NotHereToPlayGames

I do not have any alternative locations to upload to.

I have my reasons and to delineate them is useless. We must all decide for ourselves as to what works for us. What works for me will not work for you. What works for you will not work for me - and this is a thousand times true as I've seen the types of "test cases" you present over and over and over and I've seen the type of extensions that you deem "must have" that you couldn't pay me to use. We all have our own end-in-mind and there will be "overlaps" here and there, but no two people in a billion will share the same "exact" idea of the "perfect web browser profile".

uMatrix - by far! uBlock is taylored for the "I don't know what I'm doing" crowd whereas uMatrix is taylored for the "I'm an advanced user and want as much control as possible" type of user.

I use the OLD version ON PURPOSE. Perhaps the issue you are having is that you have fallen into the trap that "newer is better". Hint - it isn't! Just like web browsers in general have a way that "newer" will NOT work on "old" hardware, THE SAME IS TRUE FOR EXTENSIONS.

Not sure I'm following. Are you saying that uBlock does not show the same as uMatrix with regards to blocking cloudfare, googlesyndication, and googletagmanager?

I'll disagree, even if only to play Devil's Advocate. I think the vast majority of the "internet" is basically like MSFN. And I scroll all the way to the bottom and I see this -- "© 2001 - 2021 MSFN" and "Powered by Invision Community". Does the "owner" of MSFN rewrite code for this web site with the intentions of making it "heavier" or to make it only work on "newer" computers? My answer is "heck no!". But said "owner" will perform scheduled "maintenance" only to let "Powered by Invision Community" add whatever THEY think should be added. Did the webmaster write code to prevent older computers from accessing the site? Or was the webmaster simply performing "lazy maintenance" and did whatever "Powered by Invision Community" told them to do in order to increment the "copyright date"? Granted, I've never "owned" a website. I just don't think that "webmasters" really do the bulk of the "code", I think they use "modules" written by large corporations and they update those "modules" under the guise of "security", "Powered by Invision Community" sends the webmaster an email, "Please update your module, the previous module is vulnerable to security attacks." And so the webmaster updates the "module". Just to be Devil's Advocate. I've never "owned" a website.

I still have a Commodore 64 that has never had any dust blown out of it. Dad brought it home from work in the summer of '83 when he traded a coworker a 2-channel oscilloscope for it. So I can basically tie @Mcinwwl's 38.5 years.

Had to google that as I've never heard of "Famicom". Nintendo Entertainment System console released in July 1983 as the "Family Computer" (or Famicom). 38.5 years!

Correction - 16 years! My Compaq Presario SR1520NX with AMD Sempron 3100+ was purchased in December 2005. It's all original and the case was only opened earlier this month only because of the BIOS battery because this computer doesn't stay plugged in all the time anymore. I was using it for XP x86 SP2 (waste of time), then tried installing Chromium OS just to see if I could (never could), so then it went back to XP x86 SP3. Was going to install Salix (sp?) on it but have since decided I won't waste my time with another Linux distro, tried too many over the years and were all "fun" for a week or two but never fit my needs "long term". Though truth be told, this computer sat unused on a shelf "gathering dust" for roughly 2 of those 16 years. But never was any dust blown out until I replaced the BIOS battery just this month and at that point why wouldn't you blow it out once you're this far in?

Longest without blowing dust? Roughly 14 years! And then ONLY because I had to replace the motherboard battery. Maybe I have a better housekeeper than you?

