Jump to content

dmiranda

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    714

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Argentina

 Content Type 

Posts posted by dmiranda

    360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    On 7/26/2021 at 3:30 PM, Dixel said:

    @Gansangriff , perhaps if you have some spare time , would you test this @ArcticFoxie's latest (final?) modded version of 360 explorer v.13.2206 with your advanced methods of testing to see if there are such connections also ? Thank you ! https://msfn.org/board/topic/182304-extreme-explorer-360-chromium-78-86-general-discussion/page/57/?tab=comments#comment-1202777

    Get a room, mate.

    0

    NoScript page load/rendering

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    19 hours ago, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

    I have mostly dropped using of noscript in favor of ematrix (umatrix fork for palemoon). It gives much greater control over scripts and and anything else and also works per site basis

    I am keeping it just for the xss, abe, clearclick and object (aka in other in umatrix, I think) blocking functions. I allow scripts globally (umatrix takes care of that, and tighten embedding and advanced options. I cannot be sure how much of all that works, but once in a while I get the odd warning, so I keep it. It "don't" hurt after all.

    0

    360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    "But I digress... "

    Not really. You are talking about the iceberg below the tip. The current state of firefox really p***es me off. It's like Netscape in the 1990s. For a while, with a FOSS mentality, it managed to challenge IE. Then it tacked in the opposite direction, to disappear in a year or two. Firefox, since 52.9, is following the same c(o)urse, now under the GG rubric. 

    0

    uBlock Origin, Chromium 54 and Firefox 52.9 ESR

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    Hi @Sampei.Nihira, if you were to suggest today a list of lists (including both the standard and those not in the standard list), which ones would you recommend, given your research? If it is not too much of an imposition, would you include a list of the links to import? I've been trying to follow this thread, but have gotten lost very often. Of course, if you have the time to do so, ragazzi :P.

    0

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by dmiranda

    "I was under the impression this pref would only work with FF53 (or Basilisk 55)
    user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.separateFileUriProcess", true); // add manually"

    Probably so. I am just testing, and have not yet tried loading file://s. I will soon test with tiddywiki and see.

    True, I have two nvidia quadro in this setup, so juice there is -but I tried in a lesser VM setup, and it ain't bad at all, compared to the status quo before learning about browser.tabs.remote.force-enable (thanks @Mathwiz).

    But I also have plenty confidence on the skills and foresight of @roytam1.

    PS: since my 15s I have cut my hair (myself, with sizers) cherokee (or something like that) style, so I have practice with using black stuff to cover the hairless-spots I've been leaving in my skull. Now I have to find some greyish stuff to do the trick    :P

    1

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    A few more notes:

    1) As somebody (sorry, couldn't find the comment) recommended in this forum in the last two days, install process lasso. It definitely helps taming multiprocess excesses that end up in crashes. It is free https://bitsum.com/company-news/process-lasso-v8-final-release-for-windows-xp-and-2003-completed/

    2) I just realized that some items in user.js DO NOT get entered or effect the expected change in about:config (see comments in the user.js entries below. For example, browser.tabs.remote.autostart gets created, but browser.tabs.remote. separatefileUriProcess doesn't.  Similarly odd, dom.ipc.processCount gets modified (from 1 to 4), but javascript.options.strict doesn't change from false to true, as instructed in user.js. A pain in the neck. I comment in those items below.

    3) In trying to set @XPerceniol suggested useragent, I realized that it did not get entered via user.js. You need to enter such manually (while being there, I tried to reset the useragent.override items for whatsapp and other sites, since I am using uacontrol-0.1.3.1.1-signed.1-signed. I then realized that they cannot be reset! After restart they remain as a name with an empty string.

    4)If your machine has the juice, enable hardware acceleration in preferences, and the layers.something noted below. With one process doing so slow things down (I've been there). With multiprocess, it is almost like being back in 2010 (I feel so much younger).

