VistaLover

Thanks for the prompt explanation ; so, a change made 11 months ago, that only now fell on my radar... I'm definitely getting old... And thanks for, at least, "fixing" UA-related strings (to appear, hopefully, in coming weekend's releases) ...

FWIW, I never let any browser extension autoupdate here ; I periodically test manually for updated extensions and when one or more are found, I first read the relevant Release Notes (when available), then make a note of the currently installed version(s), finally make back-ups of these "previous" extension versions, in case something goes SNAFU (after the extension(s) has been manually updated) and a need presents itself to revert to the ol' good, working versions... This is a habit I picked up since my late-ish Firefox "days", when several "legacy" extensions of mine (e.g Stylish, Greasemonkey) would autoupdate to the much-crippled WebExtension iteration of theirs; the habit became a must when my favourite "legacy" extensions/Complete Themes vanished from AMO... Both in FirefoxESR 52.9.1 and Serpent 52.9.0 (the latter now pointed to AMO to look for updated extensions), it isn't uncommon I am being offered an update to an existing WE addon, only to find out, to my distress , that the update doesn't function properly/at all with a Mozilla 52 based platform... This is often because Mozilla have the ill tendency to blanket-label all WEs as being "Firefox 48 and higher" compatible, by virtue of them simply being "Web Extensions"; i.e., they don't bother to test on older browser versions (as they don't expect anyone to be on anything other than the latest "Release" and "ESR" Fx versions ) ... TL;DR: No auto-update is allowed to take place here (this stance not limited to browser extensions only, but am afraid that is definitely OT ) ...

@roytam1 : Something to keep an eye on (and probably revert/omit to maintain XP compatibility) : #1782 Remove support for obsolete system themes from Goanna Issue #1782: Remove Luna, Royale and Zune support from the platform It never ceases to amaze me though that, despite the fact official UXP has currently a plethora of open issues regarding its deficits in tackling the modern web , the dev team are obsessed with opening "new issues" targeting revengefully Windows XP... I guess destroying is much more easier than creating,,, This might have changed in some prior release, it just so happens I took notice of it in the latest one... ALL references to the native platform name, Goanna, have been replaced with Gecko, Firefox's one, in ALL three variants of the browser User Agent string: Additionally, previous about:config entries goanna.buildID & goanna.mstone (Goanna milestone) have been replaced with gecko.buildID & gecko.mstone, respectively... Was the above intentional on your part? Is New Moon 27 being "Firefox-ified" ? FTR, I use the Fx-compat setting, two "Gecko" fragments with two different values looks confusing...

Well, digital "Gods" sure work in mysterious ways ; at least you're now back and running! One last thing that hasn't been answered and am really curious about: If you use IE8 now without ProxHTTPSProxy, does the plain HTTP logo URI, http://helpforum.sky.com/html/assets/sky-community-v6.png load? Because you had said that previously it didn't load at all, with or without ProxHTTPSProxy... How are things now?

The Proton GUI introduced in Fx 89.0 release channel can, for now, be DISABLED via toggling ALL "proton"-enabled about:config prefs, followed by a browser restart - those prefs will eventually be removed in future Fx versions, but user.js+userChrome.css+userContent.css based solutions are already available; until Mozilla kills them, too... Disabling Proton will revert the GUI to Photon, first introduced with Fx Quantum 57.0...

@Dave-H : Thanks to @Sampei.Nihira and @XPerceniol, it has been established by this community that indeed something is broken in your XP partition ... I had a read of https://www.michev.info/Blog/Post/1435/windows-certificate-stores Perhaps a full system restore (instead of only a registry restore) would have been better... Do you currently have System Restore Points prior to the suspect Certs Update? Have you tried re-applying the Certs Update, followed by a system reboot? Are there any expired Intermediate Server Certificates present inside your Cert Store?

@Sampei.Nihira Thanks for trying , but... On UXP browsers, the tables themselves will ultimately display, as shown in your screengrab and confirmed here in St52 (after a browser restart), BUT the page itself isn't rendered correctly/fully ; in a Chromium fork (360EEv12, Chromium-78-based), additional content (tabs) is displayed underneath the tables, this is missing in UXP (see screenshot above) : ... As to why my St52 didn't load the tables initially, I am at a loss ; it was a long browsing session with a relatively large number of opened tabs, perhaps non-updated uBO filter lists, whatever ; after I deleted browser cache+cookies, a browser restart has loaded the "tables" in question...

