Mathwiz

It may be some time before we can get a "clean" version of .201: See Darktohka's note at https://gitlab.com/cleanflash/installer So to me it looks like to get around the DMCA, he's reworking the installer to download (and perhaps install) "dirty" Flash (presumably from www.flash.cn), then patch it to clean it up, rather than providing an installer with Adobe's copyrighted code built in. I wish him luck. But until then, .192 is working fine (and nag-free) in all my Win XP and Win 7 browsers (including 360EE) except of course ChrEdge on 7.

As it happens, I do watch TV on my computer instead of a TV. But I don't use a Web browser to do it! Windows (7) Media Center does the "TV" (and "DVR" and "DVD player") jobs just fine.

Wikipedia to the rescue (is there anything you can't find on Wikipedia?): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_of_Firefox#Tabbed_browsing It was the Mozilla Application Suite that had the SeaMonkey look, and (according to the above) also introduced tabs, so that may have been the browser that was forced down everyone's throat (except yours ). Tabs did catch on, at least; they were an improvement over M$'s "windows within windows" MDI (does anyone remember Win 3 and the Program Mangler?) and now every browser has them. (I'm even starting to see them in apps other than browsers. Ironically, M$ Office could really use them, but as of Office 2016 at least, it still lacked them! I guess M$ thought taskbar buttons were good enough. Maybe M$ finally added tabs in Office 2019?) But that one UI feature, nice as it may be, is a pretty poor excuse to ram one browser down everyone's throat!

All true; but you're missing a rather obvious point, I'm afraid. Not sure who owns GitLab, but GitHub, BitChute, and MSN are all owned by Micro$oft. And what browser does Micro$oft provide with their current OS offerings? The Chromium-based version of Edge! So they have a clear vested interest in insuring that their sites only work with Chromium-based browsers like their own Edge. (Oh, and don't forget; starting next year, the latest "official" Chrome won't even run on Windows 7 - even though Win 7 has another year of Extended Support Updates coming in 2022. And even China is giving up on WinXP and Flash. Browsers may be free, but Win 10+ definitely isn't; nor is the new PC you'll need to run it.) It's also likely that anyone using website development software provided by Google or M$ will suffer the same incompatibilities, even if they have no personal or corporate interest in favoring Chromium. I'm speculating here, but I strongly suspect that is behind GitLab's compatibility issues with older browsers. Saying that a company has to be owned by Google to be affected by Google is rather myopic, IMO. Luckily, we have developers like JustOff, who have generously written add-on patches to restore compatibility between GitHub/GitLab and recent versions of UXP browsers. But even a talented developer like JustOff can only deal with so much of what Google is shoveling out these days. Every few weeks, it seems, I have to install a new version of his Web Components Polyfill add-on, or GitLab quits working on IceApe. A lot of work just to keep two websites working on UXP! (Hey, wasn't it you who complained about having to update browsers ridiculously often?) And does any of it actually improve the Web? If it does, I haven't seen it. AFAICS, it has one primary purpose: to render older browsers and their forks obsolete, thus forcing all of us to use either Chromium or a "chromoclone" (i.e., not based on Chromium, but forced to emulate it) like modern Firefox. So, perhaps M$ and Google should both be in the dock for collusion in restraint of trade. Such cases are tough to prove, but there appears to be ample circumstantial evidence to support an investigation, at least. Do you mean the original post-Netscape Mozilla browser - the one that looked like SeaMonkey? I didn't know Firefox even existed for most of the 90's. (Although IIRC, the original Firefox was essentially the Mozilla browser sans the mail/news reader. It's been a few years.) But I'm with you on stupid corporate mandates. Why even bother with PCs if you're going to force everyone to use the exact same software? A browser should be a browser - you should be able to use whichever one helps you do your job - even IE, if it works for you! But ironically, Google and M$ are doing the same thing your former boss did; it's just a bit less obvious than "you're fired if we find an 'unapproved' browser on your PC!" "Two wrongs don't make a right." But all that said, as long as I'm forced to use Chromium, I'm glad I can use 360EE, and especially your versions of it. Thanks for all you do!

