VistaLover

Yes, if you decide to use the CleanFlash installer, you should update .NET FW 4 to the very last version issued for WinXP, i.e. 4.0.3; however, if you don't want to install .NET FW 4 at all, the .bat based CleanFlash setup should suffice...

Server 2008 SP2 = Server 2008 + SP2 I think you just confused it with Server 2008 R2 (and Server 2008 R2 SP1), which is Win7 (and Win7 SP1) based...

The same person who released FlashPatch (which, as you noted, requires Vista+) has been now releasing CleanFlash, a "sanitised" version of Chinese Flash, currently at version 34.0.0.155; the original distribution is batch-file based, so it should be XP-compatible (but I can't test this here...); the second distribution is installer-based, to run it under XP you need .NET FW 4.0+ It is advertised that ALL Chinese telemetry has been removed, along with geo-limitations ("flash.cn" provided files are meant to run in mainland China, only... ) Enjoy!

The Browser Extension "they" provide for "Firefox" is of the WebExtension format, so will only install in FxESR 52.9.x and Serpent 52.9.0/55.0.0; it doesn't run in KM and it won't install/run in New Moon 27/28, because these browsers do NOT support WEs...

@erpdude8 : Most of "us" guys (you probably mean fans of the Windows Vista OS) are probably already aware of M$'s .NET FW deprecation plans... No panic actions should be called for, just some preservation plan in advance... First thing to do is probably download from M$ and archive somewhere the Full standalone (off-line) installers for .NET FW 4.5.2/4.6/4.6.1 ... 4.5.2 https://download.microsoft.com/download/E/2/1/E21644B5-2DF2-47C2-91BD-63C560427900/NDP452-KB2901907-x86-x64-AllOS-ENU.exe 4.6.0 https://download.microsoft.com/download/C/3/A/C3A5200B-D33C-47E9-9D70-2F7C65DAAD94/NDP46-KB3045557-x86-x64-AllOS-ENU.exe 4.6.1 https://download.microsoft.com/download/E/4/1/E4173890-A24A-4936-9FC9-AF930FE3FA40/NDP461-KB3102436-x86-x64-AllOS-ENU.exe Then, someone on a clean Vista SP2 install will have to restore a functioning WU (while it's still possible - at least one solution is known to work, but its "legality" is grey... ) and then (first) install 4.5.2 and let WU fetch all applicable updates up to Vista's EOL and then, additionally, up to WS2008's EOL - finally, make a list of those updates and share it for others to fetch and archive manually from M$'s Update Catalog... The same will have to be done for 4.6.0; as correctly pointed out, that's the very last WU supports officially on Vista; the list of updates that'd be produced for 4.6.0 is also applicable to 4.6.1, which is the last one to install out-of-the-box on Vista SP2 (but updates for it must be downloaded and installed manually) ... I'm afraid I'm not allowed to discuss 4.5.2/4.6.0 updates past WS2008's EOL, since those are governed by ESU plan and reserved only for paying customers... It is my understanding the ESU cycle will end on Jan 2023, so that probably means 4.6.0 on WS2008 will reach deprecation as planned on Apr 2022, some 8 months before the OS's ESU cycle ends... Unless, of course, M$ make an exception and continue releasing security-only updates for 4.6.0/WS2008, for the duration of those 8 months... Even if they don't, my experience so far has shown that the "family" of 4.6.x .NET FWs gets updated by the same (or, mostly, compatible) "update" files; so if a 4.6.2 security-only update is released come May 2022 for Win7 SP1, there's a good chance it will install on (ESU-eligible) 4.6.0/WS2008... https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/faq/dotnet-framework The above quotation isn't 100% clear, but to me it sounds like .NET FW 4.6.0 (> 4.5.2), the last to be officially supported on ESU WS2008SP2, should be eligible for security-only updates until the end of ESU support for said OS... How do others read this?

@Vistapocalypse : By searching I landed here: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc/-/milestones?sort=due_date_desc&state=closed and then here: https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc/-/milestones/113 which does suggest a 3.0.15 milestone is currently in the works, cut-off date for its official release being July 30th 2021 ...

So, a c*ck-up on their part proved your prediction wrong... But, do you know of an official timetable as to when, in fact, the VLC 3 branch will become deprecated for good?

