NotHereToPlayGames

That's one way to date XP. But I think of XP as being from 2008 because that's when SP3 was released. Unsure when the last official (non-POSReady) hotfix rolled out - 2014? 2017? Don't recall. Ubuntu users don't define their OS as being released in 2004, do they? I'm not even sure how to "date" Win 10. I kind of think of the different versions of Win 10 as "service packs". Potato, potahto (phonetics saying in the US).

lol, I guess that is one way to interpret. If we are counting non-working, then please make it SEVEN. The '53 Studebaker doesn't drive - but the engine does work, so does that count?

Front Note: "you" in the US is plural and I use it here in that fashion. "you" does not 'equal' AstroSkipper. I agree in the sense that if you "fully support" a program, you don't generally concern yourself with being "counted" by embedded telemetry doing that "counting" and reporting back to The Creator. But even as such, there are generally Opt-Out clauses where the consumer can decide for him/her self if they want to be "counted" or not. Some consumers are concerned that their anti-virus has data on them being, purely as an example, both as a church-goer and as a frequent visitor to "Web Site X" (or should I call it "Web Site XXX"?). I personally follow the philosophy that if you want "privacy" and not be "tracked" online, then you need to pull the plug and live in a cardboard box. Or something like that, lol.

If you want to be truly fair, then you have to say that about "all" antivirus programs, regardless of what country it came from. https://restoreprivacy.com/antivirus-privacy/ (April 2021) https://tweaklibrary.com/is-antivirus-tracking-on-you/ (August 2021) https://www.howtogeek.com/540658/is-your-antivirus-really-spying-on-you/ (January 2020) https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/antivirus-tracking-youd-surprised-sends/ (March 2020) https://www.pcmag.com/news/do-antivirus-programs-spy-on-you (December 2013, too old to be relevant but listed since PC Mag is a respected source, by most standards) https://www.securityweek.com/how-antivirus-software-can-be-perfect-spying-tool/ (January 2018, also old, but also the same time frame as most of these XP antivirus programs) "Security" and "privacy" go hand-in-hand. One has to be cautious that they didn't give up one in order to gain the other. Just my opinion, of course. Opinions are like butts. Everybody has one, doesn't mean everybody wants to hear them.

"Default" means I unzipped it and ran as-is, did not add any extensions, and it does not play DRM content.

Not by default. https://bitmovin.com/demos/drm

Does your about:config show the word "techsmith" anywhere?

How so? I have Windows Server 2003 and it looks exactly like XP Pro. The two can both be made to look exactly like each other, it's all just the "theme" and theme support exists in both. The 98SE crowd would always use the Win2k "classic" theme, but I myself disliked the classic theme and would use the same theme as XP Pro. I didn't have to install the Pro theme on Server, it was already there and only needed selected/enabled.

The two can co-exist. I leave it at that.

Did the "Virus signatures updated" page's signature number change? The "Last Updated" could still be misleading and the actual signature number be the same virus signatures from BEFORE the "update". The "My Bitdefender" clearly reads Could not connect to server, are you 100% sure that your virus signatures were updated? Wouldn't these come from the same server that was unable to be connected to?

This seems extreme and equivalent to your ban-all-Russian request. Why thwart competition? We currently have two competing paths towards the "Future of Chrome on Windows 7". 1) Catsxp -- Vanilla Windows 7 2) Supermium -- Extended Kernel Windows 7 The two can co-exist.

The YouTube "version" is not the same as the version posted by AstroSkipper. YouTube's is .1099. AstroSkipper's is .1109.

I myself would not go by the "last updated" date in the GUI but rather look at timestamp info for the definitions file. I only say that because we can't rule out that what you downloaded "today" and thusly reported by the GUI as "last updated" is actually an OLD definition database. Not sure how to verify that, but just saying it is "possible".

Or perhaps another test could be a Roytam Fork test. He compiles SSE and non-SSE versions. Does Speedometer 2.0 score different in SSE versus non-SSE?

It should throw a banner uner the address bar / tab bar if SSE3 is not active. If you are not seeing this banner, then I'm not sure if the slowness is SSE3-related or not. Is there an "emulator" or "virtual machine" program that can run XP with or without SSE3? VirtualBox doesn't seem to support CPU flags such as emulating SSE3 or not.

Not this thread but on the other one, I wonder if a "poll" would be helpful? I'm thinking more along the lines of removing any bias and sticking with undeniable hard-core data. If the "poll" voted by all MSFN Members following the thread has Kaspersky in the top 3 or 5 or so, then we should use real data to assist MSFN Members to use it or not. I'd be willing to run the top 3 or 5 or so and do "quantitative analysis" (in a VM only!) for hard-core data, which consumes more RAM, which scans a 20 MB reference .zip file the fastest, which slows the install of an Office Suite the slowest, which effects PC Startup Time the most, numbers like that are important to me.

Chrome did not require SSE3 until v89. Since 360Chrome v13.5 is forked from Chrome v86, the SSE3 flag should not be an issue.