A lot of it is just what you get used to, which is why many users of Firefox-based browsers prefer the old UI found in Pale/New Moon, or the even older UI found in SeaMonkey/BNavigator/IceApe. I've gotten Serpent 55 humming along pretty much the way I like it with add-ons, preference settings, and the like, so I'm not terribly psyched about starting over with a brand-new browser. (Same thing goes for OSes, BTW, which is why so many want to run Windows XP on newer machines.) Even moving to a UXP browser like Serpent 52 means losing some add-ons, which may not be easily replaceable. But UXP does restore compatibility with DropBox, GitHub, GitLab, etc., so I always keep one (currently IceApe) in my Quick Launch bar. For maximum compatibility, though, nothing beats Chrome. It shouldn't be that way, but unless/until someone comes down on Google the way the government did on Micro$oft a quarter of a century ago, it's the situation we're all forced to deal with. And your "unGoogled" 360Chrome versions are one of the best choices right now, being compatible with XP, Adobe Flash (sans the hassle of "standard" Chromium), and all those "troublesome" Web sites. So it too has earned a permanent spot on my Quick Launch bar.

That's actually a good question! (The only dumb questions are the ones you fail to ask.) I'm not sure about this, but I think the V8 engine is included in 360Chrome versions. JavaScript in Chromium-based browsers is a bit slower than in browsers using IonMonkey, but it's still a lot faster than in Firefox-based browsers with IonMonkey disabled. Seems unlikely Google could achieve such performance without a JIT compiler. If I'm right, I don't know if there's a way to turn V8 off, except by going to a sufficiently old version of Chromium. But I'm also not sure if V8 has had the number of security issues IonMonkey has, so turning V8 off for security may not be as desirable.

To be fair, he may have done that long ago, when such a transplant worked rather well, then just never bothered to remove extensions that became obsolete.

It does, particularly for the sufferers; but we shouldn't leave the impression that everyone on the autism spectrum is a narcissistic jerk like we-all-know-who. For a while, I was updating browsers weekly, but more out of fear that we-know-who would do to @roytam1 what they did to @feodor2, and I wanted to have my own copy of the last versions he created. Now that it seems Roytam will continue to the best of his ability regardless of them, I only update when I need a new feature or fix. But I agree with the sentiment, and I'm afraid that once again, the fault lies with Google. Can you think of any other product willing to brand its latest product "version 95?" Well, other than Windows 95, of course, but that was named after the year it came out - it's not as if Micro$oft couldn't get it right in their first 94 tries! (Unfortunately Mozilla has copied Google in this, along with so many other things. I remember the "good ol' days" when browser versions had decimal points, like every other software product....)

Did you see this at the Github page? Unfortunately, that flag doesn't exist (AFAICS) in 360EE v13. So it's impossible to make the extension work in that version. It doesn't even restore the Add to Chrome button in v13! But it might work in v11 or v12. A screen shot at the Github page showed Chrome v76, which is pretty close to 360EE v12. Even if it won't work, restoring the button is a convenience, even if it only downloads the .crx and doesn't install it. Whether or not you can get the extension to work, I'm not sure it's worth making additional builds just to include it. Just flesh out the instructions in post 1 of your thread and let folks download and install it if they want.

I just PM'ed @VistaLover about that! I'll shut up now, before I derail the thread....

I'm interested, but if it's an unreasonable amount of work, it's hardly a critical thing!

Moebius is the code name of the platform used for @roytam1's "Serpent 55" browser. It's based on an alpha version of Firefox 53, so it supports more of Mozilla's WebExtension add-ons than the UXP platform. However, these days Moebius is showing its age. UXP browsers (including BNavigator) have kept up a bit better with today's "Googlized" Web, although not as good as Chromium itself, of course. I confirmed that Dropbox works OK with IceApe (another UXP browser), so it's probably fine on all UXP browsers.

Makes sense. Mozilla's JIT compiler is the key to their impressive JavaScript speed. Unfortunately it doesn't help with compatibility with the latest Googlisms, hence the need for 360EE. Its JavaScript may be slower but at least it can handle the World Wide Google.... The ultimate irony: Even Dropbox apparently requires more Googlisms than Moebius, at least, can provide; so I can't even use Moebius to download 360EE! I just get a blank screen; no download. Have to use (yuck) ChrEdge on Win 7. Not sure what an XP user is supposed to do....

