Leaderboard

as promised .heic is brought to windows xp closing the gap for xp having a very new image encoder and decoder (and nothing using any other modules, engines or weird operating system dependencys) the resulting image is even better then the one on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format reason behind this i only choosed the best options, better internal code, better decisions, and disregarded code that decreases image quality ----- APP "WinXP HEVC/HEIF/H265 Image En/Decoder explained" The Encoder: Encode By Filename: allow you to select a file this heic encoder supports : .jpg, .png, .tif and .y4m (raw YUV format) the encoder make a .heic file from the choosen file Encoder By Folder: this read "Encode By Folder Searched Format Ending" if you have choosen jpg then it will search all .jpg files in the choosen folder actual chooses: png, jpg, tif or y4m if the entry was jpg then the encoder will encode all .jpg files in that folder to .heic this by folder was made so you can encode many files instead of always 1 file, while going to drink some coffee Encoder Complexity: "placebo" is the best setting here i actually dont see any reason to choose a different setting that actually only results in less image quality (best: 1: placebo, 2: veryslow, 3: slower, 4: slow, 5: medium, 6: fast , 7: faster, 8: veryfast, 9: superfast, 10 ultrafast) why we should we set a setting that decreases image quality? (basicly i not even wanted to have this box) (1 word about this, placebo use the best compressions tricks therefore the time is longer(more code = more time), the others try to speed up this (and leave out some functions, tricks, try to end the encoder before it really was done), it might not always increase the image - but you can be certain you got the best option (and the highest amount of pixels possible) also it can happen that that your image might not challenged the encoder for its maximum, then a "faster" setting dont have that much difference, still it can result in less amount of pixels, with placebo you are certain to get the maximum it really raise questions to use the others, you can make a big jpg file and you may dont see the image difference that much - but why ? are we making a jpg or are we making a high efficienty image encoder ?) Hardware Acceleration: makes use of hardware registers such as MMX, SSE and AVX this speed up encoding time a lot since the encoder is very complex image encoding can take time hardware acceleration makes encoding a lot faster notice: depending on your cpu power since the encoder is complex can take some time (if so keep a look "Encoded Image Files") (MMX, SSE and AVX are speed hardware registers they are between 64 and 512 bits wide, depending what one is available (yes in 32 bit)) Quality: controls the filesize of your .heic file, the lower this number the smaller your .heic file lossless: that option is not very useful as the real question is how well the pixels was preserved making a compression (we actually dont make a raw format - we make a compression) so better set this option to 0 (it dont make a real compression) Tuner: this increases the image quality even further good settings are psnr and ssim - the other settings only decrease image quality the tuner increased the amount of pixels, as said before its a extra function to improve more pixels more code = more time - this makes a good example - if you leave out many of good possible tricks you might end up in a less fancy picture ----- The Decoder: you have to choose a output image format for your .heic file (we have png, tif, jpg, and y4m) png compression level (0-9): png compression level -1 actually represents png compression 6 i actually dont see a well reason to have -1 as option, since -1 just represent compression 6 (you can try this out by looking at the filesize of the resulting .png file (try -1 and 6 they are the same) -1 actually is called png_default_compression what then is defined as 6 0 means no compression (this is good to make a compare how well your .heic file was preserved) increasing values make higher compressions losing more pixels (again 6 is equal to -1) 0 is the best png compression regarding pixels going from 0 to higher numbers decreasing image quality (higher numbers create smaller file sizes) (and make a compromise about pixels and compression) png is said to be lossless, but i only know for certain if option 0 is selected that it is a lossless copy. (what makes a 1:1 copy of the .heic file as it exits) jpg compression (1-100): nothing much to say here the higher this value the better the resulting jpg image notice higher values also cause bigger filze sizes 90 seems to be a good choice Decode By Filename: this button actually reads out "Decode In Format" why ? because if you select a .heic file the decoder has to know the decompression format valid formats are: png , jpg , y4m, tif Decode By Folder: reads out "Decode In Format" then the selected folder is searched for .heic files and then the decoder decodes all .heic files into the image format you set in "Decode In Format" Multi-pass: this makes a second image and compare the result with the first image - according to information this also improves image quality a bit (the h.266 says for example 1-3 % in average, then something about maybe sometimes more) Create A Subfolder: this allow you to put a folder where the WinXP HEIC en/decoder put its files it trys to create that folder, but you also can create that folder yourself this also avoid the name problem when controlling with "By Folder" ------ rumors say .heic is the best image encoder at the moment as we know .heic passes jpg, jpg2000 and jxr (jpeg xr) what we can see in the wikipedia site for heic maybe .heic also other jpg formats like the jxs format (what is rather speed orientated then quality orientated) there are some (jpeg xt, jpeg xs, jpeg ls, jpeg xe, jpeg xl) (https://jpeg.org) if someone wants to makes the compares the h.266 by frauenhofer or jxl would be candidates to try or even the others ... i actually never seen a h.266 frauenhofer image yet (updated the links): https://www.file-upload.net/download-15405155/WinXP_HEIC.zip.html https://www.mediafire.com/file/g9t94vi3dr4gycl/WinXP_HEIC.zip/file

