Mathwiz

DVD quality (at least in the US but probably most places) is 720x480p. I've sometimes heard that referred to as "ED" ("Enhanced" Definition) as opposed to 704x480i, or SD (Standard Definition). 720p (actually 1280x720) is noticeably sharper, but it is pretty much the lower bound of what folks would consider HD.

The problems with older browsers are probably due to the DeviantArt web site using new JavaScript features that weren't supported in those old browsers. It probably isn't practical to backport a JavaScript engine from, say, FF 45 to NM 27, so for full functionality you probably need to stick with a newer browser and try to speed things up somehow. I've heard the "new" NM 27 will be based on FF 41 instead of 38. Maybe that will be enough to get it working; if not, FF 45 is probably your best bet. To speed things up, do consider more RAM or a faster CPU if at all possible. You might also consider replacing the HDD with a SSD; that will really speed up paging! But also consider a content blocker like uBlock Origin version 1.16.4.29. If you can block enough bloat from loading, your browser will probably run faster and it won't be as painful to use.

HD inflation! Officially, 720 lines is "HD," 1080 lines is "FHD" ("Full" HD), 1440 lines is "QHD" ("Quad" HD), and 2160 lines is "UHD" ("Ultra" HD). The latter is often referred to as "4K" due to 3840 pixels/line. (True 4K is 4096 pixels/line, but I guess the marketers decided it's OK to "round up" a bit ). But with everyone wanting (or at least thinking that they want) UHD resolution, and some even clamoring for 8K , I guess Google decided calling 720p "HD," with only 1/9th the number of pixels of UHD, just didn't seem right. It's like soft drink sizes at American fast food restaurants. I'm of an age where a "small" drink was 12 oz. (355 ml), a "medium" was 16 oz., and a "large" was 20 oz. But it wasn't long before the 12 oz. became "child size," 16 became "small," 20 became "medium," and a new 32 oz. "large" size was introduced. And some have even moved on to 16 oz. being "value size," 20 oz. being "small," etc.!

Strangely, WinUpdatesList doesn't show me the Office 2010 updates, but WinUpdatesView does.... Also, WinUpdatesView only shows me the updates installed via Microsoft Update or Automatic Updates, so it ends Sept. 2020. Add/Remove Programs (in Control Panel) shows all updates, even the ones I downloaded from the catalog and installed manually. Unfortunately Add/Remove Programs seems to list the updates in no particular order, and cannot be searched or sorted.

Excellent work everyone! I already had Office 2010 updated through Sept. 2020 via Microsoft Update; with your help I think I'm now completely updated! There is one small annoyance left though. Anyone know of a way to kill this?

Seems the WSUS proxy has "sort of" been fixed. In that they added a 30-second timeout to each Windows Update request. Now when you run it, one of the requests times out. I take it that's the request for Office updates: [Sun Jul 18 12:51:38 2021] 127.0.0.1:9075 [200]: /?/ClientWebService/client.asmx [Sun Jul 18 12:53:45 2021] PHP Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 second s exceeded in C:\Program Files\WSUS\src\index.php on line 188 [Sun Jul 18 12:53:45 2021] 127.0.0.1:9077 [200]: /?/ClientWebService/client.asmx - Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in C:\Program Files\WSUS\src\in dex.php on line 188 [Sun Jul 18 12:53:45 2021] 127.0.0.1:9079 Invalid request (An existing connectio n was forcibly closed by the remote host. ) [Sun Jul 18 12:53:46 2021] 127.0.0.1:9082 [200]: /?/ClientWebService/client.asmx [Sun Jul 18 12:53:46 2021] 127.0.0.1:9084 [200]: /?/ClientWebService/client.asmx You old-timers may recall that we used to have this kind of problem with Windows Update when a "cumulative" update had been superseded many times (about 30 IIRC). Windows update would sometimes run for DAYS! My suspicion is that something similar happened with Office 2010 SP2. Oh, well; we can still download the final updates via the catalog.

I'm back! Sorry I've been out of sight for so long. See my profile for more info. Anyway, the Clean Flash Installer is up to 34.0.0.164175. The latest version should always be at the top of this page: https://github.com/CleanFlash/installer/releases. I have it working in IE (who cares) and Basilisk on both XP and 7. Although Flash works in Chrome up to version 87, I assume there's no hope for Chromium-based Edge on Win 7? Edge versions as far back as 77 just display a brief "not supported after December 2020" bar at the top. Doesn't even stay onscreen long enough to read! Apparently Edge has its own time-bomb independent of the ones in Flash 32. The batch file version of Clean Flash is more recent than the installer version: 34.0.0.175. It's near the top of this page (scroll down to the Windows version): https://github.com/darktohka/clean-flash-builds/releases

I certainly can't claim credit. Many of us were using "Moebius" as an informal name for what eventually became Serpent 55 long before either Matt or I suggested it as a formal brand name. The first use "Moebius" I can find on this forum was in the link to MCP's original UXP platform: So technically, I guess credit for the name should go to Moonchild (M.C. Straver)! Minor language note: The true spelling is Möbius, with an umlaut over the o. But the umlaut isn't used in English and some other languages (English has a "dieresis" which looks just like an umlaut; it's used in words like coöperate, but it's so rare my spell checker balks on that word). Thus the ö is often rewritten as oe for the benefit of those of us with no easy way to type ö.

