Jody Thornton

Here's an example of how our buddy Matty Tobin (and the Pale Moon suck-up Sajadi) are NOT AT ALL helpful. https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24573 And they wonder why people will migrate away from Pale Moon. Spiff up guys and be nicer. Actually help people. And never mind that fifty threads were already made on this - just help people. If YouTube stops working, your browsers are screwed.

Well it seems any day now (though likely September 2020), the Polymer 2 will be the ONLY way to view YouTube. What is the consensus on this? I don't use XP, but I was using Pale Moon and it will also be affected. What are the plans of many of you moving forward?

Thanks @erpdude8. I used to update this page fairly regularly, but I just haven't had the time anymore. @greenhillmaniac and you are the best. :)

Try Explorer++ - I use it on Windows 8. It really does look a lot like XP Explorer the way I have it set up.

Thanks so much @jaclaz. I've always known that the Windows 9x format command stepped up the cluster size for that reason of efficiency and limitations. I had also known however that there was an undocumented cluster format feature, which you've explained to me. Thanks again. You're in Italy right? How have things been where you are, in terms of the current crisis? Stay healthy

Hey folks! I've searched high and low for the answer to this, so I hope I'm not repeating this question. What would like to know is this: Can I format a 2 TB partition (as in a USB portable HDD) using FAT32 but with 512 byte clusters? I'm aware the NT-family OSs only create 32 GB FAT32 partitions, so let's just assume I create the partition with a third party application. That aside, is it safe to create a large partition with such a small cluster size? Performance (as in speed) is NOT a priority. I simply want to cram as much as I can on to a backup drive and lessen the overhead used by NTFS. I'm sure a large FAT32 partition will be as slow as snot. Also, will the FAT table become too large (or at least larger than the MFT of an equivalent sized NTFS partition?) Thanks all! :)

So how are you getting updates past January 2020? Are these paid support updates (ala Windows 7 style)?

I mentioned this in a previous thread. I wish I could go back to using ESR 60 (which is a Quantum build) and then back port updates to it. I'm having difficulty finding a way to accomplish that.

Hey @roytam1 I've searched through the forum and can't seem to find the answer (so I apologize for a duplicate post if that's the case). On my folks' New Moon 27 installation on an XP SP3 notebook, I see no fill-in or movement of the Downloads progress bars or the site loading progress on the Status Bar. They were running a September 2019 build of v27.9.6, but I upgraded them to an April 2020 build of 27.9.7. I've tried safe mode, a default theme, etc.... Is this a known issue? Thanks for yours (or anyone's) help. Cheers! :)

Just remember that Waterfox has been purchase by a search/advertising company, so even there I'd be weary of its future.

@vinifera True, but I want the base to be at ESR 60, not anything newer. Then I would want updates backported to it, no differently than Waterfox Classic is to 56, Basilisk is to 52, and so forth. I don't like any Quantum releases past 60x. 60 ESR was modern enough, yet configurable enough. Anyway, no biggie. I just wanted to see if it was possible, and then I could approach someone who is possibly open to it. I know MSFN's focus is elsewhere, which is perfectly fine. Cheers!

@Matt A. Tobin Not that you'd want to - just that it was possible. I found Quantum v57 to 60 to be rather brisk and well performing. Now I find that Mozilla is going down a questionable path. I find that Quantum was a performance improvement over Australis, and I tend to prefer the Photon look. But now that many prefs are being deprecated, and Google seems to be in control of Mozilla's future, things look scary.

Well I wasn't talking specifically about anything coming out of the Moonchild/Binary Outcast factories. I was a fan of early Quantum releases, and I just wondered how easy (for a developer/coder), it would be to build ESR 60 with modern updates backported to it (kinda like how Basilisk 55 is maintained here, without XP compatibility). Never hurts to ask.

Well I tried it myself. It tends to record and playback somewhat choppy with/without Direct2D and Hardware Acceleration enabled, so now I know. Basilisk 52 (as in the original product) it is. :)

However, there must be a collective experience thus far as o how Serpent 55 and 52 compare. And yes, I understand that the whole two threads can be read through, but I'm sure someone can offer up a synopsis. I appreciate it. :)

Well, you never know if you never ask, and I brought up the subject on Ghacks, so I thought I might as here.

Hey guys just a question. As it stands now in April 2020, is there a still a major compatibilitiy reason to run Serpent 55 as opposed to 52? I run Windows 8 with the original Basilisk as my backup browser, because I need to use a web application that requires WebRTC? If I were to use Serpent 55 instead, would there be better compatibility provided? Is performance better? Any downsides to Serpent 55 as it stands?

@Bruninho I'm not aiming for system or OS target specifics. I'm aiming for browser release specifics. No differently than Waterfox Classic aims for Firefox 56 or Basilisk aims for Firefox 52. No need to shoot you ....lol. But it's perfectly OK to have different mandates for projects. So don't shoot me either when I believe people shouldn't use Windows 2000 or 9x/ME on a modern web. Those releases should be relegated to antique shops or graveyards. :P - OK I'm kidding a little, but really....lol

I figured so, but what I was more or less asking if it actually "could" be done; I wasn't asking that you be the one to do it. :)

@roytam1 and @Matt A. Tobin Good morning. I hope you are doing well. This question is more from a point of seeking advice, or creating an idea. I'm not attempting to saddle either of you with more work in any way whatsoever. Could there be any possibility of building/compiling a browser based on Firefox ESR 60, and backporting updates to it from newer releases of Firefox? I understand that it would be WebExtensions only (since I really would only use uBlock Origin - that would be OK). But could a near future-proof browser be built on the ESR 60 base? I only ask since I REALLY like Quantum between versions 57 and 60 ESR. It looked modern and worked exceptionally well with Windows 8, but was still somewhat configurable, even with just CSS code. Thanks for your advice.

I saw that. Figured they just went for another month :)

How about Lunar Moon (for New Moon 27x and 28x)? Has that been suggested already? Lunar contains "Luna" for XP. Just a thought. :)

I really loved Windows 2000. I guess with the help of a Roytam1 browser, it can remain usable. KernelEx sure must help a lot, but it's hard to gauge how stable it has been with all of the sorted threads throughout the years. Well, I'm glad to see it's usable for you.

@Dylan Cruz, My slipstream was only done with Vista updates up until February 2014. I cannot speak to slipstreaming Server 2008 updates into the Vista installation DVD. I was perfectly OK with manually installing updates post 2013. So I won't be of much help I'm afraid,

Well whadda ya know? February updates for 2012 include an IE10 update (kb4537767). I thought updates past January were only for IE11? Interesting.