Leaderboard

AFAIK yes. The modifications are not a big deal, just take a look at this --> https://ia802303.us.archive.org/28/items/360EE_Modified_Version/DCB_4.0.7.22_Modified_Notes.txt Your welcome. I use XP on a 2003 laptop (Dell Inspiron 600m iirc) and it is very slow unfortunately. Rebasing did improve memory usage so I just decided to go for it. Hope you can make good use of the browsers!

Technically, v11 is faster. It launches faster, it scores faster, and it passes more checks at BrowserAudit. BUT it's too old for me to use because my banking sites will not function on v11. What I don't understand is the hype surrounding DcBrowser and MiniBrowser, I've never liked either one but web browsers are always always always "in the eye of the beholder".

Just wanted to say thank you for continuing to maintain these browsers to this day! I will have to try them now and see how they are doing on performance...it's amazing how much speed you can gain by rebasing the DLLs. 360v13.x used to run well, albeit a bit slow with a lot of tabs open...when NHTPG rebased his 360v13.5 build, the speed became competitive with old and fast 9.5/11/12! The same principle applied to those older browsers, and to DCB and MiniBrowser, should mean significant performance gains for web browsing. It's truly fantastic because unlocking the extra speed is beneficial across the board, not just for those on Ivy Bridge and Haswell-era processors but those who are still using very old Pentium 4 or Athlon 64-based machines. For my part, I still use my old HP S5-1020, which I've even run 2000 on years ago (with full driver support) and have gone up to 10 with. 10 actually doesn't run too bad if you strip away the bloat and tweak it sufficiently, but XP is much faster. The performance can give the latest PCs running 11 a run for their money, and that's with an old HDD! If I ever put an SSD in it, forget it...it's game over. While it's possible to run newer OSes, having done a lot of testing recently (and over the years) I can say for sure that older PCs really thrive with XP and have their ups and downs with Vista and later. Being able to use modern web browsers in XP, and have a sense of assurance that they will not only run but run with good speed, is a truly amazing thing. Thanks again for doing what you do, H.O.!

Sounds to me like another genius move by Micro$oft: make sure even fewer folks use Bing! Hasn't affected me, since I routinely spoof Win 7 or 8.1 in my UAs; but Chase long ago fell for the FUD that old OSes are inherently too insecure. I remember years ago when they blocked their own Android app on Android 6 for the same reason. Of course that just meant I had to use Chrome instead of their app. Maybe Moonbat works for Chase? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering. Sorry, couldn't resist! I checked mine, and mine is user-set to ... which is better, but obviously way out of date! Problem with pointing it to this thread is that it, too, will be locked someday.... Multi-process mode was removed from Basilisk by MCP before @basilisk-dev got ahold of it. @roytam1 omitted those particular commits, so it can be enabled in Serpent, but even Serpent doesn't have it enabled by default! IIRC, multi-process mode was still in its infancy when the two Basilisk versions were forked from Firefox. Even FF 52 disables it by default on XP. That said, I've had generally good results running with it enabled, except for some incompatible add-ons; notably Palefill and Classic Add-ons Archive. (The latter has a "hack" which was written for Waterfox but can be enabled for Serpent, which makes CAA open in a single-process mode window.) If one site hosts multiple domains, the certificate will typically include a Subject Alternative Name for each domain hosted at that site. As long as the domain you're accessing is one of the certificate's SANs, the browser shouldn't give a warning. But if the domain isn't listed as a SAN, a warning should appear.

I guess I'm more patient than most folks. Max number of tabs I usually open is 10 - 15. Single-process mode is guaranteed to work with all XUL extensions one may want to use. I'm mostly concerned about speed/performance when it comes to multimedia.

function depends on platform code (i.e. UXP) which MCP removed such function from platform code long time ago, I don't think people can add back this without forking platform code.

