7. All they would have to do is not put up a script that sniffs the useragent string and blocks them. Putting that script in is the thing that required effort! It required more effort to stop “supporting” Windows 7 than to keep “supporting” it, and that won’t change going forward.
The vendor ‘failed’ (‘poor me, poor me, the vendor doesn’t care about their customers…’) to support their outdated product.
Why is it outdated? Because the manufacturer wants you to buy a new one even though the old one works fine, because they’d really like to have your money again for the same thing you already have, all else being equal?
When I buy a durable item, any item, I expect to use it until it physically wears out or until it is no longer performing at a level that is adequate for my need. I expect the company from which I buy to understand and facilitate that. If it is truly obsolete, that’s a different story, but if it’s “obsolete” because it was made a long time ago and there’s no more money in it, well, I will definitely keep that in mind when it is time to buy my next piece of hardware. I have a very long memory for these kinds of things. I’ll definitely look into how their competitors do before I buy again, and if one of those offers driver, firmware, or other updates longer, that’s going to play a role in my decision.
Other customers, of course, can do as they wish. If we all resisted this notion of disposable equipment and planned obsolescence, companies would have to think twice about things like putting a time bomb in a printer that causes it to pretend to fail after a certain number of pages, like some Lexmark printers have been found to do. As a result, Lexmark is on my “never buy” list.
I’m with the complainer about the lack of scanner drivers on this one, though I’d also take the opportunity to suggest that if he was using Linux, his scanner would likely still work, because the drivers (made by the open-source community) are not part of the business model of a company with a vested interest in selling you a new one. The market will supply what the customers demand… if we insist on durable goods that are not meant to be thrown away in a couple of years, we will get it.
We’ve gotten ourselves into this mess by letting the companies get away with selling us often high-dollar disposable goods, from various Apple devices whose maker fights tooth and nail to keep unrepairable outside of their own hands (so they can charge 80% the cost of a new device for the repair that might otherwise cost a tenth of that, and to use that as a way to sell a new item) to the first Surface laptops that literally have welded-shut cases that cannot be opened at all without destroying the thing. I check on a site like iFixit.com before I buy these days, and I factor in things like repairability and future potential OS/driver/firmware support when I decide what to buy. Not having a long support period is not an instant rule out, but it’s definitely a heavy negative that would swing my choice toward something with longer support if it exists.
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)
Your issue has already been covered by @GoneToPlaid in another thread recently on this site. In fact, it’s right here.
BTW, that thread also contains a solution for your problem with Steven Colbert’s show. It involves getting a browser add-on that will modify the user agent string so that CBS thinks you’re using Windows 10. Problem solved without waiting for CBS to get their act in one sock, which could take some time.
Do you think if I were to send CBS an e-mail with a link to GoneToPlaid’s thread, that they would be able to solve the problem on their end?
I’d think carefully about your intentions, as CBS may prevent the user-agent use all together (if they know about it) shhh 🙂
That probably depends on who is actually hosting the videos. CBS does work with many third parties. Third party servers which host some of the CBS content may not have this issue of only allowing Windows 10 computers to play content.
Javascript can detect the CPU architecture and the GPU renderer in use, but that won’t tell which version of Windows is in use
A js sample from my browser.
cheers, Paul
Operating System
Windows 8.1
Browser
Chrome 87.0.4280.88
Browser Plugins
Chrome PDF Plugin
Chrome PDF Viewer
Native Client
CPU:
Win32, 4 Cores
GPU:
Vendor: Google Inc.
Renderer: ANGLE (Intel(R) HD Graphics 4600 Direct3D11 vs_5_0 ps_5_0)
Display: 1920 x 1200 – 24bits/pixel
Battery
Charging: charging
Battery Level: 100%
Charging Time: 0h
Bob99: Thanks very much for your response. After I read your response, I looked briefly at the GoneToPlaid thread you described, and it looks pretty long and complicated and I’m not sure I understand it all, because don’t have as much computer knowledge as many of the users of this website. Also, I’ve shied away from browser extensions in the past, because I had heard that sometimes they can cause problems.
Hi L95,
The User-Agent Switcher and Manager for Firefox is here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-string-switcher/
The User-Agent Switcher and Manager for Chrome is here:
After you install User-Agent Switcher and Manager, click on its icon and then edit the user agent string to say NT 10.0 instead of NT 6.1. See the attached screen captures. Change 6.1 to 10.0 inside the red circle. Then click on the bottom right green button which I also circled in red. The second screen capture is with User-Agent Switcher and Manager active. You can see that it is now reporting NT 10.0 or that your computer is running Windows 10 instead of Windows 7.
Also, I’ve shied away from browser extensions in the past, because I had heard that sometimes they can cause problems.
Sometimes they can, but in this case, you’ve already got a problem, and an extension can help get rid of it. Most of them do what they are supposed to quite well, and don’t cause any problems. If an extension does cause issues, you can turn it off or remove it.
My addon count has hovered near 30 for many years now… I wouldn’t be able to tolerate not having them!
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)
Donations from Plus members keep this site going. You can identify the people who support AskWoody by the Plus badge on their avatars.
AskWoody Plus members not only get access to all of the contents of this site -- including Susan Bradley's frequently updated Patch Watch listing -- they also receive weekly AskWoody Plus Newsletters (formerly Windows Secrets Newsletter) and AskWoody Plus Alerts, emails when there are important breaking developments.
