Jump to content

VistaLover

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,245

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Greece

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VistaLover

  1. VistaLover
    Is this something upstream should be notified about , or do the crashes happen because: a) "our" UXP tree has significantly diverged from upstream's? b) upstream target MS VS2022 compiler for their Windows builds (themselves targeting Win7SP1+), whereas "we" still target MS VS2015 and WinXP+ ?
  2. VistaLover
    ... Do you happen to know the last (portable) version to do so, additionally the last one for Vista? EDIT: It appears the last Vista-compatible release was v0.6.3 : based on Chromium 85; when the author upgraded to Chromium 86 core, Vista support was lost and he could not restore it ... Also:
  3. VistaLover
    Official Pale Moon 32.0.0 Language Pack can be installed in latest NM28 if "install.rdf" is edited (lower <em:minVersion> to accommodate NM28); it works for the most part: Sadly, some less-used parts of the GUI (e.g. Web Developer Tools) are partially broken... This is because PM and NM[28]'s LPs are no more fully interchangeable... FWIW, all Roy's browsers are meant to be "en-US" locale, only...
  4. VistaLover
    "Personally", I'd stick with whatever browser on Win7SP1 is based on Chromium 109 (EoS for that OS), for as long as it still meets my browsing requirements ... ALL the forks to be found here in this thread basically target WinXP/Vista and even the UXP-based ones (NM28/St52) still fall considerably behind, web-compat-wise, Chromium 109 (and are very unlikely to catch up with it in a timely fashion, if ever...). I'd also keep an eye on the Win7 "communities" and the Chinese browser market (), as was the case with XP until recently , some Chromium 109+ codebase is bound to be backported to Win7... Additionally, there's promise in the air for a "Win7-Extended-Kernel", so not all things are "doom-and-gloom" ... FWIW, Mozilla Firefox still supports that OS, with no official cut-off date announced yet...
  5. VistaLover
    No (the site employs dynamic module import, "import()", very unlikely to be implemented in UXP platform any time soon ) ... ... Of course it does! https://caniuse.com/es6-module-dynamic-import
  6. VistaLover
    ... Thanks ; so, does that mean the Wiki article I referenced is at fault?
  7. VistaLover
    @msfntor : The good news (be it OT here) is that https://www.darkreading.com/ does load in latest Serpent 52 , however the font they're using does not render well: The solution is to block "remote fonts" in uBO: Back on topic, as much as you (or @XPerceniol for that matter) are enamoured with your DCBrowser , the hard fact remains it (the last XP-compatible version) is based on Chromium 75, whereas all the 360EEv13.x varieties are based on Chromium 86; mind you, "86" is now considered quite "old", too, with Google Chrome being at version 109 (and higher versions even dropping support for Win7SP1 ) ... I can easily replicate your issue with 360EEv12 (Chromium 78 based): Javascript Console error is enlightening: Syntax error is generated because the site (rather a framework the site depends upon) requires support for "?.", the optional chaining operator, first implemented in Chromium 80 (hence why 360EEv13 works ); sadly, operators can't be polyfilled (only transpiled, but at a very steep cost to performance ); nothing that would help your very aged JS engine of DCBrowser, am afraid... In the future, it'b be best to accept that webpage rendering issues in DC are due to it being obsolete when it faces the web of 2023+; make provisions to migrate to something newer (browser, OS, whatever...); this is a hard reality the majority of us face currently... Bon après-midi ...
  8. VistaLover
    ... But the original query there was about "32-bit application support", which I assumed to mean "32-bit application support" under a 64-bit (Vista) OS ... And I believe the screenshot there relates to such a use-case (just take a closer look at the UA...) .... Being a user of 32-bit Vista myself, I'd be the first to welcome any good news about Vista ExtKernel supporting the 32-bit OS archictecture, but it seems we're not there yet...
  9. VistaLover