Welcome to the human race! That last question from the quote above, it's a bit like asking "Why is the sky blue?" IMO. Here's the quote I found on another discussion website that relays some thoughts that seem fitting in an instance such as this: People love to lash out when their ways are challenged in any way, or they're being screwed by more powerful person/group, then they take the bottled up tension on the weaker person/group. Or if they had bad day. Add sociopathy, psychopathy, greed, egotism, narcissism etc. And the way this whole Matrix is structured...who can keep sanity? Navigating this world feels a bit like this picture to me: Surrounded by enemies, no allies, no weapon to defend oneself with. Backstabbers everywhere.

New build of Serpent/UXP for XP! Test binary: Win32 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20230325-3219d2d-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z Win64 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win64-git-20230325-3219d2d-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/custom IA32 Win32 https://o.rthost.win/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.8.win32-git-20230325-3219d2d-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod-ia32.7z source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/ia32 NM28XP build: Win32 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.6a1.win32-git-20230325-d849524bd-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z Win32 IA32 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.6a1.win32-git-20230325-d849524bd-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod-ia32.7z Win32 SSE https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.6a1.win32-git-20230325-d849524bd-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod-sse.7z Win64 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.6a1.win64-git-20230325-d849524bd-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z Official UXP changes picked since my last build: - No Issue - Ensure more OsiSpace (82a2a67f0) - [GFX] Add some sanity checks and clamps to SurfaceData calculations. (fd5015fae) - Issue #2117 - Follow-up: Run precomplete cmd during package staging (05d29a53d) - Issue #2155 - Split TDZCheckCache, IfEmitter/InternalIfEmitter, JumpList from BytecodeEmitter (e8fee2056) - Issue #2155 - Simplify BytecodeEmitter::isRestParameter (da05c050e) - Issue #2155 - Refactor BytecodeEmitter in preparation for *Emitter work (a2fd8846b) - Issue #2155 - Add PropOpEmitter, ElemOpEmitter, NameOpEmitter, CallOrNewEmitter (89e682000) - Issue #2155 - Fix BytecodeEmitter::emitArguments for our ParseNode tree (e88f946c0) - Issue #2155 - Remove now-unused functions (5dc6be1bc) - Issue #2155 - Fix debug build (76c203014) - Issue #2155 - Fix wrong assertion (fbb5f7345) - Issue #1593 - Follow-up: Fix :host matching from inside the shadow tree (7374ca671) - Issue #2171 - Skip over shadow nodes that don't have an owning node. (f09d2bba0) - Issue #1592 - Part 1a: Prevent crashing if a slot element was selected via DOM Inspector (0232bcdfa) - Issue #1592 - Part 1b: Move <slot> UA rule to html.css (460e8db94) - Issue #1592 - Part 1c: Pass SelectorParsingFlags as a reference (ab63b7b94) - Issue #1592 - Part 2: Parse ::slotted() pseudo-element as if it were a pseudo-class (77ad970db) - Issue #1592 - Part 3: Ensure only tree-abiding pseudo-elements will follow ::slotted() (92b31dd25) - Issue #1592 - Part 4: Walk ::slotted()-containing rules for slottables (518c41fd7) - Issue #1592 - Part 5: Use flattened element tree when looking for a parent while matching ::slotted() (8d2533ad7) - Issue #1592 - Part 6: Allow pseudo-classes with a forgiving selector list argument to follow pseudo-elements (91d2b6f4c) - Issue #1592 - Part 7: Slottables cannot be matched from the outer tree. (19226fd56) - Issue #1592 - Part 8: Test the assigned slot for type/class/ID/attribute instead of the slottable when matching ::slotted() (4cd0de04d) - Issue #1592 - Part 9: Post a restyle event after changing the slot of a slottable (9a071f3b7) - Issue #1592 - Part 10: Slot elements should restyle their parent on attribute changes (bc12e05bd) - Issue #1592 - Follow-up: Don't post a restyle event if restyleElement is null (b29522749) - Issue #2161 - Ctrl + Enter should cause keypress event even though the key combination doesn't input any character (078b1b73d) - Issue #2135 - Don't discard event state mask when matching ::slotted() or :host arguments (f16994074) No official Pale-Moon changes picked since my last build. No official Basilisk changes picked since my last build. My changes since my last build: - follow-up rev 24572438, `targetInKnownToBeHandledScope` can be null (af28af9f8) - add comments and formatting in mozilla upstream "bug 1440809, ensure we don't try to treat non-DOM-Node event targets as such, r=masayuki (89c8025537a5)" (64329d41b) - js: add `using js::LifoAlloc` to fix build (e162f075e) Update Notice: - You may delete file named icudt58l.dat inside program folder when updating from old releases. * Notice: From now on, UXP rev will point to `custom` branch of my UXP repo instead of MCP UXP repo, while "official UXP changes" shows only `tracking` branch changes.

