Leaderboard

You actually expect anyone here to take you seriously while you continue to maintain a condescending attitude toward roytam1 and everyone else in this community? You can't even speak of these things without lacing it with some ignorant derogatory language or FUD. Emphasis mine. I assume once again that users are intended to believe that "poor modification" is an acceptable definition of "restoring the pre-existing functionality that you intentionally chose to break?" Not one of us here cares one iota whether or not roytam1 has some useless eye-candy website or some fancy branding for his browser builds. What we care about is that they work and that he is very responsive to bug reports and quick to address other issues that may arise on the target platform(s). Yourself and "Moonchild Productions" could do with some lessons from what you find here. When the rest of the world leaves your precious Windows 7 and your "outdated" Mozilla forks, along with their "outdated" addons behind, where will you be? In the same boat with the rest of us. If you expect anyone here to take you seriously, you'd better learn to treat people here with respect whether you agree with them or not.

I think we all understand that you are not Moonchild nor do you speak for MCP in this case. However you get grouped together with MCP here because you have been variously associated with them and apparently share the same condescending attitude toward XP (and Vista) users. This attitude is what turns everyone here off; I mean really, what do "you guys" care what operating system other people choose to use? Don't want to "support" it in your projects? Fine. Just don't break it on purpose, and don't act as if someone is committing a sin by using it on a "unapproved" platform. I fail to understand what bothers you so much about people asking about the XP builds based on this latest statement. Why not just tell them to "p*** off" as you put it and go on about your day? Now, back to the issue. If you wish to make a "reasonable" request, then do so in a "reasonable" and diplomatic manner. Coming in here and making demands and threats will get you nowhere. I'm willing to accept that your desire to have these "forked projects" disassociated from "Binary Outcast" is a "reasonable" request. However you need to lose the attitude first and foremost, and then make a clear policy on whether or not and how you wish to be credited or mentioned at all in any subsequent "forked" project. You have given conflicting statements on this depending on your attitude whenever you were posting. Do you want roytam to just change the names, icons and such? Do you want any stated credit such as "this project is forked from ___ " "created by ____"? Do you want to be "erased" entirely from the resulting fork? If roytam does these things you "request," then does that mean you will lose the condescending attitude and derogatory language in reference to these builds here and elsewhere? In your opinion; which most everyone here does not share. This is a nonstarter here. It doesn't matter how much "insight" you believe you have into this code; it works on these older platforms and since we have no other options it's a very good option, regardless of your opinion. Addressed most of this above I believe. However, you still seem to think that roytam can somehow exert mind control over those who choose to use his builds and keep them all from "wandering" into the wrong places for support. I'll wager that a good number of these people who are supposedly causing you problems are trolling, especially given your attitude about the builds and since you seem to be very easily triggered by anyone who mentions XP. Since you don't distribute these builds from your site, and most likely one must visit here in the first place in order to get the links for the builds, I find it strange that any serious user doing as such would not "stop here" first for help. They seem to be purposely seeking you out rather than sincerely needing help; and if this is the case, no one here can do anything about that. What's not "sufficient" here? This forum has been around for a long time and has hosted the support for many projects. I'd rather see a developer dedicated to his or her project rather than dedicated to extraneous "infrastructure." Nothing wrong with having "infrastructure;" mind you, but in the end it is secondary to the project itself. roytam has enough to keep him busy with a $dayjob and building his various browsers, and since he has no help in doing so it's not reasonable to expect him to spend time on a website or otherwise.

Not in my opinion. Although the more paranoid may eschew it, I do believe the more browser alternatives we have, the merrier! In fact, to me it's clear that day-to -day use requires just a decently working browser and, preferably, also a not-too-paranoid real-time antivirus. All the rest can be done without any need to use the very latest version of whatever program one must use. So Chrome 360 actually is a welcome gust of much needed fresh air into our already very claustrophobic EoS-is-not-EoL situation. Long Live XP!

A word of caution about HTML5test.com: Many of the points awarded by that site are for features that have privacy and/or security concerns: e.g., 15 points if your browser supports geolocation; 10 points for "service workers," a point for the "ping" attribute, etc. A very high score may not be the best news about your browser.

Don't you worry one bit! You're already very high in our admiration list (at least in mine, that is... ) for simply trying to target that OS...

