NotHereToPlayGames

I tried to simply copy-and-paste directly from my [major] Tampermonkey userscript. No clue why MSFN would not allow it (because I've done it before!). All I can figure is MSFN is still bending over backwards to prevent SPAM ATTACKS - which is great and well-needed. But at what cost? I mean, the only way NEW MEMBERS can join MSFN is if they somehow manage to "coordinate" their new membership via THIRD-PARTY forums.

No worries here. I have the 36-line version saved also (I have it labeled as [minor]). I've never actually needed it but it *IS* a "confirmed fix" for a CHASE web site so I keep it just-in-case. I don't have a CHASE account to know if the [major] version does or does not work on CHASE. If it DOES, then I would throw away the [minor] and just resort to the [major]. But if the [minor] does have SOME web sites that it does work on, then until I can prove that it works where the [major] does not, then I keep both for just-in-case.

Thanks for tracking it down! Yep, that's the one that I use (deactivated by default, I only activate polyfills on a when-needed basis).

The structuredclone that WORKS is 251 lines long! The structuredclone that does NOT work is only 36 lines long!

MSFN is not letting me post the WORKING structuredclone polyfill. Moving on, got more important things to attend to at the moment then to figure out why MSFN isn't letting me post the WORKING polyfill.

That structuredclone polyfill is very limited and was only discussed as a fix for Chase. That is not the structuredclone polyfill that I used and even screencap'd as WORKING for the pdf viewer. Use this one instead: <test - issues with posting at MSFN>

You're not wanting to use Tampermonkey and polyfilling via Tampermonkey. Kind of not "our fault" when we give a method that WORKS but you don't want to use that method.

That's because that is only one half, one third, one fourth of the problem. Only after you resolve array.at does structuredclone error show up. Then after you resolve that, you're likely to encounter even more errors. You do not need an online viewer to view .pdf's - download it then drag and drop into 360Chrome, bypass that "viewer" -- https://storage.enganchesaragon.com/public-websites/ecommerce/Inst/C0801E.pdf

Please provide an example web site.

That was me also. And I had to TEACH MYSELF how to trim XP to the basics. Therefore, yeah, you can also teach yourself to trim 10 to the basics.

Need to know your MOTHERBOARD. PLGA and LGA sockets are interchangeable. You could upgrade your Pentium D to a Core2 Quad Q6700 and be identical to me or you could upgrade to Core2 Extreme X9770 (not compatible with my motherboard) and be 23% better than me. Again, some times we bring upon our own misery! "Been there, done that." I stuck with XP and kept telling myself my hardware can't run 10. Folks that want to run XP, all the power to them. But MOST that still do only do it because they have a MOBILE PHONE to do what XP can not do. That was not my case. I do not own a phone. No land line. No mobile. NO PHONE. Amazon has the Q6700 for $24.95. Anybody that can afford internet service and be on MSFN can afford $24.95. https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Quad-Core-Processor-1066MHz-LGA775/dp/B000TGK05A The Core2 Extreme sells for a HELLAVUA LOT MORE but also very likely won't go with your motherboard. Point is, $25 is manageable on ANY budget!

You may be surprised, I used to think the same thing. I'm running 10 on a 15yr old eMachines T3656 with only 3GB RAM without any issues whatsoever. WinReducer EX-100 - Learn it, Use it! :) NO! I'm not being <insert negative adjective of choice> and trying to load up 10, 20, or 30 tabs in a web browser! Some times we bring upon our own misery and cannot blame others for that misery.

Where are you finding that "key.split" is even a command?

XP on my i7 and with Supermium running only has 24 processes. How in Heck are you at 74? That seems EXTREMELY high.

The US Government tried this. It was called the Disinfo Czar. Failed miserably. Was shut down within a month. One person's "news" is another person's "fake news". One person's "angry post" is another person's "polite reporting of facts". One person't "facts" is another person's "bias". Et cetera. Ad nauseam. Carpe diem. Veni, vidi, vici. Et tu, Brute?

Sad is a bit relative. Too many toes stepped on. Both sides have their pros and cons. "It's Tricky", as Run-DMC used to say.

A good not-so-good read on Speedometer 3.0 here -- https://www.techspot.com/news/97006-apple-google-mozilla-collaborate-speedometer-3-browser-benchmark.html I was hoping to find something that says 3.0 requires Chromium v109+ or Firefox v102+ or something as the "minimum requirement". Not finding any "minimum requirement" at the repository either -- https://github.com/WebKit/Speedometer

Agreed. BUT contrary to other people's computers, they do NOT do this for me on MY COMPUTERS so long as I **KEEP** the "vulkan" files! Strictly speaking for XP x64. It's on my To Do List to do that same type of "vulkan" experimenting with Supermium "one of these days".

I can also replicate this. Does not start first time but does the second. But this repeats after each and every reboot or hibernate. First start is a fail, every start from second onward is fine.

x64 users have lock-up issues if they delete the "vulkan" files - FACT The file may be NAMED "vulkan", that doesn't imply that is its SOLE purpose for existence. I will not engage in this FIGHT. I *will* monitor the official GitHub (I am not a member, but I do read the official) for discussions on what "vulkan" is and is not for XP x64 versus XP x86.

Not entirely true. Somebody here should ask win32ss direclty on just what "vulkan" is and is not when it comes to not only XP x86 but also to XP x64 which is not the same beast driver-wise. MANY x64 users have witnessed this for themselves. I think win32ss would know more about this than folks that simply delete files willy-nilly and check a checkbox, "yep, it 'works' without this file". Deleting a file in x86 does not carry over to deleting a file in x64. Speaking solely for XP. I think UCyborg has also researched the matter in the past, do not recall offhand.

Correction: Enhancer for YouTube v2.0.122.1 does not work in v86 or in v114 for the Appearance >> Hide comments function. Have not dug deeper to see if it can be restored as I can block the (stupid) comments by other means.

I can confirm that Enhancer for YouTube v2.0.122.1 works perfectly fine in v86 once you drop it back down to MV3 MV2.

I always fire up a VM with "real" Chrome (instead of Ungoogled Chrome or 360Chrome), go to the webstore and install an extension "Get CRX", then download the actual .crx. That is, unless it is already archived at Crx4Chrome (which Enhancer for YouTube was not, at least not a few days ago). I'll be updating my 360Chrome's Enhancer for YouTube over the weekend, I suspect the updated version will be just fine with v86 but I have only ran it in v114 despite it citing minimum is v120.