Thanks to extensive coding work carried out by upstream developer FranklinDM, "Web Components Slots" are now supported in UXP natively ; last Saturday's UXP-builds by Roy come with that support backported ; as such, now the "modern GUI" version of VirusTotal can be successfully rendered and used in NM28/St52 without disabling the native WC implementation and without excessive CPU consumption (YMMV, here it was OK ) : https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

Yeah, it just works with little interaction(s) FWIW: Even version 1.09.4.1001 just updated a few minutes ago along with MB Anti-Rootkit 1.10.3.1001. Just saying they do work but can't say much for their detection ability.

Qihu 360 Total Security Essential 8.8.0.1119 is quite ok as an alternative in Windows XP where the choice of antivirus programs is very limited. Although I can't say much about the quality of its protection, you have the option of installing the Avira Scan Engine. This increases the detection rate of this program considerably, as AV-Test has shown in the follow-up version. Here is an image taken from the test: First a screenshot of the main interface: And now a screenshot of my security configuration especially in terms of the Avira Scan Engine: In this screenshot above, you see I changed the protection mode from the default Balanced to Custom, and I enabled the Avira Scan Engine. Or you set the maximum protection mode Security. This definitely improves the program's detection rate. Cheers, AstroSkipper

If one site hosts multiple domains, the certificate will typically include a Subject Alternative Name for each domain hosted at that site. As long as the domain you're accessing is one of the certificate's SANs, the browser shouldn't give a warning. But if the domain isn't listed as a SAN, a warning should appear. @luweitest : Mathwiz is right ; below is a capture of the "SAN field" of the server certificate on "forums.internetfreedom.org":

So share your DCBrowser build, because there are many fans of this browser here, please...

Sounds to me like another genius move by Micro$oft: make sure even fewer folks use Bing! ... It's actually their new "offspring", OpenAI-based, supposed to be "more powerful" than ChatGPT: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/02/07/reinventing-search-with-a-new-ai-powered-microsoft-bing-and-edge-your-copilot-for-the-web/ ... And Roy's choice is: https://github.com/roytam1/basilisk55/commit/babf7e8e5c79cab7ea504f16fab609253e047ce8 => https://msfn.org/board/forum/201-browsers-working-on-older-nt-family-oses/ Quite right ; at that time, Fx did support both XUL+WE extensions, and while WE are inherently e10s-compatible, not all XUL ones had been rewritten to support it; their authors became less "enthused" (to put it mildly ) when Mozilla announced XUL support would be axed in "Quantum" (Fx57+) ... Being on Vista SP2 x86 myself, e10s is enabled in my Fx-52.9.1 (32-bit) "nostalgia/test" copy, however I don't use nor recommend myself e10s on St52/St55; the platforms (UXP Take 2 / UXP Take 1 = moebius) were significantly modified by upstream compared to their respective Mozilla forkpoints (52.6.0/53.0a1), not taking at all the underlying (but dormant) multiprocess support code into account; as posted already by others, that support was later excised completely from the "official" UXP code; "we" have kept these e10s vestiges inside "our" UXP tree, but no-one upstream (of course) or downstream (Roy) checks how well/bad these vestiges behave now, when enabled, with current UXP platform snapshots; St52 has also kept vestigial support for Fx52-level "Container Tabs" (off by default) and WEs, but, like e10s, those platform features, no longer present in official Basilisk, aren't being maintained at all by Roy... All these extra features are in a "Use at your own risk" status; for e10s specifically, you should definitely back up your profile (to have a single process one to revert to if/when things turn sour ) before enabling it, and making frequent profile backups once on e10s isn't a bad idea either ... To give credit to people requesting e10s in their browsers, it's mostly due to the way website design has grown to become over the last years : the major league of browsers, Chromium-based ones and Firefox, have, since long ago,, native multiprocess support, and it's those browsers that are being targeted by web devs and web frameworks; this has resulted in the current web abomination where every independent browser tab runs a "web app", downloading tens of MiBs of JS code that has to be rendered locally by the browser's engine; this is especially true on "popular" social media portals (facebook, instagram, twitter, etc.) and "chat" apps (e.g. Discord), exacerbated by the concurrent use of a multitude of rich media (HD images/GIFs, HD video, audio, WebRTC video+audio, etc) ... While single process engines were "fine" a decade or more ago, they're more likely to "run out of O2 and choke to death" when asked to deal with the modern web, especially on our older H/W and OSes - but do also note that e10s works best on more recent H/W, where ample RAM and CPU is being made available to the multiprocess-enabled browser core ...

