Jump to content

Mathwiz

Member
  • Posts

    1,728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Mathwiz last won the day on June 18 2023

Mathwiz had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About Mathwiz

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Mathwiz's Achievements

1.2k

Reputation

  1. I hate things like that. Whose side is the browser on, anyway? If it can download an image for display, it should be able to download the same image to disk. Win 7+ (maybe Vista too; IDK) have a "snipping tool" you can use to save images, but I don't know if there's an XP app that does something similar.
  2. Here's part of what @VistaLover wrote recently about NM 27 vs. 28. Actually this was in the context of discussing why we were getting so many NM 27 updates:
  3. Forum search functions generally suck - not just ours but every one I've ever tried. What would be really helpful is Bing's new AI search - just type in the question, et voila! But you have to be running Edge to use it and if you're able to do that, you probably aren't interested in NM 27 or 28!
  4. Agreed. I wasn't casting aspersions on the user for asking - that was the right thing to do. Just pointing out that the question does come up a lot, and will probably continue to do so. Rather than a long response, it would probably be easiest to beef up the FAQ with links to one of @VistaLover's detailed replies on those two topics. I wouldn't use it, but it (and its sister K-Meleon) are more lightweight than current UXP browsers, so they might be reasonable "first browser" choices on older hardware where UXP is unacceptably slow. If it fails to render a site properly you could always fire up Serpent, go make a cup of coffee, drink it....
  5. There's a thread on Supermium here at MSFN: https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/
  6. That question comes up so often, it probably should be addressed in the FAQ at the beginning of this thread.
  7. Agreed; it's your Dropbox account and you can put what you want there. But folks will keep finding this thread, and this will repeat, unless you at least remove the dead links from post 1. Also, if you follow the quote above back to the original post, you'll find a link to build 2036, whose links are also dead. Please don't frustrate new would-be users! If it were me, I'd not only remove all those dead links, but also replace them with a link to the redux thread so folks can download the "newer, improved" version. Unfortunately I doubt there's much more that can done with 360EE. I'm just happy we have a reasonably modern (at least when beefed up with polyfills), lightweight, unGoogled Chromium for XP.
  8. Is this where the "Offline Web Content and User Data" shown when you go to Tools / Preferences / Advanced is stored? I think logins and passwords are stored in a different table, but I'm not sure.
  9. Wow - it's good to be back after that scary outage! Also good to see that nothing appears to have been lost. It's been 2 1/2 weeks since I posted about pdf.js; unfortunately I was stopped by a problem I couldn't resolve and had to go back to the drawing board. Although the pdf.js V2.15 I downloaded from GitHub works fine with some sites, it simply won't work with others. Problem is (or at least appears to be) that the downloaded version was intended to be hosted on a Web site, not run from within the browser (either built-in or as an extension). As a result, Serpent's cross-site scripting protection keeps kicking in if the site you're trying to download a .pdf from doesn't send the right "CORS" header saying it's OK for another "Web site" to access the pdf. I couldn't figure out how to get around it, so I gave up on the GitHub versions. Instead I started extracting pdf.js from newer versions of Firefox. This worked better, without the XSS errors I was getting with the downloaded versions. I got up to FF 79, but that was still only at version 2.6.47. (Unfortunately Mozilla shuffled everything around in FF 80 and I haven't yet found the pdf.js in that or any newer version.) So, a disappointing setback, and RL issues haven't helped. But I haven't given up yet.
  10. I hear you. But I still update more often than once every five months! I believe the 2-24 Serpent versions are stable and that's what I'm running now. There have been no updates in several weeks, long enough to identify and fix any big issues.
  11. NM 27 and NM 28 typically use the same profile folder: %appdata%\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon. If you wish to use both NM 27 and NM 28 on the same PC, you should make one or both portable to keep their profiles separate. (I believe a portable loader is mentioned in the first post of this thread.)
  12. Found a polyfill for that and tried it. Unfortunately, I think my polyfill needs a polyfill of its own: renderView: "TypeError: ctx.getTransform(...).invertSelf is not a function" viewer.js:9719:19 "invertSelf?" Good grief....
  13. That is certainly possible. I'm sure it was part of Chase's decision to require 109 (although only 106 on Android), since Chrome 109 was the oldest version to get the WebP fix last year. But again, at least Chase can argue that they're trying to protect their customers' money; what's Science Direct trying to protect? As you noted, a Web server is at no risk from older browsers. But I bet a lot of Web developers don't understand that. I think a lot of folks, even cybersecurity experts, don't really understand cybersecurity. They just know there are "vulnerabilities" and don't delve into what exactly is "vulnerable" and what isn't - so they just blindly try to close off every "vulnerability" they can get away with.
  14. Most likely, Science Direct didn't develop their Web site at all; they just hired some Web developer to do it, and the Web developer is still doing things the old way (UA sniffing). Chase.com is guilty of this too, but at least you don't expect better from bankers. In (sort of) defense of UA sniffing, if the site wouldn't work, it's probably better to sniff the UA and give a message than to just have the Web site not work properly and frustrate the user. But in that case, they shouldn't require a newer version than what's actually needed for the site to work. Since the site apparently runs fine with Chromium 87, they don't need to be requiring (say) Chromium 109. I suspect the developers tested with 109 (or whatever version), saw that it worked, and just blindly put in the version that they tested with as the requirement. Lazy, but who's going to complain (other than us)? Anyway, thanks for the tip on a SSUAO extension for Chrome. I've been wanting one, but the user agent extensions I've seen recommended here haven't been site-specific.
×
×
  • Create New...