UCyborg

Otherwise, stock YouTube or the rest of the web, always used uBlock Origin extension.

I don't bother with stock YouTube at all ever since I knew about Project VORAPIS. There are no ads in videos out of the box, no content blocker needed, the rest seem to be disableable through a couple of checkboxes. Sponsor segments are more annoying, but I don't watch a lot of stuff on YouTube anyway, so whatever... Not certain about autoplay, there's WATCH_PLAYER_NO_AUTOPLAY checkbox, not sure if it works under all circumstances or at all. Edit: Oh, there's another AD_ITEM further down... Probably the "renderer" items are most prominent.

About that font altering script adding text-shadow property, I do wonder about the line above, is division by 65025 intentional or a typo? Since largest unsigned 16-bit integer happens to be 65535.

@NotHereToPlayGames Yeah, things like that are one of the reasons I rather not have anything to do with people. I feel profound disconnect even from my own family.

I had onboard sound in MSI mode (stock Microsoft driver), installed a dedicated sound card in earlier December, when I tried MSI mode on Creative's driver, insta BSOD going to sleep that looked like the one above. Went back to default (MSI disabled) on both sound devices (onboard still enabled, but unused), going for 15 days without BSOD. Will see what happens after about 1 month mark. I don't recall when I switched GPU and onboard sound to MSI mode. That would be helpful to know.

I'm no friend of programming, so I don't know how, but it does. SSE 4.1 requirement of WASM SIMD is specific to x86/x64. I wonder if full blown WASM requirement is default for web based projects on Microsoft's front these days or can it be avoided by some reconfiguration. That particular website takes about 70 seconds to load on my smartphone that uses a CPU with ARMv7-A instruction set, specifically quad-core Cortex-A7 running at 1,2 GHz. What Intel had over 15+ years ago is kinda irrelevant in my case, all my devices have either AMD or ARM CPU. Just my oldest computer that happens to be my favorite has an AMD CPU from 2009 and AMD didn't implement those SSE 4.1/4.2 instructions until 2011, when they were implemented on Bulldozer-based CPUs along with AVX instructions. I think it's just trying to explain it in layman's terms. Software happens to often have silly names / associated terms when you think about it. Not sure what would be "better". Even if that article is a bit of a hype, do you prefer gaslighting on Pale Moon forum? Every single performance concern is shut down with the likes of "Just use an ad blocker", "You're comparing apples to oranges", "Go back to ChromeZilla, you normie" etc. Doesn't change the reality that UXP based browser is fully usable only if you manage to stick to few select web sites exclusively, otherwise it's a regular freeze, lag, not responding mess. You're better of verifying the issue in the MCP's Pale Moon / Basilisk and reporting on their forum. roytam1 is just random nobody that happens to like compiling browsers for EOS Microsoft's operating systems, reporting most issues here is just useless. In the opinion of certain individuals on the other side and reworded for my own amusement, a lazy f***er who implements hacky workarounds, doesn't support his work and shifts all the support burden to upstream. And I would prefer to live in a world without forced genital "surgeries". Is that too much to ask?

What's with all Half-Life references here lately? Black Mesa, Xen...

Bingo! Normally, it shouldn't exist. Both browsers should go back to normal if you delete the value and restart Windows. Otherwise, you're forcing ASLR off and having old relocation logic in effect, which duplicates DLLs in memory/page file when multiple processes use them. You'd have to find a different value of base address manually then for chrome.dll to avoid collision with another DLL. Each extension is its own process in Chromium.

While it's a good question, the rest of the theory should still apply. I only found https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9560993/how-do-you-disable-aslr-address-space-layout-randomization-on-windows-7-x64.

No. How important is it nowadays to ensure that all my DLLs have non-conflicting base addresses? ASLR mentioned in the article was introduced in Windows Vista. It is, but manual rebasing is a lottery, address chosen by developer obviously doesn't work for @j7n's system.

Holy s***, this site actually wants SSE 4.1. https://donoharm.report/ Looks like .NET (Microsoft) is in the background. I doubt UXP does WASM SIMD at all. Edit: Nope, there's an open issue here. I'll probably play with PCSX2 again whenever I choose to buy a newer PC, the old Phenom is hopeless for these emulators last time I checked (unless you're happy with smooth intro cinematics alone).

Faster CPU alone makes the most practical difference from my own experience. When they were voting on the forum what optimizations should be used in mainline build, they were quite divided between SSE2 and AVX. The difference can be noticed between the two, probably depends on web sites and with what kind of extensions you're bogging the browser down with. Slow down of GUI is quite noticeable with CuteButtons extension due to CSS used, AVX doesn't help with that. WebRender was actually documented to work like 3D game engine.

There are certainly folks that appreciated AVX builds since they were published in early 2022. Those old Phenoms like I have don't even have SSE 4.1/4.2. I don't remember anyone pointing out back then instruction sets might mean something in the future. Today, it's a difference in being able / not being able to run certain software. Still, 15+ years is stretching it and an old CPU will lag behind new ones regardless of extra instruction sets. So long term, it may still not make that much difference if you were to eventually replace the old one anyway.