... You were supposed to first remove the older proxy CA, then import the freshly generated one... If you're sure you did remove the older of the two, I suppose you're fine... EOF = "End of File", but my Python-fu is extremely limited ... It's a sad thing that master @heinoganda doesn't live in these places anymore... You are definitely experiencing an SSL/TLS issue (as you said, not only limited to *sky.com hostnames), but what? Also of worry is your inability to open http://helpforum.sky.com/html/assets/sky-community-v6.png in IE8; I've checked and this plain HTTP URI doesn't auto-redirect to its secure (HTTPS) variant... Is any other member here on Windows XP SP3 able to load that non-secure URI in IE8? Just to confirm something's awry at your end, or not...

... Another case where UXP-based forks (Serpent 52 in my case) FAIL to render properly a website, because of lack of support for Google's () Custom Elements: Once again, I had to resort to the "Chinese" in order to see those tables properly displayed :

I'm probably not able to offer substantial help on this problem, being on Vista SP2 32-bit myself, but: IE9 has no issues here loading instantly the plain HTTP version of the logo: IE9 (with WS2008 fixes to enable it with TLS v1.2 support) has no issues instantly loading the secure (HTTPS) version of the logo: In the attachment I have also included the Certification Path; IE9, just like IE8/WinXP, uses the OS certstore: top is the Root CA [Sectigo (AAA)], then two intermediate certs, last is the server (helpforum.sky.com) cert; none of these four certs has been recently changed (updated/expired) ; below is server cert in question: What would be more relevant with your case is my attempt to load the "secure" logo in IE9 via ProxHTTPSProxyMII; as with previous tests, it has no issue whatsoever instantly loading that logo: But while standalone IE uses the OS certstore, when connecting through ProxHTTPSProxyMII it doesn't; it just trusts as Root CA the (manually imported) proxy's cert: How long ago was the last time you manually generated a fresh ProxHTTPSProxy CA? https://curl.se/docs/caextract.html says the most recent cacert.pem file was generated on May 25th 2021 04:12 BST; download file "cacert-2021-05-25.pem", rename it to cacert.pem and place it inside ProxHTTPSProxyMII's root directory (overwriting, if necessary); empty fully the Certs folder of its content; delete file CA.crt; launch once ProxHTTPSProxyMII: Close ProxHTTPSProxyMII and manually import the freshly generated CA.crt file into IE8; relaunch ProxHTTPSProxyMII and try anew... I have no clue why your copy of IE8 isn't able to load http://helpforum.sky.com/html/assets/sky-community-v6.png Have you changed recently any of your DNS settings? Perhaps your Anti-Malware solution is interfering? Grasping at straws on this... As for loading the secure version of the logo in IE8 without ProxHTTPSProxyMII, https://helpforum.sky.com/html/assets/sky-community-v6.png this isn't possible under XP, because SNI support is required (Vista+) ...

May I ask which version exactly that is? CAA provides up to v0.3.8-Release (Jetpack SDK): caa:addon/canvasblocker/versions whereas AMO currently lists versions up to v1.5 (WE, requires patching manifest.json to install in latest St52): https://addons.mozilla.org/el/firefox/addon/canvasblocker/versions/ (v1.5 presumed to be the very same one referenced above by @Dr. Drill ), with v0.5.5 included ; according to AMO listing, v0.5.9 should be the last to natively support Fx52 ... Thanks for this ; also for the tip on the "ViewImageInfo" pref ; sadly, site admins are becoming very cunning in protecting their images nowadays, they use scripts to remove image-related context menu entries, hide them behind iframes, obfuscate direct URIs to images, even change file extensions... It is cases like these that View Page Info -> Media/View Page Source/Web Developer -> Web Console -> Net etc. become indispensable towards saving photos to disk... But this is (still) OT, so ending it here...