I am not quite sure I understand the question nor what prompted it to be asked. I'll offer some thoughts up as "rules of thumb" and allow others to chime in from that. 1) If you have more than 2 or 3 posts back-to-back with nobody else chiming in, then consider the possibility that you are "talking to yourself". 2) Always remember that you are writing to a human being that does the reading, you're not talking to your keyboard or your computer monitor. 3) Remember that this is a discussion forum and not a "blog". A blog (in my view) is somebody "talking to himself" with an occassional reply. 4) Read before hitting the submit button and ask yourself, "Am I being informative or am I being spiteful?" (ie, don't submit something with the agenda of causing an online "flame war") 5) Remember that you don't have to have the last word in order to have the last word. Readers can read and know when the discussion is over but people just keep replying for the sake of having the "last word". 6) Remember that you don't always have to be "right". You can present your point and let the reader decide. 7) Excessive underlines, bold, and italics ALL OVER THE PLACE in a post comes across (at times, not always) as AGGRESSIVE, often even RUDE, and can be DISTRACTING and CONFUSING (at times, not always).

waka waka waka bread, breed... it's all the same, lol

We are definitely a dying bread. There are more than three of us. I think what a lot of visitors forget is that XP today is a lot like 98 x-number of years ago. By that I mean that 7 and 10 folks don't visit 98 threads and remind them that they run an insecure OS - but they will to an XP thread. Makes no sense to me.

lol. I'm on Season 6 on Hulu. A lot of Justice League references but no Batman yet. Which is odd because there would be no Justice League without Batman.

No clue why my name was brought up. No clue whatsoever. A rib-jab, perhaps? So I shall only add this, as I have also stated in the past - a web browser's "padlock" in the address bar is a "false sense of security", plain and simple. ESPECIALLY for the XP crowd! Regardless if you jumped through hoops to "update" certificates or not. XP can not handle modern SSL technology and you can't "hack" XP to do so. That "padlock" can be FAKED at the browser level to totally IGNORE "secure or not" at the Operating System level - the browser itself can put whatever padlock it so chooses (I have witnessed this in Chrome forks, but I suspect FAKES [can] exist in Firefox forks also). A "padlock" at the browser level indicates nothing at the Operating System level - no matter what OS you are on. A "padlock" at the browser level indicates nothing at the DNS level - Catsxp demonstrates that one really well, a lot of DNS traffic if-and-only-if you use its built-in DoH "security feature". I shall remind all that 360Chrome on XP was never intended to "extend" the life of XP - it was only intended to function as a stop-gap for XP users to skip directly over Vista and 7 and jump straight to 10, not 11 or 12, but 10. I've stated that in the past and I still believe that - 360Chrome is a stop-gap, nothing more, nothing less. My preferred browser-of-choice (and as also stated, browser selection is always always ALWAYS a matter of personal CHOICE) nowadays is Marmaduke Ungoogled Chromium v112, nothing newer, nothing older - on Win 10. Hope that will be enough to clear the mud.

Agreed, as dark and scary as it sounds, I too think the paranoia is justified. My only frame of reference is my little Midwest USA town. I am well-traveled across Mexico-USA-Canada (have also been to China, Taiwan, and Japan), but I'll use my "average" Midwest USA town as reference. I live a teeny-tiny-miniscule just-under 0.6 miles (0.97 kilometers) from three grocery stores and just under 0.4 miles (0.64 kilometers) from two fast food locations to the south and three fast food locations to the north. I have three gas stations all within 0.7 miles (1.13 kilometers) and one of them is within 0.3 miles (0.48 kilometers). With everything that close and no longer having a gym membership, I use the close proximity to all of these conveniences for WALKING to and from. It's obviously not the same as running that 7- or 8-minute mile at the gym, but this WALK is a h#ll of a lot more than what our "lazy society" has befallen to. 0.6 miles (0.97 kilometers) - this really is just WALKING DISTANCE. I'm talking edge of town Midwest, not metropolitan inner-city. I'm a shirt-and-tie mid-engineering salaried corporate-type with a military-style haircut and always clean-shaven. I'm not talking 1950s versus 2020s, but the world has changed - and the change is a bit scary! At least here in the Midwest USA, you only have to think back to the mid- to late-90s and you had a society where rollerblading and biking and hiking were very popular recreational activities. Nowadays, especially post-covid, a clean-shaven shirt-and-tie salaried-career-oriented law-abiding doesn't-drink doesn't-smoke member of society can not even WALK a mere 0.6 miles without id-iots in cars shouting out their windows. You get people shouting out their window calling me a "meth-head" just because I chose to WALK a teeny-tiny-miniscule 0.6 miles, with a spoon in my pocket, to buy some ice cream, and eat that ice cream during the return walk home. You get people shouting profanities and accusing me of being "homeless" - I paid off my 20yr mortgage in THREE YEARS. You get people flipping me off and telling me to buy a car - I have SIX vehicles and none of them have a car loan. I've often wanted to make a t-shirt that reads, "Yes, I have a car. I'm walking because I want to!" That's where society is these days, recreational activities no longer include a pair of rollerblades (I still have mine) or mountain biking. Our society's recreational activity has befallen to assuming anybody and everybody that WALKS along a sidewalk is a drug user and a homeless burden to society. My only burden is that I pay more taxes then these people shouting profanities out their "winter beater" and assume I'm homeless simply because I chose to WALK to pick up that ice cream snack.

This works at least in the case of https://www.gwr.com/ // ==UserScript== // @name Inject Object.hasOwn Polyfill // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (!Object.hasOwn) { Object.defineProperty(Object, "hasOwn", { value: function (object, property) { if (object == null) { throw new TypeError("Cannot convert undefined or null to object") } return Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(Object(object), property) }, configurable: true, enumerable: false, writable: true }) } Source: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-accessible-object-hasownproperty/blob/main/polyfill.js Another read: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/69561596/object-hasown-vs-object-prototype-hasownproperty

lol, a bad habit. I generally jump straight to making a site "readable" and I can do that most of the time just by blocking scripts or letting a few in without letting all in. I wonder of Object.hasOwn() can be injected the same way we inject structuredClone?