UCyborg

Guten Tag! Yes, fixed it couple of minutes later, you still had original post loaded. I wished for GeForce 6200 back in the day. When I was looking, it was the only card still available for AGP bus. Definitely better than GeForce4 MX 440. Before 3DMark, there was Final Reality (Second Reality vibes). It has reference to Max Payne released few years later.

And then Adieu, Goodbye, Auf Wiedersehen for today? I feel like you guys are making another bloated thread on MSFN. 5 pages already xD

Everyone hates children. Till Lindemann - Ich hasse Kinder Embedding links is still broken, can't submit a post with embedded link.

I think this is hardcoded. It completed in 22 minutes here.

I just use fastest computer available 99% of the time. Simpler and leaner web browsers aren't as compatible.

Unigine Valley XP x64 (not Server 2003) - D3D9 10 build 19042 x64 - D3D9 10 build 19042 x64 - D3D11 On XP, it outputs my graphics card twice , presumably something not being handled right due to multi-monitor setup. I modified Valley.exe on Windows 10 with Resource Hacker according to this, otherwise it would show it's running on Windows 8. Didn't try OpenGL this time, should be close to D3D modes, it was with similar Unigine Heaven benchmark.

I didn't submit. I bet online service for it is long gone. PCMark05 has been irrelevant for a long time now.

This is the only official source by the developers. Completed all tests. All eye candy in Windows enabled by default. I was missing WM Encoder, so I installed it, wasn't sure if 64-bit would be fine, so installed 32-bit just in case, but otherwise, I never needed it before, I rarely manipulate media files. Disk tests were performed on 1 TB HDD WD WD10EZEX, memory is DDR2, 2x 2 GB Mushkin 996671 in first 2 slots and another 2 GB no-name Kingston in 3rd slot, all supposedly 800 MHz, but the mismatching Kingston slows things down to 667 MHz (add some MHz due to slight overclock), guess due to timings.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-4-280GHz-vs-Intel-Atom-N270/m3163vsm2697

// This binary is a workaround for Windows 10 start menu pinning icon bug: // https://crbug.com/732357. // // When a shortcut is pinned in the Windows 10 start menu Windows will follow // the shortcut, find the target executable, look for a <target>.manifest file // in the same directory and use the icon specified in there for the start menu // pin. Because bookmark app shortcuts are shortcuts to Chrome (plus a few // command line parameters) Windows ends up using the Chrome icon specified in // chrome.VisualElementsManifest.xml instead of the site's icon stored inside // the shortcut. // // The chrome_proxy.exe binary workaround "fixes" this by having bookmark app // shortcuts target chrome_proxy.exe instead of chrome.exe such that Windows // won't find a manifest and falls back to using the shortcut's icons as // originally intended. Source: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/chrome/chrome_proxy/chrome_proxy_main_win.cc (file may change in the future) Edit: Oops, @NotHereToPlayGames beat me to it. Still, quoting current comment doesn't hurt.

I tend to be on the latest Pale Moon (33.3.0 at the time of writing) on Win10 most of the time. Upstream project of course, but it's important reference. Edit: Just tried recently released New Moon 28 (2024-08-21) on work Win10 laptop and no issue on 4pda.to.

I know what I want.

I don't have that one working bare-hardware Windows 7 installation that I used to have anymore, so can't re-check. I mostly moved on from pre-Win10 OSes, even when it comes to tinkering on the side.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using Thorium or Supermium on Win10 if one likes either of these browsers. I haven't installed plain Google Chrome in years.

I want my foreskin (prepuce) back too. My mind surely wouldn't be as dark if they just left me be. What a backwards world that this still has to be discussed in 2024.

Anything interesting in console or on Network tab in developer's tools?

Oops, I missed a little detail, you might want to have spare CPU cores for Facebook. Because one keeps being hammered at the very least. On Supermium on XP, even two can be hammered while viewing single tab. And I thought this s*** only happens on UXP browsers. So my not so bad evaluation for FB came from my PC still being usable and not paying attention to CPU, but taking this into account... This is why you need gaming PC for web these days. Because that behavior is normal for games.

Setup is made with Inno Setup 6.3.0, which supports Windows 7 and newer. The program itself however still works on XP x64. But what does latest and greatest enhance in evaluating EOL CPU on EOL OS?

Scrolling too far? FB isn't that bad, all things considered. I can imagine the tab's process running out of memory if running 32-bit browser. I mean, all that content must be stored somewhere. Does memory at least get released when navigating away? LOL, consumption on my FB front page is about 205 MB with Firefox 110 here, without scrolling down of course. I got to 2 GB scrolling one random page, then I stopped, should replace 32-bit Firefox with 64-bit at some point. Not that I really need to go that far on any such heavy page, but since I got the hardware... Well, honestly, consumption could be heavily reduced by employing pagination, but why do that when everyone has gigabytes of RAM and can keep people hooked without having to click to navigate to new page.