My newest best friend - .ipsEmbeddedVideo {display: none !important;}

I can agree to that. Mostly. I thought at first that you were implying that Roytam's hidden agenda was to block alternative media. But I still think there's another side to the coin. Look at it this way - let's agree that "googleims" intentionally break 3rd party browsers, let's agree that "googleisms" is a way for Google to censor what they don't want us to see. So how does that effect blocking alternative media? Let's use "wings" to illustrate. Let's agree that "googleims" is a LEFT WING way to "silence" the RIGHT WING. So if I am the owner of a RIGHT WING "alternative media" website, why would I rely on "googleisms" (code provided by Google) KNOWING they don't work in 3rd party browsers? Answer - I wouldn't! The "conspiracy" really doesn't hold much water. Nobody is FORCING the owner of the RIGHT WING website to use code from LEFT WING corporations. The fact is, you can use "googletagmanager" and "googleanalytics" WITHOUT breaking 3rd party web browsers. If the web site owner is too STUPID or LAZY to know how to do that, then they have nobody but themselves to blame that their website doesn't "work" in 3rd party web browsers. But it also comes down to "market share". Whether WE like it or not, the owner of any website KNOWS what browsers visit their website. And whether WE like it or not, that owner sees 2 million visitors and the number of visiting via a 3rd party web browser can be counted on ONE HAND. So, no! That web site owner really doesn't need to bend over backwards for those count-on-one-hand visitors. I guess that was more my point. But anywhoo... No skin off my back...

You can't be serious!? You want us to go through 200+ API's in that extension's list of API's, one by one, and tell you if you should block it or not? IMPOSSIBLE TASK! An API may be required by MY banking site that is NOT required by YOUR banking site. And vice versa. That extension (which I do not use and see far too much of a "hassle" to use) has a "support" site - https://mybrowseraddon.com/webapi-blocker.html You should direct this type of request to the "support" site. Or start a new MSFN thread so that users of that extension (if any) can join that thread and discuss within that thread.

Looks promising! A bit over my head but I'm generally a quick learner if we can kinda create some sort of "tutorial" as a starting point.

My point remains. You have publicly declared that you will be moving on from XP when you were computer shopping. So us XP users kinda have to assume that your Firefox results are not in XP, correct?

That may be. BUT you are also on Win10 and posting in an "Older NT-Family OSes" thread. So MOST of us in this thread won't really care IF you are posting results from a Firefox that only works in Win10, which I suspect is a very safe assumption.

No! It's an indication that your browser is outdated! Nothing more than that, no "conspiracy" going on, no "hidden agenda" to 'block alternative media'!

AGREED!

It will only effect intranet, it has zero effect on internet. Placebo Effect if you are claiming better internet speed.

No offense, do what you want. But you will NEVER rid yourself of every "exploit". At least not on XP! Do exploits exist? H#ll Yeah! Do they exist on banking, billpay, online shopping, online news, and "forum" web sites? No clue, but you either "support" those sites or you don't. If you don't "support" them, then who the H#ll cares if an "exploit" exists on their web site. Reminds me of how I used to always assist church-going folks on how to restore their computers from viruses that made it past their useless antivirus software. After four or five times of having to help them clear their computer of malware, trojans, and viruses, you finally have to turn to the church-goer and blatantly call it like it is, "You wouldn't get these viruses if you stopped visiting p0rn sites!" Deer in the headlights look and they deny. So you show them the cookies and malware flags, all originating from p0rn sites! It's a dog chasing its tail, in my view. I really do not waste my time finding these "exploits". If I were that concerned, do you really think I'd be using XP and a browser based on Chromium code from 2018? Waste your time on hunting these down all you want. But don't expect me to "care" about them. I cannot backport last week's Chromium v96 to XP. And it doesn't bother me that I cannot. The reality is that if you are that concerned with the thousands upon thousands of exploits that you keep hunting down, then you really shouldn't be running XP, yeah, it's that simple. "Uh oh!"

All that tells me is that the test is FLAWED and not to be relied on! Do you have MULTIPLE css data leakage test sites? As a general rule of thumb, NEVER rely on ONE test case.

I need to see a source and quantitative measurements. If we are talking 0.00001 second only when we SAVE a file from a "save as" dialog, then this does NOTHING for "resources" just to RUN the computer.

Just installed a default config XP x86 SP3 VM and I'm showing 20 processes (two are tied to VirtualBox) and 88-91 MB RAM committed at startup. The 29 processes previously posted is XP x64 so not a fair comparison. The previously posted 13 processes is x86 SP3. I think default processes for Win7 is in the 40s and for Win10 is in the 60s.