AFAIK, Pale Moon installer does have a check and they made sure updater wouldn't update the old version to newer AVX version on non-AVX machines. I was trying out 7-zipped version. Intel SDE is new to me. Maybe it was mentioned once on this forum, but I don't remember any discussion trying it out in practice. It sparked my interest after reading about it in some gaming circles. Intel doesn't keep majority of old versions around, no idea why new ones don't emulate anything here. Documentation doesn't mention any special must-have parameters. Too old Windows, maybe it doesn't like CPU for some reason, who knows... While technically interesting experiment, it's obviously not practical. No idea how it works, but however it does, it slows down even CPU-Z, which doesn't require any special instruction sets. I'm aware that MCP doesn't want to target old hardware and I've been following recent developments, so also knew about contributed SSE2 builds right away. Pale Moon actually started out as a recompile of Firefox omitting support for pre-SSE2 CPUs. That was, when, 15 years ago? Now they're back at surpassing Firefox when it comes to CPU requirements. If you look around, some software started requiring AVX earlier, eg. this query on Super User dated almost 8 years ago. Discussions around this particular instruction set seemed to have become more frequent earlier this decade, it has presumably started to become more common requirement since.

There is no check since those are compile-time optimizations, so compiler uses AVX instructions wherever it sees fit when transforming C++ code into machine code which ends up in the final executable file. They still have SSE2 build here, built by one of the members of Pale Moon forum.

It does run normally on capable CPUs natively. Intel SDE slows down even CPU-Z immensely. Not sure if there are any tricks to speed it up (not a developer with proper expertise to use the tool), but I can imagine the goal of making existing compiled Windows executable execute when it normally wouldn't being complicated.

Running official 64-bit AVX optimized version of Pale Moon on an old processor without AVX instruction set through Intel Software Development Emulator version 8.59 (none of the current versions seem to emulate anything here): It launches in over 3 minutes with extensions, loads web pages, but very slowly, practically unusable. Thought it was slow before? Run it through Intel SDE! Now that's real slowness!

I don't know how much of a problem it is here, just heard warning couple of times to not answer unknown foreign numbers. Personally, I haven't had the problem with them so far.

Tried running it using Intel Software Development Emulator on home desktop. Only found the version 8.59 at obscure link that managed to fool CPU-Z and didn't crash Floorp right away. Took over 2 min before the browser window without any content appeared, then it crashed.

Hm, on the technical side, there's not much difference.

// ==UserScript== // @name Font Enhancer // @namespace https://github.com/UCyborg // @description Improves font contrast. Sourced from Chrome Font Super Enhancer. // @version 1.0 // @author UCyborg // @match *://*/* // @grant none // ==/UserScript== 'use strict'; var isRunning; function applyFilter() { var AllElem = document.querySelectorAll(':not(script):not(style):not(area):not(base):not(br):not(col):not(embed):not(hr):not(img):not(input):not(keygen):not(link):not(meta):not(param):not(source):not(track):not(wbr):not(table):not(tbody):not(tr):not(ul)'); for (var i = 0; i < AllElem.length; i++) { for (var j = 0; j < AllElem[i].childNodes.length; j++) { // cycle through element nodes if (AllElem[i].childNodes[j].nodeType === 3 && AllElem[i].childNodes[j].textContent.trim().length > 0) { // is it a text node? if (window.getComputedStyle(AllElem[i]).getPropertyValue('text-shadow') == 'none') { // do not run if text-shadow is already present var Col = window.getComputedStyle(AllElem[i]).getPropertyValue('color').replace(/[^\d,.]/g, '').split(','); // text color array (R/G/B/A) if (typeof(Col[3]) == 'undefined' || Col[3].split('.')[0] == '1') { // run if element does not have an alpha channel already applied var Lum = Math.round(0.2126 * Col[0] + 0.7152 * Col[1] + 0.0722 * Col[2]); // luminosity var Opa = parseFloat(255 * (255 - Lum) / 65025).toFixed(1); // opacity between 0 and 1 if (Lum < 128) { Opa = 1; } AllElem[i].style.setProperty('text-shadow','0 0 0px rgba(' + Col[0] + ',' + Col[1] + ',' + Col[2] + ',' + Opa + ')', 'important'); // set text shadow with alpha } } } } } } function waitAndApplyFilter() { if (typeof(isRunning) != 'undefined') { clearTimeout(isRunning); } isRunning = setTimeout(applyFilter, 100); } const callback = (mutationList, observer) => { // called every time BODY has changed for (const mutation of mutationList) { if (mutation.type === "childList") { waitAndApplyFilter(); } } }; applyFilter(); // Options for the observer (which mutations to observe) const config = { attributes: false, childList: true, subtree: true }; // Create an observer instance linked to the callback function const observer = new MutationObserver(callback); // Start observing the target node for configured mutations observer.observe(document.body, config);

Or just turn that extension's content.js into a user script, that also works. I have no need for dark mode, so threw that part of logic out along with Chrome's extensions' storage logic. Text comes out a bit darker than on Pale Moon, but that's OK.

Chrome Font Super Enhancer makes fonts easier readable for me in typical Chromium. I don't know any other tricks for vanilla Chromium. I wonder if this could be transplanted to Firefox.

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=31930 Dark ages never ended in general IMO.

How do you even enable it in Chromium-based browsers? From what little I looked, Brave has it built-in, but normally doesn't come with the browser. Firefox only has it in about:config unless something changed in recent versions.