The browser might already had the chance to connect to the servers and verify against the original china files, if it suggests you to "download the latest version".

The error we both see with @Dixeldiffers with yours, if are to assume you get it when you simply swap the files, though it would still not explain our error.

Interesting, but still don't understand what does it have to do with HEVC mentioned in the title (H265). Will Nero understand this format?

I didn't mix anything. But the issue is interesting since mixing would also trigger the warning. So, does it appear only when you're online?

So perhaps some telemetry isn't completely removed in 2044, and it triggers the "trojan warning" reporter. Do you all get the Trojan warning while being online or offline? Perhaps the browser connects to China to verify the integrity, and "sees" it's not as it should be? Interesting. This would explain no warning on the original version.

Thanks for yet another confirmation! Now both executables scan browser files and tell something's fishy with the rest of the files, interesting. So this is not "only Vista" related, like someone tried to imply earlier, I see you're on XP Pro x86.

Moved to 'Web Browsers' where it should really be.

The EU is divided on this. So too will MSFN Members be divided. This thread should not be about the loudest squeaking wheel getting the oil. It's an international forum not tied to any specific Government Agency's "perspective". When we (any one of us) act like it is, that is where POLITICS enter the picture and we need to AVOID that. PLEASE.

New regular/weekly KM-Goanna release: https://o.rthost.win/kmeleon/KM76.4.9-Goanna-20231021.7z Changelog: Out-of-tree changes: * update Goanna3 to git b780764f57...43215fa79a: - ported from mozilla: Bug 1446548 - Treat all GLSL versions >=450 as 450. r=kvark, a=RyanVM (43f0d1060e) (410e883318) - import change from `dev' branch of rmottola/Arctic-Fox: Bug 1246318 - Remove the enumerate trap from ES6 proxies. r=efaust (3e7af5df07) (11b253b879) - partly import changes from `dev' branch of rmottola/Arctic-Fox: - Bug 1175546 - Update GCC to 4.8.5 and bump minimum GCC version required to build. r=froydnj (aa651fae16) - Bug 1236413 - Suppress -Wimplicit-fallthrough warning in third-party code mfbt/decimal/. r=Waldo (7bd18f9b1f) - Bug 1194721: Add |Saturate| template for saturation arithmetics, r=nfroyd (4f62196e3a) (43215fa79a) * Notice: the changelog above may not always applicable to XULRunner code which K-Meleon uses. A goanna3 source tree that has kmeleon adaption patch applied is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/palemoon27/tree/kmeleon76

Strictly from Speedometer 2.1 with only one run each -- 2044 scored 75.5... 1030 scored 75.2... 2036 scored 74.8... This is on XP x64 on a fairly old i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz with 16 GB RAM. So if we really want to "squeeze the turnip" for every last tiny drop of performance, seems 2044 is the "fastest". But those numbers are so close that we really are technically "within margin of error". I'll try a few other benchmark just for curiosity.

After some days testing, this release is table for my Xp 64 on real hardware. I've found an other untranslated part, click on ">" is working

I don't remember when I said I don't use 360Chrome, you got me confused with someone else, nothing is hijacked since the Trojan message comes from the browser itself. Though, it's a bit different on XP and Vista. Did you have the chance to compare 1030 with 2044 with enough real life usage? Is it faster? Maybe not worth it? Or maybe worth to search for the cause?

