AstroSkipper

Hello @Cixert! A very good tool for defragmenting the registry files and the pagefile is PageDefrag 2.32 from Sysinternals. It solved in several cases starting problems that I had in the past. Another approach is an examination of the integrity of your hard disks with tools from outside. As you wrote in the first post, two different computer are concerned. If so, maybe both are infected by the same malware, or you have installed a program on both computers causing this corruption. In any case, a very deep investigation is necessary if the simple solutions don't work. Cheers, AstroSkipper

Thanks for the flowers! The question mark though is a bit undefined and can be interpreted in different ways. Firstly, I am rather a batch than a JavaScript programmer if at all. Indeed, I created some custom buttons using JavaScript in the past. Reading reference manuals and using already existing code snippets was what I did to get the right code for a specific custom button. In some cases, I did it from scratch by myself, in others I used already existing code and modified it. One of my strengths! But frankly, far away from a good JavaScript programmer. Otherwise, I wouldn't post websites here that no longer work properly due to JavaScript problems, which no one really seems to be interested in, though. Secondly, as I posted in the previous browser thread https://msfn.org/board/topic/182647-my-browser-builds-part-3/?do=findComment&comment=1227973, I already created such a custom button. It toggles a boolean variable from true to false and vice versa in about:config. The status of this variable is shown by the button itself in the form of an image that changes its colour, i.e. its image accordingly. Actually, I created this button for a specific boolean variable, but it can work with any other if you change its code slightly. It works perfectly in New Moon 28 and probably also in other UXP browsers , but in Serpent 55, I really don't know. My custom buttons require the extension Custom Buttons, and I don't know if it is compatible with this browser. Truth be told, I never used Serpent 55 in the past. So I have to test that. Anyway, I will write a post about this custom button in my thread "Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations" soon. So, stay tuned! And, this is the mentioned thread: Kind regards, AstroSkipper

As far as I know, you need a license only for the premium features like real-time protection and so on. Without a licence, Malwarebytes should be able to be used as an offline scanner. Try it and you will see! I own a lifetime license, therefore I never used the free version.

Just to understand my very low result. This 22 years old computer is equipped with an Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.80 GHz CPU (single core, 32 Bit), 1.5 GB SD-RAM and an NVIDIA GeForce 6200 graphic card with 256 MB. All hard disks are connected via IDE. You might understand now why the value is that low. The good and only comforting thing is that I hold the record with the lowest score.

Unfortunately, I observed a new breakage of a web service. The service https://languagetool.org/de doesn't work anymore in New Moon 28 (2022-11-03). This must have been happened recently as some weeks ago it still worked. Same in Mypal 68. In 360ChromePortable 13.5.1030 rebuild 6, no problems at all. It seems to be a JavaScript problem. Here is a screenshot of New Moon with https://languagetool.org/de and the error console opened: Maybe, someone has an idea, or it can be fixed via a polyfill script. Cheers, AstroSkipper

Just to understand my very low result. This 22 years old computer is equipped with an Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.80 GHz CPU (single core, 32 Bit), 1.5 GB SD-RAM and an NVIDIA GeForce 6200 graphic card with 256 MB. All hard disks are connected via IDE. You might understand now why the value is that low.

My test was performed over a direct internet connection via LAN.

FWIW, here is the result of Speedometer 2.1 with New Moon 28, latest version 2022-11-03 on my 22 years old computer. This test lasted a long time. Therefore, no more tests on my old machine from me, unfortunately. Anyway, I thought people need to have something to laugh about here. And of course, I am interested in what values newer computers achieve compared to mine. Cheers, AstroSkipper

Thank you for the link! I had also read this forum post at the time, but sadly its solution was ineffective for me. At that time, I really tested everything! Malwarebytes' support was also involved. There was nothing I hadn't tried. And, I have read all the articles that have ever been published. Therefore, my hope is not very high that the problem can still be solved. But as my Latin teacher always liked to say: "Neues Stück, neues Glück". Translated: "New piece (of text), new luck".

For the old ones, of course! BTW, Malwarebytes' versions 1 and 2 were abandonded. No more definition updates! But, versions 3 and 4 are supported. The last version compatible with Windows XP is Malwarebytes (Premium) for Windows 3.5.1.2522. It still receives definition updates. but no more program updates, of course. Truth be told, I had problems with installing Malwarebytes (Premium) for Windows 3.5.1.2522. On my Windows XP computer, I finally couldn't properly run this version in the past, but others didn't seem to have such problems. Anyway, all a bit strange! Maybe, there was an incompatibility with Avast! I might try it one last time as I have removed Avast! completely in the meanwhile.

I loved this version and used it as an offline scanner for many years. Unfortunately and sadly, it was abandoned, hasn't got any definition updates for a long time, and logically won't get any more, either.

Did it cast you a 'pretty penny'? I have a few pennies that are pretty and shiny. It's a longer story. Oddly enough, I've had various problems with Avast! this year. Will probably write about it at the weekend. Then I will have time for it. One thing I can say: Although I had some concerns about the country of manufacture, WiseVector StopX is a great AV program and requires only few resources in terms of used disk space, RAM usage and CPU load. It's just perfect for an old box like mine! And the software is constantly being developed and maintained, is Windows XP compatible and free of charge. But, you have to configure it very carefully!

If you're talking about X-Chromium, version 49.0.2605.0 rev16 is the last to run on XP. But of course such a version makes no sense at all, as it is far too old. Besides, in this age category, Advanced Chrome Custom Build 54.20.6530.0 is by far the very best.

