Leaderboard

don't know, it doesn't crash and it doesn't start plugin-container.exe here

none are enabled for ebay, but i have not tried purchasing, only browsing

Google Earth Web not working in Chrome 49, but the Google Earth 7 software still works fine and is satisfactory enough for me:

archive updated for fixing file/protocol association problem introduced in https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commit/3c02dbad946487a83783a1923463a1ebb96aae19

Both Serpent 52.9.0 and New Moon 28 (currently in version 28.5.0a1) are built on the UXP application platform (and are forks of official Basilisk 52.9.20xx.xx.xx and Pale Moon [unstable] 28.5.0a1, respectively...). See: System requirements for UXP applications (Win) https://www.basilisk-browser.org/requirements.shtml http://www.palemoon.org/download.shtml => UXP platform's Javascript engine is such that it issues SSE2 instructions irrespective of compiler configuration; this is why NM28+St52 cannot be compiled for even SSE-only CPUs ... TL:DR: You are confined to your no-SSE NM27 builds...

I released v2.9h5 for English http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/1979961.html

MC's post is a lot less hostile than Tobin's, and it sort of makes sense: if you're going to develop add-ons for PM, you need to test your add-ons with the "stock" PM build, because that's the version 99% of PM users will use your add-on with. And that, of course, means testing on a Win 7+ system, so that "stock" PM will run on it. It doesn't mean you have to prefer the stock build - only that you have to test with it. It's Tobin who seems to blow a gasket anytime he sees the letters "XP" together. Chill out, man! Whatever your feelings about XP, and however justified you believe them to be, it's not worth having a heart attack over. Let other folks make other choices for their own reasons. Freedom! As for MC's sig, I sort of sympathize; I often find myself rewriting some program that was cloned from another program, and in the rush to get it running, a lot of unneeded code from the "original" source code was left in. Or the programmer used a generic structure better suited to a much more complex program than the one she actually wrote. Either way, you can make the program much easier to read, understand, and debug by removing all that extra code. Where MC takes his sig too far is when he decides to remove functionality just for the sake of removing code, as in his recent decision to remove working WE APIs from Basilisk. Sure, that too can make your program easier to read, understand, and debug; but it also makes your program less useful!