AstroSkipper

Ok. No problem.

@sparty411 Are you sure about your specifications regarding your internet speed? The unit mb/s does not actually exist. You wrote 300 mb/s. Did you really mean 300 MB/s or perhaps 300 Mbit/s? If you really had a speed of 300 MB/s, then that would be a line with 2400 Mbit/s, which I have never heard of existing for a normal citizen. At least here in Germany. I assume you rather meant 300 Mbit/s (Mbps in English, and very rarely can also found the unit Mb/s).

Or have I overlooked something?

@Dave-H Just for fun, I tried to open the website https://chi.uk2.net/ in 360Chrome 13.5 Build 1030 Redux. I got no green padlock and the hint the connection is not secure when connected in both ways, directly or via ProxHTTPSProxy. I then closed the proxy, deleted all certificates stored in ProxHTTPSProxy's Certs folder and performed an update of the cacert.pem file. I then started the proxy and called up the website https://chi.uk2.net/ again. Now, the connection is reported as secure with a green padlock. Here is a screenshot: I don't know why your credentials are no longer filled in automatically when connected directly but I assume it is certificate related due to the age of 360Chrome. In any case, you should not forget to maintain your ProxHTTPSProxy installation in terms of its certificates, i.e, purging the Certs folder and executing the cacert Updater from time to time.

Just an idea. Have you already patched and removed the limit on TCP connection attempts in the tcpip.sys file in your Windows XP installation? And don't forget to adjust your MTU and RWIN values as Windows XP does not do it automatically! This can be easily done, for example, with the tool SpeedGuide.net TCP Optimizer, currently in the version 4.1.1. The correct MTU value mainly depends on your internet provider and can even be determined with the SG TCP Optimizer tool in the corresponding tab. A suitable RWIN value can also be manually calculated and set in the registry, of course. All values should be then tested to find the optimal ones. In any case, be aware that such fast connection speeds as you are using today didn't exist when Windows XP was developed and still maintained. TBH, I don't know whether Windows XP with its very old network drivers is at all able to handle such high speed you mentioned above. The old Internet tariff I booked years ago has a speed of 25 Mbit/s only, which I can achieve in full on my Windows XP computer, but only with optimal settings mentioned above. However, my old processor wouldn't be able to cope with any more, either. And regarding the QoS Packet Scheduler, I deactivated it from the very first on my standalone Windows XP desktop computer long, long time ago.

Just an idea. Have you already patched and removed the limit on TCP connection attempts in the tcpip.sys file in your Windows XP installation? This can be done, for example, with the tool xp-AntiSpy, or manually following the instructions here: https://www.speedguide.net/articles/windows-xp-sp2-tcpipsys-connection-limit-patch-1497/p-2/ There, you can find a further tool for patching called Event ID 4226 Patcher: http://www.lvllord.de/?lang=en&url=tools Long time ago, I did it with xp-AntiSpy which also creates a backup of the original file.

Resource Hacker is unfortunately no longer compatible with Windows XP. Resource Hacker 5.1.7 is the last XP-compatible installer release. Resource Hacker 5.1.8 is the last XP-compatible portable release. As this thread targets Windows XP only, the original links in my initial post point to the most recent versions which no longer work under Windows XP. Therefore, I'll edit my post to get the correct versions again via archived links from the Wayback Machine. Cheers, AstroSkipper

Update notification! Malware Hunter has been again updated on 08.07.2024 and is now available in version 1.186.0.808. It is still listed to be compatible with Windows XP. Accordingly, I will update my article as soon as I can confirm its XP-compatibility. Cheers, AstroSkipper

Did you also try the most recent version Mypal 68.14.3b? As @feodor2 mentioned in a previous post, he has made a lot of changes and corrections in this new version.

Ditto! I think you've overlooked something again: Cheers, AstroSkipper

You sound arrogant and conceited, was that your intent? Is the forum getting renamed in your honor? This is a quote taken out of context. If you want to quote me, please do it correctly in context! Here is my original statement: What sounds arrogant and conceited about this factual statement? The answer is: nothing. But your subsequent comment is simply inappropriate and superfluous.

Correct. The browser Thorium is in different versions available but none of them is compatible with a CPU SSE only. It works perfectly in New Moon 28 and Serpent 52. Thus, it's a very good recommendation. Try to lower the minversion to 27.10.0 in the install.rdf file inside the xpi archive! Maybe, it works then in New Moon 27.10.0, too. BTW, it was indeed a typo in the user agent string I already corrected.

If you don't have or use an old, weak computer, for example, with a Pentium 3 or 4 CPU, you can't say anything here. The OP has an even older CPU than me. It's a Pentium 3 733 MHz SSE only. Therefore, your observations and assessments are not relevant and unfortunately missing the point. On my old machine with a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz, the Google Search works much faster when using a moblie user agent. And I only refer to the output in the browser. The performance on Google servers are of no interest and has nothing to do with the mobile user agent of the requesting browser. BTW, the difference in speed with or without using a moblie user agent is much more noticeable in Thorium on my computer. But you can only check my statements if you own a comparably old computer.