Interesting! But, these versions including older ones are not compatible with Windows XP, of course. Therefore, only for Windows 7 and higher.

You're welcome! On my computers, I do have a perfectly working imaging system to restore important partitions in a very short time if they are damaged and not recoverable. Has saved my a** a lot of times! Just a tip!

Looks like something has changed in memory management compared to older Chrome or Chromium versions. Hopefully for the better! Hope dies last!

Hope you've got a backup of this partition for recovering if nothing helps. Try to boot into safe mode to see if it works in this mode. Use chkdsk to look for file system errors. Delete all temporary files before. Try to boot again in normal mode. If booting in normal mode is impossible, go back to a previous, working state by using recovery console. In case of recovery is not possible anymore, you should restore your previous, hopefully existing backup. I know much more possibilities to repair a damaged partition but it is too complicated to describe here, and you need appropriate knowledge to perform such interventions, of course. And truth be told, a black screen never bodes well. In most cases, I got a black screen when there was some hardware defective.

Thanks a lot! That are unbiased and objective findings. Same as mine. I think there is nothing more to say.

I see, 360Chrome v13.5 always does something different with one empty tab opened. Today, it uses 100 MB and tomorrow, it will use 500 MB. Sorry, no, your facts and values are useless if they only apply in your system. My little proof shows the inadequacy of your statements. And, who cares how much this browser consumes in your system. Much more important is how it behaves in general. By the way, capital letters are always used by those who shout, and there is absolutely no reason for that. It is rather impolite. There is a nice saying in Germany: "Wer schreit, hat Unrecht." Translated: "Who shouts is wrong."

I am not necessarily a fan of the Chrome browser by nature. On my Android tablet, however, there is no getting around the Chrome browser. I use the latest versions of Opera, Brave and Kiwi there. The original Chrome browser from Google, however, is a real disaster and a data slinger. In Windows XP, I usually try to avoid Chrome browsers if possible. A pure Chrome 102 browser would be a no go for me in any case. I would prefer only good forks or mods of Chrome which consume less resources and are cleaned in terms of telemetry and privacy.

I am glad that with 360Crome 13.5, there is a browser in Windows XP that can load many Googlized and heavy web pages the UXP browsers cannot handle in terms of JavaScript & Co. You did a great job in removing telemetry crap and translating Chinese strings in the past. Thanks for that again, @NotHereToPlayGames! Frankly, I hate to bring you down to earth in your praise of 360Crome 13.5. But, I'm a mathematician, I am always trying to find true statements, verifying or falsifying them, and I'm very good in any calculation. In order to disprove your statement, I use the principle of a counter-example. Your statement: I'm showing 360Chrome v13.5 with only the start tab open to consume 126 MB RAM. My assertion: 360Chrome v13.5 with only an empty tab opened consumes more than 450 MB. Proof: I disabled all my extensions in 360Chrome v13.5 and closed all tabs except one empty tab. I restarted the browser. Here is a screenshot while 360Chrome v13.5 is running. Here is a screenshot of CleanMem after closing 360Chrome v13.5: The RAM usage is shown in two different ways, by CleanMem and Process Hacker. My calculation: First method: Determination of RAM consumption by subtracting two RAM consumption values (360Chrome opened and closed) MEM1 = "Memory used while running 360Chrome v13.5" MEM2 = "Memory used after closing 360Chrome v13.5" RAMUSAGE = "RAM usage of 360Chrome v13.5 with all extensions disabled and only one empty tab opened" RAMUSAGE = MEM1 - MEM2 = 990.70 MB - 522.38 MB = 468.32 MB > 450 MB Second method: Determination of RAM consumption by adding all process usage values There are five processes: 360Loader.exe 4.75 MB 360chrome.exe 124.11 MB 360chrome.exe 113.60 MB 360chrome.exe 115.07 MB 360chrome.exe 119.43 MB Total: 476.96 MB > 450 MB Conclusion: With only one empty tab opened and all extensions disabled, your little darling tragically consumes more than 450 MB. Therefore, your statement is wrong, and my assertion is true. q.e.d. Unfortunately, the truth is this browser is a RAM eating machine at its best. If I enable a few extensions and open one or two more tabs, everything gets much worse, RAM consumption increases enormously, and my system is blocked and no longer responds. For users, having a huge amount of RAM in their computers, no problem at all, of course, but for the others ... Truth be told, I don't know where you get your values from, but in any case, they have nothing to do with reality. Such "facts" are meaningless! Sorry to say that! For me, and I speak only for myself here, 360Chrome v13.5 is not really a no-brainer win. But, using this browser with only one tab opened is possible, of course. And no offence, only real facts and the truth! Kind regards, AstroSkipper

Not using any AV program isn't a good idea, unfortunately. Nowadays, you can't avoid bad code, Drive-by-Download, Drive-by-Infection or malware and so on by using your brain only while surfing the internet. Anyway, I always use an AV program. And also its real-time protection, of course. Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense. And to be fair, Avast! indeed protects the user in any case. I used Avast! Premier for many years without any infection. There are reasons why I changed from Avast! to WiseVector StopX, though. I will write something about it soon.

Thanks, @mina7601! But, social distancing is actually not my problem. It was my first infection despite triple vaccination, and I couldn't avoid the viruses at home.

In the manual and on the QuickHeal homepage, it is claimed that the programs are compatible with Windows XP. Here is a quotation taken from the website of QuickHeal Total Security: Here is the link: https://www.quickheal.com/quick-heal-total-security/ Do they lie? I do not hope so.

Thanks! I will do my best! But life has its own rules!