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4472027/2019-sha-2-code-signing-support-requirement-for-windows-and-wsus

Is it open source? I can't find any Github/SourceForge/Codeplex project. If it's not open source, then it would have to be disassembled with IDA Pro, thus producing potentially wrong unreadable everlasting lines of code. I.e you are better off forking Chromium 69 from the official repository. That said, I don't see Chinese people willing to cooperate on open source; I mean, if you are going to make a spyware built into your browser, the last thing you wanna do as a company is to make it explicitly readable/obvious with open source code, right?

And it's not just XP/Vista compatibility either. We went through the same thing when MCP yanked out Basilisk's WE APIs, for "security" they said (ironically that's what Mozilla said about the "legacy" APIs too), and more recently their decision to yank out container tabs support since there's one buggy add-on that tries to duplicate that function. This isn't about "misrepresentation;" that's a red herring. This is about ideology. I disagree with Mozilla's decision to yank out the "legacy" (XUL/XPCOM/etc.) APIs too; to me, that's exactly the same thing: intentionally making your product less functional just to make it harder on folks running software you don't approve of.

OK. Enough! Everybody try and cool your heads. Thread's locked for 24h (at least...). Can't you all behave?

@Dave-H: Yes, but situation is different now. At the time I was an active member of Watler's Win3x forum, I asked him if he could gave me room for Win9x experiments. Although he was a bit sceptic, he gave me room and even tried and criticized my INF-file. I made a statement about on MSFN only. But since a year ago the forum ended, so new opportunities for MSFN.

Getting back to April 2019 update problems: AskWoody recently created a separate post for Server 2008 SP2 after noticing anonymous posts from someone apparently running Vista that did not match the problems commonly reported for Windows 7 and 8.1.

Microsoft Security Essentials Definition Updater update to version 1.8 Adjustment for support end of MSE

I implemented the workaround you told me about and I managed to get past the QuryThreadCycleTime, however, now that every call to the kernel is resolved, Shell32 argues about the SHGetKnownFolderPath function. HRESULT SHGetKnownFolderPath( REFKNOWNFOLDERID rfid, DWORD dwFlags, HANDLE hToken, PWSTR *ppszPath ); And I tried to link against my faked Shell32.dll that I put inside the folder in order to dynamically load it ('cause XP doesn't have the function), however Windows ignores my fake Shell32.dll and uses the one in System32, which of course makes the program fail to load. Anyway even when I managed to make it use my modified version of Shell32 (that was reporting the directory successfully to the caller Chrome_elf.dll), it didn't work. Well, I managed to make it load, however it was pretty much useless as the UI is broken and it didn't render any page. Note that what you are seeing in the background is my Desktop, 'cause up there there was supposed to be part of the UI, but since I've brutally commented out several parts of the UI and replaced with other code, it clearly failed to load and it showed up some pretty bad glitches when I tried to open other tabs and move the Windows. Oh, and the reduce to icon, maximize and close buttons pop up only if I move my mouse over them and they don't work if I click on them. Anyway, the very bad thing is that I can't render any page, 'cause even though the calls are fine and the engine works, I have probably screwed up somewhere when I changed how it was referencing the webkit because I had to write down some new "artistic" way to do it and I've done something wrong for sure. Debugging? Sure, except for the fact that there there is a ***** amount of lines and I have no clue where the problem lies as it compiles, the compiler (Borland) doesn't argue and the coding assistant doesn't show any red squiggly lines and the other suggestions are just bogus. I'm on my own and I don't know how to get past this point. The very same thing happens when I target Vista, except for the fact that the UI does load slightly more correctly, however I can't get pages to work correctly, so sorry Vista users, you're not gonna get a late Easter present from me. I'm not gonna keep going on with this. At least not now, as I don't have time and I don't wanna stare at the code wondering what I did wrong. As I said before, I'm a broadcast engineer, so this is not really my field of expertise and although it's a good exercise, I have many other more important things to do for my job and my academic career, so I'm not gonna spend any more time on this. I've already shared the things I've done and the compiled version with the installer on the Windows XP Forever group and if someone else there wants, I'll share the source code and everything else, but I don't think they'll have time to keep this going either. I'm sorry if I made you hope that this was going to work, but as you can see, I've done my best... literally... Good afternoon from a p***ed off FranceBB...

