NotHereToPlayGames

People often tend to think that "newer" is "safer" or more "secure" - not always true, if I may be so bold. These are the folks that will run an anti-virus program and set it to update "definitions" every 30 minutes because they think their "identity" will be stolen at Minute #29 if they do not update those "definitions". Most of us that use 360Chrome are very secure-minded folks and have other security measures in place. In fact, most of us that use 360Chrome are running Operating Systems no longer deemed "secure" (doesn't stop us!). I'm not simply referring to us "die-hards" that refuse to let XP be buried, I'm also referring to Vista and Windows 7. XP, Vista, and 7 are all "dead" Operating Systems. But we have our reasons for continuing to use them. Most of us that use 360Chrome don't even use the v13 branch. Most of us prefer the v11 or v12 branch over the v13 branch (myself included, I prefer the v12 branch for my primary computers and use v11 exclusively in all VMs and secondary computers). Make no mistake, some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that exists in v11 that was fixed in v12, we don't care, we have other security measures in place. Some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that THEORETICALLY exists in v12 that was fixed in v13, we don't care, THEORETICAL and IN-THE-REAL-WORLD are two different things. And we have other security measures in place. Most of us that use 360Chrome, XP, Vista, and 7 are very much into efficiency - we want a web browser that can run effectively on a machine with 1GB of RAM. Sure, 360Chrome is pushing the limits at that - but again, that's why most of us use v11 or v12 instead of v13. Not trying to sound too blunt when I say this, but people that are truly concerned with "critical vulnerabilities" don't run XP, Vista, or 7 - they "bought in" long ago to the HYPE that the only way to be "secure" is to run the most recent OS. I "care" about "security", don't get me wrong. But lightweight and efficient will trump "security" every day in my little corner of the universe. It can also be said that "hackers" simply don't write viruses targeting 25 million computers running XP when they can target 1.3 billion running Windows 10 instead. But I digress...

Too funny! I'm not an "anti-vax'er" or against masks per se, but I like to give public servants (gas stations, fast food, retail, grocery) employees a hard time, "How well does that mask work when it looks so dirty that it looks like you picked it up off the floor?" Or, "How well does that mask work when you wear it on your chin like that and not even covering your nose (sometimes not even their mouths!)?"

Not sure if it pertains here or not, but you may find that file names with such random strings such as webpack-af28476a2e7790fd48db.js will have their file name changed quite frequently. I seem to bump into these random strings quite a bit and it seems to always be a tell-tale that it is this script that is trying to evade ad-blockers.

Download link for v13.5.1030 Beta_1 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_10 is chrome.dll. All telemetry should be removed at this point and will now call this a Beta instead of an Alpha. Chromecast removals have been reserved for a Beta_2 release after verifying stability of Beta_1. Only specific and precise location modifications, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements. Telemetry removals of following items - xianpei.360.cn qhimg.com www.qihoo.com warn.mse.360.cn passport.360.cn login.360.cn test.login.360.cn hao.360.cn siteinfo.browser.360.cn tt.browser.360.cn browser.360.cn elephant.browser.360.cn warn.se.360.cn (unicode) warn.mse.360.cn (unicode)

I've always thought that this would make the perfect project car. I owned one of these during my High School years - first engine I ever rebuilt. It's an '84 Plymouth Horizon and I owned one between '88 and '91. 4 cylinder 2.2L manual 5-speed. Brand new these things exceeded 30+ mpg highway (low to today's econo-cars, but this was great efficiency in the late 80s - and it was a CARBURETOR, no fuel injection!). I had this thing running at FORTY TWO MPG HIGHWAY as my first engine rebuild/modification !!! I think it would make a fun project as a conversion to COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS - fill up right from the natural gas line running to my furnace and water heater.

I have to chuckle at the issue of battery life. I own SIX vehicles. A '55, a '61, a '90, a '91, an '07, and an '08. The '90 and '91 can only sit for about a week and a half between starts. The '07 is a motorcycle and can sit about a month between starts. The '55 and '61 can sit for THREE MONTHS between starts - but I generally start them at least once a month to circulate oil.

I don't use the "latest and greatest" NoScript, I intentionally use an older version - v11.2.3. No need to add it if you can already block scripts via uBO. As a rule of thumb, I don't allow scripts and when I visit a site that has twelve of them, I narrow it down to the one or two or three that are "required" then continue to block the remainder. I seldom let a web site run willy-nilly and pretty much never let a web site load as many scripts as its authors thought were necessary. I wouldn't necessarily call it an "incompatibility" issue. I tend to think of those as more along the lines of "clever cloaking" then "incompatibility". The web site is trying to "force" you to use a newer web browser by employing tricks that I bet they are well aware of that prevent the site from functioning on 'older' web browsers. I say that because I have witnessed it. One of my vendor's accounts-payable site has a .css overlay that prevents me from seeing what's "under" the overlay and the .js that loads the .css has "incompatible_browser" right in the title of the .js file! It's a pop-up overlay telling me to use a newer web browser and then a link to log out. Little do they know that I've accessed that accounts-payable site from XP for the last two years where they think they were clever enough to prevent their customers from doing so. I just block the .js that loads the .css and whoala, In Like Flynn.