I maintain my sister's (work) computer which runs Win7 SP1 x64; once I upgraded her from Fx 88.0.1 to 89.0, I was most unpleasantly surprised , appalled is the word I'd choose ; she wasn't thrilled by the change, either... Especially on Win7 with aero enabled, the new Fx GUI (fogged tab bar) doesn't blend at all with the OS... TBH, I've stopped getting informed about Mozilla's planned shenanigans some years ago; they did lose me as a user (and a Nightly tester) when they made the decision to drop support for my favourite OS (Vista) ; I only skim the Release Notes every time I update Fx on my sister's box, just to make sure nothing major has been broken (e.g. my sister was very upset when they removed the "Page Info" context menu entry in Fx 88 : she was used to it being there, to aid her get direct links to images on pages; FWIW, you now have to use CTRL+I, until, of course, they kill that too in a future "upgrade"). You are quite right that with every design change, Fx gets worse/crippled ; we are probably just old "geezers" ("advanced users" is the Mozilla term) who have known and appreciated the great Firefox of an era gone-by without return (i.e. when functionality/customiseability/users' wishes were top priorities), the mobile-oriented young Fx users of today are probably more impressed with "trendy" looks and over-simplification... Plus, Mozilla currently employ a small army of well-paid young web/app designers, they have to constantly "re-invent the wheel" GUI-wise, their moto is "fix it until it's broken"; if they stopped messing with Fx's UI, they would have nothing to work on and probably made redundant... Instead, Mozilla keep them on and force into retirement/let go all the highly talented/accomplished "old school" developers of their glorious past... The end is near...

Well spotted! The thing is I had the following rule in uB0's My Filters ! Block globally AdobeDTM SatelliteLib scripts ||adobedtm.com^$third-party,important ... since many months ago , so that's why I was able to load the referenced links in my previous post ... The crux of the issue is UXP's incompatibility with the SatelliteLib Adobe are including in their tracking scripts , so yes, ALL UXP- based browsers/forks are affected... In fact, if you search for "adobedtm.com" in the official PM forums, you'll discover many related cases: https://forum.palemoon.org/search.php?keywords=adobedtm.com I think the issue for me was first manifested on Oracle's site (see here) and I now remembered I actually sought help here in these forums about it ; solution was provided then by @UCyborg, further analysis by yours truly can be read here ... Nothing to do with the Windows XP OS per se (apart from the fact it won't run the latest versions of Chromium and siblings (including Firefox Browser), on which the Adobe tracking scripts are made/tested to work without issues...). Generalising is easy sometimes, but not necessarily the truth ... 360EE browser, based on recent versions of Chromium and made XP/Vista-compatible, has no issues dealing with the adobedtm scripts and, thus, with the sites that make use of it... But, being a Chinese product, it isn't easily endorsed by the XP community... Anyhow, 360EE is OT here and has dedicated forum threads (with some enhanced activity lately... ) Best wishes

First link: Second link: What errors/warnings does the Web/Browser console print? Have you tried loading those URIs in fresh browser profiles? All OK here,,,

... not the same thing at all, in fact a case of "Catch 22" if you ask me... It requires WS2008R2 SP1 (Win7 based Server equivalent) 64-bit as the host machine, on which you must first install Hyper-V (successor to Virtual PC); then you must install and configure the linked VHD (Virtual Hard Disk), which is a 180d trial of WS2008...

.NET Framework 4.6.1 will install out-of-the-box in WS2008SP2, but, as is the case with Vista SP2, won't be offered any updates via MU; please install .NET Framework 4.6 and let that get updated via MU until WS2008SP2's EoS (Jan 2020); the list of obtained updates can then be used to manually update a 4.6.1 installation... I'll be in your debt, if you do... Can you share some more details (without, hopefully, breaking Forum rules...) ?

Official Pale Moon requires at minimum Win7, so support requests for it should be better directed/placed in the respective OS forums... Be that as it may, if users of PM wish to install "legacy" Firefox-only targeting extensions, against the wishes of PM's makers, the method to go by is probably the one below: 1. First enable the setting pointed out by @nicolaasjan, i.e. PM won't block any blacklisted add-ons (the same setting can be achieved via about:config, by disabling the blocklist completely, extensions.blocklist.enabled => false or, alternatively, render it ineffective by setting extensions.blocklist.level => 3 2. Install in PM the latest version of JustOff's Moon Tester Tool: https://github.com/JustOff/moon-tester-tool/releases/tag/2.1.3 3. Have the "legacy" Fx-only targeting add-on available in the form of an .XPI file, saved on disk; the latter can be obtained from CAA, other online repositories or, possibly, copied from the profile of another application where that add-on was already installed (limited to extensions that were not unpacked during installation) ... 4. Use the .XPI file(s) to install in PM with the aid of MTT (Moon Tester Tool); the extension(s) will appear inside PM's add-on manager (AOM) with a [TEST] prefix; those extensions won't be auto-updated, but this isn't an issue for unmaintained legacy Fx extensions, completely forsaken by their original authors... However, I don't see the reason myself why you should choose official PM if on Win7+ over either Mypal/New Moon; these two browsers do not impose any restrictions upon legacy Fx add-ons and, to the best of my knowledge, will launch and run without issues on OSes other that XP...

