NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
Here's a Regshot for MyPal 27.9.4 ran using the official Portable Pale Moon loader --
-
Thanks, I'll keep the post as-is and let a moderator condense it. I deleted the txt files and the temporary VMs already so I'd have to repeat the entire process if I try to condense the post and corrupt contents in the process. edit: I'll quote my own post and try to condense that way then delete the original post. I don't like when others make me scroll that much, I'd hate to be the one to make others scroll that much.
-
Moderator -- I didn't know how to post those four Regshot logs as something that requires click-to-expand. I know I've seen other folks do it so I know it can be done, I just didn't know how. Please make those click-to-expand if possible, kind of a lot to scroll through for a single post. edit: disregard, per @RainyShadow's tip below I was able to place each Regshot log into its own "spoiler".
-
Normally I just find these manually, I'm in-and-out of the registry often enough to spot differences. It should also be pointed out that ALL of the 360Chrome versions make registry changes - but when you run using the portable loader, those registry changes are deleted when you exit 360Chrome. The Pale Moon portable loader has always been better in this regard, it does not create temporary registry files when you run MyPal or Pale Moon as a portable with the Pale Moon portable loader. I'm referring strictly to the official Portable Pale Moon's loader - Roytam has a portable loader also but I have never used it nor compared it to the official Portable. Cloned my virgin XP x86 VM four times and all four of the below were ran in their own virgin XP x86 VM. I grabbed Regshot from here -- https://sourceforge.net/projects/regshot/ And posted logs in separate posts. edit: removed logs and moved to their own post.
-
I'll revisit the v12 registry strings and report back. Also, as an FYI, my first launch after a reboot for your Modified v13 has a tendency to lock up and not exit correctly then the next launch shows the click-to-restore banner. I was comparing first-launch-after-reboot using PassMark AppTimer and ran the test five times. Three of the five first-launch's would not exit/close properly so the second run would show the click-to-restore banner. So I rebooted and launched without AppTimer and that launch appeared to close properly but the second run showed the click-to-restore banner. Haven't really tracked down any culprits as my primary motive at the time was to benchmark the minor differences between build 2206 and 2250 and decide which will be my default (I will be remaining on 2206).
-
Awesome! The link for the original v13-2250 needs corrected (it links to the orginal v12-1592).
-
how many computers do you own?
NotHereToPlayGames replied to legacyfan's topic in General Discussion
My list changed slightly over the weekend. A neighbor in his late 70s only uses a computer for solitaire, mahjong, and email. He was running an Acer Aspire X running an Intel Core 2 Duo N3050 @ 1.6GHz with 4GB DDR3 and 64-bit Win10. He picked up a Dell single-core from an in-law, forget actual CPU but do know it was a single-core @ 3.0GHz. The Dell only had 512MB DDR2 so I pulled 1GB from my eMachine and dropped my eMachine from 3GB to 2GB. He gave me his Acer Aspire X but I haven't really found a use for it yet - its PassMark benchmarks scores lists it so close to two of my other low-end machines that all I really gain is going from DDR2 to DDR3. -
Stirring the pot? That was on page 20 and we are now on page 57. That was March 31 and we are now July 29. Your original enquiry was four months ago and you return with that sort of reply? I will quote you, "what kind of a sh!77y thing to say is that" ? Here is the answer to your enquiry from four months ago. What you are encountering (screen saver kicking in during full screen video) is nothing new, Media Player 11 had it's own setting to prevent this because the OS doesn't always know if an app is in full screen or not, it was a very common complaint while playing PowerPoint 2010 slideshows, et cetera. This issue is over a decade old and newer operating systems do a better job at detecting whether an application is in full screen mode or not. But alas, XP doesn't do as well as newer operating systems in this regard. Here is the application that I personally use when I don't want my screens to go black during times where the computer is chugging, chugging, chugging and there is nothing for me to do with the mouse or keyboard until that chugging is completed. It's called "Caffeine" and sits in the systray next to your clock. You toggle it off or on and when it is on, your screen will not go black despite no mouse or keyboard activity. The about-screen for it shows this address -- www.zhornsoftware.co.uk
-
Works fine with only 3 attendees in XP using web browser versus desktop app. But once the meeting gets up to 7 attendees, it gets horrendous and there's no option to disable video like in the desktop app as that often regains audio stability when there are several attendees.
-
Too funny! And did you look at his profile? Joined in 2013... BUT -- July 8 == Hello from Belgium -- welcome to May 25 == Hello from Belgium -- welcome to May 18 == Hello from Belgium -- welcome to May 7 == From Belgium -- welcome to May 4 == From Belgium -- welcome to April 26 == From Belgium -- welcome to April 16 == From Belgium -- welcome to April 11 == From Belgium -- welcome to April 2 == From Belgium -- welcome to March 19 == a spam post to register on GitHub ??? March 19 == From Belgium -- welcome to March 19 == From Belgium -- welcome to --- another welcome to AiO March 14 == a spam post to www.sordum.org ??? March 11 == From Belgium -- welcome to Maybe his name should be "The Welcoming Committee"?
