There's an interesting question - What's a reasonable point not to support old browsers. Its not a matter of bandaiding the current breakages, but to actually try to figure out what's a reasonable feature set to support.

I've always been under the impression the last 2 versions 'rule' was very much so SE didn't need to test every single feature of their sites across multiple versions and platforms.

I've tried to run the modern net on OS/2 Warp years ago as part of a Super User answer years ago, partially as a joke. I do realise not everyone can run the latest and greatest OS (though, I was briefly running some machines that went from XP -> 7 -> 10). There's going to be a point of hard breakage, or being unable to move forward/ Likewise with less common systems - net positive on haiku dosen't run SE and that would mean I could run most of my day to day stuff on that platform if I chose. (It runs well on older hardware, and seems like a fun idea). Some of these platforms are going to reach the same status as a niche system, or are balanced on the edge of being retro-tech.

XP had support dropped over a decade ago, Windows 7 2 years ago. Not even counting the rapid development of modern browsers, and the effective browser duopoly - at some point supporting absolutely ancient browsers or their semi-orphaned descendants isn't going to be a productive use of time.

A common thread here is many of the browsers are "hobbyist" forks - running older engines (gecko/goanna for example), which may not be keeping up with more modern features. The main goal is running on older PC mostly usably. I do understand the desire to keep gear and systems that work as long as possible, and for freedom of choice of OSes and browsers but keeping them tested and working feels like a bit of an additional burden. There's also a matter of, even if the browsers are getting security updates, how much modern js and other features they can support while keeping true to the reasons for the fork

I feel like there ought to be a compromise between keeping the cul de sacs of web history supported, and 'just' supporting the latest browsers. SE supported IE for much longer than it ought to have had, and it had much bigger reach.

With something like silk, its very much amazon dropping support on those devices.It might literally be a specific build for a specific machine.

There's an interesting question - What's a reasonable point not to support old browsers. Its not a matter of bandaiding the current breakages, but to actually try to figure out what's a reasonable feature set to support.

I've always been under the impression the last 2 versions 'rule' was very much so SE didn't need to test every single feature of their sites across multiple versions and platforms.

I've tried to run the modern net on OS/2 Warp years ago as part of a Super User answer years ago, partially as a joke. I do realise not everyone can run the latest and greatest OS (though, I was briefly running some machines that went from XP -> 7 -> 10). There's going to be a point of hard breakage, or being unable to move forward/ Likewise with less common systems - net positive on haiku dosen't run SE and that would mean I could run most of my day to day stuff on that platform if I chose. (It runs well on older hardware, and seems like a fun idea). Some of these platforms are going to reach the same status as a niche system, or are balanced on the edge of being retro-tech.

XP had support dropped over a decade ago, Windows 7 2 years ago. Not even counting the rapid development of modern browsers, and the effective browser duopoly - at some point supporting absolutely ancient browsers or their semi-orphaned descendants isn't going to be a productive use of time.

A common thread here is many of the browsers are "hobbyist" forks - running older engines (gecko/goanna for example), which may not be keeping up with more modern features. The main goal is running on older PC mostly usably. I do understand the desire to keep gear and systems that work as long as possible, and for freedom of choice of OSes and browsers but keeping them tested and working feels like a bit of an additional burden. There's also a matter of, even if the browsers are getting security updates, how much modern js and other features they can support while keeping true to the reasons for the fork

I feel like there ought to be a compromise between keeping the cul de sacs of web history supported, and 'just' supporting the latest browsers. SE supported IE for much longer than it ought to have had, and it had much bigger reach. Basically - it would be nice to find the point where we can get the best reach for the least effort

With something like silk, its very much amazon dropping support on those devices.It might literally be a specific build for a specific machine.