VistaLover

Confirmed here, using Serpent 52.9.0; it would appear their web player has been optimised for recent browser engines only, because player-related scripts they serve make UXP choke , due to unsupported regexp: FWIW, I had no issues logging-in to either google.com/youtube.com with Serpent 52.9.0 (so, not with NM28 ); St52 has a built-in SSUAO for google, general.useragent.override.google.com;Mozilla/5.0 (%OS_SLICE% rv:71.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/71.0 Basilisk/52.9.0 which, I firmly believe, is the reason I didn't get the "not secure browser" message/error...

... I am a bit perplexed myself, now... I initially recommended v1.7.8.2019.10.27 (pre-release/preview) for Serpent 52 users, then, after the discovery of v1.7.8, I recommended the latter... BUT, release date of the former is 22 Jan 2019, while of the latter is 24 Oct 2018; it appears that "2019" contain changes not documented in the repo's code, because https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/compare/1.7.8.2019...1.7.8 => There isn’t anything to compare. 1.7.8.2019 and 1.7.8 are identical But I have verified the "2019" versions do contain the change below option which is still left in v1.7.8 (but switching it ON/OFF doesn't affect latest Serpent 52); in any case, if you're on v1.7.8.2019.10.27, you probably can safely stay there... Apologies for unnecessary alarm...

You're welcome ; but, there's more... Unbeknownst to me, Aris-t2 has uploaded and archived the FINAL version of CTR, v1.7.8: https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/releases/tag/1.7.8 v1.7.8.2019.10.27 was a "preview" and has been installed here (St52) since it was first made available ; it simply still works as expected; no prompt to update it to v1.7.8 was ever shown to me, but I just manually did that, and all went OK; so should you ! TL;DR: All Serpent 52.9.0 users who wish to modify the default Australis GUI must install (or upgrade to) the last/final version of CTR, v1.7.8 Later edit : Please read below While we're at it, your AOM screenshot "smells" of a previous Firefox profile transplant, which is something I have always strongly discouraged Firefox52-migrants to do when switching over to Serpent 52/55... ADB Helper ? Valence ? Do you have any need for these two? (Firefox) Greasemonkey 3.11 should be better substituted with https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/search/?terms=greasemonkey (which should direct you to greasemonkey-3.31.4-pm_forkBranch.xpi) Old YouTube: No longer works In general, if Basilisk-specific updated/forked versions of old Firefox extensions exist, I would advise St52 users to switch to them; my 2c, of course...

@Tomcat76: Have you tried to update CTR v1.6.9.1 to the Basilisk-specific version 1.7.8.2019.10.27 ? https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/releases/tag/1.7.8.2019 I'm not seeing the AOM breakage you report (still on St52 2021-10-08 here); it probably has to do with an extension/setting of yours that affects the AOM; does it happen on a fresh St52 profile, after installing a test extension? if not, the culprit exists within your current, dirty, profile... Sadly, I have to leave now for a few hours, thus not able to offer anything more substantial as help...

... Nah, not surprised myself... ; the Pale Moon unstable channel was terminated last September (in fairness, not many were using it ) and official Basilisk is in a perpetual BETA status; so, the end recipient is expected to be the guinea pig... Plus, I think MCP's judgement has been impacted lately, namely with their semi-psychotic perception of enemies everywhere, and dealing with this "threat" is what consumes most of their energy currently (e.g. alienating former co-devs, moving to private repos, DMCA-ing fork repos, etc.) ... I recollect saying in these threads that MCP were "good" at removing existing (inherited) code - like WinXP/WinVista/Android/MacOS/EME/WebRTC/WebExtension/Container/Firefox legacy extension/FUEL/marqee support (and probably other things I forget about), but not that good at writing original new code to tackle the demands of the Chromium-dominated web... This latest blunder negates the first part of my assessment... But, I guess, I shouldn't be that harsh; everyones's entitled to a "bad day"/"happens in the best of families"/etc.

... All I can tell you is that 2021.11.13 was BAD, https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27581 https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=221571#p221571 thus, 2021.11.14 had to be rush-released... BTW, I never cease to admire you for your unwavering dedication to us all...