I don't use the ex-kernel, I only use it sometimes - locally, and it can't affect this browser. My Vista x64 is original, but I had to update it to run modern games from 2021, yes, I hate this fact, I don't like updates. I'm now at build 6003. I'm just curious, nothing more, but thanks.

Interesting, it suggests you to download the latest version, mine doesn't, look. https://msfn.org/board/topic/185049-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v1352044-rebuild-1/?do=findComment&comment=1254004

It is

And here's @UCyborg's polyfill for structuredClone (Chrome before v.98; K-Meleon, New Moon 27, FF 45; not needed on UXP-based browsers or Serpent 55) // ==UserScript== // @name Inject structuredClone() Polyfill [98] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (typeof self.structuredClone !== "function") { self.structuredClone = function (value) { if (Array.isArray(value)) { const count = value.length; let arr = new Array(count); for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) { arr = self.structuredClone(value); } return arr; } else if (typeof value === "object") { let obj = {}; for (const prop in value) { obj[prop] = self.structuredClone(value[prop]); } return obj; } else { return value; } } } This will fail if an array or object property references itself, but works well in most cases.

What - no polyfills? Here are a few contributed by n16s. Should be good on both Chrome (prior to version indicated) and FF-derived browsers. // ==UserScript== // @name Inject findLast() Polyfill [97] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (!Array.prototype.findLast) { Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, "findLast", { value: function (predicate, thisArg) { let idx = this.length - 1; while (idx >= 0) { const value = this[idx]; if (predicate.call(thisArg, value, idx, this)) { return value; } idx--; } return undefined; } , writable: true, enumerable: false, configurable: true }); } // ==UserScript== // @name Inject findLastIndex() Polyfill [97] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (!Array.prototype.findLastIndex) { Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, "findLastIndex", { value: function (predicate, thisArg) { let idx = this.length - 1; while (idx >= 0) { const value = this[idx]; if (predicate.call(thisArg, value, idx, this)) { return idx; } idx--; } return -1; } , writable: true, enumerable: false, configurable: true }); } // ==UserScript== // @name Inject randomUUID() Polyfill [92] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (!('randomUUID' in crypto)) crypto.randomUUID = function randomUUID() { return ( [1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16) ); };

Good idea! I'm curious when you'll start such a thread.

ChrisPC Screen Recorder

Is that here another (360)Chrome thread? I do not hope so.

No surprise. I do not support the whole notion of "chasing" after updates. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Appears there's more to this than structuredClone. Installed the user script, but still no joy. I'll give it a closer look from home; I'm at work now.... That index only appears to go through the year 2016. But it was only for test purposes anyhow. Sure enough, Chrome 98 did the trick.

References structuredClone (Chrome 98+). There's polyfill for it in one of 360Chrome threads. Oh, it's actually here: It's install and forget if you leave it in easy mode. From the quick glance, I guess new versions understand newer syntax for writing filters. And I guess extension doesn't get updates for some filters anymore. I don't know, for few sites I visit, I still don't see any annoyance, even when left at default settings. Maybe lots is still blocked by filters containing old known domains hosting ads. I used to use both NoScript and uBO (easy mode), that was before I even bothered with uBO documentation and before uBO had the concept of temporary rules. I don't think I'm ever using more than 1 extension for this sort of thing again. Micro-managing with one extension gets tiring as it is. Polishing my whitelist in recent times, I'm settling on the medium mode, similar to NoScript way, white-list JavaScript from main site and only selected domains the site fetches additional JavaScript. My reason is mostly just why run code that does nothing for me to be able to read the site. Lots of sites I don't visit regularly, but nice to have it ready. I don't think old NoScript has let you say something like "only allow google.com for this and that site", but it has some other bells and whistles, which I don't think I need...security related...you know I don't run an anti-virus either since I believe the probability of encountering an actual security issue is so low that it's not worth the bother. No updates generally (not for uBO specifically) can sometimes be refreshing, I'm personally really tired of the constant update cycle when it comes to software in general, but I work a job where they're part of it, I would've quit a long time ago if it wasn't for the money... On the other hand, an odd browser only used by a minority...depending on what you expect out if it, probability of encountering issues due to extensions not being updated is higher. I have about 28 extensions enabled, about 15 of them are used regularly, of the total 28, I have modified 9 of them, if I counted right, 2 of those 9 extensions only had cosmetic mods applied, but the rest had some kind of usability issue.

