NotHereToPlayGames

What tests do you prefer? I know that you don't like Speedometer and like to cite FPS instead. Is there a specific test that you run? There is definite intrinsic value towards testing relative to one's OWN needs/behaviors. I have no use for GAMES and therefor to me, FPS has very little (if any!) to do with RENDERING A WEB PAGE. But sure, let's look at FPS. A search bought up testufo as a test and Ungoogled v122 hits a steady unwavering 64 FPS regardless of window size. I'm sure more modern hardware would hit higher. 64 FPS sounds good to me. I have no reference point. In Official Pale Moon 33.4.1 (pictured), Firefox ESR 115, Firefox ESR 128, IceCat 115.17, the FPS would drop all the way to 28-36 unsteady/wavering/fluctuating for a maximized window and would gradually increase as I resized that window. I'm no gamer, but I doubt they intentionally SHRINK their window viewport just for HIGHER frame rates. I have to "assume" that they want their window viewport as large as it can get.

Not really. Data-led conclusions. Nothing by the gut and nothing from emotions. If you really want to fall down a Rabbit Hole - you think UXP is dying, try WebKit in Linux. You'll throw the computer out the window, lol.

Does not effect me! Why? Because until history proves otherwise, I am perfectly fine with running UG v122 + uBO 1.59.0 MV2 in 2026. Then decide my next move in 2026 [from lessons learned in 2024+] for the setup that should get me to 2029. "Rinse and repeat..."

Of course that happened for Firefox. Very few Firefox users concern themselves with the HUNDREDS of telemetry connections made at every launch. Yourself "probably" excluded (I admit skepticism). Ungoogled Chromium has ZERO telemetry connections to Google. ZERO! So my local no-connections-to-Google profile really is not under the control of Google. Plain and simple. Maybe I'm too optimistic, lol. I very much so intend to PROVE WITH SCREENCAPS the very day that other MSFN members start citing their MV2's were disabled "without their consent" by their web browser doing something they thought it could not do! Not so sound like a dead horse, but if an MSFN Member's Chromium Fork, whatever brand it may be, has that HOSTED APP listed in the clear cache dialog, then, well, "you heard it from me first", lol. I'm not sure what changed in Official Chrome v127 that was recently cited as versions prior are exempt. I just have a "very bad feeling" about the mere PRESENCE of a CWS HOSTED APP.

I personally DOUBT IT (from the perspective of my BROWSER PROFILE)! At least, I have a VERY strong hunch that UNGOOGLED CHROMIUM (at least prior to v127) will *NOT* disable them at the browser-profile level! And even post-v127, I would not be surprised if UNGOOGLED CHROMIUM will still run uBO from GitHub! (Or, more importantly, from my own archive!) I'm referring to my LOCAL WEB BROWSER. I could "care less" if Chrome Web Store "disables" MV2 (nobody is disputing that!), that "alone" has ZERO EFFECT on what my LOCAL WEB BROWSER is running!

Yes. But this is irrelevant! I never ever EVER install extensions by that "button". NEVER! The real issue with MV2 is not the ability to "install" extensions. The real issue is just how your browser will "react" when its "internal coding" SEES that you have an MV2 installed. Seems to me that the extension that MOST folks are concerned with (uBO) is technically "solved" if people that use it DO NOT INSTALL VIA THAT BUTTON but install via a download from GitHub instead! UNLESS the browser has its own "internal coding" that disables any MV2 already installed. Isnt't that (internal coding) afterall what all of the "forkers" are claiming to REMOVE ???

Oh, that one. That one's nothing new. Though it's been a year or so since I have visited it. I'll check the newest version over the weekend. To me, it is the HOSTED APP that is "all-telling".

Yep, still interested. Because 4 out of 7 of my home computers run Win10.

It is speculation until we start to witness MV2's being "disabled" on WHATEVER fork we use, my hunch remains that the HOSTED APP that everything except Official UNGOOGLED Chromium resolves is the ONLY way to 100% hold onto MV2.

Where? I must have missed it somehow.

Good to know! I'm still on v122 and plan to remain as long as possible. Here at work, I'm "forced" to use Official Chrome for the desk PC, I have a "little" more control over lab PCs. So far, I've been able to prevent Official Chrome from auto-updating with this startup commandline switch: --simulate-outdated-no-au="Tue, 31 Dec 2099 23:59:59 GMT"

Not me! But that is also irrelevant. The issus at hand is whether Chrome or Chrome Forks will disable any MV2 extension that you have installed, regardles of from where or how you installed that extension.