Official Basilisk 52.9.2021.11.14 has been released, a day after a botched 52.9.2021.11.13 release... ; platform-wise, I expect it to be on par with Pale Moon 29.4.2.1, but is there something application-specific we could port over to Serpent 52.9.0? http://archive.palemoon.org/source/basilisk-2021.11.13-source.tar.xz https://fossies.org/diffs/basilisk/2021.09.27_vs_2021.11.13/ http://archive.palemoon.org/source/basilisk-2021.11.14-source.tar.xz https://fossies.org/diffs/basilisk/2021.11.13_vs_2021.11.14/ @roytam1, what do you think?

... I realise you're feeling desperate, but... your request for help was noted the first time around; posting multiple identical requests in the same page thread and within a very short timespan won't expedite things for you... ; assuming what you ask for even exists among MSFN members... Please, revisit Forum rule 2.a: I understand the "letter" of it might not fully apply here, but the "spirit" of it does... Kind regards

-- Disclaimer -- Those questions in themselves can be regarded (by some) as off-topic here, so providing answers to them might be also construed as derailing the thread ; however, since they were asked by an esteemed member of this community (who has, in the past, also contributed code to these roytam1 browsers), I kindly ask those few "allergic" to off-topic content to move along and ignore this... Now that's been settled : Yes, both official UXP browsers (Pale Moon, Basilisk) could be compiled for MacOS (aka Darwin) with some slight tinkering, because the platform did contain that support; those third-party (beta) builds were never fully endorsed by MCP, but, let's just say, existed on their sufferance . ... The MacOS user community had been mostly active on PM (beta) builds, e.g. https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/62312/pale-moon And Moonchild was also "generous" enough to accommodate a subforum for Mac users (now locked in oblivion): https://forum.palemoon.org/viewforum.php?f=41 But the leading dev duo (MC+MAT) was never really satisfied with the "efforts" put by the MacOS build maintainers, giving them hard time if/when even slightly deviating from the duo's "vision" of how things should be "properly" handled... All too familiar here by the way they treated feodor's/roytam1's XP forks... Then, Apple gave them the perfect excuse they wanted : last March, the die was cast : End of Macintosh support https://www.palemoon.org/roadmap.shtml This would leave existing users of "macPM" on Intel CPU Macs without future support, a situation reminiscent of XP+Vista users (on older H/W) and MCP's obstinate refusal to support their code/apps on older WinOses... The last macPM release was v29.1.0; the Mac build maintainer (now banned in the PM forums) expressed his intentions to continue releasing Mac builds (by restoring code MCP remove - does it sound familiar?) and, as you'd expect, that caused both MAT+MC to burn fuses... The macPM build was rebranded to White Star since v29.1.1, the author had to evacuate PM forum and move on to his own site ... Another party has rebranded official Basilisk to Silver and offers Mac builds of it, too... https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26686 https://github.com/siggi90/NoobSilver https://dbsoft.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=54 @Mathwiz, I hope I covered your queries somehow...

The redirection to the mobile version of youtube.com in "recent" NM27 builds is done via a modified SSUAO (inside about:config): general.useragent.override.youtube.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.4.2) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Safari/534.30 You can change the value of that pref to a desktop UA and, if you feel comfortable with the much more resource-hungry desktop yt version, you should be able to load again www.youtube.com URLs: general.useragent.override.youtube.com;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 PaleMoon/27.9.6

Would you care to elaborate, please?

Pale Moon 29.4.2.1 has been released :

Yesterday (Nov 9th, 2021), the Chinese Flash distributor released officially v34.0.0.201 to its (Chinese) users:

Agreed, but my quoted post refers to a specific scenario: 1. 360EEv12/13 has the user apply the official DARK skin 2. The "flag" (#enable-force-dark) hasn't been touched, i.e. left in its "Default" value (which has the same effect as "Disabled", unless on Win10+ with OS Dark Mode). v12/13 advertise a dark browser skin to compatible sites even when the "flag" isn't enabled/active; under these conditions, several "compatible" sites offer a setting/preference to override the darkCSS served by default, and others don't; of the first group, a subset only offer that setting when the user is logged-in; I thought I was clear the first time around...

