VistaLover

i.e. "general.useragent.locale" from "en-US" to whatever the installed LP is (I suspect "ru" for OP...); NB: A browser restart is required for the change to take full effect!

@Anbima As NotHereToPlayGames told you, the site referenced fails to function properly in 360EEv11 because it requires the JS feature called "the Object.fromEntries() method", which was first implemented in Chromium 73 (while 360EEv11 is Ch69-based): ... hence the link to your previous post of Aug 18th (but you've also asked this on Aug 4th and Aug 6th and Aug 17th ) ... Missing "methods" can be polyfilled (please search what a "polyfill" is) and polyfills (in essence, pure JS code written in a syntax compatible with previous standards that the deprecated browser supports) can be inserted in pages via UserScripts; you need to install first a userscript manager, like Tampermonkey (closed-source) or Violentmonkey (open-source, it's the one I use, but v2.13.0 will be the last properly supporting 360EEv11) and write a simple userscript containing the polyfill code... If you're not bothered to even learn how to compose a VERY SIMPLE userscript (that works selectively on shop.brink.eu or, even, globally in the browser), this tells us that you probably like to be "spoon-fed", which won't make you appear very "attractive" in these places... Another way to inject code (a polyfill in this case) is via an extension, but I suspect you writing one from scratch just for that would be "totally out of reach" for you... An obvious solution to your problem(s) - without needing you to learn "very complicated" things - would be updating to a later version of 360EE, v12 (Ch78-based) or v13/13.5 (Ch86-based); on the plus side, many more "recent" sites will be better supported; on the minus side, your (probably old) H/W might not bode well with them... A sort of "spoon-feeding" solution would be to install below extension: https://github.com/InterLinked1/chromefill It isn't available as a .CRX file, but you need to install from zip while being in (extension) Developer Mode (or you can convert the zipped source into a CRX via the browser itself and then install that CRX); the extension provides polyfills for Object.fromEntries and several other methods missing in Chromium 70... Most of the rest of your eventual questions can find answers if you type them in your browser's Search Bar...

@roytam1 : Upstream UXP issue #1977: https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1977 Upstream implementation: https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commit/28e73defa3021293bfd220bbceed04d04fd169e7 https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commit/8a10b7bf8b45952f862f07842d0efb12c4feff04 "Your" implementation, custom branch of your UXP fork tree: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commit/707d74421937e75e0c0581d6ac9facbd83dd20ea https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commit/0c5c349ca688b879c587a7509eea88de46fcc1d1 In file "modules/libpref/init/all.js", upstream have: +// Whether we should play wave files opened in a "media document", i.e. wave +// audio opened as top-level documents, as opposed to inside a media element. +pref("media.wave.play-stand-alone", true); + while you have: +// Whether we should play wave files opened in a "media document", i.e. wave +// audio opened as top-level documents, as opposed to inside a media element. +pref("media.wave.play-stand-alone", false); + i.e. "they" default to "true", while you default to "false"; why?

... Just a small "tidbit", if you will... While FxESR 52.9.x doesn't support the final Draft 28 (later known as RFC 8446) of TLS v1.3, it has support for a previous draft (26?), that can be enabled via setting: security.tls.version.max;4 While the majority of TLSv1.3-enabled sites won't accept that "non-final" draft, a few will; case in point being: https://clienttest.ssllabs.com:8443/ssltest/viewMyClient.html which will report for FxESR 52.9.1 that:

... Spoken like a true mathematician!

... This has come up before in these forums, but @mina7601 is definitely a "he"... Depends on how old.... If you're referring to Chrome 49, EoS version for XP SP3 (SSE2), no, it can't cope adequately with the web of 2022 ... Should use the 360EE forks, based on later Chromium versions (69/78/86) ...

OT : This must have set you back a small fortune, hasn't it? High-End H/W is constantly on the rise here price-wise, due to 1. shortage of rare-earth metals (and other semiconductors) used inside electronics chips 2. exorbitant rises in energy costs (natural gas, electricity, petrol, etc.) - in part due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict - which is reflected in elevated production/transportation costs ... A laptop of those specs can easily cost something near (or above) the neighbourhood of 1,000 Euros here, when the average (monthly) salary is considerably below that ... Take good care of your high-performance laptop, then...

