NotHereToPlayGames

It's rather ironic how that is always the bottom line.

I'm also 99.99% confident that the Custom Buttons extension installed! But equally 99.99% confident that my buttons were hit or miss on if they worked or not. To be perfectly honest, my ONLY interest in revisiting Custom Buttons is to TOGGLE PROCESS MODE. I should probably consider it as "starting from scratch" at this stage of the game.

I would have to rebuild that profile. I am the opposite, Mypal 68 is always purely for testing, Serpent 52 is my daily runner. Frankly, not my problem if you're not interested that I point that out, it is relevant to demonstrate the low priority of my Mypal profiles. I follow this thread because to me it is like Supermium - an optimistic alternative worthy of keeping relatively current in their development status. Will Mypal 68 dethrone my Serpent 52 one of these days? No clue! Will Supermium dethrone my Ungoogled v122 one of these days? No clue! Now then, against the obvious backdrop that we are not in the same place and I'm not interested (at the moment) of Mypal 68 being King, "to each their own" - The link that I have bookmarked ( http://custombuttons.sourceforge.net/forum/index.php ) is dead. I'll have to dig through stacks and stacks and stacks of DVD-Rs to find my Custom Buttons extension. I have it somewhere, but not the time to hunt for it at the moment. I am 1,234,567.89% sure that I have it archived somewhere, will take a sh#tload of time to track down.

Yes. I do not recall if I also have that extension in Serpent 52.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, whichever way you look at, my "issues" with Supermium ARE being made by other GitHub members. Sad to say, the author's replies were not inline with expectations. Last I recall, have not read last couple of changelogs, things like "sync" are being kept while other things are being "ungoogled". This is not an "ungoogled" browser but the author does have a slight degree of doing anyway what he cited months ago would not be done. Progress is still being made to make it truly "ungoogled". Remember though that I say this having downloaded the most recent version but not having ran it yet.

Agreed. I am *VERY* interested in the Process Mode Toggle. This is the thread where it has been most recently discussed. Is it being shared publicly?

I'm patiently waiting to see what those are also. I'm hoping big time that one of them is to return the "normal blue" title bar instead of the stupid baby-blue/sky-blue or whatever current Chrome uses. I only just downloaded the most-recent Supermium and I haven't ran it yet. I still remain very optimistic towards Supermium.

I AGREE! But I can show you SEVERAL places here at MSFN where typos are USED AGAINST YOU and tracked to the letter to even make false accusations against one's own CAREER TASKS. There are equally SEVERAL places here at MSFN where non-US folks will "demand" (and get their way) if somebody posts a title with "favor" instead of "favour"! MSFN is TOXIC at times, but no place is ever going to be "perfect".

Yep. And I'll give you a "like" for that.

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".