So I dare to repeat to you that I like DCBrowser because of the GUI appearance, the nice settings page, the possibility to have "dark mode" easily; then I have MANY bookmarks - without them I'm maybe dead... MiniBrowser is for my tests only, here...

That seems like a step backwards when we have v86 and v87 forks available.

I personally prefer the SQUARES. Why install a font that I can not read?

Agreed!

I don't see anything! If the web site loads and functions, then who cares if it throws up some "banner" saying they don't "support" your browser. Those "banners" citing "support" despite the web site "working" is about as usefull as the web site owner plastering a banner on what sports team s/he "supports".

I make some serch,so I found the way how to change the useragent in 360EE,now I show you: 1.Click F12 or Click "Option">"Tools">"Devloper Tools" 2.Click "Customize and control DevTools">"More Tools">"Network Conditions" 3.Cancel the selection of the "Select aautomatically" 4.Enter the useragent as you want into the input box Now the problem is which useragent to input is right

I did a short test of Qihu 360 Total Security 10.8.0.1541 on my second system partition. I can't say anything about the quality of its protection, but quite a bit about the installer and what is installed. There is no way to do an individual installation. Particularly annoying is the so-called desktop manager, which is of course installed without being asked and has moved all my icons on the desktop. I don't like this program and can't recommend it. And I miss the main focus on security, but many unnecessary functions instead. Here is a link to a test performed by PCMag: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/qihoo-360-total-security-86 The results and evaluation are also quite poor, similar to my first impressions.

For Windows 98 Realtek made gigabit drivers only for PCI cards. And for some reason... drivers made for PCI gigabit cards do not work with PCI-E cards. On the other hand the NDIS2 universal driver is supposed to work with the entire gigabit line no matter what model. I have used many times Realtek NDIS2 drivers. RTGBND.DOS works with DOS, Windows 3.11, 95OSR2 and 98. In Windows 98, you should install this driver from control panel and let Windows make all the configuration changes, like in this video (@ minute 21 is the actual installation of Realtek 8111 PCI-E in Windows 98SE)

There was a very rare laptop driver 373.19 Fujitsu and MSI notebook . 1050 is supported and works with Vista x86. One file needs to be replaced for the desktop usage. Dixel had it.

you are not the only one who actually thinks @legacyfan and @mina7601 behavior is quite suspicious.

Thank you ! Do you know a solid, trusted extension that has an auto setting to delete cookies upon each exit ?