This is indeed correct - most UXP-based browsers are now natively supported in palefill's install.rdf file; it's only Serpent 55 that isn't: https://github.com/martok/palefill/issues/25#issuecomment-1157015223 @Mathwiz is mainly using St55, so perhaps got confused and assumed this is still the case for UXP-based browsers ...

This isn't true ; with the last (semi-)official release (v.1.2.19) of github-wc-polyfill prepared by SeaHOH, the GitLab link posted has no problem fully loading in my latest Serpent 52 copy (manual modification of 1.2.19's install.rdf is required to allow installation in St52): NB that SeaHOH has abandoned further development of github-wc-polyfill, but our own @roytam1 has provided (at least two) updated XPIs for it in below "upstream" issue #68 thread: https://github.com/JustOff/github-wc-polyfill/issues/68#issuecomment-1218104421 So one should install v1.2.19.2 now to keep up with GH's shenanigans ... OT: MSFN's post/comment editor is overly problematic today, I find ...

... Well. most application authors currently behave like sheep , blindly (no offence meant, BTW ) following ONLY what Microsoft supports at the time they release an update for their app... My gut feeling is they didn't go for DirectX 11.2 specifically, rather they dropped support for previous DirectX versions, as these are to be found in OSes MS no longer supports (free of charge, as in not ESU ) ...

... Why would you be off-topic if your query pertains to Serpent 52.9.0 ? Well, here's the long story of it: My complete theme is called Photonic and it was created by Lootyhoof, a member of the upstream MCP dev team, who specialises in Complete Themes for the Pale Moon browser! Photonic had originally support for both Pale Moon (which has a pre-Australis default theme) as well as support for (official) Basilisk (which has the Australis GUI). As such, it was hosted in both https://addons.palemoon.org/themes/ (where it still is) and https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/themes/ In late January, Moonchild halted further development of Basilisk; in May, Photonic was removed from: https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/addon/photonic/ (archived snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20220511055801/https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/addon/photonic/ ) Lootyhoof continued the theme's development, but he removed Basilisk support in versions > 4.0.0... The source code repo for Photonic is: https://github.com/Lootyhoof/photonic A no-longer-maintained mirror is: https://repo.palemoon.org/Lootyhoof/photonic The easiest way to get the last Basilisk-compatible version of Photonic is via GitHub: https://github.com/Lootyhoof/photonic/releases/tag/v4.0.0 But (there's always a "but" for us on "unsupported" OSes+forks), getting that XPI is NOT enough, sadly... As you might know already, (official) Basilisk is meant to run on Win7+, so Photonic's author made sure to use Win7+ specific CSS code during its development ; many of its internal CSS scripts have the below code: @media (-moz-os-version: windows-win7) { which makes sure the theme (is designed for and) properly runs at minimum on Windows 7, only! Additional specific code @media (-moz-os-version: windows-win8) { and @media (-moz-os-version: windows-win10) { configures the theme on Win8/8.1 and Win10 - there's absolutely no provision for the theme running under XP and/or Vista, which are the target (i.e. most frequently used) OSes for Serpent 52.9.0 users... Fortunately, its install.rdf file is compatible with St52, so it doesn't require any modification to install the theme there... But: I don't have XP here to check, so I have no clue how the theme behaves (if and at what degree it works) under an XP installation of Serpent 52.9.0... All I can tell you is that when I first installed it in my Vista SP2 installation of St52, the tab bar was BROKEN/mostly unusable; I had to unpack the theme and apply trial-and-error many times, adding several additional "(-moz-os-version: windows-vista)" conditionals to select script places, to get a properly working tab bar on Vista, keeping full Aero support, too... Along with the theme itself, I'm also using the "Classic Theme Restorer v1.7.8.2019.10.27" extension (by Aris), to further modify it to my liking... A glimpse of what it looks like as I type this is: I understand Photonic (being an abandonware for Basilisk, at least for now) is susceptible to future partial/complete breakage, as Serpent 52 is being further developed - though, TBH, I don't expect "deal-breakers", as "upstream" very infrequently touch the GUI code; some minor bugs did fall under my radar, but I'm willing to live with them for the time being... So, now you know!