    ... Both official applications (Interlink Mail & News by Binary Outcast and IceApe-UXP by Hyperbola) build upon the official UXP platform, which itself spawned from the Mozilla Firefox 52.6.0esr platform... Roy had already forked his own "smorgasbord" version of UXP (where XP/Vista support was reinstated), so the release of the Mail News and Iceape forks was just a matter of adapting the front-end codebases to his own version of UXP... FTR, there's also Icedove offered, a fork of Icedove-UXP ... Common denominator here being UXP ... ... I don't think this is intentional, if it is a thing at all, but rather a consequence ... When the SM 2.49.x branch was still alive, members here did talk about it, but when the SM devs had no other option but to move away from it to a fresher codebase, sadly no longer compatible with XP (/Vista) (popular "among these parts of the community"), the "interest" of members here inevitably waned ... Probably this ; whatever the Gecko version SM builds upon, it still uses Rust, and for someone "here" to "potentially" attempt an XP backport, he/she must find a way to backport that "Gecko version" to XP first, before dealing with the SM front-end code... That's why I mentioned Feodor[2] previously... Unless we're talking about a SM 2.49.6+ application patched to build upon Roy's UXP platform; but that wouldn't be much different to existing Iceape 52, would it?
  10. VistaLover
    @Reino Please read (and follow contained GH links) below GH comment: https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/issues/71#issuecomment-1403998251 In short, the first extension has now become an abandonware; its last maintainer recommends migration to the second, which has a "broader" application (not limited to GH/GL) ...
  11. VistaLover
    ... You're probably mixing it up with WaterFox Classic , which is indeed based on Fx56 ... SM 2.53.x branch is forked from a Firefox ESR 60.x code snapshot, specifically SM versions > 2.53.4 are based on FxESR 60.8 ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey Feodor (a one-person "act") has managed to port FxESR 68 to WinXP/WinVista via his MyPal 68 project, though that involved using a custom, XP-compatible, version of the Rust coding language ... If the SM project are to take a similar route, then backporting SM 2.53.x (FxESR 60.x-based) to WinXP/Vista doesn't "sound" unfeasible... But I seriously doubt they'll be interested ...
  12. VistaLover
    https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Errors/Missing_colon_after_property_id Applies, too, on the Stocks-Exchange site referenced by @anton12 , above... But impractical if one is still on XP/Vista (or even Win7, if latest Chromium 110+ is in question ) ...
  13. VistaLover
    ... Is this some kind of contest? Does one get a prize if one can render the site? ... Joking aside , it would've sufficed to just say the site doesn't load as expected for you... Supplying (Web|Browser|Error) Console output would've been nice, too... The linked "site" is just another web app tailored for Chromium-based browsers ... Web Console in latest St52 reeks of multiple CSP errors; if you temporarily disable CSP in one of the UXP-based browsers, "security.csp.enable" => "false" then the "numbers", at least, for that Stocks-Exchange site will load and display "fully": Even with CSP disabled (poses a security risk), that site has other "rendering" issues in UXP, because of missing JS features: XML Parsing Error: no root element found Location: https://wsjstream.wsj.net/bg2/signalr/abort?transport=webSockets&clientProtocol=2.1&connectionToken=15c256c8-9be0-46b4-8f02-7df8f2457d77%3A&connectionData=[{"name"%3A"mainhub"}]&_=1674749518810 Line Number 1, Column 1: ... TypeError: e is undefined[Learn More] djcmp.min.1.0.37.js:1:36053
  14. VistaLover
    In latest St52 [v52.9.0 (2023-01-19) (32-bit)] and uBO-1.16.4.31b2 by @hawkeye116477, "Online Malicious URL Blocklist" is listed inside the "malware domains" section of the stock lists: In my specific "old" profile, its content is outdated, dating back to 2021/12/25: As reported, the list won't self-update, and the reason is the list has migrated to newer URIs: https://gitlab.com/malware-filter/urlhaus-filter#urlhaus-malicious-url-blocklist https://gitlab.com/malware-filter/urlhaus-filter#url-based Like nicolaas, I subscribed myself to the "Lite" version of the list ... BTW, "uBlock₀ filters – Quick fixes" was added, too, as a custom list: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/master/filters/quick-fixes.txt
  15. VistaLover
    ... Which browser exactly is this about? ... And, possibly the most important part , which "version" of uBlock Origin Legacy with? Thirdly, which native and/or additional custom filter lists are being enabled under 3rd-party-filters tab? If, by any chance, you're currently using your "home-brewed" uBO-legacy version (or this mod), humour me and make a test using the "original" 1.16.4.31b2 version by @hawkeye116477 ; a complete uninstall of whatever uBO version is currently installed is required, followed by purging the sqlite database "./<profileDir>/extension-data/ublock0.sqlite", restarting the browser and making a clean install of the "hawkeye" version... I don't use youtube extensively in St52 myself, but when I tested the uBO mod(s) in which "assets.json" was transplanted from later WE versions of uBO, youtube pre-roll ads was an unwelcome side-effect ; it would appear (some of) the "assets" imported from uBO-WE have syntax not palatable to the older JS engine of uBO-legacy ... FTR, your test video played here without any pre-roll ads even after 10 consecutive loadings... Yes, I'm still using the "hawkeye" build myself ...