I think we both hit on it independently. Moebius was the code name for the post-FF 52, pre-Quantum rendering engine, or something like that, it's been used informally for Serpent 55, and it sounded like a cool name with lots of cool artwork opportunities. But I tend to agree with the suggestion that we just have one name for Serpent and append 52 or 55 as appropriate, in which case Moebius would have to go. Let's not make things more complicated than necessary. BTW, after I'd voted in several of the polls, I realized you can vote for more than one name. I think that's a cool option, especially for the browsers with many suggested names on the ballot. Oh, and slightly OT: does anyone know if you can put an animated .gif in the "About <browser>" dialog box, the about:newtab page, or any other relevant place in these browsers? Might be a cool branding trick.

I discovered (too late for most polls) that these polls are set up to let you choose more than one name! So if you like two or more names, go ahead and vote for all the ones you like. (Name with most votes still wins, of course.) Now, if only we Americans could have done that on Super Tuesday....

I don't think @roytam1 was too crazy about RFox either. He objected to RoyFox, and RFox isn't that different.... RFox aside, I'd like to close this and just go with @TechnoRelic's last suggestions. It's past time to come to some sort of consensus and get to work!

Couldn't confirm. EasyList shows up-to-date on mine. A few other filters I use showed errors from the last update attempt, but a manual update fixed them all. Not sure how often updates run, but IIRC most filters are considered "out of date" after a couple of days. So I'd guess it starts an update when the browser starts, as well as daily if you leave the browser open for extended periods.

Nitrous oxide?

If you don't want to install Classic Theme Restorer, you can still suppress those warnings by following @VistaLover's instructions here:

Aside from the WebRTC blocking feature I mentioned (which may not be an issue for you; it probably matters only to users behind, e.g., corporate firewalls), the only major change was Convert new shorthands back to legacy syntax when fetching filter lists using firefox-legacy (pull request by JustOff). Basically the syntax for filter lists was updated recently, so older uBO versions like 1.17.4 won't understand filters with the new syntax.

What are you folks trying to accomplish here? Support for TLS 1.2 was added to XP (actually, POSReady '09) long ago by the above mentioned KB, and to IE8 specifically by KB4316682 (later cumulative IE8 updates should work too): TLS 1.2 support is limited though, because native support for ECC (certificates and ciphers) was never added to XP. If it's TLS 1.3 you want (without using ProxHTTPSProxyMII) on IE/Chrome, I'd bet you're going to have to perform some pretty major surgery. Might be better off just migrating to ReactOS, or just using a browser with native TLS 1.3 support like EE 360 or @roytam1's Serpent.

And, done. Also: removed the SSUAO for YouTube to v.42, since it will stop working soon put in a general.useragent.override to version 60.9. Newer versions of MCP's UXP-based browsers (PM/NM 28, Basilisk/Serpent 52) are now reporting 68.9, but that causes more problems than it solves IMO. Updated version is here: As always, feel free to modify the myuseragents.js file (or override in about:config) as desired to fit your own browser and the Web sites you visit.

Apologies if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're not familiar with the User-agent: header. All browsers identify themselves to Web servers with a user-agent string that identifies the browser, version, and platform (OS). Unfortunately Web sites (such as bbc.co.uk) often just look at that string, rather than checking whether the browser actually has the capabilities the site needs. And they may not even be consistent from one page to the next at the same site! Thus, it's sometimes necessary to override the user-agent string (sometimes called "spoofing") to report a different version, or even a different browser entirely, in order to get particular web sites to work. And it often takes quite a bit of trial and error to find a user agent that will make a particular Web site work. You can find more info at this thread: Of course, the user agent isn't the only possible reason that a video might not play. For example, it could be using a new codec (such as av1) that Adobe Primetime doesn't understand. If that's the case, overriding the user agent won't help - but it's usually a good place to start.

uBO 1.17 and up are WebEx versions. 1.16.4.x is the last version using the legacy API, so it's the last version supported by Pale Moon, New Moon, and (official) Basilisk. Developer JustOff recently took over development of the legacy branch from Gorhill, so Gorhill now works exclusively on the WebEx branch and JustOff works on the legacy branch. Because of the split, 1.16.4.18 is the newest uBO version that will run on FF 52 / Serpent. It's much newer than 1.17.4. (I think the latest WebEx version of uBO is now 1.24, but it won't run on FF 52 / Serpent. BTW, 1.18 will run on those browsers, but it thinks it won't, so you have to jump through some hoops to fool it.) I do use the legacy branch, but not because it's "newer." I use it because one feature (blocking WebRTC from leaking your IP address) doesn't work on FF 52 / Serpent if you use a WebEx version. You can download uBO version 1.16.4.18 from https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy/releases/download/firefox-legacy-1.16.4.18/uBlock0_1.16.4.18.firefox-legacy.xpi . It's an unsigned extension, so make sure xpinstall.signatures.required is set to false in about:config first! You'll also see a warning that uBO "couldn't be verified" after installing, but you can hide that warning with another extension such as Classic Theme Restorer. You'll probably need to back up your uBO configuration and uninstall 1.17.4 before you can install 1.16.4.18, but once that's done you can restore your configuration and be back to where you were.

