Leaderboard

I'm far from sure about that. He sure wants us out of his forum, but I'm quite OK with that. I'd not like having him here either. But I doubt he'd go the extra lenght of actually inserting code to actually prevent his browsers from running on either Vista or XP. He's taken out code intended to enable that, because he sees it as bloat, of course. But adding code to forestall XP/Vista use would be adding bloat, which contradicts his slim-and-mean optimized code philosophy, IMO. Now, if people, like @Dibya, keeps on nagging him, that might change...

True enough. And because we, here at MSFN, had found out how to bypass it within the 1st hour after the blocked version was released, actually...

It's often hard to judge intent, but @VistaLover makes a good case. Those apps were forked from FF 52, which did target XP/Vista. I could see adding code that wasn't compatible with those OSes, like FFmpeg 4.0, and I could even see removing code that enabled compatibility with those OSes, without deliberate ill intent; the goal could be to add features, improve performance, address obscure bugs (like the 7-week browser session limit) or even reduce the size of the final product, and losing XP/Vista compatibility was just the cost of achieving those goals. But do those "revised compiler optimizations" really improve performance and/or reduce code size enough for anyone to notice? Or do they just break XP/Vista compatibility for the sake of breaking XP/Vista compatibility? Luckily, since these are all open source, it's possible to recompile with compiler settings targeting XP/Vista. Dealing with the other issues is harder and is probably the bulk of @roytam1's work. But the compiler settings probably speak to intent more clearly than the other changes.

... Then get yourself educated! ... and there's no need to "scream" with bold capitals In fact, you should care who that person is: He's the "right hand", so to speak - no insult intended to left-handed people , of Moonchild himself, an integral part of Moonchild Productions, the dev team behind the UXP platform and all the applications built on it: Pale Moon 28 [New Moon 28.x.xa1], Basilisk 52 [Serpent 52.9.0] and Matt A. Tobin's most recent offerings, Interlink [Mail News] and Borealis Navigator [BorealisXP]... Matt A. Tobin contributes a lot of code to the UXP repo, all this code will end up virtually unchanged inside @roytam1's XP/Vista compatible forks... He's infamous for harbouring a strong aversion to Windows XP (and Windows Vista) and being generally extremely hostile to fans/users of these OSes; and make no mistake: he'll go the extra mile to make sure his code is NOT compatible with said OSes, making Roy's hard work even harder ... So yes, the subject of "Matt Tobin" is sort of relevant to this thread... It seems my previous detailed reply to you has fallen onto deaf ears (or shut eyes, to be precise...); Roytam's task is not to rewrite the Pale Moon code committed by the Moonchild Productions team to accommodate a specific user's personal needs, he has only reverted those bits of code that prevent it from compiling and successfully running on XP+Vista OSes, period... Had you bothered to check my link to UPX PR #874, you would have noticed that Matt A. Tobin had nothing to do with the "tab-audio-indicator" code that you're implying and you feel strongly vexed about; this PR was submitted by @FranklinDM, another dev in their team... We haven't yet witnessed in this thread other NM28 users complaining about the issue affecting your setup(s), so, as of now, it appears to be only manifesting itself on your systems; worse yet, you haven't produced a list of system specifics and detailed reproduction steps so as to facilitate troubleshooting of your issue... Moonchild code targets "recent" Oses (Win7+) and "recent" hardware (e.g. SSE2+ capable CPU), so if your system is under-resourced it would not run NM28 properly... In closing, if "rebuild NM28 without the new feature" is what you actually want, then, again, I have provided the links for that: 1. Clone the UXP repo 2. Revert PR #874 commits 3. Apply latest UXP patch by Roytam1 4. Provided you have a suitable building environment set up (Win7SP1+ 64-bit with 12+GB RAM, Visual Studio 2015+,etc. ), build from modified source; I am certain that @roytam1 would be willing to guide you through, that is if his spare time permits him to... So, no more moaning on your side, please...

Naaah, more like Monty Python's Life of Brian: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes/qt0471984 jaclaz

Micro$oft has made similar claims themselves, but all evidence I've seen to date is that it's a completely bogus claim: The differences between POSReady '09 and vanilla XP all appear to be purely cosmetic (startup screen, default wallpaper, etc.). There was never a reason for PM to support one but not the other. And there, they mixed up two things: XP "SP4" is just a convenient collection of all post-SP3 updates, hot fixes, etc. for "vanilla" XP. There's not even a registry key to test for SP4 and AFAIK it includes no POSReady '09 updates. None of this speaks to the question of whether anyone should stick with XP (or Vista) or move on to a "supported" OS like Win 7 (or, technically, POSReady '09, for a few more months at least). But it strikes me as odd that the PM team is so willing to (ab)use PM's popularity to try to dictate others' choices. We programmers are often a strange lot. Some of the most talented of us also seem to have some of the most difficult personalities.

