NotHereToPlayGames

Will experiment. On the computer I am on now, all four are UNCHECKED. I would assume that if the bottom three are UNCHECKED that it doesn't matter if the top is checked or not (I'm not hearing any difference). The bigger test will be on my other computers.

Sweet! I'm so huge into *everything* PORTABLE that I have never installed *any* C++ runtime. None. Naughta. Zilch. I prefer to manually place the SMALL HANDFUL of .dll's that some programs require to be SELF-CONTAINED within that program's OWN ROOT DIR. It's almost always the same two or three or four .dll's and even though my setup has those existing as "duplicates" across my hard drive, it's still MUCH LESS space than the full runtimes. Kind of like how several .dll's land in the root dirs of things like Supermium, Mypal, Serpent, etc.

Oh, and I didn't think about asking this earlier, but when you tried to uninstall Malwarebytes and it resulted in your computer REBOOTING itself (prompting a Safe Mode uninstall of Malwarebytes), was Firefox OPEN when Malwarebytes uninstall crashed your system into a reboot?

If it does NOT launch, then clench your fists, pound one sternly but in full control of anger level on desktop but make sure you miss keyboard and mouse, grab something in the other hand and controllably throw something without breaking it or anything it hits, raise your voice level approx 15 decibels (whereas 30 decibels is the increase of a raging uncontrolled shout), and shout out this phrase, "Curse You, Malwarebytes, You Did This!"

If it DOES launch, then you should be able to REPLACE all of the .exe/.dll/etc root dir files/folders of your "installed" version and it should now also launch.

Try the PortableApps Portable Legacy 52 and see if it launches. It will not affect other Firefox installs/profiles. https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox-portable-legacy-52

I'm not seeing it imported either. Not sure if this is even possible, but do you have an extension or plugin generating imports that Firefox itself is not importing? Again, not even sure if this is possible (but I know it can be done in Edge [corporate environment]).

ps - If you download the .crx, all you have to do is modify the manifest.json *before* installing into Supermium and you can make the colors ANYTHING YOU WANT THEM TO BE. You don't have to "find" a theme that you like, you control your own destiny and CREATE the theme using the downloaded .crx as a "template". It can be easier if you find a "close enough" theme to what you WANT and then just modify to get it to EXACTLY what you want. That's what I've been doing ever since migrating from XP+360Chrome (where I embedded my own skin/theme) to 10+Chrome. For me, I really "hate" for Chrome to not LOOK LIKE everything else in XP. And that extends to 10 where "active" and "inactive" Chrome windows don't by default LOOK LIKE everything else in 10. This is a good source for all of the available "notations" that can be used - https://github.com/mike-u/EditChromeThemes

Nearly all of the bad-eyesight folks that I know all "swear by" anything-and-everything "dark mode". Why not try a "dark theme"? ie, something like this works in Supermium in XP+POS x86 -- https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/dark-theme-for-google-chr/annfbnbieaamhaimclajlajpijgkdblo Normal Supermium: Supermium + above-link'd Dark Theme:

This is confusingly "not normal". I've never needed to use SAFE MODE to perform a NORMAL uninstall. I myself have never used Malwarebytes, so no clue what it/they consider to be "normal". I tend to think of things this way, "Can My Parents Do It?" ie, Malwarebytes would be STUPID to think somebody like my PARENTS would know how to get into SAFE MODE in order to perform an UNINSTALL.

So @Dave-H, are you running an "extended kernel" ???

If I had to fathom a guess, you have used Revo to uninstall a program or two. I used to "swear by" Revo. Until using it to uninstall AVG/Avast (don't remember which, to be honest) forced a reformat/reinstall to get XP running properly again. Granted, that was DECADES ago, but the bitter and sour taste is still present. Technically, it was THAT experience that pushed me into VMs for "testing".

Cannot replicate. Firefox 52.9.1.6822 is working for me in XP+POS (32-bit) with *NO* extended kernel (not a fan of them, technically not a fan of POSReady but been using it experimentally). This is from inside a VM. My era-correct real-hardware for an XP+POS deployment is still undergoing experimentation.

Available here - https://archive.org/download/firefox52.9.1esr (x86 and x64, I only screencap'd x64 below)

And that (D3D9!) was all it took to return my water sewer bill to an infinite unsolveable Cloudflare captcha loop! Even as high as Chrome v144. D3D9 flag is working in Chrome v143. No video stutters in v143 *when using* D3D9. What a d@mn F'in Nightmare all of this Cloudflare sh#t is evolving into !!!

Solved. v141 updated a flag "behind my back" that was set in v140. Returning the #use-angle to D3D9 setting which was set in v140 but v141 updated to "D3D11 WARP" solved the video stuttering.