I must be missing something. Wouldn't you expect an error if you try to log into a banking site with bogus credentials? Huh? What's not true? I'm not missing anything? You wouldn't expect an error if you try to log into a banking site with bogus credentials? Are we even speaking the same language here? You can do that if you wish, but to me, testing someone's browser issues by trying to log into a banking site with bogus credentials, probably repeatedly in order to test various possible workarounds, sounds like a pretty terrible idea. Most of us aren't particularly interested in prompting an uncomfortable visit from the authorities, so asking for more information and letting the OP test possible workarounds with their real Citi.com account seemed to be the more prudent approach. I'm sorry my caution seems to have offended you, but the OP has let me know they're content to let the issue drop, so I won't pursue it any further.

I must be missing something. Wouldn't you expect an error if you try to log into a banking site with bogus credentials? Or are you saying the error appears whether the credentials are valid or not? If so, try this site: https://www.whatismybrowser.com/detect/what-is-my-user-agent. Try it with both the browser that works and the browser that doesn't, and post the results here. If the results are different, try a site-specific user-agent override; in the browser that doesn't work, set general.useragent.override.citi.com to the value returned by the browser that works. Then try logging on to citi.com and see if that fixes it.

In Firefox, site-specific user agents don't work (well, they can be made to work with some JavaScript sleight-of-hand, but it's complicated.) So you need an add-on in order to feed Slack, YouTube, etc. their own separate user agents. But the default UA for FF 52.9 should work with YouTube without giving you the browser warning Your problem really sounds like a memory leak somewhere. Try it in "safe mode" to eliminate add-ons as a possible source of the problem. If the scrolling slowdowns and full-screen weirdness go away in safe mode, try turning off add-ons a block at a time to isolate the one causing the memory leak. (It's tedious, I know.) For multiprocess mode, try increasing dom.ipc.processCount to 2-4 instead of 1. That will let FF kill processes when you close tabs.

This had all happened automagically so I hadn't even noticed, but I just checked about:addons and sure enough, uBO Updater is up to version 1.6.9 (presumably to handle the new repo) and uBO itself is up to 1.16.4.16 on my browser! I was noticing the referenced WaPo article worked fine on my system, but hadn't a clue why. (Not that I was wont to complain!) But anytime I install a new browser, whether FF, Chrome, or Edge, the first thing I do nowadays is install uBO on it, so this would explain it. (Internet advertising is so out of control nowadays that you just can't go without something to tame the chaos!) I've run into a couple of sites that require (or at least work better with) service workers, so I too have them enabled in about:config, even though the legacy uBO I use doesn't need them. But I restrict service workers to the sites that do need them with a line in My Filters in the uBO dashboard: *$csp=worker-src 'none',domain=~mediafire.com|~html5test.com There are probably a few other sites I should add to that line (mega.nz perhaps?) but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Ironic to say the least, given the article's content: "Don't use Kaspersky AV because the Russians will violate your privacy; let the WaPo do it instead!" I guess Jeff Bezos doesn't think he's rich enough yet; after all, he only has his own space program.... (FWIW, Elon Musk's space program is better though ) The current legacy version is newer, but it's numbered 1.16.4.16, so AMO thinks 1.17.4 is newer and "updates" it accordingly. Perhaps now that it's separate, JustOff should consider bumping the version number to avoid this issue. Meanwhile, you can turn off automatic updates for uBO, or you can install the "uBlock Origin Updater" add-on, which will force the browser to update uBO from the legacy repo instead.

Don't believe everything you read. Almost all Internet logins today are TLS-encrypted and all TLS sessions are end-to-end encrypted; no one in between has unencrypted access to the contents, unless they've managed to compromise the servers and steal their private keys. (And even that only works until the certificate is renewed in a year or two.) You can do man-in-the-middle attacks, but unless the client software doesn't properly verify the server's certificate, the user will just get an error message. They may be able to bypass, but security experts and paranoid types are gonna squeal. Some of the Goog's Android software doesn't do that verification (hence the ability to spy on your phone while it spies on you) but pretty much every Web browser does. Corporations who censor their employees' Internet access (as most do) have to install special trusted certificates on all their PCs to get around this. It's good to be a bit paranoid in our modern world, but don't let your paranoia override your common sense. Almost privacy leaks today come from spyware, especially on smart phones, but also PC software, including - unfortunately - Avast. (Despite Avast's efforts to anonymize the data they sell, they probably have underestimated the Goog's ability to match a user's "fingerprint" to the copious databases collected by Android smart phones.)

The thing is, @roytam1 didn't write and doesn't maintain the installer; @i430VX does! It probably wouldn't be hard for his installer to ask if you wanted a portable install, and add the necessary options to the shortcuts it creates. But @i430VX is the one to ask.