Yes, these are my impressions as well... But I like to play with new extensions to see if they can improve this crazy world... So, to increase your curiosity about the extensions that take care of your "privacy" and "security", here are some things that might interest you; checked by me and secure (sorry if you already know them): No History (this with Size 33.09 KiB): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/no-history/hdifnhiliocdiomkphonngpedadhinof?hl=en-US Referer Control: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/referer-control/hnkcfpcejkafcihlgbojoidoihckciin?hl=en-US Reject Service Worker (Size12.63KiB): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/reject-service-worker/falajmifjcihbmlokgomiklbfmgmnopd?hl=en-US CSS Exfil Protection mike gualtieri Clear This Page

I should have tried fresh profile first (so obvious that something must have blinded my eyes): yes the fresh profile works! And after seeing your certificate picture I find https://fankui.dongtaiwang.net/* works also in my profile! So there must be a configuration in my profile that prevents mismatch of certificate's host name and the URL's host. Where is it? There is no such configuration. The problem is that the rule "internetfreedom.org" in my subscription of rule set for automatic proxy switching does not function for URL "https://forums.internetfreedom.org". The rule set is supposed to comply with Adblock's syntax. I manually added a rule "||internetfreedom.org" and now everything's back to normal. And although this case is resolved, the need for downgrading HTTPS to plain HTTP is still valid, because there are times the GFW interrupts TLS connection through proxy|VPN, by recognition of TLS negotiation pattern that ought to be hided. At those times the HTTP page are more likely accessible than HTTPS. I know it is not recommended in security or privacy concern, but accessibility goes first in most cases. ps. Isn't it suspicious if a page uses certificate that belongs to another domain? Although in previous example I know "fankui.dongtaiwang.net" and "forums.internetfreedom.org" is the same host, I think my profile is right in preventing this kind of mismatch, only it should clearly state so, not give out a time-out. I hope this kind of mismatch should be noted by browser, and give option to proceed or block.

this function seems to be broken for a quite long time Was actually a total coincidence that I came across this issue. I had to create a new profile to check the other issue with the search engines. In the process, I also wanted to reconfigure the toolbars and suddenly the crash. Can this be fixed?

If you read the change logs between roytam1's UXP commit history, and Moonchild/upstream's UXP commit history, you will be able to draw the conclusion that the 2 UXP code bases are nearly identical. Following upstream UXP development, you will know that the defining features of Goanna 6.0 were the implementation of Regular Expression named capture groups, Regular Expression unicode property escapes, and Regular Expression lookaround/lookbehind, and the defining features of Goanna 6.1 were additions to the Shadow DOM v1 implementation (see issue "#2135"), along with a bug fix to make Custom Elements v1 work properly, which allowed "dom.webcomponents.enabled" to be set to "true" by default (see about:config). Also see pages 55, and 61 of this thread to view my favourite change logs of the UXP browser builds and search for issue #1361 on page 55, and #2135 on page 61. https://www.palemoon.org/releasenotes.shtml https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commits/branch/master https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/tree/custom https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/blob/custom/config/milestone.txt https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/src/branch/master/config/milestone.txt

Not likely. And I say that as an XP user. I think we XP users think far too highly of our influence in this world.

roytam1's UXP browsers already run the Goanna 6.1 rendering engine. I say that because roytam1's UXP repository has most of the additions from upstream with the exception of JPEG-XL support due to roytam1 remaining on Visual C++ 2015 update 3 (thank you @roytam1). The reason why the browsers still report milestone (Goanna) 4.8 is "config/milestone.txt" has not been updated.

It is already removed. There is nothing to decide.

The UXP team has already said they have no intention of dropping Windows 7/8 support right now, but if it came down to it yes that is correct. I wouldn't expect that to happen for at least 5+ years.

