Jump to content

NotHereToPlayGames

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,745

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    United States

 Content Type 

Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames

  1. NotHereToPlayGames
    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?
  2. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  3. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  4. NotHereToPlayGames
    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!
  5. NotHereToPlayGames
    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?
  6. NotHereToPlayGames
    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?
  7. NotHereToPlayGames
    My newest best friend - .ipsEmbeddedVideo {display: none !important;}
  8. NotHereToPlayGames
    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...
  9. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  10. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  11. NotHereToPlayGames
    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?
  12. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  13. NotHereToPlayGames
    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'!
  14. NotHereToPlayGames
    AGREED!
  15. NotHereToPlayGames
    It will only effect intranet, it has zero effect on internet. Placebo Effect if you are claiming better internet speed.
  16. NotHereToPlayGames
    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!"
  17. NotHereToPlayGames
  18. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  19. NotHereToPlayGames
  20. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  21. NotHereToPlayGames
    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.
  22. NotHereToPlayGames
    Don't forget to disable services that are not needed. My XP config that I use in VM's only has 13 processes and 58 MB of RAM committed at startup per Task Manager once idle and statup time for the VM from XP Logo to full load is 6 seconds! VirtualBox does take about 12 seconds to get to the XP Logo screen. My "beast" has 29 processes but it has network and multi-monitor services/apps, printer spooler, mouse/keyboard services/apps, et cetera - but could probably be slimmed down below 29 processes. I don't recall how many processes a "default" XP config tries to load - but I'm quite certain it is much more than 29. Definitely much more than 13! I use these - [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management] "DisablePagingExecutive"=dword:00000000 "LargeSystemCache"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters] "EnablePrefetcher"=dword:00000000 I do not install SuperFetch therefore have no need to disable it in the registry. I am not familiar with the EnableBootTrace setting so unsure if I should add that or not. I also use both of the "NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"=dword:00000001 settings but I do not use either of the "NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation"=dword:00000001 settings so unsure on those two.
  23. NotHereToPlayGames
    So I can take off this baseball cap wrapped in aluminum foil? ps - I haven't owned a cell phone in 20+ years! And all I see around me are a bunch of dumb id10ts with 10-second attention spans. If you want to witness the "dumbing down" of folks, take a look around you and monitor those that are "glued" to their cell phone and can't even set it down for 15 minutes without glancing over at it several times to see if any of their social media notifications have popped up.
  24. NotHereToPlayGames
    Bingo! I thought I tried to tell you that once also, lol. I much prefer the OCD Approach that uMatrix gives, much tighter control then some simplistic "on/off" kindergarten stuff that uBlock offers. Newbies like uBlock because it is "easy". Advanced users prefer uMatrix because it has much tighter control.
  25. NotHereToPlayGames
    Heck No! I'll keep that on my primary systems with tried-and-trusted security protocols already in place.
×
×
  • Create New...