I couldn't help noticing that the app (EasyBCD) can use .NET FW 2.0 or 3.5; 2.0 is native to Vista, 3.5 is offered as an update to native 3.0; so, good chances are, the app would have launched for @Nandor IF no .NET FW4 was installed; it looks like the (crooked) installation of 4.8 prevented EasyBCD from falling back on either 3.5/2.0; notice also how stricter are .NET FW4 requirements, the range of 4 versions is limited to 4.0-4.6 ... While having no .NET FW4 installed would have (probably) allowed EasyBCD to work, HandBrake 1.0.7 (EoS for Vista) does need it... You are certainly welcome ; so, despite my initial claim, I did manage to help you... BTW, are you really running a copy of WS2008 32-bit (it says so underneath your avatar...) ? Is this machine connected to the web and does it have a working Microsoft/Windows Update currently (several specific KBs are needed to enable access to the SHA-2 WU endpoints currently in place, I hope you're aware...) ? After you installed .NET Framework 4.6 (the last officially supported by Microsoft Update), were you offered any updates for it? It should be possible to fetch all available 4.6 Security & Quality Rollups at least until Jan 2020, when WS2008's Extended Support came to an end... I'm asking this as a possible continuation to a related query of mine in another thread... Thanks in advance for any additional feedback...

That function requires at least Win7: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processtopologyapi/nf-processtopologyapi-setthreadgroupaffinity While you can install 4.8 (with "workarounds") on Vista SP2, I'm not convinced myself it works flawlessly all of the times and for all .NET FW 4 requiring apps... I can't help you, sadly, all I can testify is that Handbrake 1.0.7 (2017040900) - 32bit launches fine here on my Vista SP2 x86 machine with .NET FW 4.6.1 (32-bit):

Well, for future reference: 1. Mozilla do not currently check whether a WebExtension (WE) hosted on AMO works as expected with older Firefox versions ; https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vandal-navigator/versions/ reports that "Works with firefox 48.0 and later", but this is an automated setting generated by AMO infra based on the sheer fact it's a WE add-on... Considering this is a very recent extension, I seriously doubt its author has checked its proper functioning outside of latest release Firefox (88.0.1) and, possibly, latest FirefoxESR (78.x.x)... 2. If you plan to install a WE add-on on Serpent, first make sure it properly works in FxESR 52; if it does, then proceed to install on St52 (with "workarounds" if it's of the id-less type), but even then it's not a given it'll properly work under St52, because of a crippled set of WE-APIs there... This is something I highlighted already in my previous post Well, it isn't like you committed a major mischief , I simply wanted (again) to spare members here of undesired consequences should they follow the much easier (but perilous) route of profile transplantation between different browser applications... I was very active in these threads [now renamed "My Browser Builds (Part 1)"] at an era I witnessed the mass exodus (of XP/Vista users) from the deprecated FxESR 52.9.0 to the then current versions of Serpent 52/55, and, against my own due warnings, people chose easiness over was what the "proper" thing to do: they simply migrated their FxESR52 profiles to St... - and then I would be "summoned upon" to troubleshoot very "weird" issues that, in the end, were due to this improper profile migration; that at a time when there was even closer proximity between FxESR52 and St52 of 2018... Both are forks of the same upstream application, MCP's Pale Moon, but differ as to what development channel they fork; Mypal uses the release (stable) PM channel and NM uses the unstable (dev) PM one... But one should make no mistake: the apps, especially in recent versions, are different enough under the hood that I'd never suggest myself they share the same profile; as you say, it might be much safer to share profiles between Mypal 27 and NM27 but as you move towards more recent codebases, it ceases to be so (e.g., I wouldn't move a Mypal 29.2.0 profile over to NM 28.10.3a1 and vice-versa) ... Of course, it is a trait of the human nature to prefer the easiest/shortest path, so I might sound like "preaching" here ... But, once you've made your own choice, whatever that is, be prepared to suffer any eventual consequences... Best regards

