Leaderboard

What's annoying to me is the fact that those who rail endlessly against XP almost never mention that it is being updated and it's not a secret since people have been taking advantage of the PosReady 2009 hack for years. In the last four months I've downloaded and installed at least 22 security patches alone for this older system. Not only that but you can still get the latest virus programs, flash player, and thanks to this project an updated browser. It is an old OS and probably has holes nonetheless but it's not like it isn't getting support. I'm usually on something newer but millions use XP regularly for whatever reason and it works fine, always has. It's almost funny how some of these anti-XP internet freaks go on a rampage, as if they have something to lose. No matter what forum their heads act like they're about to explode at the mere mention of XP. The end of support for PosReady is next April so it will require extra locking down but I wonder how many malware/virus trolls even bother with it anymore, they probably moved on to Windows 10.

+1 Don't create a fuss where there isn't any. Preserve @roytam1's work for those who need it (=us).

Many thanks for investigating this... Since, sadly, I'm not a coder, I found it hard to understand what you were saying there (), but after some further examination of my own I managed, at least, to identify what you were referring to ... The following is from New Moon 27 where, as reported, github comment preview does not work: ... and the next one is from FirefoxESR 52, where github comment preview does work: It is unfortunate that this bug cannot be fixed in NM27/Tycho, but all is not lost; for the most part, Github is still usable there for an average user; for full compatibility with current Github, we have New Moon 28/UXP; plus, the other UXP browser, Serpent 52.9.0, can be made fully compatible with Github via a simple SSUAO, e.g. general.useragent.override.github.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Goanna/4.1 Basilisk/52.9.0 (no reference whatsoever to Gecko+Firefox seems to be enough...) Likewise, in Basilisk (Serpent) 55/moebius I used: general.useragent.override.github.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:53.0) Goanna/4.0 Basilisk/55.0.0 In FirefoxESR 52.9.0, which does not support SSUAOs, I used the HTTP Header Mangler v1.1.3 extension (WebExtension) with the rule: # Restore GitHub JS functions in 52.0 =< Fx < 59.0 github.com User-Agent= Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 Many other solutions involving XUL and/or WE addons exist for FxESR 52; I just found that one to be quite elegant, plus it doesn't overcrowd the browser toolbar with yet another button... BTW, 59.0 is the lowest Firefox version (in the UA string) that does not cause Github to complain about an unsupported browser... Two other browsers that are forked from FxESR 52, SeaMonkey 2.49.4 and Cyberfox 52.9.1, both support SSUAOs, so you can use the above Fx 60.0 UA string to restore GitHub on them... In closing, and while I'm not a Google Chrome person myself, I tried the last version of that browser that would run on Vista SP2, which is v50.0.2661.102; of course, GitHub would immediately flag Chrome 50 as an unsupported browser, but: 1. I installed User-Agent Switcher for Chrome extension; this one is capable of per-domain-UAOs 2. I configured the extension to spoof the Vivaldi (or Opera) browser on github.com; I first created a custom UA for Vivaldi (in the Opera group): and then used that in the extension's Permament Spoof list: (Vivaldi 1.2.470.11[beta] is the maximum Vivaldi version - based on Chromium 50 - that would run on Vista) I had first toyed with the idea of spoofing recent (> 65) Chrome versions to github, but that was not working; what really worked was spoofing either Vivaldi or Opera (and, not forgetting the original issue I reported here, "comment preview" does work in Chrome 50 !) ... Though I've not verified this myself, I estimate a similar procedure can be used to restore GitHub in Google Chrome 49.0.2623.112, the last WinXP compatible version... ... I do hope all the above is found to be useful, at least by some of you here...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/4461522/november-6-2018-update-for-office-2010-kb4461522

"WZor" noted this on Twitter:

keep calm and ignore Tobin to prevent overflow of ticks after 49 days? but since browser will not be that stable after several hours of heavy use so it is non-issue here

Extended xp don't use any files from Windows 200 kex I am developing a wrapper library like xompie . It is for those who don't like modified system files .