    Below my current user.js settings: 

    user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.force-enable", true);
user_pref("dom.ipc.processCount", 4);
user_pref("extensions.e10sBlocksEnabling", false);
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.autostart", true);  
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.autostart.2",); // reset may be addon created 
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.separateFileUriProcess", true); // add manually
user_pref("extensions.e10sMultiBlockedByAddons", false); // add manually
user_pref("dom.ipc.process.webLargeAllocation", 4);  // add manually



    user_pref("layers.acceleration.enabled", true); // already default
user_pref("layers.acceleration.force-enabled", true); // add manually
user_pref("layers.force-active", true); // set manually
user_pref("javascript.options.strict", true); // set manually

With all of the above, sp52 plays heavy-scrioted sites (YT, gmail, FB, etc) almost as well as 360Chrome. Normal pages load fast!

Cheers! 

     

     
    1

    360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    26 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

    I counted eleven First Run connections in Basilisk yet they have gone completely unnoticed for "decades" yet one solitary gstatic connection in 360Chrome has the World in a Frenzy?  Explain that, please!
     

    Most people don't care. But they have been noticed, and can be modified without much fuss from source, unlike chrome derivatives. The problem with the particular gstatic connection you mention is its history: it was once used to set up a unique identifier. Maybe that is not the case anymore. But that is why it irks people.

    1

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by dmiranda

    Thanks for the feedback, @XPerceniol. Following your posts, I am testing the following settings (the last 3 I had commented out before), and seem to make a bit of a positive difference on tests like https://testdrive-archive.azurewebsites.net/performance/chalkboard/.  We'll see if they lead to (more frequent crashes).

    Two notes. 1) the magic number 4 may be increased, but I preferred to start low -will increase as I progress testing. 2) the autostart.2 thinguie was there somehow before even starting the tests; I reset it, and left commented in user.js for future use if it reappears. 

    // MULTIPROCESS
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.force-enable", true);
user_pref("dom.ipc.processCount", 4); //increase to 8 once stable
user_pref("extensions.e10sBlocksEnabling", false);
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.autostart", true); // (FF49+) (hidden pref)
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.autostart.2",); //in case it comes back, reset it
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.separateFileUriProcess", true); // discussed before in this thread, it may help prevent full crashes
user_pref("extensions.e10sMultiBlockedByAddons", false); // not sure if necessary, most extensions are legacy
user_pref("dom.ipc.process.webLargeAllocation", 4); //increase to 8 once stable

Finally, I'm testing the following settings you suggested. Let's see. Thanks!

user_pref("general.useragent.compatMode.version", "78");
user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0");
user_pref("javascript.options.strict", true); // wonder if this conflicts with umatrix/ublock/noscript
user_pref("layers.acceleration.enabled", false); // may this slowdown things?
user_pref("network.IDN.restriction_profile", "strict"); // not sure about this, will see, maybe high?
    0

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

    That's also why single-core computers had to have faster clock speeds and massive cooling fans (and I've seen some that even had their own "radiator" and was water-cooled - no anti-freeze required, waka waka waka).

    Good point. Up to intel i3 I used those, anti-freeze and all. It was a blast spending a day or two setting the damn thing up. With i5 and up, as you note, though, there has been no need (for me) to do it anymore -probably because I do not play games :P

    0

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    Well, I finally found a sticky notes extension able to replace internotes, and am planning to keep multiprocess on for my working profile as well. My reasons:

    1) For my casual profile, it allows me to run social media with reasonable speed (not as good as with the various versions of 360, but for casual browsing I do not need that much speed -i prefer a modicum level of privacy/security). I still have the modded 360s there when needed if I want fast food.

    2) In my work profile I often work with 20+tabs, for reasons related to my work and the way I organize it. Call it whatever you want, but I need those many tabs or at least am used/organized to do my work that way. Years of discipline/routines/extension customizations to do what I want, how I want it. With sp52 with no ie10, though, I was reaching a point where more than 5 tabs would stall the browser for up to half a minute, and sometimes stay there, all tabs frozen circling and no movement until I restarted the browser. With e10 enabled, things are back to what it was before I moved to sp52 from ff52 (because I could/cannot trust ff52 anymore -that is me and my use of the web, btw).

    If anyone is seriously interested, I am quite willing to share more details. Bottom line (but subject to more testing) it makes the whole thing enjoyable once again. Thanks @Tommy for pinning this thread and so bringing it to my attention. Cheers!

