Jump to content

AstroSkipper

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,581

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    504

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Germany

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AstroSkipper

  1. AstroSkipper
    The file nssdbm3.dll is missing in your sequence compared with the ones in the previous posts. On purpose or by chance? And why do you think the sequence of the DLL file series is of importance? BTW, I wrote: What are your observations when comparing single-process mode with multiprocess mode in terms of rebasing the DLL file series?
  2. AstroSkipper
    TBH, there are more offline on demand scanners which are most recent in terms of engine and virus defhinitions. For example, eScanAV Anti-Virus Toolkit (MWAV) or RogueKiller Anti-Malware Free. The more rare ones are antimalware programmes with real-time protection in Windows XP. In any case, it is good to list other programmes for Windows XP here, whether they are offline scanners or fully-fledged antimalware programmes with real-time protection.
  3. AstroSkipper
    Update notification! I have revised my article "My essential tools for solving problems in Windows XP — Part 2 — File extractors and packers". 7-Zip has been updated to the version 24.08. And some files in the package UniExtract2 2.0.0 RC 4 Nightly has been updated on 06.07.2024, too. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  4. AstroSkipper
    BTW, I have successfully replaced the old version innounp 0.50 from the most recent beta UniExtract 2.0.0 RC4 Nightly (06.07.2024) by innounp 1.72. Works fine here.
  5. AstroSkipper
    There is a further Windows GUI tool called InnoExtractor which also contains innounp 1.72 and is worth to mention here. Of course, it is compatible with Windows XP (and most probably also with Windows Vista, at least it is listed to be compatible with Vista). Here is the homepage of InnoExtractor: http://www.havysoft.cl/innoextractor.html
  6. AstroSkipper
    Yep! And InnoUnpacker 1.9.4 already contains the most recent version innounp 1.72.
  7. AstroSkipper
    Thanks for reporting! The tool innounp 1.72 from my compatriot Jürgen Rathlev is definitely XP-compatible and works fine here. No need to extract the file cpu-z_2.11-en.exe under Windows 7 or higher.
  8. AstroSkipper
    Yep! I have never used the installer of CPU-Z. The portable version is absolutely enough. Personally, I always prefer portable versions, especially when there is no real reason to use an installer. Thanks for reporting that the version 2.11 is again XP-compatible!
  9. AstroSkipper
    Thanks for reporting! Have you already checked it?
  10. AstroSkipper
    In the case of Mypal 68, however, the effect of rebasing its DLL files is only sustainable in multiprocess mode as the main problem with most browsers is, among other things, the release of memory when tabs are closed. The browser is not inherently prepared to release the amount of memory that a tab requires to load when this tab is closed again. In the course of a browser session, more and more RAM is therefore used that is not actually required but is no longer available to the system and can usually only be released if the browser is closed or restarted by the user. Unfortunately, the effect of rebasing fizzles out very quickly in single-process mode. And even in multiprocess mode, it is necessary to do more than just change the base address of its DLL files to fully enjoy the effect of rebasing in the entire browser session. Especially on systems equipped with a small amount of RAM where every single megabyte counts. In any case, I have managed to configure my installation of Mypal 68 so that the memory occupied by tabs is almost completely released when they are closed again. Of course, without restarting the browser and being a tab hoarder.
  11. AstroSkipper
    Does that mean you followed my suggestion and identified the Icons.Normal.css file as the culprit in terms of the minimising issue?
  12. AstroSkipper
    Yes, this extension alone is enough to cause the delay. To find out whether one of the CSS files inside the extension causes this issue, you could install them via the userchrome.css file in the profile's chrome folder as described on CuteButtons' GitHub page: https://github.com/ChoGGi/CuteButtons If it really works for FF 57+, it will probably work for lower legacy browser versions, too. The advantage of this method is to switch the CSS files on and off to check if one or more of them is the culprit and then perhaps to fix its or their code.
  13. AstroSkipper
    TBH, I no longer use extensions that significantly change the appearance of browser elements, especially if they are not developed further. CuteButtons was last updated in September 2018: https://github.com/ChoGGi/CuteButtons It applies a number of CSS files to change the appearance of menus and buttons. This can quickly lead to problems, which are no longer fixed by the developer. And as you probably know, new browser versions, even of Pale Moon or New Moon, can mean that CSS stylesheets also have to be adapted. Did you already test CuteButtons in a clean profile?
  14. AstroSkipper
    Start Mypal 68, open Process Hacker, right-click on the mypal.exe file and left-click on its Properties! Select then the Memory tab and check the base address range from 0x60000000 to 0x6f000000! If, for example, no other DLL file has the base address 0x60000000 and behind it is enough free address space for the DLL files to be rebased, then of course you can also start with the base address 0x60000000 for rebasing the DLL file series. For testing purpose only, I have rebased the DLL file series to the base address 0x60000000. As I already assumed, it works in the same way as with the other addresses. Here is a screenshot: I should still mention that I checked the base address range before rebasing. The range from 0x60000000 to 0x66700000 was not occupied by any other DLL file.
  15. AstroSkipper
    Start Mypal 68, open Process Hacker, right-click on the mypal.exe file and left-click on its Properties! Select then the Memory tab and check the base address range from 0x60000000 to 0x6f000000! If, for example, no other DLL file has the base address 0x60000000 and behind it is enough free address space for the DLL files to be rebased, then of course you can also start with the base address 0x60000000 for rebasing the DLL file series.
  16. AstroSkipper
    I have just checked the minimisation of the browser window by a left-click on the taskbar entry. However, I can't observe a delay in New Moon 28, even with more tabs open.
  17. AstroSkipper
    Yep, Process Hacker has been my friend for many, many years. It is always running in the background automatically after system start. I also check the free spots with sufficient space by using the Memory tab.
  18. AstroSkipper
    Unfortunately, the idea is not to do what the system does, as without manually rebasing the RAM consumption of Mypal 68 is much higher. The system doesn't seem to automatically assign an optimal base address in terms of RAM usage. So, it is better to manually find a range where the RAM consumption is minimal and all is still working. And the range from 0x60000000 to 0x6f000000 really seems to be a suitable one for DLL files that do not belong to the system.
  19. AstroSkipper
    Counter question. Why does the libase tool automatically select the base address 0x6af00000 for xul.dll, which is exactly in the range from 0x60000000 to 0x6f000000? In any case, this recommendation did not originally come from me, but from an article I found after a research via Google. Here is the decisive section as a quote: This section can be found here: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/35829/Modify-the-Base-Addresses-for-a-DLL-Files-Series And as you see, @UCyborg also seems to prefer addresses inside this range for his DLL file series: And I have also had good experiences with this base address range for DLL files. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  20. AstroSkipper
    In fact, it was uCyborg who first suggested (in Dezember of 2022) rebasing the chrome.dll file in 360Chrome as a measure to curb this browser's hunger for memory and pointed to the tool libase: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184135-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v1352022-rebuild-3/?do=findComment&comment=1232976 On my hardware, rebasing the chrome.dll was a complete success and actually resulted in a significant reduction of 360Chrome's RAM consumption. Since then, I have been experimenting with rebasing browser DLL files. For Chrome/Chromium based browsers it was the chrome.dll, for UXP browsers and for Mypal 68 the xul.dll file. However, it was indeed me who casually remarked here first that rebasing the xul.dll file has a significant, positive effect on the RAM consumption of Mypal 68:
  21. AstroSkipper
    Since I was the one who brought the rebasing of the xul.dll file from Mypal 68 into play and have been doing this for a long time, I would like to know what criteria you used to select the base addresses of the other DLL files. I had suggested the following: The recommended and most suitable address range for DLL files is actually from 0x60000000 through 0x6f000000. Did you already test the additional rebasing of the other DLL files from Mypal 68? What kind of further positive effects did you observe then?
  22. AstroSkipper
    In the most recent release of New Moon 28, I can't observe any difference when minimising the browser window via taskbar menu or title bar button. And that on my old, weak Windows XP computer!
  23. AstroSkipper
    As you surely know, in the software requirements of PCMark04, you can find Windows Media Player listed in the version 9 only. The slightly worse performance with Windows Media Player 11 may well be due to the fact that PCMark04 has not been adapted to this newer WMP version. Apart from that, your measured performance difference is only marginal. I have carried out several tests, and the results were never the same.
  24. AstroSkipper
    Which hoops? TBH, there are none. Of course, only if you have chosen a well-functioning image hoster. In any case, I don't have to permanently delete pictures so that I have storage space for others. Life is too short for posting images via an image hoster, but life is not too short for posting permanently off-topic treatises. Of course! That really makes sense!
  25. AstroSkipper
    You can't do any meaningful hardware performance tests with PCMark inside a VM. You already did that, and as expected, it didn't turn out well. BTW, all your posted images are no longer available. Providing images in this way actually makes no sense at all.
×
×
  • Create New...