Noted, thanks. Not yet updated in either of today's updates.

Download link for v13.5.1030 Alpha_10 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_9 is chrome.dll. Only specific and precise location modifications, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements. Telemetry removals of following items - upext.se.360.cn ext.se.360.cn se.360.cn a.tbcdn.cn dmp.360.cn i.360.cn dd.browser.360.cn (unicode) cloud.browser.360.cn (unicode) ext.chrome.360.cn (unicode) down.360safe.com (unicode) se.360.cn (unicode) i.360.cn (unicode)

Yeah, more of an illustration on how you can use the .ini to delete extension logs for extensions that don't need those logs from one session to the next. Those folder entries would be one or two of the extension I was using at the time.

Download link for v13.5.1030 Alpha_9 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_8 is chrome.dll and minor addition to loader .ini. Only specific and precise location modifications, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements. Telemetry removals of following items - upext.chrome.360.cn ext.chrome.360.cn skin.chrome.360.cn api.chrome.360.cn yun.chrome.360.cn chrome.360.cn upext.chrome.360 dd.browser.360.cn sug.so.360.cn so.360.cn cloud.browser.360.cn site.browser.360.cn cdata.browser.360.cn extsign.browser.360.cn google-translate.browser.360.cn

I use the extended .ini from v13.2206-4 in my own copy (should not require modifications but I have not verified that as of yet). The Extension State depends on which extensions you use so I left that for the end user to decide/experiment for themselves, some extensions require the log file and some do not (when the log file contains browser history, I boycott that extension!). The only reason I reverted the .ini for the public release was because some users didn't like that cookies and passwords were not remembered from one session to the next (I personally do not let my browser remember my passwords).

Oops, forgot

Page loads fine for me in v12. BUT only with my default NoScript blocking .js on github.com domain! As soon as I set the github.com domain as "trusted" then I only get the blank-out. Everything on that site seems to function just fine with .js blocked, but since I don't normally visit it I guess I'm not 100% sure on that.

Download link for v13.5.1030 Alpha_8 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_7 is chrome.dll. Only specific and precise location modifications, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements. Telemetry removals of following items - 224.0.0.251 210.52.216.4 123.125.54.234 106.39.219.43 101.226.4.6 101.199.103.206 s.f.360.cn dl.360tpcdn.com puv.tt.browser.360.cn hiya.browser.360.cn 95001111 crash.browser.360.cn (unicode) pvstat.qihoo.com (unicode)

Download link for v13.5.1030 Alpha_7 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_6 is chrome.dll. Only minor and precise location modifications at this point, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements.

Note to self -- dark theme issues in special need of attention - Search Engines Manage Passwords Manage Autofill Import/Export Bookmarks Kernel Switcher Clear Browsing Data -> English Content Settings - plus all sub-containers Pop-up Exceptions Proxy Settings

I suggest using a PORTABLE LOADER even with all of Roytam releases (similar to how my 360Chrome releases use a portable loader). For all of Roytam releases, use the official portable version from here -- http://archive.palemoon.org/palemoon/28.x/28.2.2/ I personally use only the 32bit version even on my 64bit systems. Do not "exectute" the file after you download it (the file name is Palemoon-Portable-28.2.2.win32.exe). Do not download the "latest and greatest" (it will not work on XP, if I recall, unsure). Extract the file into its own folder using 7zip or similar. Delete all of the files in the Bin folder and replace with your Roytam files for whichever browser you wish to run as portable. If it's a Basilisk or BNav browser, just rename the executable to palemoon.exe or dig through the .ini and edit accordingly. You'll have to learn a new portable loader .ini format but well worth it - I always run all of my browsers using a loader and .ini. You can copy your existing profile into the portable loader file structure, the default profile for a NM/PM is in User -> PaleMoon -> Profiles -> Default. I also do this for added security, my OS doesn't have a "default browser" and the OS can't open what it thinks is the "default browser" because the executable file no longer exists.

Noted, thanks.

I would buy that... If you didn't post half a dozen posts on the very same thread and then backtrack to post a "rib-jab" implying we are "ignorant" and don't know the difference between SE and EE.

I'd say something like "no sh ... t" but I don't think we are allowed to use words like that @rereser's post did link to the SE, but so what, it was a conversation starter that did kick off the EE alpha, so why nitpick SEVEN DAYS LATER that an SE was referenced in his post? https://msfn.org/board/topic/182993-360-extreme-explorer-arcticfoxie-versions/?do=findComment&comment=1205830

I think I had the same thing when I tested an older version, don't recall offhand. Works fine in XP x86 SP3 but does not work in XP x64 SP2 (ps - @Humming Owl, the "wow_helper.exe" that you remove in recent 360Chrome builds is required in order to run in XP x64).