So I've now had TWO consecutive "forced updates" that both did the same exact thing on my end. That result being that Cloudflare captchas would loop endlessly and never be able to be "solved". The "are you human" checkbox would show a checkmark after solving the puzzle (only for a split second), but it would only take you to another puzzle. Endlessly. The first time was last November. The solution was a "forced update" from running Chrome v136 and manually updating to Chrome v140 (v138 technically solved, but v140 solved a different issue). The same exact thing happened yesterday. Cloudflare captchas would appear to solve but all they would do is take you to another puzzle. Manually updating from v140 to v141 solved the endless captcha loops (but presented video stutter issues that v140 did not have!). In both cases, the first sign of something happening was that Google Search would present Cloudflare captchas EACH AND EVERY TIME you visited Google Search. They would "solve" but you were presented with it EACH AND EVERY TIME you visited Google Search! In both cases, my water sewage bill would present the unsolveable endless loop! This happened EXACTLY in this manner in November. And again yesterday. Simply can not be a "coincidence". The Cloudflare captcha server-side algorithms being updated to use new coding is behind this. They (the algorithms) are getting smarter and smarter at detecting "old browsers".

And without veering too far into OT Land, the install of v23 on XP, which technically was only a stub to download and install v22, that stub downloaded four or five PNG files in addition to the EXE installer. Only the PNG files/connections were logged in HTTPSProxy, not the EXE. I find this interesting because AstroSkipper's installation (one of two partitions) is missing the wallpaper images (which I have not looked into but I have to wonder if they are PNGs). ie, the PNGs came from a server that needed to pass certificate chains but the EXE did not (ie, the offline/stub did originate from an HTTP address, not an HTTPS). ie, Panda's installation communications have http connections to pull in an EXE but have https connections to pull in PNGs. I would claim that Panda is doing that because it makes it VERY EASY to log every IP Address that requested the EXE. Server logs for the website (https) and PNGs (https) would be a MILE LONG. Server logs for the EXE would only fill one 8-1/2 x 11 per day or week.

I have. Before browser "forks" came along, browser "shells" were common (Sleipnir, MyIE2, Maxthon, SlimBrowser, GreenBrowser). They all used the IE "engine" and "iexplore.exe" could be prevented from launch or network access by way of firewall rules but the "shell" would still have access through IE's "proxy". The earlier versions of Panda are basically acting as a "shell" to the Internet Explorer (and/or Edge) "engine". The question that this begs is can Panda be activated on systems where firewall rules wholly and completely block IE/Edge (not only the browser but the "engine" also)? ie, did the activation throw a firewall nag? or did it just "connect" because there was already a firewall rule "allowing" IE/Edge?

Agreed. The earlier versions of Panda seem to use INTERNET EXPLORER's proxy settings (which you proxified when setting the proxy to run "system-wide").

Okay, that explains it. I *never* use a REAL email address for these types of things. *NEVER* v23 would CONNECT (through HTTPSProxy) but then fail account creation saying the email account was unreachable. I tried EIGHT different "temporary email" services, Panda could not "reach" any of them. ie, has them all blacklisted, not uncommon [MSFN accounts can also not be created with temp emails, something that *ticks me off* but "is what it is"]). v21 would not even try to connect to the "temporary email" services [direct, no proxy] (which is inline with your statements). Just the way I do things, Panda will *NOT* get my email address. But I could create a "throwaway" Gmail and activate that way if I opt to keep Panda.

I can't get it to ACTIVATE on 100% Native XP+POS. The ACTIVATION may be where HTTPSProxy becomes a must.

I can report that Panda Dome 21 does indeed install on a 100% Native XP+POSReady2009 (ie, *no* HTTPSProxy, *no* ProxHTTPSProxy, *no* Proxomitron, *no* Cert Updates of any kind, IE never even launched until the Panda installer launched it!). And it also offered the OFFLINE installation checkbox (which I selected during install). This is a completely updated XP+POS, immediately after install of OS (plus all OS updates/hotfixes) *only*. Completely virgin XP+POS. It did not get a different version of Panda that needed uninstalled first in order to install v21.

Technically, THEY ALREADY HAVE. "We" are only able to get it installed by using programs that are not part of XP, how many of even us MSFN Geeks truly consider that route to be "supporting" XP? And the "exception error" that I was getting in LTSB 2016 indicates to me that they don't support "Win10", but rather only "new Win10".

Yes. Not in LTSB 2016, but yes in 24H2. In 2016, it "installed" but attempts to open the GUI resulted in an "exception error". At what version of 10 did the "exception error" get fixed is unknown. I've already deleted the VM clones. I could reclone/reinstall if screencaps are required. Basically, I know enough at this point that my "real hardware" XP will *not* be getting Panda Dome (it may not get ANY antivirus, to be perfectly honest, it's just for out in the garage).