Leaderboard

I shall fix new bugs then soon

A very nice picture, regardless of the size. When I added mine, I did upload a jpeg, all was fine. Could be the new limit, we'd have to wait for an official response.

I've also seen some screenshots of Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 in the MBAM forum, and all show a component package version of 1.0.365.

Finally ! You're welcome , enjoy !

Still work for me ! Archived drivers from the official Intel page. http://web.archive.org/web/20171008142049/https://downloadmirror.intel.com/20758/a08/GFX_Win7_32_8.15.10.2761.exe http://web.archive.org/web/20171008142245/https://downloadmirror.intel.com/20758/a08/GFX_Win7_64_8.15.10.2761.exe The forum rules say I must include the source page too : http://web.archive.org/web/20171008141948/https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/20758/Graphics-Intel-HD-Graphics-Driver-for-Windows-Vista

http://web.archive.org/web/20170825082730/https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/20758/Graphics-Intel-HD-Graphics-Driver-for-Windows-Vista

And for 64-bit https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/GRAPHICS-BOARD/INTEL/Intel-HD-Graphics-Driver-815102639-for-Vista-Windows-7-x64.shtml

Hello. I decided to change my pic., added a new one, sized about 50kb, yet it was resaved to just 3kb. It was working fine last year.

Well, the only reason I made that point was to argue that PM architecture doesn't benefit from AVX instructions as much as a "modern" browser does; hence my conclusion that MCP's decision (to build the 64-bit version to use/require AVX) was primarily done to block it from running on older 64-bit processors that are presumably "too slow" (in MCP's opinion), not to give PM a noticeable performance improvement on newer 64-bit processors that do support AVX instructions. Despite its non-modern, pre-Quantum architecture, I'm sure MCP would love to implement all significant features required by "modern" Web sites in PM, if they could. It's just too big of a task for a small outfit like MCP to backport the constant fire hose of JS/CSS "enhancements" to its old engine. I would've gone with a simple block diagram. Face it: Quantum doesn't work anything like a jet engine! The Quantum browser engine doesn't have/need an air intake, compressor, fuel injectors (or even fuel), or anything remotely analogous to them. The only purpose of the jet engine diagram was to imply extreme speed and power; i.e., it's hype.

OT, so I'll keep it short ... @Mark-XP, many thanks for your kind interest in me and your genuine offer ; the thing is I haven't contemplated thus far a migration to one of the many Linux distros, but thanks anyway... I only spent ca. 3yrs on WinXP, so am not that much "attached" to it (not an "XP die-hard", IOW), but this is where I learned computing, which came very late in my adult years... By some coincidence (lack of one H/W driver for XP at the time), my personal first laptop that came with Vista OEM (SP0) x86 was never switched back to WinXP SP3; after SP1 was released, the OS became very trustworthy and over time I grew to really "love" it (hence my username here), despite the general negativity towards it... In my household there exist one Win7 SP1 x64 laptop (from 2011) and a 2020-bought one with Win10, the latter used mainly for financial online transactions... Win10 has WSL, so I guess I could get acquainted with "Linux" if the need really arises... Sadly, my RL has enough of frustration as it is, actually getting bigger by the month (personal things I won't disclose here); I'd rather do without so much frustration in my DL, too; plus, the adage "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" seems to suit me fine currently ... Over the years, of course, I have come across Linux related subjects in various forums, this isn't totally "alien-land" for me; as an exclusive Windows user I learned very quickly to use the Command Prompt and CLI software (while many of my Windows-using close friends, till this day, remain oblivious of non-GUI apps); so the "terminal" doesn't frighten me that much in itself; it's the steep learning curve I'm not inclined to deal with... PS: When Mozilla removed support for XP+Vista starting with Fx-53, Vista usage was tenfold the Linux usage, so I wrote to Mozilla and complained that they were OK to continue supporting the few Linux users, but NOT the Vista ones; I was more naive at the time, not fully aware of "planned obsolescence" and "agendas" by the big IT companies; Mozilla staff didn't bother responding, one community fellow user mentioned "lack of future OS security updates", but I wasn't convinced (by then, it was discovered already one could install WS2008 security updates on Vista, how about that?) ; from that time on, subconsciously at least, I began harbouring some aversion towards "lucky" Linux - this has waned now, FWIW... OT end (darn, I haven't kept it short )

