Jump to content

VistaLover

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,261

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    93

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Greece

 Content Type 

Everything posted by VistaLover

  1. VistaLover
    Neither do I ; I just pointed out that the most prominent difference between NM28/UXP and St52/UXP is Australis infrastructure (not only limited to the GUI) in the latter . I am/was under the impression FUEL had been a platform-wide "under-the-hood" technology, so that would not explain why WD (web destroyer) works in NM28 but fails in St52... It appears I am at fault and that - in the case of NM28 vs St52 - it's a feature only present at application level (?); no doubt FUEL is still present in NM27/Tycho (FxESR 38 based), most probably it was carried over when Pale (New) Moon was ported to UXP ; I guess Moonchild is the one to confirm this... Perhaps WD can be ported to work in Bk/St52 without FUEL; hard to tell, really (and I'm, most certainly, not the one equipped to do this) ... CAA is not to blame here, the data it archived was all inherited from AMO ; many months before all the "legacy" extensions were exterminated from AMO itself (October 2018?), they were labeled, in a blanket fashion, as being compatible with a maximum Fx version of 56.*, the last non-Quantum release; this move was probably made so as to mark them for their inevitable future deletion from AMO and differentiate them from the Quantum-only compatible WE-format... Of course, no-one within Mozilla did test each and every legacy extension for Fx 56.0 compatibility; taking the extension in question as an example, destroy-the-web-1.2.2.1-signed.1-signed.xpi has an install.rdf file with: <em:minVersion>3.5</em:minVersion> <em:maxVersion>19.*</em:maxVersion> So, the last time its developer was around to properly update it, he marked it as being Fx 19.x compatible, max... ; I haven't checked, but perhaps 19.0 was the then current version of Fx when the extension was released... Of course, thanks to your troubleshooting , we now know that the truly maximum Fx version on which the extension works is 46.*, hence <em:maxVersion>46.*</em:maxVersion> should be the appropriate value...
  2. VistaLover
    Unfortunately, this is a known and long-standing issue with @roytam1's browsers on some (luckily few) hardware configurations (probably CPU+audio card) on Windows XP; the root cause is yet unknown, a fix for this issue still pending/improbable... XP lacks OS-provided patented audio decoders to decode the AAC-LC/HE-AAC raw (elementary) audio stream inside MP4 media streams (e.g. twitter & instagram video clips), reproducible via the browser's native HTML5 media player; in NM28/St52/St55, Roy offers ffmpeg audio (and video) decoders inside a custom ffvpx third party library to mitigate this XP shortcoming; it's this audio codec that fails on said configurations, especially in the case of HLS fragmented streams... In the case of Serpent 52.9.0 (and fairly recent builds of Serpent 55), you can try installing the Adobe Primetime CDM and change to that as an audio decoder (details are to be found elsewhere in the forums...); however, this is not a cure-all approach, just a suggestion... Best regards
  3. VistaLover
    ... Absolutely NOTHING to be worried about when upgrading, provided you take (recommended) wise & precautionary steps: 1. Locate your existing browser (MyPal) profile, Help -> Troubleshooting Information -> Profile folder -> Open folder and back it up (the whole folder and its contents) in a secure location on your disk. 2. Download the new installer (currently at version 28.7.1) and run it. https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases/tag/28.7.1 If in the past you had opted for the "portable" installation type (i.e. the profile resides inside the installation directory), then do likewise when updating... 3. Launch and test the new version - settings/configurations inside your existing profile should've remained intact! 4. If you decide to downgrade to your previous version (28.4.0 ?) of MyPal, then locate the corresponding setup from the releases tab: https://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/releases and install that; just don't launch the browser after the downgrade! 5. Restore your saved profile (from step 1) so as to overwrite the profile touched by 28.7.1 and you should be back at a state prior to the "updating" test!
  4. VistaLover
    ... Seems to be the cause of breakage; I fetched the destroy-the-web-1.2.2.1-signed.1-signed.xpi file to disk and extracted it with 7-zip; lo and behold, file "./resources/wdcommon.js" has several references to FUEL: L41-L43 var WebDestroyer = { /* The FUEL Application object. */ get Application() { return this._application; }, L51-L52 /* The FUEL Application object. */ _application : null, L86-L87 this._application = Cc["@mozilla.org/fuel/application;1"].getService(Ci.fuelIApplication); Didn't bother to probe the other .js files belonging to the extension... What begs the question is your statement: since they are both built on the same UXP platform, with the one standing out difference being PM28 uses the pre-Australis GUI, while, of course, Bk52 the Australis one... PS: I see you posted the same query on the official forums, too... https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=22996