Thanks for testing ; to conclude, WU claims a successful installation "status" for MSRT, but this doesn't infer successful running of the "installed" file (i.e. actual scan of the system for Malicious Software ) ... If only we could figure out how the "hard" OS-version-check is implemented...

v5.95 has been already uploaded to MUC; please download the standalone x64 file, https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=KB890830 (WS2008 compatible variant:) https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/ScopedViewInline.aspx?updateid=ba94649b-e7e7-46ec-8369-9f97804c6dab http://download.windowsupdate.com/d/msdownload/update/software/uprl/2021/11/windows-kb890830-x64-v5.95_6ea7900c5dc32947ae0f05ffa0b168912fe42627.exe and attempt to run it locally; while I can understand that MU is detecting and downloading that update successfully (since the MU "hack" spoofs Vista as WS2008), if you're able to successfully launch/run the local file, I suspect latest Extended Kernel files/settings play a role in that (e.g. because of spoofing the OS as Win7 ). +1

Fairly recent Chromium and Firefox based browsers have a way of advertising to sites the skin (GUI) mode (light | dark) they're on; to accommodate, many sites today, like the ones you referenced, offer a light or dark CSS to match the advertised browser skin; by default, the dark site CSS is served if a dark browser skin is being detected; again, to avoid confusion, this is different to force-enabling "Dark Mode in Web Content" (in Chromium); the latter enforces a dark mode locally, post site load, no matter the flavour of the CSS the site serves... Some of the darkCSS-enabled websites provide a way of overriding the default auto behaviour, i.e. you can select light-mode site CSS even on dark browser skin, and this is usually done through site settings (where available); user selection is stored in cookie(s), which then have to be protected (via a cookie extension) to avoid repeating the process in every browser session (if you delete cookies on browser exit) ... E.g. in 360EEv12, with the dark skin installed and "chrome://flags/#enable-force-dark" set to (default | disabled), the site will load in its dark flavour, but you can still choose light mode via Settings: youtube.com is similar to google.com; github.com however, will allow to choose a light-mode site version only to signed-in members... FWIW, recent Serpent 52.9.0 (and, I believe, NM28, too) has an about:config setting, browser.display.prefers_color_scheme that does the same thing; default value of 1 will auto-load light google.com pages; there don't exist any official dark Complete Themes (skins) for St52 (several exist for NM28), but user-setting a value of 2 in St52 will auto-load dark google.com pages even on a light Complete Theme:

@Mathwiz : Seems this issue is unique to quotes generated by member @InterLinked ; e.g. https://msfn.org/board/topic/182647-my-browser-builds-part-3/page/62/?tab=comments#comment-1207515 Screenshot of post rendered by Serpent v52.9.0 (2021-10-08) 32-bit:

Thank you both for testing and confirming ... Consistent with the digital SHA-2 signature date (2021-05-01) of the revised 4.6.2 setup; the page must've been edited soon after May 6th... Bingo! It's all clear now... The ESU plan for WS2008SP2 ends in Jan 2023, however security updates support for officially sanctioned .NET FW 4.6 will end, as said, in late Apr 2022; that would've created a period of ca. 9 months, during which installed 4.6 would have stayed unpatched... Possibly due to technical reasons, M$ deemed it easier to patch 4.6.2 (still supported past Apr 2022) to also install under WS2008SP2, rather than modify and offer 4.7.x (or higher) to existing WS2008SP2 ESU customers... And the omission of 4.6.1 from the linked article isn't an error; we already know that 4.6.1 installs successfully under NT 6.0, but it was never officially supported (as in via MU) there ; M$'s plan is to migrate WS2008SP2 ESU paying customers from 4.6 directly to 4.6.2 before/soon after Apr 2022 (till Jan 2023, when ESU ends); since 4.6.1 EOLs at the same time as 4.6, no reason for M$ to even mention it in that scenario... But another thing bugs me now: How is the revised (2021) 4.6.2 setup different internally to the first (2016) release? Does it embed ALL security updates issued for 4.6.2 from Jul 2016 to May 2021? File sizes are almost identical, so this fact isn't revealing anything ... Of course, MU would never work for 4.6.2 under Vista SP2, still, one has to know what updates to download manually from MUC; and then there's the "problem"/grey area of installing from local files ESU .NET FW 4.6.x updates... In any case, I understand this is the Windows Vista Extended Kernel thread, so I'm party responsible for (slightly?) derailing it ; however, this is info important to the broader Vista Community, so if the mods decide it should be better placed elsewhere (info = series of recent posts about .NET FW 4.6.2/Vista | WS2008), feel free to do so...

