NotHereToPlayGames

Not that I'm finding. I would suggest an Autoit script as your own loader that copies the contents and then launches the 360Chrome loader.

Found it! When you are browsing a time.com article on 360Chrome v11 (or v12/v13 with scripts disabled), open your Developer Tools (F12), scroll to the top of the Elements tab HTML code but below the "Time text cartoon", highlight the body line, then over in the Styles section UNCHECK the "position: fixed" entry. Now the article will scroll in v11 (and in v12/v13 with scripts disabled). Hope that helps.

Disregard. You will NOT get time.com to work using ANY user agent. I get the same page from a "new" UA, an "old" UA, a mobile UA, an iPad UA, an iOS UA, a Mac UA, "old" Firefox, "new" Firefox, Opera, even an IE6 UA. I've personally never witnessed a website until just now that served the same exact page to an IE6 UA that it serves to Firefox and even Mac. Time.com is clearly NOT using UA and might be using other "techniques" too new for 360Chrome v11 (Chromium v69).

Did you try going the other way with the User Agent? Don't pick something "new" but pick something "old".

I can recreate the time.com article issue in my own rebuild of v11 on XP. I'm not far enough into my rebuild yet to test a few extensions but my hopes are for v11 to become my default-for-all (have already confirmed Google Voice, Google Sheets, Dropbox, MSFN, and YouTube - which have kind of become my "test sites"). v12 actually seems like the best balance of being able to render everything I throw at it (I don't do WebGL) yet being "lightweight". v13 works 99% of the time for me. But that 1% is too unpredictable and I moved on to v12 as my default-for-all. v12 has been rock-solid, stable, efficient, and very light. A few members have posted their comparisons of v12 and v11 and they prefer v11 - so I've opted to create my own v11 rebuild. I'll add time.com to my list of test sites - the articles don't work in my in-process v11 so I can't make any promises. But once I get uMatrix, Stylus, NoScript, and Tampermonkey loaded, there might be a "workaround" that will make time.com work, not sure yet. edit: I should rephrase that - v13 works 100% of the time. But one crash in 30 days is too much for me so that's why I now run v12. It was one thing when it was just on Never-Really-Use YouTube. It was another altogether when I'd start typing a post here at MSFN, walk to the kitchen with half of a post typed out, return to find MSFN crashed v13. Ugh!

@Humming Owl FYI - in your v11 modification notes, you have the below entry - - Offset (h) = 02a75c40 Replaced "http://chrome.360.cn/jump/switch_engine.html" entry by dots ("How to switch kernel" button link removal) These were actually replaced by 00 hexadecimal values edit: I have not verified, but the same might be true for the Feedback, Home, Forum, and Weibo link removals.

Is "whole family" two people, three people, twenty people, fifty people? You are making this much more difficult than it really is! You do not need any added software, you do not need to learn networking. When you get that error, how many people are home and using their computer? It really is THAT easy. You're not trying to track down the IP Address on a factory floor with 400 computers and 399 of them have a static address and 1 of them was a dynamic address that "stole" a different assembly line robot's IP Address. You're dealing with the "whole family" - period. PIECE OF CAKE! Why are you making this so much more difficult than it really is? Either track down the other ONE out of "three or four", not that hard to isolate, family members using the same IP Address or just change your own IP address. Changing your own IP Address takes 30-60 seconds, 5-10 if you already know how. But instead of doing that, you're 3 days into this already? You are dealing with a FAMILY of computers. You're not dealing with a LAN with specific file-sharing needs, your not dealing with a factory floor with HUNDREDS of computers. You are dealing with three or four computers! Ten TOPS!

Here is the reddit thread of other uBock Origin users (not me, I use uMatrix) having a great dislike for the mobile GUI introduced with version 1.27.0 -- https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/gk56f9/ublock_origin_1270_with_interface_redesign_is_out/ Stick with version 1.26.0 (or 1.26.2), it does everything that the "new" version does and it renders fonts properly on XP. "Newer" is not better... But look who I'm tellin', you're not even running Service Pack 3

Only other suggestion I have is to "upgrade" to this version of uBlock Origin -- https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/200354/ edit: above link is for 1.26.0 Here's a link for 1.26.2 -- https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.26.2

Is there a "test" ?

That was for v12 build 1247. I'm showing V8 8.6.395.25 for v13 build 2206.

JavaScript: V8 7.8.279.23

I've created a profile with these extensions and holy crap! Font-rendering is UGLY! GET RID OF uBLOCK ORIGIN and replace it with uMatrix!

I do similar to prevent "cleartype" BS. I have the exact opposite of "color blind" vision. Cleartype fonts give me migraines because my vision can see the little red and green dots at the font-corners and they dance and flash and gyrate according to my vision - among many others, it was a gigantic ordeal when Microsoft pushed that "technology" into new operating systems.

The smooth scrolling does work. How many OS-level and browser-level "font-altering" changes do you have in place? Seems that you and @rereser both have some very unique and user-specific font needs.

The biggest difference between the two is the order in which several hexadecimal values were replaced. v4 was a complete rebuild from the ground up based on several tweaks and modifications learned over nearly a year of using 360Chrome as my default-for-all web browser. v3 had all of those tweaks and modifications performed in a rather random order as we-the-community discovered new modifications along the way (and Humming Owl showed up midway through that process). Consider it this way, one of the very first modifications was to remove all hexadecimal occurrences of "360.cn". Later on, we decided to remove all hexadecimal occurrences of "ext.chrome.360.cn" before we remove "360.cn". BOTH methods will "break" the URL so I do not think this is the reason for the differnce in bold versus unbold in your GUI (a difference that seems isolated to only your OS config). But it is a "difference" between v3 and v4. Another difference is that v3 breaks a resolver function (a discovery by Dixel) that "calls" an IP Address while v4 breaks the IP Address (Humming Owl's approach) but leaves the resolver function intact. Both methods will "break" what the original 360Chrome was attempting to "do" so again I do not think this is the reason for the difference in bold versus unbold in your GUI. The last major difference becomes extremely difficult to isolate. v3 did not make a "gstatic" connection because of a command line startup prompt that my rebuilds utilize but that Humming Owl's builds do not utilize. So it was a much higher priority for Humming Owl to hard-code methods to prevent that "gstatic" connection than for my builds. v4 implements Humming Owl's hard-coded method that prevents this "gstatic" connection (which my version technically did not make anyway). I do not think this is the reason for the difference in bold versus unbold in your GUI. At the same time, v3 also replaced all hexadecimal "googleapis" values. But v4 does this also. I cannot rule this out and this could be a cause for bold versus unbold in your GUI. Again, at the same time, v3 replaced several hexadecimal occurrences of "i.360.cn", "browser.360.cn", "se.360.cn", "360safe.com", "chrome.360.cn" and "360.cn". This gets tricky to track because "360.cn" was ALREADY removed SEVERAL months prior so a search-and-replace for "i.360.cn" won't find anything because the "360.cn" portion is no longer present. I do not think this is the reason for the difference in bold versus unbold in your GUI. But it is a "difference" between v3 and v4. v4 goes one step further and not only removes the hexadecimal occurrences of "i.360.cn", "browser.360.cn", "se.360.cn", "360safe.com", "chrome.360.cn" and "360.cn" but also removes the unicode occurrences. I do not think this is the reason for the difference in bold versus unbold in your GUI. Long story short ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP2QQH4uuQ ) -- there is a HUGE list of differences between v3 and v4. I still "trust" both but I can replicate v4 and recreate it whereas v3 spanned so many months and small changes along the way that the actual "order" cannot be replicated. It is very interesting that it seems to be tracked down to chrome.dll instead of any of the .srx files, anything inside options.zip, or anything inside resources.pak. Because all it really takes is accidentally missing a closing quotation mark in a line of code that makes an entry bold and everything BELOW that line of code "could" render in bold. But something in chrome.dll instead of any of those files? Very peculiar.

For your fonts issue, I don't think it's uBlock "by itself". I seem to recall witnessing issues similar to what you describe when I was experimenting with various extensions. What is your full list of extensions (including version number)?

If you wish to enable WebGL in my versions, edit the 360Loader.ini file and remove the --disable-webgl portion from the Parameters= line. Then copy the swiftshader folder and the libGLESv2.dll file from Humming Owl's version over to my version.

AGREED! It does get annoying to always, and I do mean ALWAYS, search through forums dedicated to MICROSOFT TWEAKS AND FIXES (not referring to MSFN, all DIY web sites have this nuance) in order to track down a fix or tweak for a various issue here or there and ALWAYS find some Linux Kid post "switch to Linux". USELESS to the conversation! But then again, maybe this post is useless also, lol.

Good thinking! You may have saved a gigantic heart-break down the road. I'm not even sure if I'll ever "need" this archive, but I wanted a local copy in case it "disappeared". My uTorrent 2.2.1 checked the file and found that only 99.9% (3647 pieces) was downloaded. Of course it also added 3 "padding files", an .sqlite file, and an .xml file. But now my tar.xz file is showing 100% (but still shows 3647 pieces). Many thanks!

LUCKY YOU! Because I'm getting nothing but fail after fail after fail. Even tried "download managers". FINALLY got 'er to download! This download manager worked when others would fail -- https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/uget-portable VERY irratating to try and download a 14 GB file at 2.3 MB/s when my connection speed is twenty times that at least even on wireless and get an hour in to a 2hr download and it fail... over, and over, and over, and over again!

Same here! It kinda confuses me on wny people install "certificate updates". I've never needed any of these "updates" and I have a "green padlock". I personally think that people have "broken" things when they installed these so-called non-Microsoft "certificate updates".

Do you have POSReady updates installed? I seem to recall that they broke XP's certificate store - but I don't think we ever really got far enough to prove this 100%. People running un-hacked XP SP2 and un-hacked XP SP3 seem to have zero issues with the "green padlock".

I cannot replicate, fonts are fine here. Can you post a screencap with these blurred fonts? Your profiles indicates XP x86 so this shouldn't be the issue, but if you are in something "newer" than XP, then I suggest opening chrome://flags then search for and disable DirectWrite. Also in the chrome://settings/lab page, disable hardware acceleration and disable DirectWrite.