  5. VistaLover
    ... If the CPU there has SSE2 support, you can always try running (if you haven't yet ) the latest New Moon 28 (32-bit/64-bit) / UXP for which, to the best of my knowledge, the officially provided Russian LP should work OK: https://github.com/JustOff/pale-moon-localization/releases/download/28.7.0_RC3/ru.xpi To install it, after saving the XPI on disk, it may be necessary to modify its install.rdf file, from <em:maxVersion>28.7.*</em:maxVersion> to <em:maxVersion>28.8.*</em:maxVersion> (since latest NM28 is at version 28.8.0a1 already...). BTW, did the suggested 27.x ru.xpi work at all in NM27? Greetings
  6. VistaLover
    ... Many thanks for this find! However, the installer checks the OS version and blocks the installation on NT < 6.1 : One can extract the installer with 7-zip and run the browser.exe main executable directly on Vista SP2, however I still prefer myself "installing" and running the truly portable PAF package I linked to previously... Best regards
  7. VistaLover
    ... However, @GlowingLights is rather interested in x64 browsers for his XP Pro x64 machine ; most sadly, apparently SM 2.49.5 64-bit only supports Win7+ ...
  8. VistaLover
    Language packs are architecture independent, meaning the same one would apply to both x86 & x64 compiles of the same app version... Unfortunately, I quit using NM27/Tycho months ago, since it no longer supports GitHub ; so I'm not following closely that fork's development; you might try the official Tycho language pack at http://archive.palemoon.org/palemoon/langpacks/27.x/ru.xpi which should be the same as the RC2 linked to by @IntMD; however, I believe that relatively recent commits have added new strings that are missing in the old (and, of course, no longer maintained) official pack; so the official ru pack might well be a trial-and-error case; it may work partially, or prohibit the GUI from even launching at all... If that's the case, then obviously a Russian speaking member of this community could add and localise the new strings...
  9. VistaLover
    (OT, but relevant to MSFN ) ... attached image not showed To have an imgur photo upload display inline inside a forum post, please choose under the Get share links option the BBCode (Forums) entry, of the format: [img=https://i.imgur.com/[7-digit-code].jpg] ... and try to avoid their new beta photo uploader: https://imgur.com/upload?beta which is now being offered as the default ; the beta uploader uses much more resources here (CPU+RAM) compared to the old one: https://imgur.com/upload so the latter should be bookmarked and preferred in older hardware+browsers! Of course, the old one will cease to exist sometime in the near future, till then though, it's the obvious choice for me...
  10. VistaLover
    @Vistaboy : Please do what @looking4awayout did (and it's the thing I always recommend when troubleshooting): create a new pristine FxESR 45.x.x profile, devoid of any extensions; safe mode only disables extensions and some gfx related features (e.g. HW acceleration, if applicable), but doesn't negate the existing prefs.js file inside your dirty profile! You didn't tell us how your existing profile was initially created; often times, profile corruption due to mysterious extension interactions/conflicts, extension upgrades/downgrades and profile migration from different browser versions (from a higher Fx version to a lower one, not to mention between Firefox forks) may be the source of difficult to dissect issues... BTW, can you still bookmark a URL via other approaches, e.g. the "star" toolbar button? Best regards
  11. VistaLover
    Hi - I do hope you're fine ; however, what you report is nothing to be in awe of and/or exclusive to NM; "mixed content protection" has been implemented since Mozilla Firefox 23: https://blog.mozilla.org/tanvi/2013/04/10/mixed-content-blocking-enabled-in-firefox-23/ https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/mixed-content-blocking-firefox In Italian: https://support.mozilla.org/it/kb/blocco-contenuti-non-sicuri Auguri
  12. VistaLover
    ... The culprit upstream change I linked to previously was first present inside the Aug 31st 2019 compiled builds (package bnavigator.win32-20190831-4c42623-uxp-11965adc1-xpmod.7z), as also indicated by its posted changelog:
  13. VistaLover
    This is why the extensions became incompatible; 0.9.0a1 < 1.0.0a1 Simply change to: <em:minVersion>0.9.0a1</em:minVersion> Responsible upstream commit: [Navigator] Version change https://github.com/binaryoutcast/binoc-central/commit/fdded3b Once again, the "Tobin" individual revolutionises app development by releasing updated code with a lowered app version number (for me at least, this is a first! ) .
  14. VistaLover