    1

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    42 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

    I understand the web of 2021 presents serious challenges to UXP and especially to those using the XP-compatible UXP browsers (usually on older H/W), users who are now more desperate to explore other "available" avenues to better their browsing experience... YMMV, of course, but my testing has proved (to me) that e10s on St52 ain't worth the trouble.

    For those, like me, where hardware is not the problem (but obstinacy in pretending to keep using XP) it makes a difference. Beyond FB, YT etc, normal pages load way faster, even when loading a bunch of tabs at the time. There is simply no comparison with st52 without e10. It is like it was with ff52 (only that with more secure software, and more available extensions/addons). I am keeping it in my profile for casual/social browsing, and as soon as I find or mod an extension for annotating webpages, for my working profile. Cheers!

    1

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by dmiranda

    1 hour ago, XPerceniol said:

    Perhaps there is still some hope. Did you see improvement?

    Yup. What @Dave-H says about FF52 applies to basilisf52: now you can play youtube and browse fb, without much stuttering, and with strict privacy security settings. For such heavy-scripted sites, t is still not as fast as @Humming Owl or ArticFoxie's 360Chrome mods (and using both concurrently makes both browsers crash) but usable.

    I have tested the extensions below (again, only in a fresh profile, as @VistaLover said, do not simply add multiprocess to an already used profile), and trying to find a way to get a few otehrs (internote in particular) to work. All in all, pretty doable, and much better than with no multiprocess (some of those extensions need updating, once installed).

    add_bookmark_here_2-52.0.20170311-fx.xpi  Decentraleyes.v1.4.3-pale-moon.xpi  open_with-6.8.6-fx+sm+tb.xpi  tab_mix_plus-0.5.5.0-fx.xpi add_to_search_bar-2.9-fx pm.xpi  diccionario_espanol_argentina-2.6.3.1.xpi  OPIE210.0.xpi  uacontrol-0.1.3.1.1-signed.1-signed.xpi  backtotop10.0.xpi  dismiss-the-overlay-1.0.3.xpi page_zoom_button-1.4.1-fx.xpi uBlock0_1.16.4.20.firefox-legacy.xpi  clean_uninstall-0.2.0-fx.xpi english_united_states_dictionary_by_mozilla-60.xpi profileswitcher-1.7.7-fx+tb.xpi Umatrix-4.3.0.xpi 763 K clear_cache_and_data-1.1.2-sm+fx.xpi go_parent_folder-2.9.1-fx+sm.xpi pureurl4pm-3.3.xpi undoBookmarksMenu@alice.xpi close_button-0.4.1-fx pm.xpi  mouse_gestures_suite-2.5.1-fx+sm.xpi reload_plus-5.2.3-fx.xpi url-clipper-1.0.2.xpi context_search_x-0.4.6.26-fx.xpi mozarchiver@lootyhoof-pm.xpi  save_file_to-2.5.5-fx pm.xpi  verificador_ortografico_para_portugues_do_brasil-2.5-3.2.13-an+fx+sm+tb.xpi cookexterm-2.9.10.xpi neat_url-5.0.0-an+fx.xpi speed_tweaks_speedyfox-0.2.2-an+fx.xpi  xclear-1.8.2-fx+sm.xpi copy-as-plain-text-1.0.xpi foxclocks-4.2.3-sm+tb+fx.xpi  image_zoom-0.6.3-sm+tb+fx.xpi 101 K ruffle-nightly-2021_06_29-web-extension-firefox.xpi all_in_one_sidebar-0.7.31.1-fx.xpi foxyproxy_basic-3.6.5-fx+sm+tb.xpi  singlefile-1.18.25-an+fx.xpi art_project-0.1.5-fx.xpi  github-wc-polyfill-1.2.2.xpi  i_dont_care_about_cookies-2.9.3-an+fx.xpi  singlefile.txt downthemall-3.0.8-fx+sm pm.xpi  greasemonkey-3.30-pm_forkBranch.xpi  kiwix_offline_wikipedia_reader-3.1.0-an+fx.xpi   https-everywhere-latest.xpi 1,701 K menu_wizard-5.10-fx+sm+tb.xpi sixornot-2.0.2-fx.xpi enhancer_for_youtubetm-2.0.103-fx.xpi  resurrect_pages-3-fx.xpi