With respect, the way I understood his query was that he wasn't disputing whether package files whitelisted by ALL VT engines exist, but how many of them in total... It would appear the two of us interpreted somewhat differently @Dave-H's query, but only he can clarify that further ; all's well, BTW . It's the same web extension (but in .CRX format) I had advised installing in all three 360EE variants, which lack a native spell-checking feature . Thanks for your kind words you two , but I'm not worthy of more praise than any of the rest of the MSFN members/volunteers, who offer help to others out of their spare time (I'm actually typing this being on vacation) and without charging a (euro)cent for it! I find I can't be omnipresent in all the various places of MSFN, so, Mozilla-based browsers being a field of expertise, I tend to offer help there (and now I should probably stop derailing this thread any further ... ) ! tschüß

... Right ! Like you, I need to put my (presbyopia) glasses on... I now see (glasses on) that the VT test refers to "ProxyPopMenu.bat" file... He in fact wrote: Which browser is used to post these? Installing an en-US/en-GB dictionary in the browser and enabling spell-checking will flag misspelled English words as you type them, before you make the post public (i.e. submit it); that way, you can still improve your English along the way, but keep your posts (mostly) error-free ! E.g. in St52, if I misspell its past tense, "misspelled", it would appear as below: That way, I'm alerted I typed something wrong and then try to correct it!

Hmmm... The picture only shows that all which AV engines whitelisted the complete package file "ProxyPopMenu.bat", NOT which files inside the complete package were found to be benign, which, I believe, was what was actually queried by @Dave-H ... ... English lesson of the day! Should've been: "Batch files themselves" (if you were going to use the plural number ) ... Thanks for your efforts, BTW!

This behaviour is controlled by a Google SSUAO; latest Serpent 52.9.0 has it as: general.useragent.override.google.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:71.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/71.0 Basilisk/52.9.0 i.e. it spoofs itself as Fx 71.0; result: (that one above is with its dark theme enabled - selection is stored inside a cookie ) If you're in the habit of using localised Google TLDs (e.g. google.co.uk) other than ".com", you need create additional SSUAOs for these...

Most unfortunately, @martok isn't willing to "fix" Bank sites in UXP-based browsers through his extension : https://github.com/martok/palefill/issues/38#issuecomment-1192738141 The reasons he cites are security-related ...

Welcome to the MSFN forums! As a general rule, consulting your browser's Web Console/Browser Console/Error Console will provide useful hints/clues as to the "why" : ... and even if that's "Greek" to you, it'll give prospective helpers a general idea... The ING Bank site relies heavily on customElements, a web spec (part of the Web Components JS+CSS framework) discussed, by pure coincidence , in posts of this thread's previous page... CE/WC is a technology originally created by Google (they currently are the only ones who dictate how the web should evolve ), the upstream developers of UXP/Pale Moon, due in part to their aversion of anything Google, put WC support inside UXP in the "back-burner", so to speak; truth be told, there still exist major technical issues to backport/glue-in all of WC to the platform, which, as you might already know, evolved from a now quite "old" Mozilla Firefox forkpoint... CE/WC are currently behind a disabled pref, in an incomplete/immature developmental state... Third party extension authors try. with various success and targeting selected URLs only, to mitigate lack of CE/WC support in UXP-based browsers ; at this point in time, the extension which holds the best promise for UXP users is one maintained by your compatriot Sebastian Hütter, aka martok, which is called palefill: https://github.com/martok/palefill/releases Install the XPI file linked in that page and then kindly ask him to include support for ING Bank, by filing an issue (GitHub account required): https://github.com/martok/palefill/issues From my initial testing, implementing support would be as easy as adding in file "./lib/builtin-rules.js" below code: exports = String.raw` +www.ing.de + std-customElements +! -- developer.apple.com std-customElements For your convenience, I have prepared myself a patched XPI file of palefill, (.XPI file attachment removed on 202208160022Z) that you are free to test; works as intended here (under latest St52): Later addition: Bank sites are a major pain in the posterior for "legacy"/non-mainstream web engines, because Bank IT staff insist on using the very latest Web Specs in them (even ones that haven't yet made it to final state, though this is not the case for CE/WC), as they think it gives the higher members of the Bank's hierarchy (who probably know little about web development), as well as most of the Bank's clientele, a false sense of "on-line security" ... I'm not saying Bank sites should stick to TLS 1.0/1.1 to merely satisfy old browsers, but not always using the latest Google-derived "shinies" won't make their sites (and their customers' interactions) less secure, would it?

