Leaderboard

@feodor2 The non-standard JavaScript function document.loadOverlay() is deprecated since Gecko 60 (Firefox 60). Did you completely remove it in Mypal 68? Some of my (important) scripts call up this function which leads to the error message "TypeError: document.loadOverlay is not a function" in the Browser Console. If it has been removed, can it be re-implemented? I ask this as in more recent Firefox versions, these problematic scripts seem to be working again which means the document.loadOverlay() method is there again and works.

Hope you can fix this bug. If it was fixed, my self-created custom button would work as I planned without any special workaround to be implemented. I use the VORAPIS V3 script version. Works great here in Mypal 68.

@feodor2 Thanks for the links! The history feature of GitHub is great. Thanks to @UCyborg's hint to use this time machine, I started downloading repositories from the Firefox 68 era. With the linked version of xiaxiaofloods's userChromeJS, you can indeed install bootstrapped, legacy extensions in Mypal 68, but unfortunately, none of xiaxiaofloods's extensions I've tested from the linked repository do actually work.

That "fact" is not valid here, You again forget, it's not a 360EE topic No.2385382538258. simply because someone wrote it happened in that outdated by several years browser, doesn't mean it will happen with Supermium released a week ago.

Right, unfortunately, looks like you still don't know. In fact, it's very consistent. If you took your time to read on-topic posts, you'd see - the our "pack", the pack of on-topic, polite people, like 66cats, for example, already explained in technical terms. https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/?do=findComment&comment=1259864 Edit: Is there anything you could contribute to the discussion in technical matters/terms, apart from investigating/claiming "whose" this thread is? Thank you.

I tried of course, I also wrote about it, you've missed it.

Win32 doesn't respond here anymore, and you know it. We were trying to raise our voices of wisdom and cool down the local crap posters. But we were labelled as the evil "collective you" by some grandpa. Good deeds don't go unpunished. So either you make a github account and try to ask, or do your own research (as you already stated you don't trust me). In case someone missed why no win32 anymore.link

Again I'm not "a folk that simply delete files willy-nilly and check a checkbox", be respectful and reasonable on the forum. Check in chrome / GPU. Vulkan: Disabled

This is a YouTube bug, the loading icon animation works even when hidden. It can be fixed if you add it to the uBlock m.youtube.com##.spinner:style(animation: none !important)

That's easy to check with various available (free and simple) tools.

So don't! But who's fighting whom? I missed. I'm having a polite conversation (I simply pretend you're polite, too). EDIT: I again ask everyone to create a pleasant atmosphere for win32 to appear!

There you go! Finally someone noticed! Even on the poorly compressed screenshot it's still visible. On my good monitor, Supermium background looks like it's backlit with LEDs (cheap chinese bluish LEDs).

You claimed to have good vision. Example. Compare the word "Brave" to "Supermium". Around "Supermium" we can see ugly, thick, red, blurry areals. The word "Brave" looks much cleaner. https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/?do=findComment&comment=1252606

Yes, you do, there were several reports of different brightness levels in CatsXP (no modifications, just running only on kernel-ex), ported Chrome 115 (mine), default version of Brave and even Ungoogled! Supermium is brighter than all of those above, also has thicker, blurry fonts. I talk about all fonts (including the UI). The winners are Ungoogled and Brave.

How then you'd explain it works (like it supposed to) in a normal Chrome 115? Unfortunately, I can't test both of 121 version, because I only have a self-ported v115 at my disposal. But then again, in older tests 115 vs 115, Supermium was also brighter.

Is there a requirement of always being rude? Was I ever rude to you? No. I can disagree with you, but I don't roll on you. With such attitude you don't attract normal people to join your monologues.

Missed my post again, I wonder if folks these days read before posting. It's rather insulting to assume I didn't try all available drivers before troubling win32. I mean, it's me we are talking about, not a random github fella. "I tried other drivers, all the same." https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/?do=findComment&comment=1259724