    0

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by dmiranda

    I've been testing it and even though it crashes the browser every other day (depending usage, and in particular when using concurrently with chrome derivatives) multiprocess enabled basilisk52 makes (unnecessarily) heavy scripted sites like youtube, gmail, fb and the other usual suspects playable with xul (which is quite impossible now without multiprocess); which makes me thing/hope that xul development on the multiprocess direction (and not necessarily script support -which I heavily cripple) may be a way to abort doom. After testing and experimenting as per @Mathwiz summary in the first post of this thread, I use the settings (loaded via user.js) below (tried and decided not to use the the four commented out): 

    // MULTIPROCESS
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.force-enable", true);
user_pref("dom.ipc.processCount", 4);
user_pref("extensions.e10sBlocksEnabling", false);
user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.autostart", true); // (FF49+) (hidden pref)
//user_pref("extensions.e10sMultiBlockedByAddons", false);
//user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.separateFileUriProcess", true);
//user_pref("dom.ipc.process.webLargeAllocation", 4);
//user_pref("browser.tabs.remote.autostart.2", true); // (FF49+) (hidden pref)

     

     

    1

    Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    Well, I got it working on basilisk52, and works well. Most extensions do work (even if showing non-compatible) if installed in a fresh profile. One issue I have, however, is that I cannot use an old extension I use daily: internote-3.0.2-fx (https://sourceforge.net/projects/internote/files/internote/3.0/). Has anyone tried it in basilisk52 with forced multiprocess? Any clue on how to make it work? Thanks!  

    1

    360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by dmiranda

    15 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

    (If you want to add more, be aware that the more extensions you have, more resources the browser will use)

    In V12 here, and in @articfoxie's V13:2206, I am able to run the following extensions:

    FUNCTIONS
    All in one web searcher
    Allow Right-Click
    Behind The Overlay
    Close Tab
    Context Menu Search
    Enhancer for YouTube™
    Open With
    Sexy Undo Close Tab
    Social Fixer for Facebook

    PRIVACY AND SECUTIRY
    Clean All - History & Cache Cleaner
    ClearURLs
    [Cookie Autodelete OR Cookiebro (below 12)]
    Decentraleyes
    Google search link fix
    HTTPS Everywhere
    Neat URL
    Scriptsafe
    Ublock Origin
    Umatrix
     

    Since scripsafe and All in one web searcher require loading (or something in) \User Data\Default\Local Storage\leveldb, they lose settings on crashes or if you clean that folder, but there is a workaround I could share, if needed.

    Also, I run the V9 and V12 builds (have not tried V11) using ArticFoxies modded 360loader exe and ini, with command flags and custom folder/file deletes that I can share, if needed. Cheers!

     

    0

    Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by dmiranda

    32 minutes ago, we3fan said:

    Can LibreOffice or OpenOffice successfully replace text in many .doc files at once? Or some other program?

    Ucyborg is right. I haven't used the specific plugins, but winmerge can supposedly load and replace (at least file by file) word and pdf files, at least file by file. A tough cookie...

    As per openoffice/libreoffice, this may help (but not much): https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=5067

    1

    Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by dmiranda

    18 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

    The 1054 was more of an experiment for the "YouTube Crowd" because people were frowning upon me for not considering YouTube as a tell-tale on 360Chrome's capabilities, performance, stability, reliability, etc.

    First, thanks for getting 360 to be a usable browser. Then, with all due respect, you got this one wrong. You asked for beta testers (for those -not you- who wonder what such thing is, google it), and I (among others) did. In my case, I (as a few others did) reported that that all FB-AP-GG-MS sites were working fine, except for youtube. No frowning upon, just the facts of testing, ma'am. I have kept your modded 2206 for general use (for such unnecessarily script-heavy sites) , except for party mood, when I will have to (still) use a linux laptop. Otherwise, it is a welcome addition to XP: it is capable to run sites where firefox derivatives can't run without script-stuttering, and it performs well (give or take a few glitches we all are used to), reliably and stably -unless you need more than one instance of youtube in your browser- so thanks again. Sincerely. I look forward to your future contributions to this community, bro.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3J_2R9rAp8

    PS: if I were to share this song publicly, other than in youtube, it would be blocked (and I could be sued) for copyright infringement, BTW.

     

    0
×
×
  • Create New...