This is a known and long-standing issue for both UXP-based browsers (such as Serpent 52.9.0), as well as the test Serpent 55.0.0/moebius builds... https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1344 (Part of https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1361 ) ... Turns out I had already toggled "dom.enable_performance_observer" in Serpent 52.9.0, too, without even realising ; so it appears that the default setting in UXP-based browsers as well as in St55 is to have "PerformanceObserver()" disabled, for whatever reason...

Finally, I did find some time (actually, a quite big chunk of time ) to troubleshoot the "about:support" instant crash in recent NM27 builds... The last build (buildID=20220722014511) without the crash (LastGOOD) was from package: palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20220723-b6b16147cc-xpmod.7z while the first build (buildID=20220729155323) exhibiting the crash (FirstBAD) was from package: palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20220730-93f97225b6-xpmod.7z More recent NM27 releases still crash here when "about:support" is being loaded... In my dirty NM27 profile, the OS crash report is as below: Problem signature: Problem Event Name: BEX Application Name: palemoon.exe Application Version: 27.10.0.7727 Application Timestamp: 62e4040f Fault Module Name: StackHash_a950 Fault Module Version: 0.0.0.0 Fault Module Timestamp: 00000000 Exception Offset: 00000000 Exception Code: c0000005 Exception Data: 00000008 OS Version: 6.0.6003.2.2.0.768.3 Locale ID: 1032 Additional Information 1: a950 Additional Information 2: c07297ba8acc6462e9fe86ee369f49b9 Additional Information 3: 0a9c Additional Information 4: 524d1a1d9730c6e8f6d176ea5e0fcd20 In a new, fresh, NM27 profile, "about:support" loads OK as expected... In safe mode, my dirty profile ALSO CRASHES, which means the crash isn't (probably) being caused by an extension, but rather because of one (or more) of my user-modified "about:config" prefs (file "prefs.js" inside my NM27 profile). That file is quite big in my case; many entries are originating from extension settings, so these could be disregarded (because the crash happens even in safe mode), but that still left me with a large number of candidate culprits... To cut a long story short, after a lengthy trial-and-error procedure, I managed to isolate the culprit pref: webgl.force-enabled;true It was a remnant from some time ago (probably more than a year), as a result of me force-enabling WebGL in older builds of NM27 in this laptop... That way, I could get in "about:support" => Graphics: WebGL Renderer: Google Inc. -- ANGLE (Mobile Intel(R) 965 Express Chipset Family Direct3D9Ex vs_3_0 ps_3_0) Now that I had discovered the culprit pref, I toggled it to "false" (the default), but in doing so I discovered two additional bits: 1. In the LastGOOD build (see above), that pref has no bearing at all, because even in its default state of "false", WebGL Renderer was set to ANGLE (no force-enabling is required); as noted, "about:support" loads fine... 2. In the FirstBAD build (see above), and all builds released after it, WebGL Renderer now shows as "Blocked for your graphics driver version": Force-enabling WebGL in the "BAD" builds (requires a browser restart) will cause the "about:support" internal page to crash the whole browser - I see this as a regression/bug... The source-code changelog between "LastGOOD" and "FirstBAD" builds is: https://github.com/roytam1/palemoon27/compare/b6b1614...93f9722 The only one WebGL-related change is - Bug 1191042 - Use CreateOffscreen for WebGL instead of CreateHeadless. - r=jrmuizel (f98fd02e59) which altered source files: dom/canvas/WebGLContext.cpp dom/canvas/WebGLContext.h dom/canvas/WebGLContextState.cpp dom/canvas/WebGLContextUtils.cpp (plus some test files...) @roytam1 : Any insight from your part? This old (Toshiba) laptop has a vendor-modified, proprietary, gfx driver, I had already updated to the last the vendor released for this laptop model ...

Not seeing this one here: Actually, the feature (first implemented in Firefox Quantum 57) is currently in Moebius behind a pref, disabled by default: "dom.enable_performance_observer;false" I can't recall now why then upstream - MCP - had it disabled , but you can of course toggle it to true and get the same results as St52 on that GitHub test page... More info here

I would have worded it myself:

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)...

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...).

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...

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...