But I couldn't get it working. ... This is a binary hack (HexEdited official binaries) that uses OCA wrapper DLLs (libkrnl.dll, libadv32.dll, libhlp32.dll, libns32.dll, libws32.dll, libxbc.dll, libxt.dll) and, as such, the patched python.exe will ONLY run on XP SP3, at best (e.g., it doesn't run under Vista SP2 32-bit, throwing: The procedure entry point ntdll.CsrNewThread could not be located in the dynamic link library libxt.dll ) ; I realise the thread's title mentions "WinXP" (but several other Windows versions have been mentioned already, I suppose OP wouldn't mind ), but it would be a great injustice if a solution for XP was eventually found but not one for Vista ... The way to go is to mod py3.10+ source and then build with a suitable compiler and flags so as to produce binaries that would run on NT 5.1 upwards natively (that's the procedure cmalex followed for his py3.9 offering, additionally targeting the SSE instructions set - but this last bit might be quite unrealistic for py3.10+) ... Another route I thought of is to hex-edit the adang CPython binaries, that already target NT 6.1, and link them to custom-made DLL wrappers, much like how Supermium 32-bit is able to run under XP and Vista - but this is all totally over my head ... FWIW, I think "embedded" Python distributions are inapt for producing yt-dlp Windows binaries via PyInstaller (as you've found out yourself ); not only is a working copy of pip needed, but also an "include" directory with header (.h) files... TL;DR: The task in demand needs experienced Python and C/C++ coders, with knowledge of the NT 5.x/6.0 kernel functions...

I think I'll hold off with my picture! I don't want that size.

@feodor2 First of all, thanks for all your efforts! Especially for restoring the compatibility with the legacy Custom Buttons extension in Mypal 68.14.6b. At the moment, I am testing this new release and found several issues. Mypal 68.14.6b - The loading and scrolling websites issue in multi-process mode Unfortunately, I have to report that loading websites and scrolling them from top to bottom is seriously broken in my fresh installation with a fresh profile (untouched) when running Mypal 68.14.6b in multi-process mode. If scrolling to the top of this MSFN page, for example, leads to a blue window without content. Here is a screenshot: I didn't notice any corresponding errors in the browser console. I have installed the browser versions 68.14.4b, 68.14.5b and, since today, the browser version, 68.14.6b under Windows XP. The website loading and scrolling issue does not occur in version 68.14.4b or in version 68.14.5b. That means the issue started as of your new release 68.14.6b. And the general.smoothScroll preference is of course set to true which is the default value. So, this issue seems to be a more general one in multi-process mode and does not only happen if the general.smoothScroll preference is set to false. P.S.: After some more tests, I noticed that the website loading and scrolling issue doesn't seem to occur in your new release 68.14.6b when running the browser in single-process mode. In this mode, the loading and scrolling of this MSFN website here is very fast and error-free. It therefore appears to be primarily a multi-process mode issue. Maybe, this information is useful for you. At least I do hope so. Cheers, AstroSkipper

Thanks a lot for the new build roytam, very nice!

alright reproduced. should be fixed in next build.

Roger that.

The site works fine for me on both ARM MacOS and aarch64 Linux.

