NotHereToPlayGames

Piece of cake! You don't need the extension. All it does is apply a .css text shadow to all text. You can do that in any style editor such as Stylus/Stylish/Stylem or even via Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey or even via Firefox's own userChrome.css. To me, the font enhancer extension is "redundant" if the browser profile is already utilizing something like Stylus/Tampermonkey/etc.

I mean, come on, let's be 100% honest and real. IF we lived in a world where it really is GOOGLE's or MICROSOFT's or APPLE's responsibility to "protect you from you"... then we would live in a world where NO BROWSER would ever be "allowed" to so much as READ an MSFN post regarding ANY browser fork, regarding ANY extended kernel, regarding ANY antivirus not embedded into Windows or ChromeOS, et cetera. Seriously.

GOOD !!! I would have it no other way! My BROWSER is to BROWSE. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. I have never been hit with a virus in OVER THIRTY YEARS (the only virus I have ever been hit with was during my college intern years while running Firefox). We all have the choice in how we run our own computer. You are free to run yours your way. I am free to run mine my way. Your LEMMINGS are free to LIKE your posts. You are free to like theirs. Long live REP FARMING. et cetera... Nanny State Protectionism on one end of the spectrum (blame somebody else if you get hit by a virus but sell your soul in the process of somebody else protecting you from you). Net Savvy Accountability on the other end of the spectrum (blame your own negligence if you get hit by a virus because you clicked something you shouldn't have, downloaded something you shouldn't have, installed something you shouldn't have).

Above post was requested to be deleted while I was testing the reply to that now-deleted post These download fine using UNGOOGLED Chromium, I have not tried in Supermium (just downloaded R6 but not yet tested). I have NO IDEA how to use or test an extended kernel. I have zero experience with them in the past and have no need for them at the present. Who knows for the future.

To each their own, of course. I've always been a bit weary of the hackery behind extended kernels and I only use them within VMs and never on my real hardware. Not to be read as a blanket statement, of course. These "extensions" seem to always be best of intentions. But they do do DO break terms of use agreements and can can CAN be taken to court by the owner of the software being hacked. These laws are different from country to country, of course. So again, not a blanket statement. But a "shady" business by any stretch of the imagination. Even MSFN admins will REMOVE/BAN members for stepping over the line in regards to these extended kernels. They cannot be hosted HERE. But we can "discuss" them here. That is MSFN protecting themselves from legal fallout.

Tried that. Does not explain the UGLY-A$$ fonts in that screencap! Look at the "share" icon to the left of the text. The "square" reveals that you are blocking remote fonts (as I also block them). Note that the UGLY-A$$ fonts screencap does have the share icon. BUT... More importantly! Look at the "fatness" of the H110MHV3 font. You and I both get a FAT font. That UGLY-A$$ font in the screencap is skinny and squished and jaggedy-edged. The type of font where a / is so jagged that it looks like a STAIRCASE instead of a /. I have not been able to replicate the screencap's UGLY-A$$ font. Not with remote fonts, not without. Not in three different browsers spanning both Win10 and XP. The H110MHV3 is always FAT for me.

Me too for from hibernate/sleep mode. But a cold boot/restart SUCKS in Win10.

Nope, I am not.

That's not what I was referring to. The fonts in that screencap are rendered in what is called subpixel RENDERING (aka, anti-aliased fonts, a font rendering style which my system prevents in their entirety). It is a "rendering" issue. Yes, dark mode alleviates the nuances of subpixel rendering, but so does just preventing the font style altogether. Disregard - while it still may be a subpixel font (I did not dive deeper), the letter-spacing .css declaration supercedes as a UGLY FONT ISSUE. It's really not as "simple" as being your-usual-suspect "washed out". Take a close look at the body .css declaration! It's that letter-spacing: 0.5px; that has the fonts in that screencap looking so UGLY. Blocking the remote/third-party/fonts.googleapis.com fonts may have you, me, and the poster of the screencap using DIFFERENT FONTS (I block all remote/third-party fonts), but it is that letter-spacing that is making everything so THIN and UGLY.

Nope. At least not the freebie version. I've never looked into what features are added in the "premium" version.

My old-but-not-ancient harware boots Win10 in 59-61 seconds. Default was 72-74 seconds. As measured by a program called BootRacer -- https://greatis.com/bootracer/index.html This is how I gained approx 10.7 seconds -- http://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/69693-startup-delay-enable-disable-windows-10-a.html Since I "hibernate" 99.9% of the time, I never really tried to improve cold boot more than that approx 10.7 second gain. The same exact old-but-not-ancient hardware boots XP in UNDER THIRTEEN SECONDS. I miss that aspect of XP, but everything else works much MUCH better in 10. I do not regret migrating to 10 (heavily tweaked 2016 version, not the 2xHy versions).

