Leaderboard

Sorry for the off-topic, these are more beautiful to my taste, pleasant colours and look more like XP era drivers. 36x,xx has a more "moderm" look. Besides, 352.xx and 355,xx have the better Directx9 speed. 368 give nothing new to XP.

Everything seems to be fine here on Windows 10. It's almost certainly a false positive, but until win32ss comments on the report, we don't know.

Or you can use these. https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/GRAPHICS-BOARD/NVIDIA/NVIDIA-GeForce-iCafe-Graphics-Driver-35573-for-XP.shtml But REMOVE the iCafe folder before you install!!! For this, you need to extract the .exe archive and edit the .inf file "nvic" by adding your device id. Which should be taken from the device manager.

I can use either GPU with Windows XP, I have drivers for both. There are no Windows 10 drivers for the X600, and of course no Windows 98 drivers for the M4000! I tend to keep using the X600 on XP, as it causes boot complications if I set the M4000 to be the primary card in the BIOS. It works fine, and as I said, I've had no video performance problems with it.

Then it doesn't properly support video acceleration, not to be confused with the UI rendering acceleration. Also, I can only guess, but looks like Dave simply has a much more powerful CPU to distribute the load onto it from the GPU.

Ok. Then I'll try to answer the question about the compatibility first of all with the example of extensions in Mypal 68 myself. Unfortunately, my answer has to be: No. Mypal 68.14.8b does not have a clear compatibility policy. Even some extensions that are actually FF68 compatible do not work for various reasons. One of them is the fact that Mypal 68 has never been a complete Firefox 68 version. Consider, for example, the still missing Internationalization & Localization feature I reported to Mypal's issues on GitHub three years ago that, however, some extensions, for example those dealing with time, date, timezones and so on, definitely require. uBlock Origin 1.62, on the other hand, works in Mypal 68.14.8b, although it is actually FF78+ compatible. Another example is the Scratchpad 0.7.1 extension. Since @feodor2 has removed the very useful, internal Scratchpad in Mypal 68.14.8b following Mozilla , I wanted to retrofit it with the help of this extension, which is FF72+ compatible. Unfortunately, that didn't work out. Not compatible. In Firefox 74, however, it works. So, Mypal 68.14.8b and extension compatibility is rather a game of trial and error. MinVersion numbers of extensions are only of limited use in this browser. At this point, I would personally appreciate a Mypal 68 browser with a state of development of 74 announced by its developer that then also should behave like its brother Firefox 74 in terms of compatibility. Strictly according to the motto: Whoever says A, must also say B. (German saying) And that's completely independent of whether I like these newer Firefox versions or not.

@Karla Sleutel Did you use the special Windows 10/11 version of the Supermium installer? If so, try using the standard version. It works perfectly for me on Windows 10, so will probably be OK on 11 too. Whatever Windows 11 Security is flagging may not actually be there in that version, which is why I'm not seeing a problem and there haven't been loads of reports on GitHub about it, although Malwarebytes is my main security program anyway. I still think it's a false positive anyway.

My XP graphics card is pretty ancient now, an ATI X600. I keep it for compatibility with Windows 98! I've been using the #ignore-gpu-blocklist flag for a long time on XP already.

Early tests on IG with the new 32-bit version on XP look promising, but as far as I know the issue I reported has never been flagged on GitHub anyway! I was thinking of doing so. I will try later with the 64-bit version on Windows 10. Twitch and TikTok I don't use, I'm afraid.

https://github.com/Eclipse-Community/r3dfox/releases/tag/v128.10.0

The query on GitHub has been updated. It seems the problem went away with a new clean profile.

Which official MyPal extension page? There is none. Extensions for Mypal 68 have to be downloaded from the official Firefox Add-ons page, i.e. from addons.mozilla.org.

i do hook up with Mr. Thornton! Since there was an update to FF 128.10 a week ago (with some "high impact" security fixes) i'd like to ask you @K4sum1 whether / when there will follow updated releas(es) of r3dfox 128. Thank you!

Forget the about:performance page! It has never been reporting memory usage correctly and reflecting the true values. Here is a comment from a developer: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1744869 And a quote from there: I can confirm this statement. It always has been a junk feature.

@feodor2 In case it has escaped your attention, here is my question again:

Sorry but unfortunately, I have to disagree when it comes to Windows XP -> Windows NT 5.1 and Mypal 68. As you know, this topic here is about Mypal 68 in Windows XP . I have tested all possible Firefox version numbers by a SSUAO in Mypal 68.14.8b, and 128 was definitely the minimum to get rid of the yellow message box. Any version lower than 128 failed. Greetings, AstroSkipper

That's why I wrote: Which means that it doesn't matter at all. The actual question is: What's the point of a report on an old version without a version number of a programme that does not stand for security anyways? Everyone can answer this question for themselves. And if a manufacturer wants to pull the plug, then a few posts in some thread won't change anything. One should evaluate things in life realistically.

In your quoted link, there is provided an explanation and a solution in terms of this bug. Here is a quote from this topic: When looking into the download package, this bug fix seems to have already been implemented. Your question about Windows Server 2003 has been answered there, too.

Status reports on programmes without a version number, for whatever reason, are generally useless. It either doesn't help to call it an "ancient version". The lack of information and meaning remains in any case.