I can't guarantee anything but I will try to get it working.

I can't resist myself anymore . Mr. Ashole Tobin said "They are unbranded builds so there isn't anything that can be done to stop them.. But they should make it more clear that they are unofficial builds. I suggest users do NOT use builds from a modified codebase maintained by lazy "developers" who cut corners and do not properly account for issues targeting NT 5x. Additionally, any user of these builds is not entitled to support from us." Dear sir Tobin the moron, what is the benefit of replacing GetTickCount with GetTickCount64? What wrong in not supporting h264? What heck with putting some random import function which has nothing to do ? If Roy and Fedor is lazy who hell are you people keeping million of bug and outdated code base . Our code base is more upto date , more feature rich , more optimised than your Nt6.x function crap . As for your homework , Mr as***** Tobin sir , please kindly benchmark a same application with nt6.x API and sameone with nt5.x . One with nt5.x will perform way better. These guys are just some childish folks who think something not compatible with nt5.x is superior . Biggest example is palemoon and notepad3. This proves how well Microsoft brain wash silly folks to allow them execute their legendary policy of "embrace extend extinguish" I apologize in advance for any typo . I am writing from a android phone.

As a matter of fact, I do know @JoeyG ; he's a retired English teacher from the States, who currently lives in Germany with his wife and two beloved cats... I first met him in the mozillazine forums back in ca. 2012, when we were both Firefox Nightly testers He was an avid Windows XP + Firefox enthusiast; after XP's EOL, he had to update many of his machines to Win7 and, if it hadn't been for aris's Classic Theme Restorer extension, he would have jumped off the Firefox bandwagon as soon as Australis was enforced upon us... But the move to Firefox Quantum was a hard/bitter pill to swallow, so he ended up in Pale Moon Land... Reading his posts over many years, I feel there was no ill intent on his part in posting @roytam1's blog link in the Moonchild forums; his was a genuine query for additional info regarding the "forks", posted in a subforum (General discussion) where such queries would be totally fine... But then again, "Matt A Tobin" is lurking there, hence the repercussions... The mere mention of "XP/Vista/fork" is enough to ignite Matt and make him explode all over the place ; we all know that by now; I have taught myself to be immune of his insults and stay calm about it; in fact, "who fu*king cares" what he thinks... Roy's hard efforts are valued immensely by all those who get to use his builds! As for @JoeyG, perhaps @roytam1 can invite him via PM into this wonderful community, where members here are more tolerant of people's freedom of choice to use/keep using the OS they most feel comfortable with - or, in some cases, keep using the OS they are stuck with (i.e. it is impossible/impractical to move to a newer OS)!

Some people decided to post links of my build into PM forum ( https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&amp;t=20887 ), don't know if he want to introduce or alerting devs to take action. And Tobin is still same attitude. So people here please don't mention my builds in their forum, that will be good for both sides. (What Tobin said is totally "who fu*king cares" to me, so please don't argue on it with their devs.)

Ever heard of fcwin2k? Then again, there are other ways, too...

New release of Adobe Flash Player 31 came today: 31.0.0.148 (working on Windows XP SP3) Internet Explorer ActiveX: http://fpdownload.adobe.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/31.0.0.148/install_flash_player_ax.exe Mozilla Firefox NPAPI (also for Opera Presto/Google Chrome 44 and earlier): http://fpdownload.adobe.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/31.0.0.148/install_flash_player.exe Google Chrome 45 through 49 PPAPI: http://fpdownload.adobe.com/get/flashplayer/pdc/31.0.0.148/install_flash_player_ppapi.exe

Allow me to doubt your uploading skills, however . Out of tens, hundreds or maybe thousands of free file hosting sites that work just fine, you chose one that needs to be accessed with an adblocker on? If one has ublock 1.18 than he/she download ublock 1.18, nice Catch 22. Anyway, with the simpler QTweb and javascript off the file is downloadable just fine, and I just re-uploaded it to a non-sucking free host file: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=26973106326766156236 jaclaz

