Jump to content

NotHereToPlayGames

Member
  • Posts

    7,484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames

  1. Did stumble into this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeFFyg3ZJow I would recognize it blindfolded, I skipped around and only played snippets, but make no mistake, that is "my" version of 360Chrome with the XP Theme and the fixed status bar icons.
  2. MiniBrowser is based on Chrome 87 so it is one version "newer" but with only the start tab open, I'm showing it to consume 214 MB RAM. 360Chrome v13.5 seems like a no-brainer WIN to me
  3. DcBrowser is based on Chrome 75 while 360Chrome v13.5 is based on Chrome 86. I'm showing DcBrowser with only the start tab open to consume 234 MB RAM. I'm showing 360Chrome v13.5 with only the start tab open to consume 126 MB RAM. Light theme / dark theme is never worth that "cost" in my book, it's just a "novelty item" that I personally never use anyway.
  4. Are we supposed to know what "Network Solutions website, manage page" is? If this -- https://www.networksolutions.com/domains/domain-management Then it works for me in v13.5.
  5. Not sure if that's technically a "bug" but rather INTENTIONAL. SEVERAL variants of Chrome do that backspace to previous page CRAP. Here's how to disable backspace to previous page using a Monkey Script -- // ==UserScript== // @name Disable Backspace // @version 3.0.1 // @include http://* // @include https://* // @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.4/jquery.js // @run-at document-start // ==/UserScript== var backstayCurrentLocation; $(document).keydown(function(e) { // If backspace is pressed if (e.which === 8) { var active = $(document.activeElement); notEditable = function(element) { var edit = element.attr('contenteditable'); // Ensure backspace still works on any element with contenteditable="true" if (typeof edit !== 'undefined' && edit !== false) { return true; } else if (element.is('input, textarea')) { return true; } else if (active.attr('type') == 'application/x-shockwave-flash' || active.attr('type') == 'application/x-silverlight-2') { return true; } return false; } return notEditable(active); window.onbeforeunload = function() { return "Backstay: Are you sure you want to navigate away?"; } } });
  6. For those that have been following along over the years, a reminder that an increasing number of "modern" web sites now require three different types of javascript functions that break older web browsers. 1) Nullish coalescing operator ?? -- syntax leftExpr ?? rightExpr 2) Optional chaining operator ?. -- syntax 1) obj.val?.prop, 2) obj.val?.[expr], or 3) obj.func?.(args) 3) Regex unicode property escapes The first two have been partially addressed in "palefill" and "chromefill" addons - but they will not solve all web sites that require nullish coalescing or optional chaining operators. The third type requires Chrome v64 or Firefox v78 or higher (ie, don't hold your breath on this ever getting fixed in any UXP or Mypal browser versions!). For reference -- https://caniuse.com/mdn-javascript_builtins_regexp_property_escapes
  7. WORKS in 360Chrome v13.5. If you are going to run XP (such as myself), having 360Chrome is kind of a MUST. It doesn't have to be you "default", but you WILL need it for "some" of your web sites. And the list keeps growing and growing for those that you will need it.
  8. For reference via @VistaLover (upstream issue from three years ago but does have activity within the last two weeks) -- https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1282
  9. KNOWN issue in any build higher than v13 build 2206. Can NOT be permanently fixed. You can change to English but they will ALWAYS revert to Chinese if you ever open the Dev Tools while in Incognito Mode. They will STAY in English if you always use Dev Tools from within REGULAR windows and NEVER from within Incognito Mode windows.
  10. I personally do not use cert revocation or cert intercept. DO NOT TRUST THEM. Not even in "real" Chrome or "real" Firefox. "SSL" is a FLAWED system and I do not jump through hoops trying to get "valid" certificates. I actually modify my own personal use browser user interface to NOT EVEN SHOW the address bar "padlock". That being said, I have OTHER security layers in place. But I have never used a web browser "padlock" to tell me if a site is "secure" or not. NOBODY DOES! People LOG IN ANYWAY even when they see a "invalid" certificate FALSE ALARM. But anywhooo...
  11. "Bug Reports" should be considered "community discussions only" at this point. Neither I nor Humming Owl publicly maintains or upgrades any of these versions anymore. I personally now use 360Chrome version 13.5 build 2022 which has not and will not be made "public".
  12. Joining the forum brand new then posting the same exact question in two different threads will have the exact opposite effect of getting a quick reply.
  13. Joining the forum brand new then posting the same exact question in two different threads will have the exact opposite effect of getting a quick reply.
  14. Although, I have to admittedly concede that my paradigm is based on CORPORATE IT POLICIES and not "web designers" per se. I work in the automotive industry and our factories use "web design" for everything. Inventory tracking, production workflow, defects and repair, new-hire training, assembly instructions, maintenance, even janitorial.
  15. Not the ones that I know personally. The ones that I know personally will spend WEEKS designing with Firefox and the GIGANTIC number of resources available (at the time) to only Firefox. Then spend LESS THAN AN HOUR to "test" that design by "visiting" the newly-designed web site in a browser they know VERY LITTLE about. That does not "qualify" as my definition of "testing on all major browsers". One such "designer" in particular that comes to mind was even able to establish a company-wide policy (at the time) that prevented Chrome from being installed on any factory floor computer (over 300+ assembly stations). But this is off-topic anyway so I shall simply "agree to disagree".
  16. I fear you have missed the primary point behind (at least my) take on these bugs being deliberate. You have to go back 20+ years to see the full picture. 20+ years ago, we lived in a Death to Internet Explorer universe that was wholly and completely DRIVEN by the Firefox Crowd. Firefox and its USER BASE was out to KILL Internet Explorer. And guess what - THEY SUCCEEDED. NOTHING to do with UXP browsers. EVERYTHING to do with FIREFOX. WEB DESIGNERS USED Firefox to test their "designs" and WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to find ways to show Internet Explorer was "inferior". And again - THEY SUCCEEDED. Spring forward 20+ years and this is where we are today (technically right about two years ago and all the way through to "today"). The Firefox Crowd of "foregotten lore" SUCCEEDED in killing off Internet Explorer. What they lacked the foresight to PREDICT is that killing off Internet Explorer did NOT place Firefox as King of All Web Browsers like the user base thought was going to happen. They succeeded. They just thought that "they" (the PARENT to "UXP") would be sitting at the TOP - they are NOT at the top.
  17. <off-topic> Does anybody here happen to have a copy of TaoKaiZen's ( https://browser.taokaizen.com/ ) Advanced Chrome v89.0.4388.0 and v91.0.4460.0?
  18. Was just about to report that you posted last week's KM76 but you caught it and correct link
  19. I've always seen these as "by design" 'bugs'. I used to see these ALL THE TIME but in REVERSE -- the website worked in Firefox but did not work in IE (I'm talking like a decade or so ago when Firefox users thought their farts smelled like roses and they propagated "Death to IE" every time they exhaled). What I mean by "by design" is that I hold the theory that Firefox coders *WANT* these types of 'bugs' as a way to "distinguish" themselves apart from the crowd. Or something like that... I know that's not really an "answer".
  20. Because your UBO is blocking it!
  21. I run XP on all NINE of my computers/laptops. But I do not classify this as "retro-computing". Retro-computing is Commodore C64 or VIC-20, Apple IIe, Tandy 100, et cetera. Not XP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocomputing
  22. On my x86 three-monitor setup, I use AlfaClock Free - version 1.90 on monitor #1 and set it up with the EXACT text settings as on the five-monitor x64 setup. No clock or systray on monitors #2 or #3.
×
×
  • Create New...