@yoltboy01 : Make sure not to link any of your endeavours here, else you'll get summarily BANNED... (FWIW, I'm not even sure that "site" you simply "mentioned" will go down well with the mods here... Just friendly advice, nothing more... )

This has been indeed asked multiple times here , the most recent one was just six pages back in this very thread... : https://msfn.org/board/topic/182647-my-browser-builds-part-3/?do=findComment&comment=1199196 Answered previously by roytam1 on Feb 8th: https://msfn.org/board/topic/180462-my-browser-builds-part-2/?do=findComment&comment=1195399 My own answer from back in February: https://msfn.org/board/topic/180462-my-browser-builds-part-2/?do=findComment&comment=1195384 (NB: Not meant to offend anyone ... ) TL:DR: appVersion numbers simply don't tell the whole story and people should not just stick to them... Latest NM 28.10.3a1 has all the code found inside unstable official Pale Moon 29.3.0a1, minus portions of the official code it was decided we shouldn't adopt, plus code we have kept but upstream have gotten rid of... And since you're anxious about Web Components implementation, upstream haven't made any leaps towards that goal, there's a dedicated issue in their tracker https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1361 coupled with https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1344 where you can monitor their progress (or lack of... ); until recently bounty material, if/when something is added there, be sure it'll find its way into New Moon, too, irrespective of its advertised version number... Is it clear for you now? Best wishes!

Their script starts its "job" once you start typing the reCAPTCHA in the input box... On FirefoxESR 52.9.1, they successfully detected an association with the Telegram desktop app (i.e. Fx can handle ".tg" links...); FWIW, I had only tested the app some years ago, currently it doesn't even support Vista (or XP) ...

OTOH, it doesn't find anything here in latest Serpent 52.9.0 (portable installation) with uBO-legacy: I've given them more than five minutes...

Hi dencorso ; I suppose a "High Court Appeal" is out of the question then, am I right? Best regards from Greece (wait; you, too, can see the flags ... ) !

But doesn't security.csp.enable;false mean that for the sake of just blocking CSP reports, the whole CSP browser feature is being turned off? Having a read of the Content Security Policy (CSP) documentation, I think CSP is something we should keep enabled ; of course, I am not a security authority like yourself , so please share some extra knowledge on this... Kindest regards, keep safe and healthy (Saturday I'll get my first anti-Covid19 jab ) !

This depends solely on MCP (as I don't expect roytam1 to take this up on his own ), going by what is already known about them, they won't be jumping on that bandwagon very soon/if ever... Personally, I'm not that worried TBH, the article you linked to says:

Do you actually mean FirefoxESR 68 (I've never known a 64esr version to have existed; 60esr -> 68esr -> 78esr -> 91esr) ?

Sorry again, @Dave-H ; under latest Serpent 52.9.0/Vista SP2 32-bit, the "Country" section of Account Settings displays as below: Perhaps "View Members Flags" is only reserved for Mods now?

... Yes, thank you for the legible screenshot of Panda Dome's "about" window...

Sorry Dave, haven't seen the "flags" myself since many moons ago... They are certainly MIA on latest Serpent 52: I accept further discussing this here is OT ; there exists a now LOCKED thread I started in Feb 2020 in the Site & Forum Issues sub-forum where I pointed out last January that the flags had again vanished for good, but, as said, the thread was locked by a mod... If the flags are there for you (BTW, on which browser?) and you know of a way to bring them back for the rest of us, please come forth... Cheers

... Those of us here long enough still remember the "Country Flag" displayed under a user's avatar; so, I have always associated @roytam1 with Hong Kong and @luweitest with PRC... But the flag feature didn't survive the last major forum overhaul... But I, too, digress... I actually share the same thoughts... I have long ago realised that "no-one is without sin" (I refer to major application companies irrespective of nationality), so I treat them all alike... For the most part, I don't think I do any thing in particular that would interest NSA/CIA (Google Chrome and related services telemetry), FSB (Yandex Browser and related Russian services telemetry), or President Xi Jinping's agencies (360EE and related Chinese services); now, if I were an industrial or state spy , well, that would change things, but, if you'd believe me, I am simply not! St52 by Roy is my main browser here, but I do use 360EEv12 (Russian portable re-pack) for those Chromium-only sites... uBlock0 & Privacy Badger are used to minimise tracking (somewhat); for those feeling really uncomfortable with that browser, there's a dedicated thread in our Forum with many additional tips and a (rather long) list of IPs to block for "better" privacy... While I do appreciate your concerns about the browser, seeing the term malware attributed to it made me smile , considering 360 Qihoo are primarily a Security and AV firm... Best regards

7-zip can do it (provided you know your way to a Win98 compatible version of 7-zip); on Vista SP2 32-bit with latest 7-zip alpha (21.02a), I opened file mso2010-kb4504738-fullfile-x86-glb.exe with 7-zip and then proceeded to open (still in 7-zip) file mso-x-none.msp; of its contents, there's a file named PATCH_CAB; once you open that, too, you're presented with file MSO.DLL.x86; choose "copy" and save it to a location on your disk; once extracted, simply rename to mso.dll and Bob's your unkle!

