All Activity

I get this resizing crap ALL THE TIME with menu bar in with web app I have to support at work since many months ago, which have turned into years unless I unset a bunch of redundant CSS props. No one gives a s***. Try this with Google: @-moz-document domain("www.google.com") { .e6hL7d, .c8rBkc.oLJ4Uc, .xd0Ff.YWkDN, .RbVlwe, .I9e1O, .lRPPDf { height: unset !important; } } Perhaps a similar solution can be found for PixAI.

Hello again, i want to add again to my original post a few days ago about the problems with the pixai.art website. I mentioned how there was that very strange behavior with the models page also about how the images keep zooming in until it's impossible to see anything, and the image window itself keeps growing bigger nonstop until it literally covers everything...well.. i noticied this very exact same thing just start randomly happen on google search's too. the regular normal search page, not the image search page. i dont know how or why but it's exhibiting exactly the same way. I dont know what the heck is going on. And it seems to happen sometimes, and sometimes not. For example if i google "mother teresa" - those images keep getting bigger and cover up the whole screen.. some other search terms do it, some dont. Again this is on the latest seperent update from last saturday.. I'm more concerned about the pixai.art website i mentioned about though since i use that site every day. It's extrmely fustrating not having those image previews working when im trying to look through dozens of image generations on my account history stuff and other pages. Anyway i dont know why the image growing stuff is happening on google now too, maybe uses the same code or something, who knows.

tks!

The question was not whether XP will work on such a system, as pretty obviously it will, it was whether an existing installation will continue to work if the CPU is changed. or whether I need to reinstall. I'll just have to suck it and see, Patronising posts that just say "Google it" aren't helpful, except make you feel superior.

... Would you be so kind as to enlighten me/us towards that very goal? I have a vested interest myself into making this work in latest Th/Sm (Chromium-122 based), but: Google have long ago removed any CH-related flags from within "chrome://flags/"; I am aware of the "--disable-features=UserAgentClientHint" command line argument, but it appears it no longer works for Chrome 122 ... That same flag currently works as expected with KafanMiniBrowser (Chromium 87 based), which had a "draft" CH implementation; I used the test site: https://user-agent-client-hints.glitch.me/ and KMB indeed leaks its Chromium version (87) through CH: But launched with "--disable-features=UserAgentClientHint" it doesn't: OTOH, latest Thorium 122 (.169) 32-bit SSE3 with the same cmdline argument continues to leak its Chromium version (122): This is rather unfortunate because at least one of my UA-spoofing extensions (Custom UserAgent String v0.2.3) in Th122 fails to work properly on some sites (which take into account the Chrome version sent via CH and not the one via the "classic" UA-string spoofed by the extension) ... I'm not entirely sure, but I think the "flag" used to work with Supermium 121, but now it doesn't with either Th/Sm 122 ... If anyone can come up with a tested/working solution for these, please chime in (FWIW, a cursory web search on Google did not produce a way to fully disable ClientHint in recent Google Chrome versions ) ...

I found this driver for DEV_5916 but it has no installer so I think you have to go through Device Manager and point it to the folder manually ! Driver Version 21.20.16.5077 (2019) https://dl.driverpack.io/driverpacks/repack/Video_Intel-NT/Intel/FORCED/6Xx64/HD600_21.20.16.5077/Intel-FORCED-6Xx64-HD600_21.20.16.5077-drp.zip Driver Version 21.20.16.4565 (2016) https://dl.driverpack.io/driverpacks/repack/Video_Intel-NT/Intel/FORCED/7x64/HD600_21.20.16.4565/Intel-FORCED-7x64-HD600_21.20.16.4565-drp.zip

Yeah, if I were to start afresh (I won't), these counters do nothing (I can see) on performance. Maybe the opposite. I would disable then and would re-enable some required for my apps, including office for find and replace, excel is some complex formulas, etc, as I find issues.

Intel HD 620 driver with the .zip, works here =) Win7 x64.

