Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Windows 2000

Member
  • Content Count

    162
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Windows 2000 last won the day on September 30 2019

Windows 2000 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About Windows 2000

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x64
  • Country

Flags

  • Country Flag

Recent Profile Visitors

2,458 profile views
  1. Oh, right. It was a quick Google search and I must have misread something somewhere
  2. Technically, that would make the theoretically most powerful stable Windows 2000 system be with the following specs: - Intel Core i7-6950X - GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB GDDR5 - 32 GB DDR3 Memory That's of course if I am not missing something along the way.
  3. Not really. Faking the user agent goes just as far as telling the website that you're running a newer browser while you are in fact not. The trouble comes when a site has some feature(s) that are unsupported by the older spoofed browser and then it simply does not work or load properly. A very good example of that is when Chrome 49 gets spoofed to Chrome 51+ and as a result, YouTube does not work - at all.
  4. Yes, I was aware of that, but Google is greedy and their new YouTube layout works smoothly only with a Chromium based browser. Here is a rough explanation of why that is: [Click To Open Twitter] So really, using it on roytam1's browser is not a very good option regardless. Please keep in mind that I do not have experience with the newer and more resource heavy layout on older hardware as I have been using XP on a modern computer and performance has never been a problem for me, so it might not be as noticeable on older computers as it is on newer and more powerful ones. More smoothly than any other non-chromium browser with a spoofed user agent, yes. Also, neither the last official Chrome (49) that works on XP or the Advanced Chromium (54) support the new layout, even with a spoofed user agent. (The layout does not load properly and does not work, at least to my knowledge) Layout, to be more precise. Please excuse me for the confusion that I may have caused due to English not being my primary language. Right on point.
  5. I'm positive that Chrome 360 is based on a newer version of Chromium solely on the fact that it is the only XP browser that can load the new YouTube desing.
  6. I am pretty sure due to personal experience that the success rate is 100% with the whole pascal lineup, although as you mentioned, only 2d acceleration is possible.
  7. Actually, I was wondering the same thing, but for Ryzen 7 2700x. Can anyone with any am4 processor test to see if Vista is a lost cause for those processors?
  8. I tried it on a Vista Ultimate x64 virtual machine and I was bombarded with error messages for missing functions followed by an App Crash followed by an error of d3d11 file missing. Unfortunately, it wasn't able to get to the browser itself after crashing devastatingly.
  9. Good luck. It seems to be working just fine on my first ever laptop with a Pentium M from 2006 and integrated graphics.
  10. Well, they have backported it somehow. Nevertheless, it does work and it works really well, especially on older computers.
  11. At this point I really feel like I am kind of advertising them, but I can not stress enough how happy I am that there is a Chromium 78 (which is the latest) based browser on Windows 2000, XP and Vista. I've been using it as my main browser for a couple of months now and honestly if you can get past the chinese setup, it is the most up to date browser you can get. [Open Chrome 360 Discussion Topic]
  12. It is probably worth it as it won't break the piggy bank and after all you're getting a new unused gpu which will guarantee atleast a few years of usage and it will also be less power hungry and a little quieter. If memory serves me right, there were even fanless versions of the gt730. The faster memory of that card will also be very beneficial for some light gaming.
  13. I do not think that you will be able to get it working properly in XP. If you're looking in buying new, your only options really are GT 730, 710 and 210. Second hand would be a better bet. I got a GTX 970 for just 90 euros last year and it has been doing a flawless job in both XP x64 and x32 ever since.
  14. After a quick test, it seems to actually be based on Chromium 65, rather than 72 unfortunately.
  15. Unfortunately, as of right now, the latest version of 360 Extreme Explorer downloaded on a Windows 7 machine and transfered to an XP one, does not seem to work in any way. I sincerely hope that a legacy build is on the way. Maybe it takes them a little longer to release new versions for Vista, XP, 2000? If not, then version 11.0.2216.0 (Based on Chromium 69) seems to be the last for XP x64 and probably Vista, XP x86 and 2000. EDIT: After a quick test, it seems like the final version is still in fact 11.0.2216.0 (tested on Windows 10 machine) so we may still be good to go. I do not know why the 7 setup did not work back when I did that test so my apologies for the false information.
×
×
  • Create New...