Fixed the problem the shortcut that i made on my desktop was the problem.Running mIRC from "Program files" will work

Not in this thread. Look up the thread on Windows XP: Impressions (or something like that). I'm not going to dump on the crew here. I've also benefited from @roytam1's work while I was running Vista.

You should also realize that the account has not been blocked just due to one mistakely released private version. This step has been taken as reaction to many users' ignorance and behaviour during the whole time of development of my software. If you look into past, you can see situations when I released private version to donators only and someone immediately publish it in different forum - not "by mistake", but intentionally to disrespect my work. Look... I spend a a lot of my free time to develop this software, it is sometimes very difficult to make it fully work and the result -> users complain "2 days and no update"... I write "do not install into Program Files" -> users install into Program Files and complain that it does not work ... I write "it is only debug beta for preview" and users complain that it is not fully usable and debug tools annoy them... I write "you are not allow to publish" and what is the result? Yes, users publish it. So why are they wondering when there are made steps against their ignorance?

Let's not forget an earlier patch that checked for POSReady2009 XP registry key and prevented browser startup. The git commit for it had rather a vague title. Their logic here was that POSReady2009 had sufficient differences from vanilla XP, that it warranted extra support issues. The decision for this block was reversed eventually, at the community's pleas. They said that if any POSReady2009/"XP SP4" patch user made bug report pretending to be vanilla XP, they would outright cancel this compatibility. Then came newer PaleMoon for Vista+ The end.

That's pretty much what I hinted about, thanks dencorso ; if the original code he forked contained, by default, parts that would enable it to compile and run on XP/Vista, he would meticulously excise those parts to make sure his fork is not compatible with said (older) OSes; you said he considers those parts as bloat (which can be indeed the case, but who really knows what's inside that person's head? ), I merely emphasised the result of him removing that "bloat": Another aspect which isn't clear in my previous comment is build-time-compiler-optimizations: targeting strictly Win7+ kernel when building his forked code, so that the officially released binaries be non-executable on XP/Vista... Moonchild et co. have a precedent on that: When they were releasing (between Nov 2017 and Mar 2018) official binaries of Basilisk 55 (on their now deprecated moebius platform), compiler opts were such that a simple lowering of the subsystem version string (from 6.1 to 6.0) in the EXE's headers would enable the Basilisk.exe binary to run on Vista (with only few flaws, namely disabled WMF features...). When apps (Basilisk 52 and Pale Moon 28) on the UXP platform started being officially released, the binaries were built under revised compiler optimisations; previous "hack" wouldn't now work, because at least 8 (new) API function calls were introduced in various app DLLs/EXEs that are not present inside Vista's versions of important system DLLs (kernel32.dll, user32.dll, psapi.dll etc)... If you ask me, that was not a coincidence As for adding code to their tree that is knowingly WinXP incompatible, the Moonchild team has already done that by switching over their ffvpx library to using FFmpeg 4.0+ source; to be fair though, it's safe to assume they didn't do it out of spite for eventual XP users on forks; they simply just don't support XP or Vista, so these OSes have been totally left out from any coding considerations on their part...

It's quite clear to me. It means, if one annoys bigmuscle enough he may as well disappear, go use his talents in other endeavours, and let all the users of his program in the rain!

DarkKnight: no, there is no such code. There is also no code in the software to identify the user, the software does not even interact with "me" in any way. There is only a small signature in debug versions which profile the file was downloaded from. As to the rules, it is not about MY rules. The rules are simply given by the copyright law which forbids any distribution without the permissions. And even though the user is explicitely informed about this fact on the website, he simply ignored the statement and distributed my software publicly.

Holy Crap! VistaLover welcomed you and helped the best he could. Sometimes, long-winded explanations are necessary so that all of the details can be examined and known about. He wants to arm you with info. **** IMPORTANT **** As for all the rest of you that called me an anti-XP troll - Now do you see the difference? I never told anyone they were long-winded, insulted them, or told them TL:DR. Sure I disagreed, but I wasn't trying to poke bees nests. I've refrained from my anti-XP "discussions" (which isn't cause for celebration - since it hinders open communication), but maybe next time, you'll remember what I just said. I'm still upset (not in a sucky way) that I was thought of as a troll, since I've also helped others on occasion. No one should ever have tow a "company line" when it comes to an open forum. But the disagreeable behaviour above is the type of thing that really should set you all off.

You are disrespectful and rude. Period.