Many thanks for your explanation! Perhaps it was just me, but my initial distinct impression was that "upstream" had somehow "goofed up" - period (and it wouldn't be the first time ... ); since "we" were the first to compile that "new" code, "we" were the ones to first discover the AOM's breakage... When "they", in turn, compiled the official UXP/PM master branches (latest Pale Moon 29.3.0a1), I searched the official forums for reports of broken AOM in 29.3.0a1, but I couldn't find any... I then did a check myself, as reported here... To cut a long story short, only "our own" version of UXP was "messed up", due to existing differences compared to upstream UXP... This is understandable, but yet another lesson why "upstream" code shouldn't be merged lightheartedly... Thanks again, keep up the excellent efforts! Hi ; I don't use Zoom myself, but just to humour you, I decided to follow the procedure required on: https://zoom.us/test Of course, I did reproduce your findings in latest Serpent 52.9.0, but then decided to also test on EOL'ed FirefoxESR 52.9.x, which is the immediate ancestor to St52, with even more WebAPIs present compared to the ones left (by MCP) in St52 ... ; perhaps unsurprisingly, the same story goes there, too: I think I've said it before elsewhere, but we should be really glad for all the sites we can visit and all services we can use with these MCP browser forks;, for the latest "fancy" things of Web 2021 that don't work, well, learn to live with it or find workarounds (when available...). MCP ("upstream") themselves advise their users to have an alternate, Chromium-derived, browser handy for these "non-working" cases; of course, "their" users are already on Win7+, switching to the latest Chromium-derivative there is easy ; sadly, not the case for us still on XP/Vista... The Zoom staff do currently support XP+Vista , if you visit their site with an XP/Vista useragent, you are offered file ZoomInstallerXP.exe (SHA-1 signed on June 2nd 2020); so I kindly advise you to take their offer if you're inclined to use Zoom Meetings on XP... I highly doubt (but can't test now) official Basilisk's ability to use "in-browser" Zoom; it still is FxESR 52 based and MCP haven't done much to update its WebRTC implementation... OTOH, Zoom mandate you use the "latest" version of a Chromium-based browser (Google Chrome, MS ChrEdge) or Firefox (aping Chromium in its web compatibity), so, as has been already discussed, modern web applications are being developed with Chromium in mind... As a last thing, I decided to put on "Zoom" test the 3 flavours of 360EE I have available here; v11 (Chromium 69 based) demands I first grant permission to zoom.us to access my cam and mic: Once I OK'ed to that and joined, I only get a prompt to update my browser for better audio quality, not that the computer's audio device is inaccessible (the case with St52+FxESR52): v12 (Chromium 78 based) exhibits the exact same behaviour as v11; lastly, v13 (Chromium 86 based), as it's based on a fairly recent version of Chromium, doesn't even display the prompt to update browser: Since my tests were done on Vista SP2 x86, YMMV on actual XP... Regards

Apologies accepted, but don't you have a working implementation of PRTSC (PrintScreen keyboard button) and Paint in your Vista install? 1. Press PRTSC (screengrab is copied to memory as bitmap) 2. Open Paint, Edit -> Paste (screengrab is loaded), File -> Save as (PNG or JPG) and tada! No special screenshot tools needed... : FTR, I couldn't read any of the characters in the image you uploaded...

On sister's Win7 SP1 64-bit laptop, I updated official Pale Moon unstable to the latest 32-bit build: Version: 29.0.3a1 (32-bit) (2021-05-07) [buildID=20210507130743] and that build was compiled from following sources Platform module: uxp-master-git-20210506-ge7e6356 Pale Moon source: pm-master-git-20210507-g2ad022d The platform (official UXP) source does include 6f707bd which is equivalent to a4b0f33 in the custom branch of your UXP fork... The thing is, the AOM (about:addons) in the above official PM unstable build works as intended, i.e. no additional patching of 6f707bd is required, whereas to get AOM working in latest NM28 you had to patch a4b0f33 according to 8eb3a27 ; @roytam1 : Why was NM28 (and several other UXP forks) affected by "upstream" changes, while their own app was "not messed up" ? Just wanting to get a clearer understanding of things in a somewhat deeper level, nothing more... As always, thanks for your on-going efforts into supplying browsers that still keep XP and Vista kicking for a tad longer ...

FTR, it's in: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commit/8eb3a27

Actually, the very URL you referenced (SSL Labs Server Test) suggests that only TLS v1.2 is supported, period: