Leaderboard

To get something installed doesn't really mean anything. What matters is whether it works properly in all its features. And actually as always, a superficial view is not purposeful. That means a thorough examination is necessary.

It's fake, the integrated card of the oldish (15 years old, or so) i7-4770 can't do DX12. Windows emulates it in soft mode. It would be painfully slow, if you start even simple gaming. Windows 10 reports 12 simply because it's the default DX on Win10. The same as Vista reports its default DX11, even if it runs on a 10-only GPU.

Strange, it's around us for a quarter of century. It's a very important part of any system, the usage is wide, from Video Acceleration (DXVA) to gaming. https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/what-is-directx/#dt-heading-what-is-directx

I tremble in fear when I hear Java, I'd never allowed anyone near any of my computers with Java.

Thanks for noticing, I too get the size both of you get, very suspicious. By any chance, does the forum perform an AV scan of user uploaded files?

Downloaded three different ways, I always get a 37.4KB 150x150 PNG file.

I wonder whether they also introduced this low quality demand on the background image, can someone check? I don't wanna risk mine. Thanks for understanding, everyone,

No, it's only for those who use their PCs for browsing. The most severe cutting point is DirectX version, at least since 2001. XP was pointless for many people since it's DX9.0 only, the same as 2000, whereas Vista boosted it up to 10, then 11. Win7 was pointless since it's only 11, the same as Vista. Heck, 8 and 8-1/2 were also pointless, they still didn't reach DirectX 12.

@NotHereToPlayGames BTW, such a legacy Custom Buttons extension I have already provided in September of 2022 in my thread "Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations" which can be found here: Custom Buttons - The extension for installing custom buttons. As already said, this version cannot be installed in Mypal 68. And here are more of those old Custom Buttons extensions you are referring to which are all incompatible with Mypal 68: https://sourceforge.net/projects/custombuttons/files/ Can be checked very easily. The good is you won't "have to dig through stacks and stacks and stacks of DVD-Rs" to find your Custom Buttons extension because with a probability bordering on certainty, those old versions, if you ever find any, won't either work in Mypal 68.

While I feel you, it's not completely fair because they don't teach on customised and/or hacked software. Modified kernel is still a hack, and your favourite Windows 2000 would be a corpse without it, let's face it. While in 2017-2019, Vista was still kicking arse without any kernels. That would be a much fairer comparison to Windows 11.

Long story short. My question was: And your answer was: When one reads what you have written here: one is more likely to come to the conclusion that your affirmative answer does not correspond to the facts. I doubt with a probability bordering on certainty that you have ever installed a legacy Custom Buttons extension in Mypal 68. Those legacy Custom Button extensions from the old custom buttons forum cannot be installed in Mypal 68 at all. They are not compatible with Quantum Firefox versions. They only work in older Firefox versions up to and including 56 and therefore also in the UXP browsers. As you know, I am only interested in real facts.

It's already confirmed by several members.

Yes. Very interesting. Which version of the Custom Buttons extension did you install in Mypal 68? And which method of installation did you apply to get this version fully working in Mypal 68? And since we're on-topic now, you're welcome to be as detailed as possible. In any case, I'm very curious to read what you will report. BTW, the UXP browsers New Moon and Serpent are of no interest here as Mypal 68 is a Quantum browser.

Your expression of interest has been recognised. So, you are the second one who has clearly stated his interest in my custom button. BTW, have you ever installed and used the legacy Custom Buttons extension in Mypal 68? Without it, the PMT custom button cannot be installed and would be then useless.

Your expression of interest has been recognised. So, you are the second one who has clearly stated his interest in my custom button. The PMT - Process Mode Toggler has not yet been published by me or made publicly accessible in any other way. The generally expressed interest in legacy custom buttons has so far been almost imperceptible in this thread as well as in my other thread for UXP browsers. The same applies to the technical interest in UC.JS scripts and CSS stylesheets. That doesn't motivate me much. Since @feodor2 is really interested in his browser Mypal 68 and was kind enough to restore compatibility with the legacy Custom Buttons extension, I sent him as the very first one my PMT custom button as a small gift. It made sense to me, especially considering all the effort he put into developing this browser. As far as I'm concerned, I can put it in mathematical or statistical terms. There is a clear, linear correlation between the statistical features of user interest and willingness of a developer to publish with a correlation coefficient r of r > 0.95.

+1

Isn't that already available in Supermium via: chrome://flags/#rectangular-tabs ? ... Though the end result leaves much to be desired :

Looks to me like that, too. Some time ago, I also started to notice the new low limit for individual attachments, even when the overall attachment limit is far from over.

Son, women, girls are always right, even when they aren't. And in this case especially, since the obvious degradation happened. No more decent quality pics of the marvellous @Karla Sleutel, sucks.

What kind of proof do you need, and why? Since when we don't trust each other?

On the GitHub portal, it's mentioned that v132 will incorporate new UI features. I wonder what those are? I hope not the tabs button on the top left. I would LOVE square tabs, just like Quantum, old Vivaldi and Edge.

I'm glad to hear that. For me, the PMT - Process Mode Toggler is ideal for testing and comparing different things in both process modes with only two clicks in the same profile. At the moment, I have reverted to the last officially compatible version 1.46. But I will test the 1.56 version again. Thanks for the hint!

I don't agree with this statement, I personally integrated those, all worked fine. It's not "stupid".

the problem with directx is that we dont have dx10/11 or 12 for xp directx10/11/12 is a closed source so we cant see into that engine, so it might end up in a stuckpoint (if you put it the right way "it ask for dx10/11/12") but maybe directx or opengl is even the wrong answer from what i seen in the code its not opengl or directx doing the job its the CUDA engine that gives the RGB buffer to the opengl or directx engine so we might put it the right way you dont need a grafic card to encode / or decode an image or video (the HEIC en/decoder from msfn is proof of that) CUDA is a engine for a grafic card, it makes control/input/output as engine directx/open - uncertain for now - but from what i think its just a engine that gets the data from CUDA if we might think that "software mode" is to slow, no not this time because mmx-avx are from the same nature they 10-500 times faster then normal opcodes thats more then enough to make it fast enough this time so what does CUDA do ? cuda controls a grafic card unit that can make en/decoding of common video formats that sounds good so far - because if you want have something done you want a hardware unit to do the job but nowdays we have many cores - what also can be seen as a hardware unit (that is programmable) while a pure hardware unit is like a print - once printed it cant be changed but the formats are being upgraded - for example CUDA cant en/decode the h.266 codec the grafic card doing the encoding is kinda new, its not like a video game what hardware accelation is from like 1995 or something the video card doing that for a video en/decoder job is not to long ago, and many modes are not supported either the CUDA engine itself is not well supported for windows xp so going that direction might just lead to windows 10 then there you have the right grafic card driver, the right cuda engine, and dx12 so you dont have to deal with any other questions then again, i pointed this out in a other post for a nativ solution we would have insight to the nvidia driver what actually controls the grafic card then we would have a OS-independent solution (high level functions) i dont see this at the moment like at all. when the problems already where spinning around in a LAV engine that makes 3 engines - and no grafic card control was touched at all so at the moment its spinning around in these 3 engines - not where the needs actually would rely a strongpoint could actually be that directx9 dont look that much different to dx10/11/12 so it might could be given a RGB buffer from the CUDA engine - but the CUDA engine for XP is not being upgraded by nvidia https://youtu.be/W3zfb8lLDH0 https://youtu.be/p8387-gu37s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ-0XBqRxuc the problem i see is that already a next engine came but here is the problem : DX11->CUDA->GRAFIC-CARD-High-FLevel-Functions OPENGL->CUDA->GRAFIC-CARD-High-Level-Functions this time: MPV engine->CUDA->GRAFIC-CARD-High-Level-Functions so everybody can see the problem the high level functions are not touched (neither is CUDA) (MPV calls up cuda ? no ...) we had to sort out a similiar question, at first it was like "you need a grafic card doing this job" it took a while until everybody had an agreement that this is not the case - also not for speed (software mode) basicly this only leaves the software option, in avx ect. its by far enough of speed this is not done by a engine like directx, cuda or video card high levels functions its like the RAW control of the RGB buffer for a video player doing the decoding maybe encoding if wanted

StartAllBack 3.9.1

Hello Windows XP gaming community. I have what i believe are good news for you, if you are into emulation. I'm a developer and i've recently modified the latest version of the popular PCSX2 PlayStation 2 emulator to make it run again under the Windows XP operating system, since they removed that compatibility by 2016. The development to my modified version of PCSX2 started in May 2020, just when the latest stable official release was made public (v1.6.0), confirming it wasn't indeed compatible with XP. I wanted to do something about it, so i started peeking the code and considering the options i had. Well, after months of testing and patience, i got the latest v1.6.0 stable release from May 2020 running perfectly fine under XP. This project is called "PCSX2 XP" and is been made available from my website: http://neonfloppy.sytes.net/projects/pcsx2-xp/ and there is also a github repository: https://github.com/blueclouds8666/pcsx2_XP You may also join to my discord server, where you can find about my other projects and chat with other xp fans: https://discord.gg/KXKXcs4 I will be answering any questions you have regarding my project down below. I hope you all find this useful. Thanks for your attention.