Correct. I think it's beneficial for Serpent users here and for developers of Windows XP UXP applications to have a direct line of communication with people involved in upstream development. There have been very negative interactions between MSFN members and Pale Moon forum members in the past. I think it is time to move past that and embrace the fact that we all are using code that comes from a shared history and to work towards a common goal of creating browsers that break away from Google's monopoly of the web, regardless of if that code runs on Windows XP or Windows 10 or Linux. This was a consideration when I took over the Basilisk project. I eventually decided that it would not be feasible to do this. Basilisk is an application built upon the upstream Moonchild Productions UXP platform. The upstream UXP platform has no XP support and the UXP development team have no interest in XP support, therefore Basilisk will not have XP support. That being said, if you need Basilisk on XP you can consider Serpent an officially recommended option from my perspective. I appreciate roytam1's work in maintaining Serpent and try to be active in this thread since Serpent is a fork of Basilisk. It is very likely that Serpent bugs will also affect Basilisk. Two reasons: 1 - It was removed from the UXP platform. 2 - There were multiple security vulnerabilities in the multi process implementation that Mozilla was using around the time Firefox 52 was released and UXP was created. Mozilla's current implementation is in Rust so the fixes cannot be backported. There is no plan to add this back at this time.

I have been using the multi-process mode since it was introduced into the original FF52 you just can't imagine how sluggish and stressful firefox forks are with 1 single process but some users seems to be happy with it, maybe they don't open more than 2 tabs at a time....

Just recently the regstry backups that Revo Uninstaller creates saved my Win10 when it commited suicide overnight (probably some f#$%d silent update). It was getting BSODs when entering sleep mode, i would wake up in the morning to see a BSOD. I tried uninstalling the last updates and using System Restore, this made it even worse. In the end it was even unable to boot. And, of course, repair reinstalls need to be run from a working OS, pfff. Clean install is not an option for me considering all the little tweaks and programs i have accumulated over the few years since i got this system.

You got the legitimate answer though, the system requirements for their browser is clearly stated on their website. Another person pointed you to the thread here, which you must have been aware of, being a member here, but the official last XP compatible is simply the one that's several years old by now. I've got attacked there once by the guy called gepus for simply asking about the issue that may happen with uBlock Origin + blocking scripts on the site being navigated to from Google search results - you may be redirected back to search results if you have JS enabled on Google. Had to find a workaround on my own, which isn't too bad, don't need Google's tracking in the links, but nobody explained why the issue happens on Pale Moon. Is it really not a browser issue? I sometimes ask about some sites' issues, except the few incidents, the place doesn't seem as bad these days. If they know what's up, you tend to get the answer. When they were beefing up their RegExp code in recent times, I asked about a particular regex example that wasn't working as it used to anymore and it was fixed right away. One thing I'm still curious about, but there were only crickets' sounds on Pale Moon forum, why are Volkswagen's websites so sluggish? Some examples: https://www.volkswagen.si/ https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/en.html https://www.volkswagen.de/de.html The errors look about the same between UXP powered browser and Firefox 110, even polyfills loaded message appear in both cases. Well, almost, this may be encountered on UXP: SyntaxError: missing : after property id Which must result in something being broken (some popup in this case at least, maybe also something else), but I don't remember if we figured out this one yet.

No problems here with these links in Serpent 52! No timeout, the HTTPS-links on this site can be opened and work as they should.

Restart XP and first launch only of DcB has RAM/process back up around 110 MB.

Relaunch DcB on the 2 GB VM and RAM/process drops to around 30 MB.

Here's the same three browsers but with VM RAM increased from 1 GB to 2 GB. Note that v11 stays at four processes while DcB and Ungoogled v77 both increased in the number of processes despite being the same four tabs. Also note that a DcB process on a 1 GB VM is roughly 30 MB but a DcB process on a 2 GB VM is roughly 110 MB !!! This seems to suggest that the rebase address has to be somehow based on the system's overall available RAM.

Multi-processor web browser RAM usage is not "linear". The browser decides how many processes to run based on number of open tabs and available RAM. Run the same exact browser on a computer with 1 GB RAM, 2 GB RAM, and 4 GB RAM and you will get different RAM consumption. Here is my 360Chrome v11 rebuild 8 on XP with 1 GB RAM, Humming Owl's DcBrowser on XP with 1 GB RAM, and Ungoogled Chromium v77 on Win7 with 1 GB RAM.

Sad to say, nothing shocks me anymore regarding (so called) humanity. As I said, I don't know how to avoid negativity in society.

