Jump to content

VistaLover

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,100

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Greece

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VistaLover

  1. VistaLover
    I would have worded it myself:
  2. VistaLover
    I made an error previously regarding Ch49 Google Store extension support, this is the now corrected part: The way I meant it was: Imagine a fresh installation of either Windows XP SP3 or Vista SP2; while the installer of Google Chrome 49.0 is still recoverable, building a fresh profile of it with a set of many useful (and usable) extensions is currently very difficult, if the "Store" is the only source of extensions (and, as I recall, Chrome 49 will not permanently install unsigned extensions from other repos) ... This is what I have been constantly doing since the start of this year, making an archive of all indispensable Chrome extensions to be used alongside any of the three 360EE variants; MV3 requires at least Chrome 88 by definition, most sadly there hasn't been (yet?) produced a Chrome 88+ fork that would run under Vista SP2/XP SP3 (NB: I'm talking here about 32-bit OSes) ... ... And if you disable ChromeFill and restart browser, you'll find more "REDs" (belonging to APIs you have polyfilled in the extension)...
  3. VistaLover
    Without me sounding pessimistic, any effort in 2022 targeting Chrome 49, for the benefit of XP/Vista users, is a futile one... Chrome 49 is extremely outdated by today's WebCompat standards, not to mention security-wise (has more holes than Swiss cheese... ). It's practically unsupported by Google Store, as it only supports up to CRX2 + MV2 extensions, when most CRX2 ones have already been removed from the store (updates only come as CRX3-packaged) and MV2 ones are being phased out en mass in 2022 (and would be fully deprecated in 2023); not to mention the fact current/active extension authors only target the most recent versions of Chrome; I keep a copy of it myself, and I can tell you it's a "dead man walking"... Under XP, you'd definitely need to couple it with a TLS 1.2/1.3 "secure proxy" to access most of today's sites, but page rendering will be dire... If you intend to bridge all the missing Web APIs introduced after Ch49 (to, say, Chrome 70 level) via polyfills, that would be a pharaonic task, if at all feasible... But be my guest, of course... With just GitHub in mind, they provide a utility/wizard with which one can inspect all MISSING Web APIs in the client (browser) for it to fully support their latest GitHub incarnation: https://github.github.com/browser-support/ Currently, latest St52 has as missing (in RED) only "customElements" and "RegExp Named Capture Groups", so support for those has to be implemented via an extension (i.e. palefill); I fear that wizard, if at all rendered properly in Chrome 49, would have many RED entries... Using the wizard with declining Chrome versions (starting at v69 and going down by one major version), you can test which minimum version is currently supported by the extension as-is and then decide how "low" in the Chrome versions you want/is feasible to extend support to (on the availability of polyfills for the missing APIs as you go down the range...).
  4. VistaLover
    ChromeFill isn't intended for such an old a Chromium version, unfortunately... BTW, and this has been discussed quite a few times in the MSFN forums, be it in the past, Advanced Chrome wasn't in reality based on Chrome 54; much of it is in essence Chromium 48 based, with only traces of code borrowed from Ch49/52/54... @InterLinked should have been more verbose in his README.md and/or enforce a minimum Chrome version in his extension's manifest.json, so as not to create false expectations... I haven't tested fully all the range of Chrome versions in which the extension successfully restores GitHub and other supported sites, but as an educated guess I'd claim that anything under Chrome 68(-ish) is currently unsupported... As I stated already, ChromeFill for XP/Vista users currently only targets 360EEv11/12...
  5. VistaLover
    Since you have posted in this very thread, be informed it is mostly frequented by Windows XP die-hards, plus a few (like myself) Vista "bastions" ; H/W is fully relevant here, because those under old, under-resourced, H/W will prefer those two 360EE versions I cited, as being more "gentle" towards system resources... Those with more "juice" can opt for 360EEv13/13.5 (Ch86-based) and/or MiniBrowser (Ch87-based); BTW, as I'm sure you do know already, Iron 70 (Ch70-based) with the "non-screwed" Chromium GUI requires at minimum Win7 SP1...