A tab crash for latest compil, under xp 64. Hopefully we get a x64 version next time.

The BSOD problem may be resolved, check the new version.

If you read, it even tells which file is damaged, namely it's 360chrome. Why won't you simply tell what exactly you replaced it the .exe file? I mean, I can run any comparison tool, but it will just save time. don't you think?

Most importantly, how would you explain I can run the original 2044 perfectly fine, with or without my starter?

I can't start the browser, it says I need to check it for Trojan viruses (suggests Trojan scan). All in broken English. Not recommended to run for your "safe".

No, dom.worklet.enabled is turned off by default. Anyway, just turning on dom.worklet.enabled is enough to make Discord load in Mypal 68, so thank you! Also, thanks @Skorpios for notifying us about new Mypal version! Installed it.

I know I posted this before and it got deleted. Privacy was lost in antiviruses the day cloud scanning became a thing. Discussing which antiviruses are more private because this country or that country appeals more to you is pointless. All antiviruses are data collectors unless you can turn off cloud scanning. In most antiviruses these days it's not possible to do that. If we know all of them collect data all we can do is 2 things. Either don't use any antivirus or decide which country appeals more to your privacy tastes. In my case since I live in a US territory. If I have to give some of my data I rather give it to some country far way than to participate in my own countries data monitoring. Remember covid ? In some US states, cellphones where tracked to see if people where staying at home. I don't know what's more totalitarian than that in a place of "democracy". I don't use a smartphone but if I have to give some data I rather give it to Russia. In any rate, I still think that in an antivirus thread, all antiviruses from all countries should be listed. Pros and cons of each one so that people decide for themselves . And let the politics be discussed in a separate off-topic thread about politics.

@Dixel - I really think you are "intentionally" missing the point. The Kaspersky CVE Report pertains to a Unique ID String. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. That unique ID string is NOT buried inside a .dll that requires mods to remove. The .dll installed on your computer is identical to the .dll installed on my computer. My unique ID string is not the same as your unique ID string. I am not part of the Anti Kaspersky Agenda. My directives are not being blinded by that Agenda. Kaspersky did send a unique ID string and it was introduced in the fall of 2015. Kaspersky removed that unique ID string in June of 2019. Non-evasive (no modding) methods to prevent this were common knowledge in 2016. There is a setting right there in the Kaspersky GUI to disable this behavior. In Kaspersky 2016, it was in Settings -> Additional -> Network -> Inject scripts into web traffic to interact with web pages People that install with "defaults" would never see this - us here at MSFN are smarter than that, I would hope. uMatrix removes that "injection". I will verify but I have to assume that everybody's beloved uBO also removes it. I have Kasperky INSTALLED. Perhaps any and all discussions pertaining to Kaspersky should be limited to THOSE THAT HAVE IT INSTALLED? I'm done. Stick a fork in me.

I find that interesting and thought I was the only one. I have been using XP Pro 64-bit for over 10 years with no antivirus program installed. Surfed the Internet continuously and downloaded many programs and my computer has never been infected. Mainly was careful with what site to go to and used common sense. May have been lucky also. Any program from a site I was not sure of, I would upload to Jotti's Malware Scan or VirusTotal. Some years ago, I did install Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Version 2.2.1.1043, and that was the last that would install on XP 64-bit and definitions stopped last year. Do you use a firewall on your XP 64-bit machine?

I believe that this can be the basis for an (another) "EU-divide" of sorts.. The Italian "Cyber Authority" (ACN/CSIRT), as well as the French "Annsi" are (AFAIK) much less strict than BSI about Kasperski, basically they say they couldn't find anything "wrong" with it, still it is advisable to re-evaluate the risks and explore alternatives to security software made in or connected to Russia (very generically):: https://www.csirt.gov.it/crisi-ucraina-analisi-del-rischio-tecnologico-e-diversificazione https://www.csirt.gov.it/contenuti/analisi-delle-principali-vulnerabilita-sfruttate-in-campagne-cyber-pubblicamente-attribuite-ad-attori-di-matrice-russa-e-relative-mitigazioni-al01-220512-csirt-ita https://www.cert.ssi.gouv.fr/cti/CERTFR-2022-CTI-001/ Cannot say about other EU national cybersecurity agencies, I haven't seen any other countries "advice" about the matter, so if we go along: 1) if you live in Germany, follow BSI -> NO Kasperski 2) if you live in France, follow Annsi -> better avoid Kasperski, you never know 3) if you live in Italy, follow ACN/CSIRT -> re-evaluate risks of using software with connection to Russia (Kasperski is not explicitly mentioned) 4) if you live in any other EU country and your national authority hasn't released a specific advisory, do nothing or choose among the three above jaclaz

Keep personal comments out of this thread.

