AstroSkipper

Right! From a mathematical point of view, the most efficient way to quickly get to the version of New Moon 28 that is compatible with Windows XP SP2.

Have you ever connected successfully to a server of a commercial VPN provider using the protocol IPSec Xauth PSK provided by the Shrew Soft VPN Client under Windows XP in the past? Is that possible with VPN clients like Shrew Soft or TheGreenBow at all? Or can connections only be established to VPN Gateways of VPN appliances produced by vendors such as Cisco, Juniper, Checkpoint, Fortinet, Netgear, Linksys, Zywall and so on?

Unfortunately, FastestVPN has dropped support of L2TP protocol in Windows XP last year just as many other VPN providers have already done, but PPTP still works. And OpenVPN presumably, too. BulletVPN, for example, still provides both, PPTP and L2TP, in Windows XP. Generally, OpenVPN is not a good choice on old, underpowered systems because the client causes a high processor load. In my case, I have a 100% CPU load with only a third of the theoretically achievable connection speed, which can thus never be reached. On more powerful computers, on the other hand, I don't see any problems using OpenVPN.

Ok! So if users can't get the current weather forecast in 360 Chrome and don't know how to get these sites to work in this browser, do not hesitate to ask our weatherman @NotHereToPlayGames. He will get the necessary information for you.

That would be off-topic in any case, unfortunately.

The only BSODs I have had were caused by the 360Chrome browsers in conjunction with WiseVector StopX. Otherwise, I haven't had a single BSOD in years. Nevertheless, I am not at all surprised that most comments about BSODs in MSFN are found in connection with Windows XP which is the most modified and patched OS ever, full of ported and forked software. Just think of all existing system patches, the experiments with the ACPI.sys file, modified drivers and so on. Anyway! I used the 360Chrome browsers with rebased chrome.dll intensively the last weeks, without any further BSODs in my system. But one thing is crystal clear. The 360Chrome Browsers v13.5 have a Chromium engine 86 which was actually never meant to run on Windows XP. Therefore, BSODs do not really surprise me.

@UCyborg! Thanks for this tip! Works absolutely great! I extracted this file from the most recent release which unfortunately is no longer XP-compatible and copied it into the appropriate folder of my installation. Now, YouTube works much better than before. Thanks again!

Same here in Windows XP. YouTube channel links are analysed, but nothing is shown. Only an empty window.

I'm glad that we agree a little for once. I'm guessing that these are all old cars. Unfortunately, I am not at all familiar with American car models. The initial numbers are probably the year of manufacture. Therefore, you are a fan of classic cars. I drive an '89 Golf I Cabriolet.

You're welcome! Glad I could help a bit!

Nowadays, new stuff is "sold" as safer and better. But that is not always the case. I am generally not a member of the faith community with the motto "the newer, the better". But maybe I'm just a dinosaur on the brink of extinction.

Generally, I am not a fan of innovations and new standards which mean websites become more cumbersome, slow, and overloaded. And I don't like Chrome browsers due to their restrictions, and the new Firefox browsers, either. I could say a lot about all that but I'll leave it at that for now.

You're right if you refer to these Googlized websites! However, this is not @roytam1's problem, but due to the browser architecture he supports. Even he cannot work magic and Moonchild, either. I give all these Google-infested sites to 360Chrome v13.5 build 1030 or my Android tablet to eat. But, my mainly used browsers are New Moon and Serpent, and maybe, Mypal 68 in the future. That's how it will stay for now, and hopefully for a long time.

As you probably already suspected, I can't really agree with you there, either. The 360Chrome versions here are no longer being actiively developed, the modifications are rather cosmetic, except for the innovative rebasing. All versions of @roytam1 are actively modified in their code, week by week, for which I am extremely grateful to him. Therefore, this comparison also stands on shaky ground. But however, I appreciate all your efforts here.

The comparison is lame because you already offered a rebased version, but @roytam1 didn't in your more theoretical construct.

Unfortunately, your statement does not make any sense at all. And your comparison is just as absurd. You already provided a rebased version. If a user wants to have the default address used by libase, he can do that easily by himself. No spoon feeding necessary! That's it! Nothing more or less.

I think typing in a CMD window the command libase chrome.dll is something everyone can do. No need to upload anything! All is described here. Easy and comprehensible. The phrase "spoon feeding" I learnt from @VistaLover, and he isn't a fan of it, either.

That is rather splitting hairs. You start the tool with the default ini file and it generates the address 0x62a00000 for chrome.dll which is logged by libase in its ini file. Seen in this way, the tool has "chosen" it itself. No interaction by the user. But, your further investigation is not uninteresting. I did not examine the calculation of libase's generated base address more deeply. I would do that only if something went wrong.

Just to clarify it! These freezes I had did not come regularly, and completely unexpectedly. I will continue to monitor this at the address 0x62a00000 chosen by libase for chrome.dll. When time is available, I will try your address 0x10010000 by using Rebase.

Good to have more than one working tool for a job. So, one can choose according to one's needs.

Yeah! I totally forgot. It is generated automatically by libase. My fault! If another address is wanted, one has to use Rebase from Microsoft. @Anbima! So, any deleting in the file libase.ini is not needed and does not do anything, either. I used simply libase without any additional settings which presumably can't be made by libase. It is just an automatic tool and does everything by itself.

Of course! I'm going to assume that! In any case, I am greatly relieved. Spoon feeding is not my thing, especially under specific conditions.

As I already wrote about that, this ini file seems to be universal, supporting all 360Chrome versions. You can delete the line "6da00000=CHROME_CHILD.DLL". This file doesn't exist in 360Chrome v13.5 build 1030. Do not change anything else!

Use libase! Rebasing is such a simple process and fully documented in the 360 Chrome threads several times. Furthermore, @Humming Owl provides an archive with a batch file to do that automatically. So, it can be performed by any user. Under these circumstances, I am not a fan of such spoon feeding, which would actually mean that the user is too lazy to read and do it himself.

Right! I use the full paid version. IDA is a good download manager and has been maintaining compatibility with Windows XP for years.