Agreed! Kills my eyes also. The fonts are NOT rendered that way for me. That screencrap's fonts are UGLY!

I am aware. However, it also becomes a matter of what web sites I ACTUALLY USE! I have to pay my bills. And if so much as ONE of those bill-pay web sites do NOT work in a browser, THEN I FIND ONE WHERE *ALL* DO WORK. Yep, it really is THAT SIMPLE. The only thing that is "bothering" YOU is that I can only find that in a "death to everything not Firefox" browser that you don't want me to use. That's also why "browser choice" is always always ALWAYS "relative" to the USER. I'm sure you've been around MSFN long enough to have new members ask, "Which web browser is best?" and my reply is always always ALWAYS the same, though wording of the reply may change slightly. My reply is always always ALWAYS that nobody can answer that but the user him/herself! Despite the thorn in your side, I have succeeded in my mission, ONE web browser for ALL of my web sites. And it is CHROME-BASED. But I am just as security/privacy-concious as you are. Just as I would *NEVER* use Official Firefox and all of its telemetry, I would use IceCat if needed. And by the same EXACT "due diligence", I would highly highly HIGHLY prefer to never have to use Official Chrome and all of its telemetry. I would use UNGOOGLED if needed. My mission is clear! I have NO INTEREST in "this browser for this, that browser for that". I shall be moving on now, we keep "talking in circles" and this thread has become (or already was) "just the two of us".

Nor in mine.

Bingo! My own "defenses" *FORCE* a 404 whenever an HTTPS site links to an HTTP site. It's really no different than "how" you yourself were "able" to get to that HTTP, your Firefox DEFENSE MECHANISM threw a dialog to PROTECT YOU, you clicked "proceed anyway". You had to go out of your way to BYPASS a DEFENSE MECHANISM.

Doesn't really take much time and energy. Just knowledge of and experience in all of the browser's "configs". I suspect that you yourself don't even use "default config". ie, you have SEVERAL about:config/chrome:flag changes in your very own whichever-you-use browser.

That's because you FAILED to PROPERLY "harden" your EDGE profile. Why in Hades would anyone that claims to undergo significant security/privacy/privacy "hardening" EVER ALLOW ANY BROWSER TO VISIT AN HTTP LINK ??? LIke I said, the ONLY reason that I could visit that HTTP LINK was by DISABLING some of my own "hardening" (I worded it as "let my guard down"). As I've also said, if you REALLY want to DISCREDIT a Chrome-based and CLAIM that "this site works in FIREFOX but NOT in CHROME", then that claim must be made in INCOGNITO comparisons! This is only a comparison of YOUR "hardening" between YOUR Edge and YOUR Firefox. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Your scenario LOADS THE PAGE FOR ME. If I let my guard down! Because it is an HTTP site and I generally DO NOT LOAD NON-HTTPS web sites! Not sure if that really counts as a "good example". An HTTPS site with an HTTP IP-ADDRESS hosted link is BAD PRACTICE.

Yes, what website? But more importantly, are we comparing Firefox INCOGNITO to Edge INCOGNITO? Why do I ask? Because I could fairly easily create a uBO filter or a Stylus style or a Tampermonkey script that could crash a web site for no other reason than not liking the web site's color scheme, lol.

Perhaps. But I have also sought advice on how to get IceCat to perform FASTER and my requests for before-and-after Proof-of-Concept were denied. I have no doubt that your Firefox performs FASTER then your Edge. All I can tell you is that I CANNOT REPLICATE THIS CLAIM (my tested Chrome-based forks are much MUCH faster than my tested Mozilla-based forks - NO CONTEST FASTER). But that point is MUTE and MEANINGLESS. Because, as I have stated, I want ONE browser to perform ALL of my browsing needs. ALL OF THEM. I really do have ZERO interest in "this browser for this, that browser for that". I was faced with Ungoogled v94 all the way up through v131 not meeting that ONE and ONLY criterion (looks weird, but that is the singular spelling of the plural criteria). I spent five days all but non-stop awake-hours to get my IceCat profile to where I wanted it - only later to discover it does not meet that ONE and ONLY criterion. Heck, it kind of makes me think of creating a new CHALLENGE for any-and-all - find me ONE, just ONE web site!, that WORKS in Firefox but does NOT work in Chrome! Just ONE! I don't think we can find ONE. But I could be wrong, lol. They did exist in the 90s! Seems fair to me.

