Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. AstroSkipper
    You have to download the last XP-compatible version 11.4.0. Here is the original website with this version: https://web.archive.org/web/20240830175125/https://www.iobit.com/de/malware-fighter.php Download link: https://www.filepuma.com/de/download/iobit_malware_fighter_free_11.4.0.1360-40845/download/
  3. AstroSkipper
    And that's one more reason to avoid Avast, at least on Windows XP. I’ve had so much trouble with Avast in the past that I’ll probably never use it again, even on other operating systems.
  4. modnar
    You know, Avast 18.5.2342 is a non-starter, offline installation (without internet conncted) starts and installs everything, at the end where it's the option to restart, it also says it failed. Upon restarting it's as if nothing was installed. Idi0t bit Malware fighter is also a doesn'tworkstation. It's for vista and up, as if you can't run a stupid AV program with minifilters in XP. Must be a conspiracy against XP. Nasty!
  5. Today
  6. AstroSkipper
    If I wanted to, I could switch to other fonts that look much nicer and more professional in a matter of seconds. It’s really simple to do this in the Mypal 78 settings or using a CSS stylesheet, which I can load on the fly at any time via my forked UserCSSLoader script. But as long as I can read everything clearly, I couldn’t care less about the font used.
  7. NotHereToPlayGames
    Agreed !!! I'm only pointing out that the "discussion" here probably should be about "tuning" cleartype font rendering on the machines that display such UGLY A$$ fonts. Mypal isn't really doing the font rendering, the OS is, and how that OS is "tuned" will have a HUGE difference in what fonts "look like".
  8. AstroSkipper
    My screenshot is a PNG file. The text can be well read, and therefore the sceenshot is ok. It’s not about winning a rendering prize. And as for Mypal 78 on Windows 10, it makes absolutely no sense to use that browser there. There are plenty of up-to-date browsers available for Windows 10. Mypal 78 was designed for older operating systems such as Windows XP. On those systems, more modern browsers are urgently needed – particularly on low-spec computers where, for example, Supermium isn’t an option.
  9. NotHereToPlayGames
    These types of "issues" can **ALWAYS** be fixed by the end user !!! Just replace the "Bitter" font defined by that page's CSS to a different font, whoala, problem solved. ie, the below is from that page, just replace Bitter with the font of your liking. body, .small-title, .widget-title, .tv-featured-title { font-family: Bitter;
  10. NotHereToPlayGames
    Serious question - are SUBPIXEL RENDERINGS "captured" differently via bmp, jpg, png? And are SUBPIXEL RENDERINGS screencaps rendered differently from one computer to the next? ALL of the font ugliness in this discussion all seems tied to SUBPIXEL RENDERINGS and "antialias fonts". Edit: every OS and every graphics card and every driver for that graphics card will effect the rendering differently. So maybe, just maybe, this isn't really a Mypal discussion but a graphics card and/or driver problem. I know some people go through GREAT LENGTHS to find "exact" drivers for SUBPIXEL FONT problems. The way that Mypal uses DIRECTWRITE or GDI in XP will vary greatly from one XP setup to the next. Not all XP machines will render them the same.
  11. NotHereToPlayGames
    Zero problems here. "Bias" against me aside. @genieautravail's is definitely the UGLIEST. But then @AstroSkipper's. And @Skorpios's being the least ugliest. Okay, those two are close enough to be a tie. But here on Win7 strictly for testing, all three are UGLY. This thread and Mypal is NOT strictly for XP. But no, even the author's Github cites "Win10 never checked, its specific bugs wont fix.", so I did test in Win7. Sometimes I forget how 80% of MSFN is all XP users and the rest of us aren't really supposed to be here. So carry on, I simply thought screencapping could be PART OF the problem.
  12. AstroSkipper
    In that case, your computer must have a problem. On my Windows XP computer and my Android tablet, everything looks fine apart from the screenshot that @genieautravail posted.
  13. NotHereToPlayGames
    I think that part of the issue in this discussion is the "it's all relative" nature of the posted screencaps. ALL of the screencaps ( @AstroSkipper's and @Skorpios's and @genieautravail's ) look like total CRAP on my computer. But when I visit the website directly, my computer looks like NONE of those screencaps and the fonts (default settings, no extensions) look fine and no blur. It seems to me that whatever your system is doing on your own systems is affecting the screencaps on your own systems also.