I can't say with all honesty when I named this thread that Windows 10 would live up to its name...but it does and just continues.... I have probably written this before....but when Windows 10 was first offered as a "free" update I sort of got a bad feeling about it.....Microsoft had never in all the years of me using it been so blatent about wanting us to have a product that they have offered it for free....as they would like people to think....It didn't get the interest that they expected and then it got offered as a "recommended update" and we all know what that means.....unless otherwise stated your computer will install Windows 10 at 11pm in the evening or the first time you have your computer on after that..... I still have the words of a customer so upset by this but still maintaining that "Microsoft would not do such a thing"....but even he listened to me in the end and accepted things for what they are..... A friend of mine works at a local company about 10 employees..they came to work one morning and there and behold was Windows upgrading to Windows 10....I think everyone was too shocked to do anything about it and after a while learned to live with it...... Microsoft caused so much upset with this "recommended update" way of making sure you end up with Windows 10 that the tabloids in Fleet Street London wrote about it......but over 4 years later everyone is just getting on with things and accepting this is what Microsoft are offering..."what do we do" is something many of my customers have said over and over again..... The fact that this thread continues to get attention just goes to show me that "Official - Windows 10 Worst Crap Ever!" still rings true to this day and I can't see it changing.... Not only have we a company that I was once naive enough to trust with updating my computer...that has decended into what it is today!! The development team are getting younger and younger....ok to have new blood but they need to get out of nappies/daipers first.... Will Microsoft be that company that I once respected I don't think so.... Will they care about support representatives taking over computers to fix them remotely and then using third party sites to look for solutions to the problem... I don't think so.... So, we are left with this s*** and have to put up with it....or do we.... I have started telling ordinary customers that have computers that don't support Windows 10 that we can install linux instead...many just need the internet and a way to write documents....Linux is getting easier and easier....as it is customers come to me with their Microsoft problems....don't see any difference if they come with Linux problems... bookie32

since chromium is BSD-licensed, downstreams are not required to release their source codes. and how they create their XP-compatible browser is rather primitive: port every changeset since chromium 49 and excluding/rewriting non XP-compatible to be XP-compatible, by using human resources.

Thanks, @siria; that's a good start. But let me flesh things out a bit: for FF/PM/NM/Basilisk/Serpent, the preconfigured SSUAOs are found in <browser installation folder>\browser\omni.ja\defaults\preferences\<browser>-branding.js. The precise path is important because these browsers include two omni.ja archives, each of which contain too many paths to manually search. The branding file for FF 52.9 contains no SSUAOs, of course, since SSUAOs are disabled by default in FF 52.9. Oddly, the branding file for Serpent 55 is named firefox-branding.js, not basilisk-branding.js. I guess MCP dropped the Moebius branch before they got around to renaming the files. As with FF 52.9, Serpent 55 comes with no preconfigured SSUAOs.

Actually, I've already created an ISO file containing updates for 2000, XP, Server 2K3 and Vista. The ISO also includes Windows Live Essentials 2009 (XP compatible) and 2010 (Vista compatible). The problem is that updates for NT 5.x are language specific, so I only accumulated PT-PT updates. If there's any interest in releasing that to the public do let me know. (I also managed to salvage some PT-PT updates and hotfixes for Windows ME and 98 before they closed down the hotfix service.)

Thanks Heinoganda, I am pretty dedicated to uSP4, so I will continue to work on through this service pack. Has not been a problem till now, which I am sure its with kb4494528. I will now do another fresh install, but not include this one update in my GH0stPak. Will try to install prior to GH0stPak and After, see if I can really pinpoint this. Will report back!

LOL, couldn't help drafting such a disclaimer novel ;-P "For any help, support and discussion of roytam1 browsers, the best place is here: (link to NewMoon topic in msfn) Attention: Do not under any circumstances bother the PaleMoon team, especially Moonchild and Matt A. Tobin, with anything related to this forked browser, to anything XP-related, or mention any of roytam1 browser builds in the Pale Moon forum. They intentionally removed all XP-support for their products a long time ago, and do NOT tolerate any longer to be bothered by people using forked builds, especially not forks with restored XP support. Only discussion of their own original builds is allowed there. They have very STRICTLY declared this multiple times, in their own forum and also in the MSFN forum. So, please, abide by their request and go to MSFN only for support."