https://github.com/ShareX/ShareX/releases/tag/v13.0.1 default ShareX.exe.config file: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <configuration> <startup> <supportedRuntime version="v4.0" sku=".NETFramework,Version=v4.6.2" /> </startup> <runtime> <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"> <probing privatePath="Languages" /> </assemblyBinding> <AppContextSwitchOverrides value="Switch.UseLegacyAccessibilityFeatures=false;Switch.UseLegacyAccessibilityFeatures.2=false" /> <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"> <dependentAssembly> <assemblyIdentity name="Newtonsoft.Json" publicKeyToken="30ad4fe6b2a6aeed" culture="neutral" /> <bindingRedirect oldVersion="0.0.0.0-12.0.0.0" newVersion="12.0.0.0" /> </dependentAssembly> </assemblyBinding> </runtime> <uri> <idn enabled="All" /> <iriParsing enabled="true" /> </uri> <appSettings> <add key="EnableWindowsFormsHighDpiAutoResizing" value="true" /> </appSettings> </configuration>

I was intrigued by your report , so I connected an external HDD in which I had archived a copy of NDP462-KB3151800-x86-x64-AllOS-ENU.exe originally downloaded Sep 14th 2016; that off-line installer was dual-signed (SHA1+SHA2) on July 15th 2016; running that installer now, after file extraction, generates the familiar error below: I closed that installation attempt and then went to https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-framework/thank-you/net462-offline-installer Direct link is https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2099468 The latter fetched file ndp462-kb3151800-x86-x64-allos-enu.exe (in small letters this time ) which is only SHA-2 signed on May 1st 2021; my Vista SP2 32-bit system has SHA-2 support installed, so when I ran that second off-line installer, and after file extraction (takes a few seconds, because it scans ALL your drives to choose the one with maximum FREE disk space), I was, surprisingly, presented with: Now, I didn't click Install to go on with the 4.6.2 installation, because I wasn't yet ready to part with my existing, perfectly working, 4.6.1 setup... Perhaps the 4.6.2 installation would have aborted at a later stage, or perhaps NOT... The thing is the updated .NF462 setup doesn't immediately barf when it detects NT6.0; another kind soul with Vista SP2 in a VM could try that new installer to explore whether it "requires special procedures" to complete the installation... FWIW, since this revised setup targets WS2008SP2, I expect it would require a special minimum set of WS2008SP2 updates to be present in your Vista SP2 image...

34.0.0.201 is a pre-release/beta build; the official Chinese Flash distributor still advertises 32.0.0.192 as the latest stable/recommended release...

Should be possible, if one of them is run as PORTABLE (so that their profiles remain isolated) - see previous post by @ArcticFoxie ; might need to rename the main executable of one of them to serpent.exe, if you absolutely need to run them both concurrently... Both are run as portables, St52's EXE has been renamed ...

... The old location in the WinXP subforum, and pardon me XP-users for saying so , wasn't very appropriate either, because: 1. The majority (if not all) of the roytam1 browsers can be run on WinOSes past WinXP (e.g. Vista SP2/Win7 SP1/etc.); apart from yours truly (on Vista SP2 32-bit), I am aware of MSFN members running e.g. St52 under Win7, despite that OS offering, at least at this time, a varied selection of supported recent/mainstream browsers... 2. Several roytam1 browsers can be run on WinOSes preceding WinXP (natively or via KernelEx) ... Thus, "Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes" is fine by me... The key word here is "Older" which, as far as MS are concerned, should denote evey WinOS < 8.1 ... Being realistic though, I can acknowledge the vast majority of users falling into the WinXP group... That doesn't mean Vista users should be treated differently, does it? Browsers offer the bookmark function, so "latest XP news"? https://msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/ and, similarly, "latest Vista news"? https://msfn.org/board/forum/67-windows-vista/

The plot mysteriously thickens... Package "palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20210904-d43e6f58e-xpmod"; Flash set to "Ask to Activate"; on https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/about/ (my Flash test page), the plugin URLbar icon is "invisible": whereas on http://www.snailsanimation.com/benchmark08_play.php (your Flash test page) is there: