NotHereToPlayGames

I do tend to speed-read, I make no apology. This is not my full-time job. What I "follow" is for waiting for the Toggle Process Mode button to be made public. And yes, maybe I missed it so this is me asking directly.

tThhatT's a reeLeef. Eye'd hAt two bee banNed ovEr a TyPo. And I really have no interest in hiring a proofreader for outside of actual work. And not really interesting in jumping on the AI Wagon for proofreading either.

LOL I'll give you a "like" for that OBVIOUS typo. But that's also kind of my point. We all need to hire proofreaders just to be an MSFN member! Or is it "a" MSFN member? I won't lose sleep over it.

Is this one shared publicly now? Last I recall, it was not but this is one I would be very interested in using.

<OT> OT and forgive the interruption - is "4st" a word? Here in the US, it's either "1st" for "first" or "4th" for "fourth". Just curious because I have never ever seen "4st". All I could find was this - https://www.abbreviations.com/4ST Of course also acknowledging that the forum is no longer allowed to use US English (ie, people that use "favor" will be told to correct it to "favour"). </OT>

Haven't started. Not going to start. The way I see it, you have offered NO PROOF that you've modified CatsXP, it's all heresay and I'm not playing. So I'm essentially done in this topic. It's gone full circle and just keeps talking in circles.

<del>

I guess I'm more skeptic than you are. Disabling the embedded blocker, in my skepticism, is not enough! I've seen too many "disables" over the years that aren't 100% disables! More like 95% disables with embedded "favoritisms" applied to specific phone-home URLs that can not be disabled. I may investigate one of these weekends. But my very strong hunch is that CatsXP is not as "safe" and "private" as many believe it to be. I parallel it to Firefox and Iron. Many think those to be "privacy conscious" but IceCat is the only only only Mozilla Fork that I have stumbled upon that doesn't "phone home" at each and every launch. Most "privacy browsers" really are just marketing scams - tell a "soccer mom" that a salvage-titled vehicle is "safe" and poor ol' soccer mom will spend twice what it's actually worth.

Seems to me that the reason that CatsXP has issues with uBO is because CatsXP has its own built-in ad and tracking protection. Embedded/built-in ad blocking is clearly interfering with uBO. Is that uBO's "fault"? I would submit "no". Not to sound like a broken record skipping back into the same groove over and over and over, browsers should just render web pages, they should not have added features and functions that have nothing to do with being a "browser". Maybe that can be a project for someone - DEBLOAT CatsXP and turn it back into a "browser". Mr. D.Draker, you yourself are smart enough to know that embedding an ad blocker or tracking protection is very SHADY and adds a level of "blind trust". Afterall, I think it was you (thanks again) that was the one to find 360Chrome's embedded DNS Resolver code - CatsXP's ad blocking and tracking protection WILL HAVE something similar, just nobody bothered to find it and is "blindly trusting" CatsXP. In my "not-so-humble" opinion... I mean, how many of us would use uBO and Privacy Badger and Ghostery and AdBlock Plus and whatever else there is and "expect" them all to "play well together". Don't most (if not ALL) ad-blockers tell you right up front to not use with other adblockers? Why would anyone do just that with CatsXP's embedded/built-in adblocker and "expect" them to "play well together"?

What version of uBO wasn't working in CatsXP? ie, was it a brand new version, still in "beta"? Or was it a "stable" version? Or was it one of the OLDER versions cited here for "faster yellow exclamation mark"? Seems we have conflicting data. We have some folks that thought they were running older versions because older versions work better, but that "work better" was not even noticed as "no longer working better" when uBO updated itself and the user wasn't even aware that uBO updated itself. How is that even possible? If the newer version is a performance drag, how can one not notice that the newer version auto-updated? NOT an indictment on the person citing such an auto-update! I personally LIKE running OLDER versions of my extensions. I'm not a fan of consuming time just to update, update, update. It's not just uBO where an OLDER version can be quantifiably measured as "faster" - NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. Bottom line is this, or so it seems - we all know what we want and seldom do threads like this change our already made-up mind. Okay, it's not exactly like that, lol.

