All Activity

Nah... "They" were "bad" to begin with ... Updating their code frameworks to target Google Chrome 125+ (which "they" expect every single one of their users to be on at the moment ) is what distances all these services further away from what UXP can (reasonably) digest ... As part of my research into hardware acceleration in the Thorium Browser, I have now taken another look at New Moon 28 and Serpent 52. I realised that hardware acceleration was not running to its full extent. I have now fixed this. And what shall I say, at the moment Amazon and eBay are working perfectly again in these browsers, especially in New Moon 28. 100% CPU utilisation is no longer an issue, quite the opposite. I am delighted.

I believe the correct term is "programmers" for the former group. I do wonder if it has to do with prolonged staring at the screen, maybe also using dark mode as substitute for simply adjusting brightness. There are programmers where I work, yeah, a bunch of vampires. xD

What's that winrar and what hacks do you run?

So no future in the world of ChromeZilla?

At least two problems on WinRAR: Menu bar's text is black instead of white when the window is first opened (hovering on them restores the proper color) Status bar's text is white instead of black (or the background is the normal white instead of being darkened; Unreadable text)

I use Win 11 and newest Startallback. I have the taskbar at the top and very often when I click on the calendar it appears on the left side and not on the right side. Then I have to move the taskbar down and up again so that the calendar opens on the right side again. Someone know to fix this ?

I forgot to mention, when I said it still takes 10 seconds for browser to startup for the first time, that was actually on the faster side. It takes over 15 seconds with win32's DLL.

Possible, who knows where they put it. It's been many since years since the one in my desktop was depleted, I forgot which year it was, but I'm not sure that it lasted 10 years. Just a passing thought: "Hey, the clock is still going in 2024!".

Ugh! Or LOL! Depending on one's personal preference.

@ to all Can you do this without extensions? If you can't,I'll write you a rule for uBlock Origin that might be quite aggressive (depends on many factors) but the test is passed.

Try these filter lists: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DandelionSprout/adfilt/master/LegitimateURLShortener.txt https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DandelionSprout/adfilt/master/ClearURLs for uBo/clear_urls_uboified.txt

Thanks, I actually do have Fanboy's Enhanced Tracking List, it works fine in other browsers, but not in Thorium, weird. Is it obsolete for v.122 and up , maybe?

If you use uBlock Origin I can recommend adding 2 filter lists in addition to AdGuard URL Tracking Protection (which should be enabled by everyone). Although the main advice for MSFN members who are more privacy-oriented remains to try r3dfox.

Getting all kinds of weird tracking params all day while searching for different stuff. &PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN Is it only Thorium/Supermium? Or probably it's also included in the new (usual) chrome, and I missed these.

DependencyWalker can only help for missing APIs, it can't help on cases that API is here but failing on calling.

The file lines are correct now. Great. Are you interested in updating YumeYao's Windows Media Player Update Addon? Because I already have One Piece. I used to Trying to update But I think I have my own. So I don't think it's necessary for me.

@reboot12 Can you make a try to unlock my Bios Dietmar https://ufile.io/aljnb4wv

Thanks for the hint! I will check this flag in my endless Thorium test marathon.

You probably have UEFI Variables Protection password protected: 0x3CD83 Ref: UEFI Variables Protection, VarStoreInfo (VarOffset/VarName): 0xFFFF, VarStore: 0x0, QuestionId: 0x1F, FormId: 0x298F {0F 0F 84 1F 85 1F 1F 00 00 00 FF FF 00 8F 29} 0x4AB15 Form: UEFI Variables Protection, FormId: 0x298F {01 86 8F 29 84 1F} 0x4AB1B One Of: Password protection of Runtime Variables, VarStoreInfo (VarOffset/VarName): 0xCB3, VarStore: 0x1, QuestionId: 0x52C, Size: 1, Min: 0x0, Max 0x1, Step: 0x0 {05 91 88 1F 89 1F 2C 05 01 00 B3 0C 10 10 00 01 00} 0x4AB2C One Of Option: Enable, Value (8 bit): 0x1 {09 07 86 1F 00 00 01} 0x4AB33 One Of Option: Disable, Value (8 bit): 0x0 {09 07 87 1F 00 00 00} 0x4AB3A Default: DefaultId: 0x0, Value (8 bit): 0x1 {5B 06 00 00 00 01} 0x4AB40 Default: DefaultId: 0x1, Value (8 bit): 0x1 {5B 06 01 00 00 01} 0x4AB46 End One Of {29 02}[code] I do not have such a value in my mobo 8 Gen NVRAM. I recently unlocked the edition of DMI in NVRAM Unlock DMI edit in NVRAM

Just found this. "Thorium is only about speed. From what I have read, it purposely includes the features of Chrome that help Google track you. Thorium is not a privacy browser." https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/17iyii4/comment/k707zyg/

I shan't be surprised! Their motto "connecting people to "great "websites", lol. Yes, looks like tracking, I can't say I noticed it, I put the use on hold due to the brightness issues.

[SOLVED] Can't locate the CMOS battery https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/cant-locate-the-cmos-battery-on-my-asus-z690-g.3746680/

Or more likely a cmos battery that you did not see (or took for a capacitor, an inductor or some other electronic component) as it is of the soldered type, *like*: https://www.ebay.it/itm/184402003049 jaclaz

i have been experimenting with adding a new section to XP's kernel32.dll which will be the location for an enlarged export table including lots of new NT6 functions. The tool for doing this seems to be limited to WildBill's PE Tool. CF Explorer will enable you to create a new section, but it is located below the .reloc section and you cannot move it up to where it should be which is above the .rsrc section. BWC's PE Maker has a section for editing section tables, but I cannot find a way to create a new section using it. Are there any other alternatives? Below is a summary of the section tables for BWC's kernel32.dll version 5.0.2195.7273. .text virtual address = 00001000 virtual size = 00059FF8 virtual end = 0005AFF8 slack = 8 .data virtual beginning = 0005B000 virtual size = 0000375C virtual end = 0005E75C slack = 8A4 .code virtual beginning = 0005F000 virtual size = 00007E00 virtual end = 00066E00 slack = 200 .rsrc virtual beginning = 00067000 virtual size = 00057754 virtual end = 000BE754 slack = 8AC .reloc virtual beginning = 000BF000 virtual size = 00003FD2 virtual end = 000C2FD2 slack = 2E Below is data for the export table as reported by dumppe: Directory Name VirtAddr VirtSize VirtEnd -------------------------------------- -------- -------- ------- Export 0005F800 0000757F 00066D7F As you can see the export table has been relocated to the new .code section which is big enough to accommodate it. Below is a summary of the section tables for an unmodified kernel32.dll version 5.1.2600.7682. The slack between sections is where I would expect new sections to be loacated: .text virtual address = 00001000 virtual size = 00008413D virtual end = 0008513D slack = EC3 .data virtual beginning = 00086000 virtual siz = 00004440 virtual end = 0008A440 slack = BC0 .rsrc virtual beginning = 0008B000 virtual size = 00065EF8 virtual end = 000F0EF8 slack = 108 .reloc virtual beginning = 000F1000 virtual size = 5CF4 virtual end = 000F6CF4 slack = 30C Below is data for the export table as reported by dumppe: Directory Name VirtAddr VirtSize VirtEnd -------------------------------------- ----------- --------- --------- Export 0000274C 00006D19 00009465 Using PE Tool I found that I could only designate a maximum size of 800h for a new section below .data. By consuming the slack below my new section this was enlarged to 1000h. As you can see this is inadequate to accommodate the export directory with a size of 6D19. Can someone explain to me how BWC managed to create his new .code section with a size of 7E00?