The Chinese have done hard work to make this work on XP/Vista i see. Still i wouldn't use as my main browser since i don't trust their privacy

Just quick links for roytam's retrozilla-versions, but that's a confusing mix of 2 authors and browsers with partly same version numbers for different builds. Just hope am getting that right: Retrozilla is actually the project of another dev, rn10950, hosted at github and here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/174987-retrozilla-an-updated-version-of-mozilla-for-windows-95-and-nt4-22-released/ It's an old Seamonkey (FF2) version, but with special updates, aimed for Win95/NT4 in modern web Roy RZ 2.1 = rzbrowser = fork of retrozilla browser Firefox2 + TLS updates http or https://o.rths.ml/gpc/files1.rt/rzbrowser-tls12-20180504.7z "About" says Firefox Community Edition 2.0.0.2, with a girl cartoon (Hmm, thinking about, neither the filename nor about page call this retrozilla...) Roy RZ 2.2 = rz-SUITE = an old Seamonkey with TLS1.2: http or https://o.rths.ml/gpc/files1.rt/rz-suite-v2.2-bin-20180708.7z "About" says Retrozilla 2.2, Seamonkey 1.1.19, Firefox 2.0.20, with a big red star But meanwhile exists a second retrozilla 2.2, by the original retrozilla dev rn10950 again. This Seamonkey includes his own updates plus Roy's pull requests from github (if I got that right, no clue of such stuff) Not retrozilla, but the same RZ topic contains somewhere also roytam's special Fx36 build, custom Firefox 3.6 with TLS1.2 http or https://o.rths.ml/gpc/files1.rt/fx36vc71-20171108.7z "About" says Firefox Community Edition 3.6.28, with a girl cartoon (same as RZ 2.1 above) (There are more special builds in that folder, see last link in previous post)

Thinking about, this topic would make a nice place for an overview of roytam's builds :-) There have already been some great postings across the forums, perhaps can be linked here. What I'm unsure about are especially the differences to the original builds. Just know that for some VERY old browsers (even FF2) his goal was to add modern TLS1.2, making half the web which is broken with "cipher errors" now readable again! Amazing how accessible the web can still be, if it weren't for such articial blocks. If the monopolies would only want to, instead of blocking without need and even deleting all older stuff. And so far his builds contain only engine updates, the GUI remains untouched. Nearly all of the engine updates are also collected commits from other devs and projects, like waterfox etc. Still the mass of browsers he manages to update regularly just blows my mind. My personal interest is mainly: ------------------- K-MELEON --------- KM-Goanna exists in 2 Roy-versions too: KG76+KG74 Attention Confusion: there are also much older K-Meleon GECKOS with the SAME version numbers, by KM-dev Dorian, called K-Meleon74 and 76 (engine 24esr+38esr) - Roy-KM-Goanna 76.1.1: palemoon27 engine plus selected updates, shell of Dorian's KM76RC2 from 2016 for XP SP3 or newer (SP2 with tricks, if a special OS dll copied over from SP3) http or https://o.rths.ml/kmeleon/ http://rtfreesoft.blogspot.com/search/label/kmeleon KM-Forum for latest 76.1.x http://kmeleonbrowser.org/forum/read.php?19,148500 MSFN-Forum mainly in NEWMOON topic, a bit in others too - Roy-KM-Goanna 74: final palemoon26 engine plus selected updates Shell of Naruman's KM1.8, a very customized old user-fork of Dorian's KM74 (incl. hardcoded ABP in browser/components, etc.) for Win2000 or newer (partly also usable on 98SE with latest KernelEx, very shaky yet, but best TLS1.2) http or https://o.rths.ml/gpc/files1.rt/KM74-g22-20180718.win2000.7z http://rtfreesoft.blogspot.com/search/label/kmeleon KM-Forum KM-Forum http://kmeleonbrowser.org/forum/read.php?19,146040 MSFN-Forum mixed in various topics ------------------- Guess there's also a pure Palemoon26 for Win2000 build. Most such exotic one-time builds can be found here (list needs JS+XHR enabled): https://o.rths.cf/gpc/files1.rt/home.html Or without JS but pure xml: https://o.rths.ml/gpc/files1.rt/index.php?sitemap Retrozilla is especially confusing with different authors/builds/same versions numbers, but deserves an own post too

360 Extreme Explorer 11.0.2031.0 - working on Vista! It's based on Chromium 69.0.3497.100. And this is the latest rendering engine that exists for Vista. Works stably, Chrome extensions are supported. Here - https://browser.360.cn/ee/en.html

This is my first release of RetroZilla 2.2, any other build is unofficial. This release, as with all RetroZilla releases, is tested on both Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0. The changelog appears like it's the first release on the GitHub link because it is only showing the latest release. You can view all the releases, with their associated changelogs here, as well as about:changelog from within RetroZilla. The only differences between the exe and zip versions is the exe is a graphical installer. (i.e. installs into \Program Files, adds shortcuts, etc) Regarding youtubemp4.to, from what it looks like, the JavaScript code used is too new to work in RetroZilla at this time. It may work in a future release.