    OpenGL Extensions Viewer is a small utility that examines your system's GPU for OpenGL related features (or absence of... ) ; the latest release is v5.3.4 (2019-07-29). According to vendor's site : I did download the win32 setup (glview534.exe) and proceeded with the installation; it turns out the app has NO issues launching and successfully running here (Vista Home Premium SP2 32-bit, .NET FW 4.6.1): (Thanks to @jaclaz for mentioning this in a Win7 subforum thread... )
  15. VistaLover
    Wow ! Minutes instead of the hour(s) I had estimated... This is most excellent! But then again, as discussed, a small fortune was spent towards the purchase of this new hardware, so all's well that ends well.. Best greetings
  16. VistaLover
    ... And if I may ask, 1. Which ones of your 32-bit browsers take the least and most amount of time to compile? 2. How much is compilation time now, expressed in hours? Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity...
  17. VistaLover
    @Mathwiz : The @roytam1 UXP browsers are built from the https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/custom branch, itself derived from the corresponding master branch: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/master itself forked from the upstream master branch: https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commits/master The upstream master branch, in terms of code development, can be likened to the Mozilla trunk branch, https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/ on which the (twice-daily updated) Firefox Nightly builds are built (currently at version 71.0a1); so, that makes a staggering 730 Nightly builds released per year! The 52 (or less) UXP-based browser releases per year (from Roy) is really a small number compared to the above figure... With such short development cycles, there's really no room for proper testing and evaluation by beta/nightly testers - expect more bugs to be released in the wild on unsuspected Release Channel users, which would in turn require more frequent "point" and/or "chemspill" bugfix releases! But I think the driving force behind this inane change is to surpass Google Chrome in absolute version numbers; Mozilla is now targeting more and more younger users (who already stay clear of desktop browsers - the web to them means mostly mobile devices - or use the prevalent choice [Chrome] when they don't) who, in their naivete, may think a larger version number actually means a more recent/updated application (say, Firefox 110 vs Chrome 92). If I'm not mistaken, that was Mozilla's main argument when, back in the day, they switched to the 6 to 8-week release cycle... In all honesty, I'm not surprised by any of Mozilla's recent moves - their ship is sinking, they'll do any gimmick to keep it afloat for just a little longer...
  18. VistaLover
    ... And if anyone's in need of it, the Greek installer for WinRar 3.80 (x86): wrar380el.exe (originally saved in this old Vista laptop on June 3rd 2009 ; however, its modification timestamp dates to Oct 7th 2008! )
  19. VistaLover
    @sukistackhouse is right ; simply head to and read: https://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/help/ebook.htm#kindle Best wishes
  20. VistaLover
    ... FTR, I did report the two contained in this thread (I suppose there exist site logs that can confirm my claim), sadly only after I had also posted about them (twice... ; but to my defence, the spammer did strike back, out of spite no doubt, after I had flagged his/her first attempt...); anyhow, thanks for the cleanup (and next time, I'll be wiser ) !
  21. VistaLover
    I just tested this on NM28/UXP and it still does! Test site to verify: http://browserspy.dk/browser.php (Please note this pref doesn't modify the reported Windows NT version contained in the User Agent String (navigator.userAgent), so a website checking both strings via JS may get conflicting results: )
  22. VistaLover
    ... Yet another spamming post (disguised as a help plea) right before this one, from - most probably - the same spammer, under a newly created account and associated user name... If you read this, move your spamming activities elsewhere ; most members here are smart enough not to click your spamming links ; I trust the site admins will soon take care of you...
  23. VistaLover
    MSFN rule 2.e might apply here: ... and possibly rule 4.a: @dencorso, what are your thoughts on this?
  24. VistaLover
    ... This isn't always a definitive test - many a times, lowering the subsystem string (to < 6.0) in the main executable will get it to launch, despite this initial warning; the only definitive test is to use dependency walker x64 on the 64-bit program executable (and, possibly, on the program DLLs it depends on) and look out for API calls to missing functions in the XP x64 kernel...
  25. VistaLover
    ... But I did say: ... and I did keep my promise more than 24h ago : You just hadn't revisited my edited post prior to posting... ... I opted for the original Adobe link: Hope everyone's content now...
×
×
  • Create New...