We are talking here about using a mobile user agent only on google.com. And iin this case, Google Search performs much faster on old, weak computers. Especially in Thorium, it works great. All tested by me on my old machine.

As I already mentioned, you can also test mobile user agents. The advantage of a mobile user agent is that the offered version of a website is very often (but not always) much lighter. Here is a Firefox based mobile user agent originally used by Firefox on Android: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 9; Mobile; rv:125.0) Gecko/125.0 Firefox/125.0 You can lower the Firefox version of this string to a value you like, of course. In New Moon 28, @roytam1 has recently changed the default user agent to the following string: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.7) Goanna/6.7 PaleMoon/33.2 On my Pentium 4 2.8 GHz 32-bit computer, Google works fine with this user agent. In general, one can say that more recent user agent strings lead to a website version with full functionality but unfortunately very often more cumbersome on old, weak computers. But one thing is clear. It is always a game of trial and error. That said you should use a user agent extension for experimenting. Here is a very good one called User Agent Status: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183923-extensions-and-custom-buttons-for-uxp-browsers-corrections-modifications-adjustments-and-special-recommendations/?do=findComment&comment=1250958 At this point, I should mention that I additionally use several user scripts on Google websites in my browsers as, for example, Return Pagination to Google to make it the way I like it. If you have questions to extensions or user scripts, please do that in my thread Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations as our conversation here has unfortunately become off-topic. Any browser related things should be requested in @roytam1's browser thread. Cheers, AstroSkipper

@Hackerman Mozilla/5.0 is the general token that says that the browser is Mozilla-compatible. For historical reasons, almost every browser today sends it. Windows NT 6.1; WOW64 implies that the browser's OS is Windows 7 64-bit. If you want to tell the website you are on Windows XP, you have to change that to Windows NT 5.1. Gecko and Goanna entries are information about used or compatible browser engines. More later.

@roytam1 And did this suggestion help you in any way?

Great progress! As far as I could see, Mypal 68 runs now more smoothly. Hope you can fix the plugins (flash) issue in the next release. @feodor2 I have just noticed that you closed the issue #96 Internationalization & Localization, I initially reported in June 2022 on GitHub, three days ago although all fields on the Troubleshooting Page under the section Internationalization & Localization are still empty in Mypal 68.14.3b. So why did you close this issue? Will the fix come next release?

Thanks for reporting! I also plan to test Mypal 68.14.3b SSE on my old Athon XP 3200+ computer in the next few days. uBlock Origin 1.46 was the last compatible for FF 68. This version should hopefully still work on an SSE only machine. Higher versions also work in Mypal 68 and even the most recent version 1.58 but I checked them on an SSE2 computer. So, try to install uBlock Origin 1.58 first, and you will easily see whether this most recent version of uBO still works on your SSE only computer. If not, try uBlock Origin 1.46. At least, that's what I would do. Regarding the interface language, there are no official language packs for this browser, at least as far as I know. Only a very few made by some users, however, for older versions of Mypal 68. That means Mypal 68 is available in English only. But you can create an own language pack, of course.

I think YouTube is permanently changing code and experimenting with it. And of course, it also depends on the filter lists you are using.

Yes. Lower the user agent in about:config via the general.useragent.override.google.com or general.useragent.override.google.xxx pref where xxx is your country-specific TLD! If it doesn't exist, create this pref as a string one. This is a site-specific user agent. Choosing a mobile user agent for Google is also possible and makes the Google searches even faster.

I've just updated my original post. Cheers, AstroSkipper

Your behaviour here is highly questionable and certainly does not inspire confidence. My decisions and actions are exclusively determined by my knowledge and experience. I control and adjust all system and programme services manually as I know what I do and what I have to do. There is no need for such a crappy batch file . This is what I would do with that file: And your lack of objectivity, your provocations and your insinuations show me clearly that you actually have nothing meaningful to say. From now on, I'll try to do this: . Just to not waste my time with such nonsense.

It can be easily checked whether ports are open and have to be closed or not. If a Windows system is well configured and protected properly by the hardware and software firewalls, there is no need to use such tools you recommended. And certainly not tools that were developed for older operating systems than Windows 7.. As I already stated crystal clearly, I do not simply trust but I deeply check . Both my hardware and software firewalls do a good job, and there is no need for such old tools. And there is definitely no need to run an undocumented batch file of dubious origin to disable various services..

The programme LegacyUpdate has been updated and is now available in version 1.9. Changelog from GitHub: Very important is the hint for Windows XP users on their homepage: I'll also update my original post as soon as possible. Cheers, AstroSkipper