Can you find a real reason why they should keep potential security threats around? Web companies that have customers that need fixed for a specific chrome version should either tell their clients to upgrafmde or keep old versions around on their own.
My point is that this seems like a red hering and not like a real world problem. Find a real one 😉

Since Chrome comes bundled with flash it's good practice to offer only the latest and greatest.

Blowing this out of proportion like this looks really funny. Old computers and OS get this treatment all the time but there is always an alternative around the corner 😉

feipoa wrote:

I just installed Win7 on my dual PIII-S-1400 and upon attempting to install Google Chrome, I get a message saying my computer does not meet the minimum system requirements and Chrome will not install. Looking at the min. system requirements, they are asking for a P4.

This weekend I also wanted to install Chrome on Athlon XP 2000+ ... needless to say I got the same message - P4 is the new minimum 😵

feipoa wrote:

I prefer to leave the decision to the user as to whether or not he/she wants to use an outdated and insecure browser version.

Unfortunately there are millions of users who do not understand why an outdated or insecure browser might be problematic and who will never update unless they are told to.

In industry, when a company is developing web-based software, they often run QA tests on numerous obsolete and current browser versions.

So if it is more difficult for someone to end up with an obsolete browser version, "industry" will have to do less testing! Win-Win!

kixs wrote:

feipoa wrote:

I just installed Win7 on my dual PIII-S-1400 and upon attempting to install Google Chrome, I get a message saying my computer does not meet the minimum system requirements and Chrome will not install. Looking at the min. system requirements, they are asking for a P4.

This weekend I also wanted to install Chrome on Athlon XP 2000+ ... needless to say I got the same message - P4 is the new minimum 😵

Just download the version I linked and it works.

Some things shouldn't be left for people to decide 😉
Buckle up - it's the law!

The Flash issue is certainly one to consider - old version of Chrome = old and quite likely vulnerable version of Flash

I was down a similar road(on Lubuntu 14.04) 2 weeks back. I was actually following this thread https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=349320 at that time.

My take on the subject:

1. Both Chromium and Chrome(not so sure) dropped SSE support for the sake of cleaning up/optimizing/compacting the code probably in the pursuit of 'faster' surfing/loading experience, other speed optimizations and not mainly for more stability and bug fixing stuff.
2. IMO, a free software developer/provider need not bother or is obliged to provide support for their product. So in this case, if the end user wants to use a previous version(which may or may not be buggy and probably not the case here as mentioned above), then so be it. What is the problem to the provider as they are not obliged anyway? Further it is not that version 34 is not stable and is going to bring down some network other than the end user's PC (even this I doubt really) by its vulnerability.
3. The only thing I did differently than OP was to ask some questions regarding alternatives to the situation(never hoped for a reply anyway) instead of lodging some protest/complaint, that too to chromium and not Google.
4. I was actually more interested in the 'Aura' (Window/UI/Compositing/Rendering framework) part of Chromium which can take use of my GT520's acceleration. It still depends on the CPU to considerable extent and not completely or majorly hardware accelerated(understandable) atleast in my odd case PCI reverse bridge GPU. However I think I noticed web surfing/scrolling to be generally snappier but not always(other factors at work).

New Opera also doesn't work in non-SSE2 systems, needless to say, as it is also based on Chromium (which itself will stop or already has stopped support after m34)

Feipoa, you may want to try IE10 or whatever new version. It was fast IIRC, in case if you have some DX10 or 11 GPU.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I couldn't get Windows 8.1 installed on my dual-core Opteron 185 system. It was missing a CPU instruction, and not one of the usual SSE-based suspects.

Just use Firefox. When I still had my P3 connected to the Internet, Firefox ran circles around Chrome. Or better yet, set up a cheap Haswell Pentium or AMD A10 system with an SSD to handle modern Web-based stuff, and use your dual PIII for everything else. When I finally stepped up from that dual-core Opteron to a Core i7 I was just shocked at how awesomely fast everything ran. I smiled and said to myself, "this is the way developers wanted me to experience Web 3.0."

No, not really. I probably used the term Cyberspace.

gandhig wrote:

IMO, a free software developer/provider need not bother or is obliged to provide support for their product. So in this case, if the end user wants to use a previous version(which may or may not be buggy and probably not the case here as mentioned above), then so be it. What is the problem to the provider as they are not obliged anyway? Further it is not that version 34 is not stable and is going to bring down some network other than the end user's PC (even this I doubt really) by its vulnerability.

I have the impression that what the OP finds particularly upsetting is the conspicuous removal of previous versions from oldapps.com .

Jorpho wrote:

I have the impression that what the OP finds particularly upsetting is the conspicuous removal of previous versions from oldapps.com .

I would not say that I will be upset by the removal of old versions by Google or the websites themselves(no clue as to which it is or something else) as it is free anyway like I said earlier. It's just that I don't understand the reason/logic behind the same as you would normally go to such websites/archives specifically to find the old versions and more or less understand the risks involved (in case if the websites themselves decided to remove it).

It is looking more like that there is Google's hand behind the removal of older versions as you normally would not expect 'oldapps' type websites to remove 'old' apps considering m34 to be a stable version. In this case too, I don't understand the trigger for the removal of old versions by the hand of Google. Maybe it has something to do with less revenue by potentially that many non-SSE2 systems. Honestly can't think of anything else. On the other hand, I would like to add that Chrome (m34) gave enough warning that they are going to stop support for Non-SSE2 processors in their upcoming builds sometime back (living up to its reputation atleast partially, if not majorly full).

I have already gone back to Firefox on my everyday use computer.

In pursuing my interests with this thread, I needed the same version of Chrome to test my HD4000 series card for web-based Flash acceleration as I used in WinXP. Vetz found what I was looking for, assuming there is no performance difference between the portable version and the standard version.

This weekend I also wanted to install Chrome on Athlon XP 2000+ ... needless to say I got the same message - P4 is the new minimum

So P4 is considered to be more advanced than an Athlon XP or PIII? That's news to me.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

So P4 is considered to be more advanced than an Athlon XP or PIII? That's news to me.

P4 supports SSE2 (and SSE3 and EM64T on later models); AthlonXP and Pentium III do not. By that standard, it is more "advanced" - that doesn't mean "faster" though.