More observations, it does not take forever and it could've been like that since the overhaul. Started with bumping dom.max_script_run_time in about:config to 120 seconds and setting dom.always_stop_slow_scripts to false. I assumed 2 minutes will be enough for script to finish, the second setting was altered so browser doesn't stop the script, but presents the dialog asking user whether the problematic script should be stopped. So, official builds of Pale Moon at least come with PerformanceObserver disabled by default (dom.enable_performance_observer set to false). With that configuration, shortest time I recorded to load bank's login page was about 4 minutes, longest time was about 9 minutes and half. With PerformanceObserver enabled, shortest time was about 40 seconds, the longest was about a minute and half. The wonders of modern web development! That was all on a Raspberry Pi 5. Just another example of things going wacky on over-complex websites web apps.

Is there any possibility that there are some more features or other things made for Windows 2000 that aren't here? Could anyone tell me if there is a 64-BIT version of Windows 2000? Any projects for the future? Or all abandoned? I'm using some APIs on Windows 7 x64 to run Windows 10/11 apps, any official projects?,,00000000000000000

Frita

Good! Just don't forget to disable client hints and their persistent storage in flags. Modern sites are smart enough to see through your spoofed UA.

Fritz

I'm using this one. Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 122 version is already too old and sites shove captchas down our throats. With 124 I can visit them.

Well, I guess dimo&Co. did a great job, which must be reckoned with, especially by way of cooperation for the sake of higher aims ahead!!! So I am willing to integrate all our efforts in the name of "what looks unnecessary today might be vital tomorrow" I am going for the smallest most efficient custom build, which is no doubt an oximoron - unprobable but still possible, so I think I might integrate what can be useful for me of what the others have done. and the same goes mutually for all the rest of u and us. so, if only I could understand all the steps that must be taken to complete dimo's wizard, I guess all the effort will not have been in vain.

Thanks, my friend! You are helpful here as you have always been. In any case, I can say that using a mobile user agent works absolutely great in Thorium. Many websites load much faster. As I am also an experienced Android user for many years, I have learnt to appreciate the advantages of websites' mobile view. I only switch to the desktop view of a certain website if necessary or desired. On such an old machine as mine, this trick leads to a very careful use of the computer resources available. Less CPU utilisation, less RAM consumption.

What about Ungoogled?

Hello, where did you go?

I had written about user agent hacks ages ago' all can be found at my account, people just don't listen, hopefully they will listen to @AstroSkipper. Another important hack is OS bitness in user agent, always choose 32 bit OS. esp. if you're on XP 32 bit! Youtube (and the such) will serve less scripts for 32 bit OS.

So, after some deeper tests, I found the reason why Google Drive didn't crash for me in my fully configured profile. In this profile, I use by default a mobile user agent. The mobile view of Google Drive runs without any crashes and very fast. Therefore, I didn't observe any problems there. Here is my mobile user agent string: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; Tablet) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.6261.168 Mobile Safari/537.36. It can be used as a temporary or general (as Google Drive is much smoother then ) solution until the bug is fixed in the legacy build, too.

Ok. The next time when I am at my XP machine I will test Google Drive on a clean profile but with the most recent Chrome XP API Adapter. Without this updated adapter, Thorium does not run well and would overtax my patience. Maybe then, I'll finally get the long-awaited crash. Ok. On a clean profile without any further flags but with the most recent Chrome XP API Adapter, I finally get the long-awaited crash. So, you are absolutely right, the Thorium version SSE2 122.0.6261.169 WINXP 32-bit was not fixed in terms of the Google Drive bug.

The issue was first spotted 1 year ago. https://github.com/Alex313031/thorium-legacy/issues/4

Ok. The next time when I am at my XP machine I will test Google Drive on a clean profile but with the most recent Chrome XP API Adapter. Without this updated adapter, Thorium does not run well and would overtax my patience. Maybe then, I'll finally get the long-awaited crash.

Well, whatever the cause, the correct result is no crashing when used as-is with defaults. I noticed he has only one version of Thorium 122 for modern Windows (so no further patching of 122 from initial release), this one doesn't crash. Legacy one does, when run on Win10 or XP. Actually, it appears only Win32 flavor of legacy build crashes, Win64 legacy build is fine. And the one build for modern Windows is available only in Win64 flavor.

No. On my fully configured profile with tons of flags. I have disabled many features I do not need and to run Thorium more smoothly. Without these configurations, Thorium does not run smoothly on my ancient machine. The main problem on my computer is the page loading behaviour of Thorium which is now bearable and ok for me after all these endless configurations.