... Thanks, but what you have uploaded to your server is the GitHub hosted "zip" version of uBlock0 1.16.20 (which, to my knowledge, is unlikely to vanish from there ); what I have politely asked you to archive in your FTP is the signed (originally offered by Google Store) version of uBlock 1.16.18 (uploaded by myself to datafilehost ) which is very hard to harvest currently from the web and is the version that would install normally and work OK with release branch Google Chrome 49+50... Will you be kind enough to do so? ... And that is precisely why there exist anti-Adblock filter lists and userscripts, that should prevent sites from asking you to disable your adblocker! I am now posting with @roytam1's Serpent 55.0.0 web browser (on WinVista 32-bit) that allows many webextensions to be installed, so I am running uBlock0 v1.17.1b2 there... In 3rd-party-filter-lists, I have enabled the innate Adblock Warning Removal list, plus I have also installed and enabled the following custom lists: AAK-Cont Filter For uBlock Origin and AdBlock Protector 2 List for uBlock Origin. You also need a userscript extension, I already have Violentmonkey installed here (in New Moon you should install Greasemonkey for Pale Moon) and then install the AAK-Cont Userscript For uBlock Origin Granted my setup does not cover all cases, but I'd say it works for 90% of these obnoxious sites that demand an adblocker switch-off ... I have to disable my adblocker sometimes willingly during troubleshooting, frankly I can not stand one mere minute without it! (same goes for my old hardware - CPU + integrated GPU - which suffers spikes from all these ad-playing videos/iframes/popups all over the place... ) I understand many sites rely on ad income, I selectively whitelist those ones I want to support (e.g. MSFN) in my adblocker's settings; most of them are not of the malicious-type ones that insist on shoving down your throat every ad that exists on the internet, not to mention the coin-mining ones... Thanks for your efforts Stephen into archiving anything XP valuable ... I'd wish there existed someone else doing similar things for the Vista OS, but I understand the chance of that is infinitesimal

Versions of uBlock Origin > 1.16.20=1.16.18 for Google Chrome now require Chrome version >=52.0; Advanced Chrome will advertise itself on Google Store as v54.20.6530.0, so it will allow the download and install of latest version of uBlock0; but because, in essence, AdvChr is Chrome v48.0+51.0, it does not support the Javascript functions of uBlock0 > 1.16.20 (as already explained by heinoganda). The problem with Google Store is, unlike the Firefox extensions repository (AMO), that it does not offer previous versions of an extension, so once you upgrade to a non-working version of an extension, you can't revert back (at least easily) Chromium will allow for installation of unsigned extensions, so installing from uBlock0's GitHub repo is an option in this case; while in developer mode, you can convert the github downloaded 1.16.20 zip file into a proper .crx one: https://www.datafilehost.com/d/c5a80c4a In the case of Google Chrome 49 (and 50, for Vista users), you should be stuck at version 1.16.18 (IDK whether v1.16.20, identical to 1.16.18, was properly released in Google Store), so no problem with upgrading to an incompatible version there; but what if you want to install uBlock0 v1.16.18 for the first time/re-install? Release branch Chrome will disable any non-signed extension (i.e. not coming from their store), even installed during dev mode, at next browser restart ; I have managed to track down a signed version of uBlock0 v1.16.18, at the admin's discretion, I have uploaded it to: https://www.datafilehost.com/d/dff0eb77 Maybe @sdfox7 is interested in permanently archiving it onto his server... This is a limitation of the legacy version of uBlock0 v1.16.4.4 (XUL) installable on Pale (New) Moon; while I find that some sites work OK (e.g. https://adblockplus.org/subscriptions), the one you linked to requires a more recent, WebExtension, version of uBlock0; but, as you probably know, you can manually install from there by copying raw filter URLs (Details -> View)