I've found some useful javascript tune-ups: The Last days I was forced to use an older machine for browsing while my main rig beside it was busy or unusable due to repairs or upgrades or whatever. Espescially I wanted to watch some youtube and found it being overloaded by the scripts. It wasn't even able to play 360p properly. Most of the time it ended in an endless spinning wheel until it failed with an error. That machine is able to play 1080 inside a native player. - CPU is a AMD sempron3000+ @ 1,8GHz. Single Core - Version: New Moon 28.10.7a1 (2024-06-28) It appeared that the javascript engine went completely bonkers. So I looked into the config to find some settings to play with and toggled the following entries: - javascript.options.parallel_parsing = false - javascript.options.wasm_baselinejit = true This made a HUGE diference! I don't know what the second option does but for me it is obvious that the parallel pre-loading and parsing and compiling overloads the CPU, precisely the caching of data and scripts. This parallel processing is helpful if you have at least 2 cores and some L3 cache, but it utterly destroys the pipelining of single-core CPUs. Of course this raises the latency a little bit, but it forces to process pages and scripts in a more serialized way. Now I can even switch the playback to 720p inside youtube, though with some framedrops but it can reach this level I also once found a site with palemoon x86 SSE2 and non-SSE2 compiled as deb-packages for linux. (Got dual-boot on this machine) Here it is much worse, obviously these miss some single-core tune-ups that roytam includes in his builds. Need to investigate that further

According to an answer in Malwarebytes' Support Forum, the component package updates are updates to the Kernel in how the software integrates with signatures and associated detections, heuristics and other constructs. Have a look here: https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/287375-what-does-the-component-package-do/ If I were you, I would perform a fresh reinstall of Malwarebytes. Or a repair install. And backup your exclusions first! The component package version should be 1.0.365.

Although Malwarebytes announced lifetime support as a nice present for Windows XP users, I came across this thread in their forum: https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/295844-legacy-3512522-sudden-red-triangle-your-updates-are-not-current I really hope this doesn't concern Windows XP. At the moment, updating of Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 works. Yesterday, the update package version was 1.0.29410 which was updated to 1.0.29412 a little later. Today, it was updated to 1.0.29420. Here is a screenshot: So we can see Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 is still supported under Windows XP. Whether the lifetime support is really true, we will have to wait and see. One could also ask what lifetime is actually supposed to mean here. As long as the company "Malwarebytes" lives? Or the user?

Thanks for your quick reply! Here is my screenshot of About: Same update package version! That's good. They have updated again. But what about your component package version? And did you read the linked topic? That sounds pretty serious to me.

This is what I have at the time of writing. AFAIK, Malwarebytes have always said that this version will be supported and provided with pattern updates until further notice, and there's been no sign of them moving to change that. There have been a few scares where the definition updates stopped coming in, with a red triangle on the system tray icon, but it was always resolved once people posted on the Malwarebytes forum about it. It was always caused by backend problems, but as you can imagine it did worry people!

That's awesome to know you have that working on your system. Thanks! And yep! It's been a couple of years now that I couldn't get Malwarebytes Premium 3.5.1.2522 to work in my Windows XP system. And even MBAM's support couldn't help to fix this issue. Today I thought to try it the last time. I had to dig deep into my system and removed all the remnants of old security programs and others, including a manual cleaning of my registry. Apparently, it did something.

I know this list. AV-Test is always a good source to get information about antivirus programs. Unfortunately, this list is from 2014 and thus almost 9 years old. We have already discussed here some of the antivirus programs listed there. Including Qihu 360 Total Security which was already mentioned in this thread here: and here: Overloaded security programs are not my taste, but the current Qihu 360 Total Security 10.8.0.1541 still seems to support Windows XP: https://www.360totalsecurity.com/en/features/360-total-security/ The others on this list as for example Avira, Norton, BullGard, Trend Micro, Eset, G Data, and so on have given up any support for Windows XP a long time ago. Therefore, such lists are of little use today. So what are the new good options? I can't see them.

Here you go : https://drivers.softpedia.com/get/GRAPHICS-BOARD/INTEL/Intel-HD-Graphics-Driver-152250642509-for-Vista-x86-Windows-7-x86.shtml