  6. VistaLover
    For GitHub exclusively, you may want to have a look at https://github.com/martok/palefill/issues/29#issuecomment-1186046465 and https://github.com/dirkf/palefill/commits/df-optchain-patch https://github.com/dirkf/palefill/releases/tag/v1.19df The dev(s) use simple transpiling JS code for just those two operators, nothing more (the rest can be handled by polyfills, like already done in your extension). You might have to ask kindly though , because the dev(s) are primarily concerned with SM 2.53.12 and/or PM < 31 support... Target groups for a "fixed" GitHub via your extension, ChromeFill, would be most XP+Vista users on low-end H/W, currently using 360EEv11 (Ch69-based) and/or 360EEv12 (Ch78-based) ... I would have been quite taken aback, had they actually done something ... GitHub's fate is under Microsoft's rule for years now, they're currently focused on their latest crapware/adware Windows 11 OS, together with their illicit lovechild, Microsoft Edge (the "fruit" of them having intercourse with Google ...); I'm confident they don't give a rat's a** about Net Neutrality or have any iota of intention to support those marginal "few" still on browser-engines not compatible with the evil operators (already implemented in Chrome 80...); BTW, I did "upvote" your - currently still "unanswered" - GH community issue; 3 weeks have now gone by, it's quite telling that no official GH dev will act on it...
  7. VistaLover
    @AstroSkipper : Most fortunately, Feodor2 has now implemented support for both (?.)+(??) in Mypal68: https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/commit/43621d4ff863a03e80b39056ca360a992c2adb16 https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal68/commit/2c4b98e1644707f29bbc6849e89d352e87ca1ef6 so #60 and, by consequence, #109 are now closed! Latest Mypal 68.12.5b should be able to handle GitHub correctly now... So, UXP-based browsers+palefill, 360EEv13[.5], Minibrowser87 and Mypal 68.12.5b are a set of browsers that can handle GH under XP/Vista ...
  8. VistaLover
    Right : https://github.com/janekptacijarabaci/greasemonkey/commit/60ded5b304d2fb616e61137e9209bb7993b55a9b Please, don't take it as a personal offence, as it was not meant that way... If you're an extension author yourself/quite savvy with browser code and the Javascript language, then I'm quite confident you'll find ways of getting out of whatever "predicament" you find yourself into by not "playing by the rules"... However, the layman user of Serpent 52 (under XP/Vista or, even, 7) will be much better off by doing "things" the recommended way; then it'd be more easy for a volunteer helper (like myself) to troubleshoot reported breakages and offer remedies, if/when possible... I am also of an adventurous "nature", but this trait has sometimes necessitated a complete browser profile rebuilt from scratch, which, depending on the original profile, can last from many hours to even day(s) ; I'd never myself promote "behaviour" that would end up in someone having to rebuild one's browser profile... In the past, I was a Mozilla Nightly Tester (v22.0a1 to v53.0a1), Firefox Nightly was being released then once a day (currently twice daily), profile "breakages" were quite frequent between updates, so one was never to mix profiles even between Firefox Nightly versions... While indeed Basilisk 52 (and, thus, Serpent 52) began its existence as an offspring of Mozilla Firefox 52.6.0 (this is an over-simplification; UXP-take 2 - the platform - began its life as a fork of Mozilla ESR 52.6.0 platform), the close affinity between them might have been a "thing" in early 2019, possibly for somewhat longer, but due to extensive work by upstream (MCP), the two platforms/applications have, by now, diverged so greatly, that their profiles are no longer interchangeable! My 2c/2p (etc.): Never mix profiles between browsers (obviously when they belong to the same "family"), or between different versions of the same browser (and Google/Mozilla have made it now impossible to successfully "downgrade" profiles, as profile migration is only ONE-WAY exclusive: from an older to a newer browser version). UXP-based browsers (and forks) have kept support for old and unmaintained Firefox "legacy" extensions; where the UXP community has created UXP-specific versions of those, it is wise to move on to such an extension fork... E.g., Stylem should be used as the de facto UserStyle manager over the Firefox-specific, old, Stylish v2.0.7/2.1.1... Kindest regards
  9. VistaLover
    To all other members reading this, PLEASE NEVER DO THAT! Not playing by the "rules" makes you ineligible for help, at least as far as I'm concerned... Nothing to be wary of GMFPM - its maintainer is/was a member of the MCP team of devs... I've been using it for years without the slightest issue... What is, in this case? I provided detailed, foolproof, instructions for the migration of GM 3.17 => GMFPM 3.31.4 (which is fully compatible with UXP browsers), but you're unwilling to even test it (you can always use a test St52 profile) ... BTW, people still using FxESR52 in 2022, except for some marginal cases like Firefox Sync, should migrate ASAP to St52, not only for security reasons, but mainly for WebCompat ones... Nothing too complicated for a die-hard Windows XP(/Vista) user, trust me...