Of course I noticed. And that is also why I said I'm not here to play "gotcha games" (which you excel at, I'm sure you are aware) [and I lack the discipline of preventing getting sucked in, working on that!, I'll call that "my problem" and not "yours"]. The thread was discussing (and I'm not going to reread to get the exact details, not interested in dotting I's and crossing T's), the thread was discussing something about time consumed to upkeep the OS. I threw XP and 7 in as an example. It was you that "made this about" me not running 7 (again, you do excel at "gotcha games", you're one of the BEST, take it as a "compliment" I suppose). Moving on... Unless the discussion reverts to uBO instead of "gotcha games"... Yep! I have to assume that you are referring to the different versions of uBO that have been discussed (differences which rely solely on uBO version, THE OS IS SEEMINGLY IRRELEVANT). I use v1.52.2 because I prefer the old style of being able to "purge" lists and I don't like the new "differential updates" methodology. Differential updates solves a server-side load issue. But ultimately, that is an issue that really does not pertain to actual functionality of uBO, we just need an updated list, the server load is not technically "our" problem. I'm okay with a list taking 20 seconds to update instead of 2 seconds to update. Purely hypothetical times of course, I've not really measured how long a list update takes nor compared full versus "differential". Let's tackle this next, if we shall, just what does the OS version have to do with anything at all regarding various uBO versions? Maybe I missed it because I admit that I've only used uBO for a little over a year or so. Thanks to MSFN folks for bringing my attention to it, as far as that goes. But I don't think uBO has ever had a version that work in 10 or 11 but does not work in 7. Again, maybe I missed it.

LTSB 2016. It is possible that it qualifies for a "free upgrade" to LTSC which Microsoft still "supports" until October 2026, if memory serves. But mine is intentionally "stuck" at LTSB 2016. Maybe I shouldn't call it an "unsupported" OS, but I'm not that interested in making sure I dot the I's and cross the T's for MSFN posts, especially in light of all the "gotcha games" that go on behind the scenes.

Agreed. For me, it wasn't a matter of tweaking the OS. Rather, browsing the "modern" web in XP just became way way WAY too much of a WEEKLY HASSLE. I don't regret "learning experiences" from that HASSLE, but I for one have no regrests in finally ditching XP. But I still use an OS that has no "support" so I still qualify for all of the "older OS" threads, lol.

It's all relative. I spent way way WAY more time keeping XP "useable". But I certainly don't look back and call it a "hassle". Anybody running XP or 7 in 2025 has to be taking time to study and test. It's not a "hassle", just part of the day, run of the mill, same ol', same ol'.

I recall. You didn't have before and after and I tried to replicate. I could not. But my only reference was IceCat v115 versus Chromium v122. Which wasn't really a fair comparison.

Agreed! The issue "for me" is that I do not, under any circumstance, allow any "at start" update checks! I read the changelog on "differential updates", but have not isolated within the source code on just "how" they work. I can only suspect that a line-of-communication exists that transmits header data "at startup" and only fetches a new list if the header indicates a "differential difference". I applaud the idea so as to prevent server-load issues with too many people downloading too large of lists, whereas the header data is a few bytes compared to megabytes for the full list. Again, I applaud the idea. I just do not want the at-start line of communication. Personally, my method is LESS OF A SERVER LOAD. Since I control the line of communication and perform it once every weekend or so instead of a hundred launches every day. As always, "to each their own".

That OLD TEST that cites 31% is over two years old according to the link where it compares some popular forks. I compared these "fasterfox" and "betterfox" user.js Placebo Effects just a month or two ago in IceCat v115 and COULD NOT CONFIRM any such performance increase. Nowhere near 31%. However, IceCat is based on v115 and I have no doubt that anything v128 or higher would give better results. Due to embedded telemetry, IceCat is the only Mozilla Fork I would ever consider using. I have been waiting for a v128 but it is still not here last I checked. "To each their own." You know better than that. Your former professor colleagues would be disappointed. Without a before and after quantifiable and REPEATABLE test, then any performance increase is nothing more than Placebo Effect. Sorry, that's just SCIENTIFIC, keep your "vision" and your "gut" out of the equation.