New build of BOC/UXP for XP! Test binary: MailNews Win32 https://o.rthost.win/boc-uxp/mailnews.win32-20230325-409cc309-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z BNavigator Win32 https://o.rthost.win/boc-uxp/bnavigator.win32-20230325-409cc309-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z source repo (excluding UXP): https://github.com/roytam1/boc-uxp/tree/custom * Notice: the profile prefix (i.e. parent folder names) are also changed since 2020-08-15 build, you may rename their names before using new binaries when updating from builds before 2020-08-15. -- New build of HBL-UXP for XP! Test binary: IceDove-UXP(mail) https://o.rthost.win/hbl-uxp/icedove.win32-20230325-id-656ea98-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z IceApe-UXP(suite) https://o.rthost.win/hbl-uxp/iceape.win32-20230325-id-656ea98-ia-93af9a0-uxp-00534b26f-xpmod.7z source repo (excluding UXP): https://github.com/roytam1/icedove-uxp/tree/winbuild https://github.com/roytam1/iceape-uxp/tree/winbuild for UXP changes please see above.

I've been using Malwarebytes Premium on XP for several years now. It's not free, but it just works. Strange how people have very different experiences with these programs on their systems. I never had any problem installing MB Premium on either of my XP systems, but my main desktop absolutely refused to work with Avast or AVG! They would install fine, but the main service refused to start, and I never found out why this was. I too spent ages on their forums and with their technical support, and apart for the vague 'some people do have this problem on XP' no answer was ever found.

.

Updated 360EE v9, v11, v12, v13, DCB, and both MiniBrowser browser's files. - Rebased chrome.dll (and chrome_child.dll where it applies) to address 0x10010000. non-rebased DLLs are kept just in case. https://archive.org/download/360EE_Modified_Version Cheers.

I did not know that. However, turns out i already use for a 14 days this March version of New Monn, where WebComponents is included. That's not accurate statement. I usually download new versions from here: https://rtfreesoft.blogspot.com/search/label/browser And i usually read whats new in "Official Pale-Moon changes picked since my last build:" and "Official Basilisk changes picked since my last build:". Because i expected that the most critical changes will be mentioned there. The reason why i miss mention about WebComponents, is because it is written as casual change in the middle of long list named: "Official UXP changes picked since my last build:" Here is examle of issues from there next to important WebComponents announcement: I usually not read this because i don't understand meaning of this. I wAS expectING more BIG announcement about WebComponents enabled, then getting it lost in the list of super-complicated issues that 99.9% of people do not understand. I Like how the Pale Moon guys did it: They openly said - "hey guys, we now enabled WebComponents by default, major change, long awaited, how cool is that!!!" So i notice that. But if you think i will read every - Issue #OVER9000!1111 - you simply wrong and you lying to yourself. I deeply respect work of roytam! and often like and up-vote his posts here,

Technically speaking, it's an error. Windows 2000 existed only as IA-64, not x64 ! It was a very rare OS shared only with a limited set of manufacturers, and only in Western Europe ! You aren't getting a copy ! Windows Whistler build 2285 exists and it's also IA64, not x64. An example is Fujitsu-Siemens, they developed an IA64 CPU earlier than Intel. Articles deleted or never existed in the first place. Found some hard proof . Scroll to the bottom and you will see - Scott Bekker is (now most likely was) editor in chief of Redmond Channel Partner magazine., on July 05, 2000 he wrote : "..Fujitsu-Siemens also demonstrated a 64-bit Itanium box." Again, Fujitsu-Siemens made an an IA64 CPU earlier than Intel, so they needed an IA64 system, and the system it ran was IA-64 Windows 2000 Datacenter. https://rcpmag.com/articles/2000/07/05/fujitsusiemens-sets-benchmark-on-datacenter-server.aspx And again, only for the Western European market ! "Fujitsu-Siemens demonstrated its system today at Microsoft TechEd Europe in Amsterdam."

I'm watching Charmed, '98. I watched it a few times when I was a kid, now it's a different kind of feel to the series.