  10. VistaLover
    As I've written countless times in the past, Serpent 52.9.0 != Firefox 52.9.x As such, you should NEVER mix profiles between FxESR52 and St52/St55! For UXP-based browsers (like St52), the UserScript Manager of choice is: Greasemonkey for Pale Moon Despite its name, it's also suitable for Serpent 52/55; first 1. Uninstall your very old GM (for Fx) v3.17 (its settings should be kept inside "about:config", already installed scripts should remain intact inside your St52 profile) - restart browser. 2. Install file "greasemonkey-3.31.4-pm_forkBranch.xpi" - restart browser. 3. Installed userscripts and GM settings should have been carried over to GMFPM-3.31.4 Another option for St52 if you only wish to modify web content is ViolentMonkey (a web-extension, NOT backwards-compatible with GM); latest v2.13.0.23b works fine in my copy of St52...
  11. VistaLover
    Package filename: palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20220730-93f97225b6-xpmod.7z New Moon 27 Version: 27.10.0 (32-bit) (2022-07-29) BuildID=20220729155323 The whole application crashes when loading "about:support": In my case, I had "Troubleshooting Information" as a pinned tab and Session Restore enabled, thus the browser was crashing as soon as the session was being restored ... Took me a while to figure out what was going on... The "Inspect Element" bug doesn't seem to be fully rectified - while the Inspector (DevTools) might eventually open (after causing the browser to "freeze" for some secs), its behaviour depends on the page inspected - an MSFN test page worked OK, but a GitHub test page soon provoked the infamous appcrash... Whatever upstream are doing with Developer Tools, they're starting to break my favourite NM27 dark theme (FT DeepDark 9.5.4); not their fault, I know, since that complete theme was targeting originally Firefox 27 - and even had to be modified slightly to accommodate official Pale Moon 27.9.4 - but just saying this as an observation ...
  12. VistaLover
    @roytam1 : https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28657
  13. VistaLover
    Can reproduce with latest NM27 32-bit under Vista SP2 x86: Problem signature: Problem Event Name: APPCRASH Application Name: palemoon.exe Application Version: 27.10.0.7727 Application Timestamp: 62da024b Fault Module Name: xul.dll Fault Module Version: 27.10.0.7727 Fault Module Timestamp: 62da026f Exception Code: c0000005 Exception Offset: 0122a660 OS Version: 6.0.6003.2.2.0.768.3 Locale ID: 1032 Additional Information 1: ef08 Additional Information 2: e843b82e31d7bb84f8cbb577ae9ed614 Additional Information 3: a87d Additional Information 4: a9d0854f3fbdbdee05b525a298a8be0e
  14. VistaLover
    Well, it definitely DOESN'T work under Vista SP2 (32-bit); in the main "bin" folder, Sanbrowser.exe chrome_proxy.exe both call functions not present in Vista's kernel32.dll ; things are much worse inside the "92.0.4482.0" subdir: chrome_pwa_launcher.exe notification_helper.exe chrome.dll chrome_elf.dll mojo_core.dll vk_swiftshader.dll ... ALL call (from 1 to as many as 30) missing kernel functions under Vista SP2... E.g. below are DW results for chrome.dll: (14 missing functions in total in kernel32, 5 in user32.dll, 1 in advapi32.dll, 5 in mfplat.dll, 1 in shell32.dll, 1 in cfgmgr32.dll, 1 in powrprof.dll and 2 in mf.dll), and chrome_elf.dll:
  15. VistaLover
    SanBrowser is a Chinese product, that's one thing for sure... The installer for latest version v1.0.2.30 (from one year ago) has been digitally signed on July 25th 2021, the certificate issued by "Shenzhen SanShangYun Technology Co., Ltd". The downloaded setup is of a custom format that can't be unpacked with any of the known tools in my possession ; that surely made it impossible for me to inspect internal .EXE and .DLL files with Dependency Walker, to check for Vista SP2 compatibility ... And when I read their "Privacy" disclaimer: https://www.sanbrowser.com/privacy , it became a "no go" for me to even attempt running that Chinese-made installer ... So, I'll pass the baton on to someone else more adventurous, I guess ...
  16. VistaLover
    For starters, Softpedia isn't the official vendor of 360 products, the Chinese firm Qihoo is... The browser linked in that SP page is, in fact, 360 Secure Browser/Explorer (a "relative" of the more widely familiar here 360 Extreme Explorer), which is mainly targeting mainland China and is bundled with Qihoo's "Security" products... Official download page: https://browser.360.cn/se/ Support forum (in Chinese): https://bbs.360.cn/forum.php?mod=forumdisplay&fid=141 https://bbs.360.cn/thread-15948589-1-1.html Newly released version 13.1.6066.0 is based on Chromium 86 core: i.e. the exact same core 360EEv13/13.5 are built on... Unless Qihoo have backported security fixes for publicly released CVEs from Google, I see no real merit on choosing this over the "sanitised" 360EEv13.x versions offered here in MSFN... For those of you feeling more adventurous, "Russian-Board" Forum thread for 360SE: http://forum.ru-board.com/topic.cgi?forum=2&topic=5854&start=0 "X-Portable" Russified+"cleaned-up" packages are linked there-in (but for older version 13.1.1774.0) ... As cautioned by Dave, NEVER run Chinese installers directly (extract the minimum set of required browser engine files and launch via portable launcher...) !