Dear @IXOYE vandal-1.1.0-fx.xpi is yet another Firefox-targeting Web Extension that will not install on Serpent, because it's a type of WE called an "id-less" one... I have in the past, over many occasions, explained ad nauseam the "why" and "how-to" install such WEs on Serpent... https://msfn.org/board/search/?&q=id-less&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy For a more technical analysis on the "why", https://msfn.org/board/topic/177125-my-browser-builds-part-1/page/147/?tab=comments#comment-1164701 For a more "practical" read, https://msfn.org/board/topic/177125-my-browser-builds-part-1/page/100/?tab=comments#comment-1159013 https://msfn.org/board/topic/180462-my-browser-builds-part-2/page/133/?tab=comments#comment-1189182 perhaps could be of help... Bottom line is, you have to edit the extension's manifest.json file so as to add a gecko-id block; repackage and then it'll install in St52... St52 != FxESR 52.9.0, especially with regards to WE APIs, so installing in St52 won't guarantee perfect functioning... And, please, DO NOT follow the advice given by my friend @ArcticFoxie ; transplanting a Fx profile onto St52 (or, worse, to St55) is a sure recipe for profile corruption, often times beyond repair! People, for the millionth time since I've been a member of this community, FIREFOX 52.9.x and SERPENT 52.9.0 are two different applications that have diverged so much over time, that their profiles are NOT INTERCHANGEABLE anymore (without risk of data corruption); just don't do it! Always start with a fresh St52 profile and only transfer vital parts such as bookmarks and, where applicable, passwords... Re-install crucial extensions as needed...

@burd : Many thanks for that second screengrab of yours The list transcribed from the image is: KB4040973 KB4041778 KB4578963 KB4597239 KB4600945 KB5001848 However, and this is something I had completely forgotten about , these KB numbers ARE NOT DIRECTLY indexed (and thus findable) inside MUC, because they constitute parts of larger bundles/RollUps... For instance, it would appear that the last ever Security Only Update for 4.6 on Vista before its EOL (in April 2017) was KB4014558; searching for that in MUC doesn't return any result; but that update was/is part of KB4014988 (released on Apr 10th 2017): April, 2017 Security Only Update for .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 4.5.2, 4.6 on Windows Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2 (KB4014988) inside of which is found as file "ndp46-kb4014558-x86_dc321d638ffa0c672a555b9e8e37e52994c71253.exe" ... So, while that list of 6 installed updates is, no doubt, something to go by, it won't be that easy/quick to locate (inside MUC) the bundles they belong to... Yes, KB4040973 was part of 2017-09 Security and Quality Rollup for .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0, 4.5.2, 4.6 on Windows Server 2008 SP2 update i.e. KB4041086; even M$ themselves confused WS2008SP2 with WS2008R2SP1, as the following depicts: ... I have "access" to a friend's Win7 SP1 64-bit older laptop, that she hardly uses any more; I had her purposefully freeze the .NET FW installed there on version 4.6.1, which was/is supported by WU on that OS of hers; I instructed her to do pretty much the same thing I kindly asked @burd, below is the produced screengrab: Despite the similarities with Vista, this is actually on Win7 SP1 x64, where 4.6.1 was never updated further (WU is currently offering 4.8 for installation) and which has a working WU, minus, of course, ESU for Win7 SP1... So, it appears, at least on that specific machine, that 4.6.1 was never offered through WU any more updates (outside of ESU that is) past KB4040973 (Security and Quality Rollup) in Sep 2017... When I find some extra time in the coming weekend, I might try to track down MUC links for the rest 5 updates in @burd 's list...

Wikipedia is editable by anyone; that bit you reference, was only added mere hours ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1025080050 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&diff=prev&oldid=1025080050 however I can't form an opinion on the validity of the added info, obviously only Chinese Vista users might offer a clue on this...

@burd Thanks , but please change the "Views" setting to "Details" (and then arrange by "Program"), afterwards you can simply "Snipping Tool" just the .NET FW 4.6 ones; on my 32-bit machine, here's a glimpse of what was manually installed for 4.6.1 (including pre-releases) up until Oct 2017 (I, then, simply couldn't be bothered anymore... ) :

Somewhat OT, but since you brought this up here... @burd , could you be a sport and do this Vista community some additional good? Please, go to Windows Update => Installed Updates => Sort by "Program" => Microsoft .NET Framework 4.6 (x) and then make a list of ALL the updates your restored WU fetched and successfully installed for .NET FW 4.6 ? If possible, you can divide them chronologically into three groups : 1. Till Vista SP2's EOL 2. Till WS2008SP2's EOL 3. Currently installed ones under WS2008SP2 ESU (i.e. including those for Apr 2021) The produced list can then be used to easily fetch the same updates from MUC and update manually a Vista SP2 .NET FW 4.6.1 install ... Thanks in advance to anyone willing to undertake this! Best regards