Agreed. I don't use "loaders" as some sort of attempt to speed up browser start. In fact, I kind of prefer not to. Although the very slow FIRST-LAUNCH-ONLY after a restart or hibernate bugs me and it happens on ALL browsers, literally ALL browsers, something with my hardware, but other members cite the same exact FIRST-LAUNCH-ONLY slow-start phenomenon. Those that do speed up browser start basically load at Windows startup or run "partial load" in the background. I don't want additional startup or additional background tasks. I don't even allow the OS to do any "prefetch" (which could be PART OF first-launch-only). What I liked (but can do without if needed) about the winPenPack loader (and 360Chrome's loader) is that they enable a very robust session-only browsing scheme. With winPenPack/360Chrome loaders, I set a "default state" of extensions, config settings, even allowed history/cookies/logins and I can have the loader do file-copies and file-deletes to revert to the "default state". I can install/test 100 different extensions, but as soon as I exit the browser, NONE of them "stay" but my "default state" extensions DO STAY. I still haven't quite figured out HOW a bank web site and the US Post Office web site can DENY a login only when the winPenPack loader is being used. The best I (we) can figure thus far (and based on Brave browser discussions on the same banking web site) is NEW SSL SCHEMES. Basically how certain SSL certificates are very difficult to "pass" as 'secure' on XP.

I do remain "irrationally exhuberant" that IceCat v128 (whenever it is released) may work for ALL of my web sites. I can only cite that current IceCat (based on v115) does not work for ALL of my web sites. So that alone makes it "not for me".

Listen, I hear ya... No, please, I said listen... I ignored your "reply" all of yesterday, I guess I chose to break that silence this morning... Listen... I've "been there, done that". I was part of the "death to IE" Firefox userbase back in the day. I hear the same tone in your reply. Again, I hear ya, I had to sift through my registry to manually axe sixty-some references to "Google Updater" and that was from running a so-called "portable" version of Chrome! "...even under torture" reply = no help to anyone = pushing an agenda = no service to me = no service to you = no service to any reader hereof = et cetera... My very own "death to IE" narrow-minded mentality served nobody, not even myself. Again, "been there, done that". Whether "you" see it or not, I am no longer that single-focused narrow-minded "Firefox Only, Death to IE" user. I've used Netscape, AOL, IE, Firefox, Sleipnir, Maxthon, GreenBrowser, Pale Moon, New Moon, Serpent, Basilisk, 360Chrome, Ungoogled, Chrome, Iron, Opera, Edge, Flock, LibreWolf, Floorp, IceCat, K-Meleon, Lunascape, SlimBrowser, ane more! I'm not talking trial runs of a few hours, I've used every single one in that list for MONTHS ON END as my then-default ONE-AND-ONLY web browser. [edit: I take that back - Flock, LibreWolf, Floorp, and K-Meleon were DAYS, all others were MONTHS] I'm not sure why you aren't "hearing" this, because I've stated it more than once, I am NOT interested in "this browser for this, that browser for that". As far as MODERN forks, IceCat did come VERY close. But it does not work for ALL of my web sites and I will have ONE browser for ALL of my web sites - it really is THAT simple. So far, that ONE-for-ALL remains Ungoogled v122. Turns out that all versions (at least back as far as v94 and as new as v131) ALL work for ALL of my needed web sites. So long as I conjunct them with the PortableApps "loader" and not the winPenPack "loader". And to prevent the PortableApps "loader" from falling down the same rabbit hole that took the winPenPack "loader", I will likely create my own loader using AutoHotkey or recompile one of my own old Opera loaders. We all have options. One size will never fit all.

Eureka! I finally found out "what scenario" results in my bank AND the US Post Office (neither of which are "affiliated" with each other) being server-side blacklisted. They both blacklist the winPenPack loader if it has a version-mismatch with the browser that the loader loads (doesn't matter if it is 360Chrome, Ungoogled, or Official Chrome). I might still have to use Official Chrome versus Ungoogled, still testing. But I can "intentionally" cause server-side blacklisting! And, shh, don't tell them, but if I "intentionally" server-side blacklist ELEVEN web browsers (call them A-1, B-2, C-3, D-4, E-5, F-6, G-7, H-8, I-9, J-10, and K-11), for my TWELTH web browser, I can reuse the first (A-1) and it no longer be blacklisted!

Does anyone here use PortableApps Portable Chrome? More specifically, I am attempting to gain familiarity with the "loader" / "appinfo" .ini file. Other Chrome/Chromium "loaders" have the ability to DELETE files/directories when the browser is closed (I am not wanting to use a .bat file).