No newer version, but 20211012 starts fine on XP 32-bit. Please provide a screen shot of the error you get trying to start it on XP 64-bit. ArcticFox is a 32-bit program; I can't imagine why it would work on XP 32-bit but not 64-bit, but stranger things have happened.... @IXOYE was having trouble accessing msfn.org with ArcticFox version 20211012. I couldn't reproduce; msfn.org came up fine in it for me.

Yeah, my water bill is cheap too, but in my case, water and electric is all bundled together, and electric is a lot more. (AIUI Texas has some of the highest electric bills in the US.) So the city gets a break: the same 58 cents (just recently went up from 55) covers a bill that's usually well over $200.

I rather like the new handle! I guess the old handle no longer made sense because you're no longer using Arctic Fox as your main browser?

My electric/water "company" is the city in which I live, so I'm in the same boat (unless I want to move!). So, I just use their auto-pay service; after all, I have to pay the bill each month, whether I like how much it is or not! But how do I see how much it's going to be each month so I can plan? Turns out, the USA has this great service - they will actually deliver a printed document detailing my monthly expenses straight to my house! Yes, it's a bit slower than seeing it online, but it still arrives in plenty of time, and no "browser" is required to read it! For cable (which I use for Internet service only; for TV, well, I stream some of it, but it turns out there's a lot available - much of it in HD - at no monthly cost whatsoever, using an amazing piece of technology I've discovered, called an "antenna"), it gets even better! This "postal service" works both ways so I can send them a document called a "check" authorizing them to deduct my payment directly from my bank account! The charge for this "postal service?" Only about 1% of my bill. Kids these days....

Well, that's the question, isn't it? The OP has one bad sector on his HDD. Is that just a fluke, or the start of HDD failure? No way to know at this point. I'd advise regular backups (which should be done anyway, but if the OP has been putting them off, now's the time to start) and check the SMART stats periodically too. If you see another bad sector show up soon, grab a replacement HDD or SSD, swap them out, and restore the latest backup. But if it just stays at one measly bad sector for the next several months, probably nothing to worry about.

No interest myself. Just curious why it took them so long to get rid of it!

Obviously doesn't matter to us Windows addicts, but does that mean "official" PM/Basilisk used to supports Macs and no longer does? Or were Macs never supported and this is just cleaning up leftover code? If the latter, seems MCP spent a lot longer getting around to removing it than they took removing support for XP, WebEx, e10s, etc.

OK, so it's a board issue rather than a browser issue. (Whew! When even web.archive.org stopped rendering correctly, I figured msfn.org might not be far behind....) Edit: Adding a code snippet to <profile folder>\chrome\UserContent.css like this: @-moz-document domain("msfn.org") { div.ipsQuote_contents { background-color: #CCC !important;} } ... makes those quotes readable again. Adjust the #CCC to the background RGB color of your choice, but keep it light (C through F) for best results.

What the heck - take a look at this screenshot of two quotes from this thread: The first one is fine; the second is nearly unreadable unless I highlight the text with my mouse! Is this a new, weird problem with Serpent 55 or is it happening with any other browsers?

I agree privacy is an issue with all these browsers. But it's a moot point if you can't browse the Web at all because of "Googlisms!" Even the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) now fails to render properly in Serpent! Of course it's fine in ChrEdge.... My best recommendation for privacy is probably to start with one of @ArcticFoxie's "unGoogled" versions of 360EE. Yes, it's a Chinese browser, and China is renowned for spying on their citizenry, but the folks here have worked hard to remove all the telemetry they could find, and China couldn't care less about us Westerners anyhow....

Yes, for a while. But surely you can see Google's long-term plans: More & more Web sites will require a post-SSE3 version of Chrome (or Firefox, as long as Mozilla cooperates) to decipher Google's latest Googlisms; therefore, older machines will become increasingly useless for browsing the Web. It probably won't even take them very long. I'm really starting to hate "Monopoly!"

I had no trouble installing it in Serpent 55, although I haven't tried to use it yet. Are you sure you downloaded a file named serpent-tester-tool.xpi ? Probably reasonable to assume @Eclectic (not Electric) is using Pale Moon (actually probably New Moon) 27 & 28, and Serpent 52 & 55.