  16. VistaLover
    @msfntor : I'm afraid your last comment is out of place here ... The extension you suggested is a WebExtension one, meant for Chromium-based browsers... The query by nicolaas presumably has to do with the UXP-based browsers and uBlockO-legacy ...
  17. VistaLover
    Official Basilisk 1) does not support WebExtensions 2) Uses Pale Moon "sync", which has zero provision for WEs, as they've never been supported there ... The St52 fork has kept a good degree (still inferior to Fx52esr's) of WE-support (hence "webextensions.*" prefs), however it has inherited PM Sync from upstream Bk... Fx52esr, OTOH, is still (!) able to connect to Mozilla Firefox Sync service, so there's no parity between WE-sync in St52 and Fx52esr... What really begs the question here is why would SponsorBlock-5.1.8 require that pref to be set to true, if the user has no intention of syncing this WE across other devices... FWIW, AMO carries an updated version 5.1.11, advertised to be compatible with Fx48+ (but I rarely trust AMO when it comes to backwards compatibility ; they usually only check on the latest ESR and Release versions ) ...
  18. VistaLover
    @msfntor: https://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-storymaps/reference/system-requirements.htm FWIW, this "web app" does not load in the UXP browsers (St52/NM28) because UXP does NOT support "dynamic module import":
  19. VistaLover
    ... Please, remove links to unofficial/3rd party Windows OS re-distributions, as these are not allowed here and could easily get you permanently banned ... Your main query should be best directed at the place you got the .ISO from ...
  20. VistaLover
    ... Sadly, when I repeated that experiment here (Vista SP2 32-bit), I got this: Edit: DW reports issues with St52's "mozglue.dll" file:
  21. VistaLover
    Serpent 52 lacks an "about:permissions" "internal" page... However, once on a specific URL, you can access a mic/camera permission setting via "context menu -> View Page Info -> Permissions" tab:
  22. VistaLover
    : Web Components/Custom Elements : https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components#custom_elements (most of this was implemented in Firefox [Quantum] 63 (/ Chromium 53), partial implementations were behind a disabled "about:config" pref in earlier Fx versions...) .
  23. VistaLover
    ... But he did explicitly state he did NOT use a "vistaexkernsetup" to deploy it: AIUI, he had to install an (unofficial) Vista SP2 x64 .iso (made by a third party), with "a" version of the ExtKernel slipped-in... Only the person that made the ISO knows the exact version of the ExtKernel that was integrated in the ISO, @Voxo simply inquires whether it's at all possible to identify "that" version post ISO-install...
  24. VistaLover
    @NotHereToPlayGames : Official Pale Moon (and, as a consequence, NM), has never supported WebRTC, which is required for (most) online-services accessing the mic and/or camera... Serpent 52's WebRTC implementation, despite being standards-compliant (the claim by "upstream"), is generally not "well-digested" by recent "chat/telephony" services, which expect the type of WebRTC found in recent Chromium incarnations... It's actually UXP issues 1279, 1285 , 1286, 2056 , all fixed by martok's (the author of palefill) PR #2060 (I believe martok was paid a bounty by MCP for his contribution). The merged code landed first on Roy's browsers (actually, ahead of upstream ) with the Xmas Eve releases ... ... Don't make decisions based on sheer enthusiasm ... That was just ONE long-standing UXP shortcoming that was fixed... Chromium 86 is years ahead in JS features in demand by the recent "web"... UXP still lacks a full and proper WC/CE implementation (that's why palefill exists for just a handful of sites), plus lacks "dynamic module import" support and a few other "deal-breakers" ... And UXP is still developed as a single-process platform; might have been good back then in 2016-7, but what about now when one tab might "host" a full-blown web app (with 10s of MBs of js code, e.g. web discord/desktop YT, etc.)? Especially on older H/W most of us here use, that "one tab" stalls the whole browser GUI by itself ... I'd stay with 360EEv13.5 myself (especially if WebRTC is a "must") ...
  25. VistaLover
    Someone else, sometime ago, did succeed into compiling py3.4.10_x86: http://matejhorvat.si/en/windows/python/index.htm I have been successfully running that in my Vista SP2 32-bit machine for over two years now ... Python 3.4.10 (default, Jul 14 2019, 14:41:03) [MSC v.1600 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> It is WinXP SP3 compatible, however I'm not sure it'll run on a non-SSE2 CPU ... BTW, many thanks for those FFmpeg builds...
×
×
  • Create New...