I use 1.59.0 here at work and hate it! Hate is probably too strong a word. I've been meaning to drop it back down to 1.52.2 but I have to literally .zip from home and attach to an MS Teams chat. Work "security" will not allow me to email it to myself and will not allow downloading. I use the "purge" function for lists quite often and newer versions of uBO removed that function. Unsure "when" it got removed or even "why". I read the changelog when it happened, just forget offhand as to when/why.

I know Chinese and I even outsource portions of my department to China. That video is biased. Plain and simple. The reality is that China is not that much different then other countries (if I may be so bold to say it that way). At least in terms of socio-economic "class". The issue (at least here in the USA) is that we have something like ONE IN THREE that are addicted to drugs or alcohol and these ONE IN THREE can't get off their butt to get a haircut so much as once every six months let alone hold a "job" of any kind. Do other countries have that ONE IN THREE addiction issue? That would be an interesting study! Here in the USA, if you work hard, you do well. If you think you work hard but really do NOT, only doing what it takes to live "paycheck to paycheck", then sorry for the lack of empathy, but you get no respect from me! Or something like that...

7zip also works. I tend to use Uniextract for rarer archive types than just a .zip renamed as a .crx. A .crx is just a .zip with the extension's private key included as metadata. Any .zip tool will extract them. Then I use Chrome/Chromium to repackage as a .crx + .pem.

Correct! I do not auto update and leave an older version ON PURPOSE. As far as I am concerned, the only ONLY ONLY reason to ever upgrade from a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" version is because the older version is now broken. We uBlock Origin users have a common flaw! That flaw is that uBlock does not publish the actual LISTS that it uses! Most are published by Adblock Plus and that results in ERRORS when designed-for-ABP lists are used by uBO. Each and every one of us has a method to *track* those ERRORS - ie, click on the "eyeball" and open the List Asset Viewer. These 19 Errors, for example, is from uBlock 1.62.0 in Chromium v131 with an updated-just-now list. That list also has *ERRORS* in uBlock 1.52.2 in Chromium v122 - but it is my ONLY list with ERRORS in 1.52.2 whereas 1.62.0 has SEVERAL lists with errors! I run 14 lists here at home. I do jump through the hoops to make sure that those lists are working well with each other. EasyList Cookie Notices, as one example, has an ERROR when ran on uBO 1.62.0 but does not have an error when ran on uBO 1.52.2, same EXACT list used in both, errors in newest, does not error in older. I could list other lists also. But that example "teaches you how to fish" so you can start feeding yourself. Newer is not always better!

All true. I'm not running a 20-30yr old computer so my computer is fast enough to not be concerned with the effect of 3 extensions doing the work of 1. That is an ENTIRELY different matter then a web browser's "naked benchmarks" (ie, no extensions) indicating a performance baseline. I think you are now beginning to see why this thread (and others like it) never gain any traction. What I have works for me, not you. What you have works for you, not me. What person C has works for person C, but not you or me.

Did you install 1.53.0 from the Chrome Web Store (or similar)? If so, I submit that that is why (assuming you do not use UNGOOGLED CHROMIUM as that is technically the only Chrome/Chromium Fork that truly breaks the line-of-communication with Chrome Web Store). I think Brave does also, but I've never actually used Brave. Another "trick" is to MODIFY the extension before installing. Extensions have a 32-digit "checksum". It is the numbers you see after chrome-extension:// in the address bar whenever you go to an extension's settings/options. By repacking the extension then installing from your repack but just adding your own "notes.txt" file, as an example, YOU CHANGE THE CHECKSUM and now even Chrome Web Store won't even recognize what it is!

This is your hobby/obsession, not mine. No way in Hades will I install PB. Nothing against PB, per se. But I *never* install *any* extension without scouring through its source code and I have no interest in scouring PB's source code. I cite Tampermonkey as an example. I had it scoured and modified LONG before I ever started using it. And look what using it "as-is" did to anybody that tried to use it in Supermium (assuming you follow those discussions as well). PB "used to" be in the tech-news quite a bit for violating privacy in order to protect privacy. Though I have not seen it in *recent* tech-news, so that reference is a bit dated (unsure of how dated, months or years, no clue).

Yep. As I previously stated, Router config (which includes DNS blocking!) + DNS hosts file is the first line of defense, above and beyond any extension or Proxomitron-like app.