  14. genieautravail
    @AstroSkipper Strange, as I explain in the previous post, I must do the reverse (not use the default settings). On your screenshot, it seems that the font isn't the default font of the website... Regards
  15. genieautravail
    @Skorpios Thank you for the tip! For me, I must do the reverse. If I disable the option << Allow pages to choose their own fonts >> the font is again readable even if it is not the default font of the website. But with the option enable by default, I get the blured font display. Regards
  16. AstroSkipper
    @Dave-H I'm guessing you still have Panda Dome 22.03.05 installed and are dealing with that issue. However, since it seems to be running particularly poorly on your system, you might want to consider uninstalling it completely, performing a thorough cleanup, and then installing Panda Dome 21.01.00 with the option Offline Installation enabled. For me, this version vehemently refuses to let PSANHost crash. The cache folder is now also being filled correctly every day. No leftovers from previous days. Here is a screenshot showing the contents of the cache folder: Of course, I can't guarantee that it will work perfectly for you, but it's definitely worth a try. You really don't have anything to lose.
  17. modnar
    Would you please provide WinXP patch too? Or is 2019 updated XP with harkaz' USP4 not problematic?
  18. AstroSkipper
    Yes, we need tests and results under Windows XP. Although I never liked IOBit Malware Fighter, we have to consider all possible and still working options in these days. It's no longer time to be picky.
  19. modnar
    While browsing on filepuma (where I got Avast 18.5.2342) I saw IOBit malware fighter free and from what I know them - all their programs run on WinXP. Has anyone tried it? I'll give it a go and also test 18.5 Avast.
  20. AstroSkipper
    Here are a few words about my plan C. More than 3 years ago, my good old friend @D.Draker had recommended the anti-malware programme Vir.IT eXplorer. I still had it on my internal list, but as there were no further tests or information available, I couldn’t report on it. At that time, it also seemed to have some temporary issues with VB100 certification, but these had long since been resolved. I was also worried that support for Windows XP had long since been discontinued, as it is no longer listed as an OS on the website. So I downloaded the very latest version 9.5.981.0 and was delighted to discover that the programme is still compatible with Windows XP. For some days, I have been testing Vir.IT eXplorer Lite. More on this coming soon.
  21. modnar
    Thank you for your effort. I shall certainly do that. Perhaps it won't belabor the csrss. As I know now there are 2 instances of csrss (client-server kernel communicator) running on StupidWindows™ (NT 6.x) and only one on Win2K/XP. So it shows Avast bastards are deliberately doing this, simply acting as there was never WinXP. Let them wallow in their own mire.
  22. CosterGod
    CosterGod joined the community
  23. Yesterday
  24. AstroSkipper
    For experimenting with Avast, you should avoid the last XP-compatible version. As far as I can remember, is a previous version associated with fewer problems. I have to look in my archive for the exact version number. As far as I can remember, there were repeated reports on the Avast forums that avast! Free Antivirus 18.5.2342 runs much better than the latest XP-compatible avast! Free Antivirus 18.8.4084.0.
  25. AstroSkipper
    @Tangy Perhaps you can try Panda Dome 21.01.00. I am under the impression that this version is working better on Windows XP. It's definitely worth a try.
  26. Tangy
    I do not know if this helps the date if memory serves me well was december 2024. that file was downloaded begining of 2025. I'll check the exact date.
  27. AstroSkipper
    All Panda Dome installers come with offline installer version 15.14.5.0. Therefore, this information is unfortunately of no use. I asked you for the programme version. The most recent is 22.03.05 but I currently use 21.01.00. And it doesn't matter whether you actively click the update button or not, the update is automatically done every day and there is no option to disable it.
  28. Dave-H
    The file version of the installer file is meaningless, unfortunately. It isn't the version of Panda Dome that it will install. It's probably just the version of the packaging process used. As far as I can see, the only way to find out what Panda version it is, without actually installing it, is to extract it with 7-Zip and look in the extracted \Program Files\Panda Security\Panda Cloud Antivirus\ folder. There you should find a file called version.ini, which, if you open it, will list the Panda version and build number.
  29. Tangy
    @AstroSkipper Off line installer version 15.14.5.0. However being a tad stupid and click happy I clicked on the update from settings. What I am planning to do tonight is to reinstall and refrain from clicking update. Let us see how this pans out. Keep you posted. Cheers
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...