Leaderboard

You're welcome, sorry I missed the fact you read it now and replied.

They are the same, if we talk about ISOs without updates.

And which exactly (hence one word postings).

It's simply not funny and very spammy. People are trying out to find out why those technical terms like cmd .exe are blocked, please don't interfere.

Then try to modify one of @heinoganda's releases ProxHTTPSProxy REV3d, ProxHTTPSProxy REV3e or my package ProxHTTPSProxy's PopMenu 3V1. All of them can be found with their download links in the section 11.1. Archived Downloads {obsolete} and 11.2.1.1. Downloads related to ProxHTTPSProxy of my main article. AFAIK, all versions were built with Python 3.4. And this is the download link of ProxHTTPSProxy REV3e's and ProxHTTPSProxy's PopMenu 3V1's source code: https://www.mediafire.com/file/s9027bdxffodbna/cryptography-2.8-py3.4_openssl-1.1.1d.rar/file

They can't, drop it. I tried. Even if you would, you'd still encounter severe bugs later on. From what I 100% know, only the earliest Haswell may have a small chance.

Ditto! I think you've overlooked something again: Cheers, AstroSkipper

@roytam1 And did this suggestion help you in any way?

alg.exe

Also noticed "forbidden" while posting some netstat today.

Yes. That seems to solve the issue with the taskbar. I am running the Nvidia overlay. I disabled it just to test and I was able to have the taskbar show up. However, I do require it to be on because in-game filters I use. Hopefully you will find a work around with this issue instead of having to run a program to fix the issue.

I ran the "portable" version ( centbrowser_5.1.1130.129_x64_portable ) long enough to run some speed comparisons. It is fast! But it is NOT "portable" unless you use a different loader. Their "portable" version only moves the profile location, it doesn't localize registry writes. Like many other Chromium Forks, it is also unfortunate that it doesn't offer an ungoogled version. I really dislike the always-running "hosted app" (Chrome Web Store).

It does not bother me at all either. Just doing my part to keep the forum clean. Please do not make assumptions, there is no contrast here.

The fella couldn't even get any of these work with much older GT2 device. Read the link I posted. "I tried all available video drivers for Intel Haswell HD Graphics 4600 for Windows XP that can be found from google including: 6.14.10.5437 (14.51.11.5437), 6.14.10.5441 (14.56.0.5441), 6.14.10.5445 (14.56.0.5445), 6.14.10.5449 (14.56.0.5449) and all resulted in BSoD"

I assume you already read it? https://winraid.level1techs.com/t/win-xp-sp3-32bit-driver-for-intel-hd-graphics-4600-on-mb-ga-z97-hd3-and-cpu-intel-haswell-refresh-core-i5-4690k/31509

And which driver do you attempt to mod? Is it DriverVer=01/30/2014,6.14.10.5449?

Try version 3.8

The original SHA-2 hash for KexSetup_Release_1_1_1_1375.exe is 652f6d2901c86de4a05743b5f808fafb6e28b9720c39bce5e7e031d26cac9035 And it matches with re uploads from commandcontrolQ and VxKex/VxKex commandcontrolQ stated that: The VxKex/VxKex one looks suspicious tho as it looks like it's baiting for donations in Bitcoin (which wasn't the case with the original release) and Readme is also heavily trimmed. If @vxiiduu re released the official version, they would have probably let us know here.

You sound arrogant and conceited, was that your intent? Is the forum getting renamed in your honor? This is a quote taken out of context. If you want to quote me, please do it correctly in context! Here is my original statement: What sounds arrogant and conceited about this factual statement? The answer is: nothing. But your subsequent comment is simply inappropriate and superfluous.

Because msfn need to pay for license key and spam prevention. Thats why! This is private site based on donations and I do everything for free. Here are some people from the beginning and I respect them, otherwise MSFN will be removed from the net long time ago. Calm down and be patient.

I don't think so, what if I wanted to write I'm against using cracks, or tell it may even be unsafe? What then? What you suggest is called censorship, and I don't live in a place without the free speech rights.