I submit that you should also consider this perspective - if, and again a big IF, but if I find "unique ID strings" in *ALL* of the security programs of this thread, does that mean that the entire thread should be shut down? I'm not claiming that they exist. But I do know that *ALL* anti-virus programs manufacturers have been "slapped on the wrist" throughout the many decades I have used computers for whether or not their "data mining" crossed the line on Privacy Rights.

Noted. And in that thread, you wrote this -- "where I was even courteous enough to provide a very rare installer for Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2019, which I had previously cleaned and thus decontaminated" So are we allowing MODDED versions or not? Because Kaspersky CAN be MODDED to be "safe and secure" and NO LONGER a concern with identifier strings. That is the angle I am coming from. I have not tested yet, all I've done thus far is create 4 partitions and installed XP *three times* so I have TIME INVESTED. IF, and it's a big IF, but IF Kaspersky (after removing telemetry and Unique ID String) is lean and mean compared to AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, MalwareBytes, then WE MUST consider it as the "superior" alternative for OLD HARDWARE. Again, a big IF, but if an XP installed with Kaspersky "idles" at 5% CPU utilization and 15% RAM utilization where an XP installed with McAfee "idles" at 20% CPU utilization and 40% RAM utilization, then who in their right mind would use McAfee. Purely hypothetically percentages at this stage.

SUPERAntiSpyware Professional X Edition 10.0.1250 is the version I am using now. It was the last version which comes via automatic update. When I am at my desktop computer, I will check the System Tools - System Investigator option and report here.

@Cixert! You are really helpful here. Thank you for your contributions! IObit Malware Fighter, another candidate which is already on my list. Unfortunately, I have had the same unpleasant experience as you. IObit tries to push their Advanced Systemcare product on every user. This is totally annoying. I have also noticed the increased consumption of resources. And when you uninstall software from IObit, there is always something left over. Then it's a matter of searching and manual cleaning.. On the plus side, IObit Malware Fighter is still compatible with Windows XP, for whatever that's worth. Unfortunately, in Windows XP we can't be very picky and have to consider every option, even those we would normally discard. At the moment, we still have other options, fortunately.

That's what usually is said in terms of XP and Vista. Partly true, partly not! I think we already know all arguments. My installation is very old. It did not register itself in Security Center. I can't say what would happen if I did a fresh installation. In this case, it is a proper name and is always written as the author intended, regardless of spelling. We don't really want to go into further linguistic considerations, do we? Apart from that, it would be unfortunately off-topic.

Or his Chromium simply lacks the proper codecs. As an example, Opera doesn't have H264 codec. And only some of the ungoogled variants have the full set of codecs.

Hello @Snowshoe! I could successfully connect to https://ms.kartkrew.org/ using IE8 with ProxHTTPSProxy (part of my package ProxHTTPSProxy's PopMenu TLS 1.3 3V3) enabled: To connect successfully, you have to edit the config.ini of ProxHTTPSProxy under the section [SSL No-Verify]: Cheers, AstroSkipper

Hello @Snowshoe! Here are two screenshots with the settings of my SocksCap64 installation: If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask here! Cheers, AstroSkipper

Hello members, will you please help me to remove the "non-indexed" warning from Windows Vista. Thanks everyone who helps. Wonderful and friendly forum, as I can see.

If I turn on the indexing option, the button shows up. But it's not what I wanted...

Found ! But it only suggests me to turn the indexing back on, which is obvioulsy out of the question.

I can't imagine there's no answer to this question ...

"Protecting Your Malware" by Adam Chester , Hacker and Infosec Researcher https://blog.xpnsec.com/protecting-your-malware/

Updated the prev. post with another image with now twelve videos un-muted playing at the same time , for you ! Another US IP (I think from New York) .

You can try to use "I don't care about cookies. eu " list .