So far, I have not been affected here at work. I would witness MV2 disables here at work long before at home due to limitations on what I can do to prevent those MV2 disables here at work compared to home.

Why would it be? And nor should it be! Just sayin'. If "we" were obsessed with "security", then NOBODY on this forum would run ANYTHING except the latest-and-greatest OS, the latest-and-greatest browser, the latest-and-greatest text editor, the latest-and-greatest file manager, et cetera. That is not the world I want to live in. "To each their own", of course. Some times some of these topics are like walking into a church and being thumped over the head with a baseball bat to fork over 10%. Again, "to each their own".

I'd suggest that your world is too small, lol. I run a lot of 3D CAD software and no game or web browser could ever compete with the brutal demands of 3D CAD. There are some CAD programs that I intentionally only run in XP because the software intentionally disables screen rendering modes "not compatible" with XP. Could also explain why our Mechanical Engineers have evolved into sloth-like creatures, because their computers have trained them to slow down in everything they do, lol.

I have. To be perfectly honest, it is so far the ONLY custom button of yours that I would like to have in my own arsenal. So far, I have only seen the clip. I may have missed the actual download of the toggler as I do not visit those threads as often. Unless the post has been "pinged", an UPDATE of current content will not show up as NEW CONTENT in the "unread/activity" links that I use for MSFN.

Oh, no screencaps for evidence, but I did run some Firefox 115 versus Firefox 128 tests yesterday. 128 blows 115 out of the water! Unsure why IceCat still uses 115. Maybe they are intentionally one ESR version behind. That's how I would do it, to be honest. Too many nightly/daily/weekly updates to contend with otherwise. I'll definitely NEVER support the ideology of having to update SO D#MN OFTEN.

It is being planned to undergo a Win2k install via an .iso provided by another MSFN member. But even if that Acer no longer runs XP, please keep in the back of your mind that I tune aftermarket turbo engines as a hobby and I *MUST* use XP on my garage computers and engine tuning software. Yes, you are correct, I have "abandoned" XP for my home computers (two desktops and three laptops). But there is still the Acer in Limbo. And one desktop and one laptop out in the garage all presently on XP.

I'm not "against" abandoning XUL. I personally think that the version of Mypal WE BOTH will be using TWO YEARS FROM NOW will be "better" if XUL continues to be removed. Or is the claim here that Mozilla's mistakes of the past rest solely on XUL ??? If so, I was not engaged during that transition.

Again, not true. I posted just a few posts up that my department at work is the only department still allowed to use XP. Legacy hardware support for automotive hardware. We do not (can not) use XP to surf the internet. But our software is BROWSER-BASED to fill in "tables" for engine controller data that gets "flashed" to the engine controller. We can use any browser that works on XP.

Noted. I missed that part of the conversation. Apologies. Not true. I still use XP on my Acer Aspire One POS. AND on my computer out in the garage for tuning aftermarket turbo projects cars. No longer "daily", but they both get used VERY often. I really really really do need to THROW THE ACER POS AWAY. Brings nothing but STRESS everytime I try to do something on it, lol.

I do get it! That alone is not a reason for the developer to cancel his vision of removing XUL. Your browser buttons cannot define Mypal's "path forward". You're not the only one that creates browser buttons. I have just under two dozen of them that I've created for lab use at work (proprietary, cannot share!). *MY* browser buttons cannot define Mypal's "path forward". My department at work is the ONLY DEPARTMENT allowed to use WinXP. We have to support automotive products that we produced FIFTEEN YEARS AGO that can still be purchased "brand new" at automotive supply chains like O'Reilly, Napa, AutoZone, Parts Geek, Advance, etc. Software technologies that were quite advanced as far as automotive goes, but the software licences cannot be migrated to newer Windows even if the software itself runs on newer Windows (most do not).

It appears to me that you may be narrow-focused at the moment. Nothing wrong with SITTING OUT the next couple of releases as development of NON-XUL matures. Yes, it means that some of your buttons would need updated. Progress often has to take one step back in order to take two steps forward. This sounds like a GIGANTIC POSITIVE in my opinion! KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT PROGRESS!

IceCat always forks strictly from ESR branch. So they should be releasing a fork from Firefox 128 early next year or so. I don't really track their release rate. Only that we have some very strong "pro-Mozilla" users here at MSFN and I can not follow their lead. I can support IceCat! I've never directly compared Firefox 115 performance to Firefox 128 performance, so unsure if IceCat will "improve" or "worsen".