Correct. The browser Thorium is in different versions available but none of them is compatible with a CPU SSE only. It works perfectly in New Moon 28 and Serpent 52. Thus, it's a very good recommendation. Try to lower the minversion to 27.10.0 in the install.rdf file inside the xpi archive! Maybe, it works then in New Moon 27.10.0, too. BTW, it was indeed a typo in the user agent string I already corrected.

If you don't have or use an old, weak computer, for example, with a Pentium 3 or 4 CPU, you can't say anything here. The OP has an even older CPU than me. It's a Pentium 3 733 MHz SSE only. Therefore, your observations and assessments are not relevant and unfortunately missing the point. On my old machine with a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz, the Google Search works much faster when using a moblie user agent. And I only refer to the output in the browser. The performance on Google servers are of no interest and has nothing to do with the mobile user agent of the requesting browser. BTW, the difference in speed with or without using a moblie user agent is much more noticeable in Thorium on my computer. But you can only check my statements if you own a comparably old computer.

Thanks for reporting! I also plan to test Mypal 68.14.3b SSE on my old Athon XP 3200+ computer in the next few days. uBlock Origin 1.46 was the last compatible for FF 68. This version should hopefully still work on an SSE only machine. Higher versions also work in Mypal 68 and even the most recent version 1.58 but I checked them on an SSE2 computer. So, try to install uBlock Origin 1.58 first, and you will easily see whether this most recent version of uBO still works on your SSE only computer. If not, try uBlock Origin 1.46. At least, that's what I would do. Regarding the interface language, there are no official language packs for this browser, at least as far as I know. Only a very few made by some users, however, for older versions of Mypal 68. That means Mypal 68 is available in English only. But you can create an own language pack, of course.

I guess it doesn't depend on whether the moderators want these words to be blocked, or not. It's up to the platform devs.

AppLaunch.exe

_isdel.exe

AdapterTroubleshooter.exe

DFDWiz.exe

Defrag.exe

cmdl32.exe

I don't know as your CPU is very weak. Try the Mypal 68.14.3b SSE release, and you will see whether it works or not. These should be the right ones matching your hardware specs. But it is always a game of trial and error. So, check them! You can't lose anything.

Can't post cmd. exe. Without the space.

Try ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a! It is an old version created by the original developer. Here is a download link: http://www.proxfilter.net/proxhttpsproxy/ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.3a.zip Or ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.5. Download link: http://jjoe.proxfilter.net/ProxHTTPSProxyMII/files/ProxHTTPSProxyMII 1.5 advanced 34cx_freeze5.0.1urllib3v1.22Win32OpenSSL_Light-1_0_2o-1_1_0h.zip AFAIK, both versions were built with Python 3.4. More can be read in my main article. There are further links for information. BTW, these versions are pure proxies without the PopMenu and my self-created programmes. They are original releases from their developers.

SSL3 is a very old protocol and actually abandoned (and therefore unsupported). Where and what for do you want to create such a connection? Do you refer to ProxHTTPSProxy? The idea of ProxHTTPSProxy is actually to establish a TLS 2.0 or even a TLS 3.0 connection where this is natively not possible by using more recent cipher suites via a HTTPSProxy. But I think you surely already know that.

Your comment is again offtopic. Read carefully what I have written here: No further discussions about 360Chrome issues in this thread. Post your 360Chrome issues in one of the corresponding Arctifoxie threads! A solution has been provided for you here in detail. And that means use ProxHTTPSProxy! And thus, we are finally on-topic again!

@Anbima and @w2k4eva! Any in-depth consideration of certificate issues in 360Chrome are browser-specific issues and are actually rather off-topic here. In any case, this here is not a 360Chrome browser thread. Such issues should be discussed in one of the countless Arctifoxie 360Chrome threads. And just for clarification, this has happened several times there in the past, without any real solutions. 360Chrome 13.x had problems with certain sites and their certificates from the very first. This will never be solved as this ported browser has not been developed further for years. The only way to solve certificate problems in these browser versions is to use ProxHTTPSProxy. On some problematic sites, the Windows 2000 compatibility mode also helps to show the padlock and green, secure HTTPS connection under Windiws XP. I have tested all this myself, and it works. Or use a more modern Chrome browser in Windows XP as, for example, Thorium which does not show such issues!