Leaderboard

The chances are even worse under Windows XP 64-bit. After my deep testing, I personally know that using Wise Anti Malware under Windows XP 32-bit is no option anymore. This picture is unfortunately worthless. You have to look for the date and version of the downloaded definition updates. If the programme does not offer any information, you have to look inside Wise Anti Malware's folders.

This one - simply ignore, it's what all browsers that aren't supposed to run on XP write in the log.

And one thing is clear. My investigations in terms of Wise Anti Malware are complete. I will no longer install this programme under Windows XP 32-bit.

Ordinary Chrome is free and has no timebomb, this one is paid, so no wonder in this trial version it has a timebomb. Any "fix" is considered to be a crack, so I doubt it will surface on MSFN.

Where the programme saves its data. For example, use Total Commander to search your system partition for the string "Wise"! It's been months ago, so I can't tell you the exact locations at this point.

Congratulations! So at least, it is still working under Windows Vista. But under Windows XP, it doesn't work anymore. To be sure that you have the most recent definition updates their date is very important. Not that they are from 2019 or something like that. Check if they are really from today!

No, I asked about "all security experts article", as you claimed before. Sven Taylor is an (editor) of an "advocacy group". It doesn't say he's an expert, nowhere near. In the provided article he simply accuses all browsers of data colllecting, then jumps to suggestions to buy paid VPV services. Not a word about WebP Virus. Claiming Brave as "The most secure and private browser" is especially funny. Super generic, commercially driven article, can't be any simpler. Where did you find "expert opinions" about uBlock in that article? He simply writes "uBlock Origin – is one of the best.." That's it?

Isn't it based on the yahoo search engine ? I actually use it very rarely.

I don't use Google though. Google had blocked all of my acoounts long time ago.

This one, please translate.

You're very welcome to not reply, I'm just pointing out to the facts and your gross exaggerations, like "all experts". So no articles with "all security experts" voting for uBo to fight WebP then? Btw, you didn't even fulfil any of my "useless" requests. Raymond Hill is the author of uBlock, he can't be considered as an expert with independent views. I don't have anything against uBlock in particular, it's just the fact - in this case uBlock can't do anything to WebP at all, so it's not only off-topic, it's called misleading people. Again, I'm pointing out to the facts, no need to be rude. I suggest you stick to the facts, too, and please watch your behaviour. So far, you aren't giving me anything to "study" on. Most importantly - Raymond Hill never claimed uBlock can defeat WebP, if you still insist he did, please give an article.

That was the version I tested first. No chance! It doesn't work anymore under Windows XP. The updating and the initialisation of the scan engine fail there. Therefore, Wise Anti Malware has to be considered abandoned under Windows XP, unfortunately.

Never had anything even remotely similar ! Yes, some spam is there, but mostly from the online shops I used some time ago.

360Chrome v13.5 Build 1030 Redux I inadvertently corrupted my original Build 1030 series when working on Builds 2022 and 2036 so this is starting brand new with several lessons learned from later versions, including 2044. I've always much preferred Build 1030 over anything "newer". They all technically use the same v86 Chromium engine "under the hood". Download link -- https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/d5sjhgshdrjtntd06iecb/360ChromePortable_13.5.1030_Redux_1_ungoogled_MSFN.zip?rlkey=etzsfb8m9z1kljxj10jwhw9wv&dl=1

I have not tried so forgiveness in advance. Offering as a curiosity and to advance the discussion. Most Chromium Forks can be started with a startup commandline parameter to set the profile directory. If you carry that startup commandline parameter and set the profile to reside in the same directory, does it become "portable" then? Bear in mind, "portable" has different meanings to some folks - ie, some LOG INS do not carry from one computer to the next even if the "profile" by all other definitions "does".

I just wanted to stop by, say hi and thank AstroSkipper for the enormous amounts of time and efforts he puts in this wonderful thread, always keeping us up to date!

Latest version of supermium 119 https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/

Again, please stop with getting personal, please stop with the thread derailment, I you want to discuss uBlock and its tweaks, do it in another thread. Please stop with provocations, I'm not going to fight with you, despite you giving me names. I'm here only for what this forum is supposed to be. I decide for myself whether I want to ignore you posts, especially if they are erroneous, misleading, etc.

I didn't leave this conversation, so it is utterly rude to refer to me as "he" in my presence. Making assumptions regarding my knowledge is flagrantly rude, too. Implying I can't read or "does not have the knowledge to understand" is simply unacceptable, I fail to guess why are you still allowed to do that. I don't understand your generally hostile attitude on the website. Despite the fact we (D.Draker and I) already explained it to you many times, provided with scientific proof, we ,of course, did it in a very polite form. (link 1), (link 2) Yet you continue to aggressively argue, post off-topic and derail the thread with non-related matters, unspeakable behaviour and disrespect.

Congratulations! So at least, it is still working under Windows Vista. But under Windows XP, it doesn't work anymore.

The information for the last updating of the virus definitions should be shown in the tab Quick Check. Look at my picture!

It has nothing to do with scepticism, it's just caution! "mistymntncop" looks like a random account on github, nothing official. Has no projects: https://github.com/mistymntncop?tab=projects Not even a description of who that man (woman?) is.

I'd like to read that article where "all security experts considered" this, thanks.

Have you tried with istilldontcareaboutcookies-1.1.1? They are community run, and (they say) answer to requests. It works better (more comprehensively) than the old idontcareaboutcookies. Cheers @Sampei.Nihira, and thanks for continuing to share your knowledge with us, retired and all. Don't mind them digital flies.

Win9x VCACHE Protection Error Fix (.VXD version of CREGFIX.COM), primarily for Windows ME https://github.com/LordOfMice/Tools/blob/master/cregfix.zip I tested it on Windows 98SE so IDK if it actually works on Windows ME.

Has the exact opposite effect here, CPU usage is consistently higher with the script enabled.

Dude - the entire code tree is here: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/tree/main/ The license is just the Chromium license, here: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/blob/main/LICENSE GitHub users have forked Supermium already: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/forks So I don't see what you think is stopping anyone from creating an "unGoogled" fork.

I'm sure that's true. But there's no law against having both Googled and unGoogled versions of the same browser. And it's open source, so it doesn't have to be done by Supermium's author. Anyone can fork the code and apply the standard unGoogled Chromium changes. As delivered, no, they're not. But both can be made portable in the same manner as other Chromium browsers. With Firefox-derived browsers, portability is just a matter of telling the browser to store its profile directory in the folder it was launched from, instead of the fixed C:\Users directory the browser would use by default. That way, you can put the browser on a thumb drive, move it from PC to PC, and your extensions and settings all move with it. You can do this with a .cmd file (fka a .bat file) that you launch instead of the .exe, which is what Ed's suggestion does.

Looks like the OP's problem is solved. But to clarify for others: Version 109 is the last Chromium version to "officially" support Win 7, 8, or 8.1. I doubt you'll have any trouble opening Web sites with version 109, even though it's not the latest. Chromium 109 has also been patched to block the WebP exploit, if you're at all concerned about that. If you ever want/need a newer Chromium version, Supermium is an unofficial fork that allows the latest version (currently 118, I think) to run on Windows Vista and up (so 7, 8, and 8.1 too). You can make it portable too. However, Supermium currently doesn't provide an "unGoogled" version. (Someone needs to get on that!) The OP's issues with Amazon puzzle me. Amazon works just fine for me even in Serpent 55, which is one of @roytam1's XP-compatible browsers. Of course, on Win 7 you can use official Pale Moon or Basilisk, which should also work with Amazon. But I think unGoogled Chromium 109 will give most Win 7 users the best compatibility with modern Web sites.