  17. VistaLover
    In that case, I would advise myself the following article: https://chromium.woolyss.com/#privacy and especially its section How to really be anonymous on the Web? All in all, a splendid read! However, privacy and/or anonymity on today's web (and using today's devices) is just a fallacy ...
  18. VistaLover
    ... Speculations only, for the time being ... Nothing official coming from MS themselves: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/07/15/it-looks-as-if-microsoft-could-extend-windows-7-support-by-three-years/ Source (in German): https://www.deskmodder.de/blog/2022/07/13/kb5015861-kb5015862-windows-7-sicherheitsupdate-juli-2022/ (mirrored by: https://techlog360.com/microsoft-plans-to-extend-support-for-windows-7-until-2026/ https://winaero.com/microsoft-intends-to-extend-paid-support-for-windows-7-until-2026/ and many others... )
  19. VistaLover
    ... and "too" (often in the end of the sentence, often in conjunction with an exclamation mark) in the case of an affirmation preceding it: - I don't love you! - I don't love you, either! vs - I love you! - I love you, too!
  20. VistaLover
    No, am afraid it isn't right... "either" is always associated with a negation preceding it: "The Euro European currency isn't used in the United Kingdom (they use the Pound Sterling there); it isn't used in Denmark, either (they use the Danish Krone). What you should've written, probably, would be: "It (Pluto) works in German (language/subs, etc.), too!" @Dave-His a native en-GB speaker, so I'd like very much to hear his view on this...
  21. VistaLover
    I'm treading on OT ground right now, but yes, you're right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_TV Sadly, not available in my parts... OT2: If you're using an online translating service for posting, do note that "either" in your posts is often out of context, you'd probably need "too" in its place: "it works and in German either" => "it works in Germany, too" (or: "it also works in Germany"); please, I'm not in any way criticising your English (it isn't my mother tongue either, I'm also prone to errors, spelling or otherwise), just a friendly hint... Best greetings
  22. VistaLover
    One might also consider the fact many of the free offerings may be geo-blocked (e.g. YouTube Movies do offer "free" movies, but mainly in the US...); and using a VPN isn't much help, especially if you need your Google Account+credit card to sign-in/watch (because Google demand you associate it with your mobile phone number, IIANM...). I was under the impression "Free" G-Movies required you to "rent" one first with a sanctioned credit card, except for the fact the charge would be USD0.00 in that case... Another concern of mine is that most "movie" providing services listed in "yidio" (e.g AppleTV, Amazon Prime, Google Play Store, Paramount+, Hulu, Showtime, etc. ) ALL employ DRM (WidevineCDM), even for "free" content; Widevine isn't compatible with XP/Vista (thanks, Google ) ... BOTH only available in the US... (Later edit: Pluto appears to be available in select European locations: UK, Germany, Austria) The real question remains unanswered: Why does currently the desktop version of "yidio" NOT display in UXP-based browsers?
  23. VistaLover
    ... However, @XPerceniol is using MSFN itself to attach screengrabs, not an external third-party service like you (dropbox) and me (imgur), so by using PNGs rather than JPGs he'll run out of MSFN attachment space much sooner...
  24. VistaLover
    Funnily enough, the yidio URI referenced, https://www.yidio.com/movies/filter/free loads as expected in my copy of 360EEv11 (Russian RePack, i.e. none of the modified versions offered by the two MSFN members ) :
  25. VistaLover
    Sure thing , especially for the "UK version" of LNER originally referenced (that does load mis-formatted); but in the case of the "international" version of LNER, older browser engines never go as far as loading CF CSS code ; they simply "barf" early on (yielding blank tabs), due to the fact the infringing Javascript code contains no less than 84 instances of "?." (optional chaining operator) and no less than 19 instances of "??" (nullish coalescing operator) ... BTW, latest St52 does support both of them, but the cause of breakage there is something else: SyntaxError: bad method definition app.4510a2428834b09c7e40.js:7:1223 Perhaps @roytam1 could be kind enough to share some insight on this...
×
×
  • Create New...