54 videos in, no popup, that's enough for today. The only constant is change.

Looks I'll be waiting for that popup for quite some time. Probably not worth continuing at this point. 32 videos in, only thing wrong is that tab keeps hammering one CPU core at 100% when focused even if video is paused. I'd also need that script @NotHereToPlayGames mentioned that prevents the other popup that pauses video for inactivity / being away from the computer to be able to leave it unattended. Sure, it may work for the few of us, but uBO has large user base, there are many websites out there, and it's a fact that both filter authors' and users' feedback shaped it to become like it is today. Thanks, I'm aware of it, though I don't feel it to be needed for me at this time. Also, well, Firefox with more recent uBO is just a click away. Sure, it's a bit different, but honestly it's not that bad even if my ramblings here would have you believe otherwise. I'm more bothered by other things in life that don't have to do with computers.

Sure, it was just a test of defaults and to see if there are any visible side effects of running newer scriptlets from upstream uBO in UXP browsers when running my version. I know for a fact not all of them behave equally, like the one dealing with Shadow Roots... But that one is not used on YouTube. I also know your defaults rely on an old rule calling active scriptlet in legacy filter list, this list isn't getting much care and JustOff's version of uBO never included scriptlets that current day default filters call for dealing with YouTube. As said above, it was just a test, I normally use my version supporting a bit more functionality, of course I have some of my own rules in there (medium mode, explicitly blocking some JavaScript files that don't seem to provide any functionality on the YouTube that I can tell). Ads weren't a problem for me in a long time, except few days ago when uBO corrupted its scriptlets somehow, purged the cache and triggered the update to get it working again. The popup about blocking ads on YouTube is new to me and so far seems to be rare occurrence. I don't seek out larger amount of content on YouTube in general. But using UXP based browser, in my case Pale Moon in this age presents some unique challenges, it's updated enough to be good enough most of the time for my humble needs and allows me to have nice font rendering (except some odd fonts encountered on some websites), colorful tabs, glassy interface, full blown PDF reader/editor in a browser tab (in my case PDF-XChange Editor) and some other bells and whistles. On the other hand, we don't have a single modern content blocker, only ancient version of uBO, to which I ported some of the smaller things, but it's a drop in the ocean. I'm not dedicated programmer, rather anti-talent at the whole thing, otherwise, I'd probably be employed somewhere to earn money with programming since you have to work a job anyway to get by unless you won a lottery or your parents are millionaires and gave you resources to get by. So we have what we have. Someone said Pale Moon is Arch Linux of web browsers, except not bleeding edge.

I think debuggers like x64dbg are more useful for this than hex editors alone. Resource editor would be helpful in the case there's a value stored in one of those that could be changed. But finding the code that does the whiteness won't be easy. I can't give you any exact hints, tampering with programs without source presents unique challenges, anything you're trying to change will be its own unique problem. Microsoft does publish debug symbols for its DLLs, don't know how helpful they'd be in this case, but they should give some meaningful names to some functions/variables in the otherwise a long mess if x86-64 code. The guys that were hacking DWM since Windows 8 to add transparency and blurring effects were altering code flow in dwmcore.dll and uDWM.dll. At least Big Muscle's Aero Glass does, if I remember its log snippets correctly. dwmcore.dll should be the guts of DWM, judging by name and size. Also, unlike 99% other things one could be tampering with, you can't debug a compositor "live", unless there are tricks to setup remote debugging somehow, so you work for instance with DWM in a virtual machine rather physical host. Sure you can look at the code alone, change it, save a copy of modified DLL, put it in place of original, restart and hope you did something, but setting breakpoints and stepping through it to see what's going on, that won't work, as soon as it's paused, screen will stop refreshing.

I disabled my version of uBO that I normally use, closed the browser, cleared uBO's SQLite database using Clear-Content cmdlet from PowerShell, opened the browser again, installed @AstroSkipper's version 1.16.4.35, updated lists, left everything at factory defaults. Opened the first playlist @NotHereToPlayGames linked in a private window, selected the option to reject cookies on cookie popup, got a video ad on the second video: I'm now repeating the test with my version, but left at factory defaults, my usual config blocks more. I'll just let it run for few hours, at 7th video now, no video ads so far, the popup may appear or it may not, who knows, my past experience shows it may be rare for my usage patterns. But there's also another unique fact about that session I had opened since Wednesday, YouTube's JavaScript was crapping out in the browser on some pages with critical errors in console, eg. it would happen that I'd only get the video screen with nothing on the right and below. This crapping out could theoretically prevent popup if it was going to show, but it doesn't matter as it probably wasn't in the crapped up state when it did show up, though that's just optimistic guess, with UXP you never really know since its state is so easily messed up to require browser restart to clean up. Also the following user scripts are always active here: Simple YouTube Age Restriction Bypass Youtube polymer engine fixes Return YouTube Dislike