-
Force "multiprocess mode" in FF 52
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Mathwiz's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
It's not that simple in Chrome. I don't know the "algorithm" and can't really say as it concernms me too much, but it really cannot be "watered down" to "a separate process for each tab of each window". Maybe I'll research it one of these days, but other priorities kinda take precedence at the moment. I'm showing 12 processes for four windows with two tabs each. Drop down to two windows with two tabs each and I'm at 8 processes. Move the second window's two tabs into the first window and close that second window still has me at 8 processes. Drop down to only one tab in that one window and I'm at 5 processes. Open a second window and open 15 tabs so now I have one window with one tab and a second window with 15 tabs and I'm at 23 processes. Open a third window and open 25 tabs and I'm at 52 processes. Open a fourth window and open 49 tabs and I'm at 86 processes. Return to the third window and open 24 more tabs and I'm still at 86 processes. Return to the second window and open 24 more tabs and I'm still at 86 processes. So that kinda tells me that Chrome chooses its own "middle ground" and that Firefox just isn't "smart enough" to choose its own "middle ground" so the developers opted to create a scheme where the "user" sets that "middle ground". That probably works for most MSFN FF users, but I'm betting that the "average" FF user probably only "cripples" their FF by trying to set that "middle ground". But anywhoo... -
Interesting, thanks for the investigation. Kinda defeats the entire purpose of NoScript if you are limited to block-all or trust-all for a given website to render properly. I don't mind sticking with 11.2.3.0. I mean, especially for my needs. I only allow scripts for a very small number of white-listed web sites and even those are never set at trust-all (this very MSFN page is blocking 3 of 4). Out of curiosity, I just logged into three bank accounts - two blocked 4 of 6 and the third blocked 4 of 7. I probably haven't visited any web site in well over a decade where I allowed that web site to just do whatever it wanted to, ie, "trust-all". I'm betting that almost all NoScript users fit into that same type of utilization - so I think that the "flow-render" is something that the developers kinda need to look into a little deeper.
-
This was an epic "fail" for me. The meeting did everything it is supposed to but there are 7 of us in our daily meeting and audio/video was HORRIBLE. I was logged in via 360Chrome v13 and XP VM with 4GB RAM. Opened a Win7 VM with 2GB RAM, logged into meeting as an 8th person but used the Webex "desktop app" instead, then exited the meeting from my XP VM. Audio/video returned to normal. Logged back in on XP VM via browser instead of "desktop app", audio/video returned to HORRIBLE.
-
My Browser Builds (Part 3)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
Nothing really new - they have all done it over the years. Android was once caught rigging their phones to falsely score high on very popular "benchmarks" but would perform poorly in "real-world" scenarios. And Android got caught doing that just a few short years after they themselves caught Samsung cheating benchmarks on Note 3 and Galaxy S4. AMD's entire Athlon line of CPUs were all premised on "We know the clock is only 1.8 GHz, but it performs equally to a 2.8 GHz" (which they did, btw, I was an AMD over-clocker for years) - though I guess that's more "marketing" then "cheating". Bing used to always load faster on IE then it did in Firefox. Google probaby used to do the same thing, but no reason to anymore, isn't Google the default search engine for Firefox? It's probably more of a smartphone thing nowadays, cheat your "score" for the sake of sales. Though I have always felt that if the "turbo engine" was marketed as "fuel-efficient" instead of "performance", then all cars would have turbos in the vein of "going green". "Why did you buy such a fast car?" "I didn't buy it because it's fast, I bought it because it's the most fuel-efficient in its class." -
I don't block MSFN. But MSFN does try to pull "something" from cloudfare.com, googlesyndication.com, and googletagmanager.com and I do block those.
-
Did not know about that Fast 3G and Slow 3G preset, interesting... I pull older versions from https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/152403/ I always pull .crx files and manually install after I remove their "first run connections" (web browsers aren't the only thing to make 'first run connections'), their "description" so as to keep my Extensions Manager free of clutter, and I also axe all language files except "en". Started doing that when one of the extensions I used to use had a "childish developer" that didn't take donations, but accepted free beers, I have no desire to read an extensions about-page and hear talk of free beers! But to each their own...
-
Agreed, I use uMatrix in addition to NoScript as opposed to instead of. Can't say as I remember "why", per se.
-
Come to find out, this happens ALL OVER THE PLACE with NoScript 11.2.4.0 also. I didn't think much of it at the time, but now that I've dropped down to 11.2.3.0, holy crap is it noticeable on just how many cites used to have a very ugly flow-render (don't really know what else to call it). Several news cites would display a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram icon that took up the ENTIRE SCREEN for a split-second while the page was undergoing "flow-render". I never really thought too much about it originally because I remember the days where Opera had a setting to specifically work around "flow-render" (you could set to display pages "instantly" and witness "flow-render" or you could set at 1sec or higher and never have to see the "flow-render"). It's always on web sites that have top-of-page "banner menus". It's funny to discover you've been plagued by something you didn't even know was a plague.
-
My sites load really quick also but there's no way to NOT see it when this happens. Might only take 1.5 to 2.5 seconds for a page to load but when 0.5 seconds of that looks like the below, you track it down and fix it It IS the newer versions of NoScript that cause this, another very bad "flow-render" site is Dropbox. Below is this very forum loading under NoScript 11.2.10.0. It will look like the below for 0.5 seconds, then it will turn into MSFN's dark gray background for 0.5 seconds but still have a bunch of line-item jump-to-content dots, then a random user's avatar will display, then the portions that are supposed to be white versus dark gray turn to white, then the dots go away, then the page looks correct - eventually. When you can "see" all of that "unfold", it really does look like CRAP even if for only 2.5 seconds of my day. Me personally can do without that UGLY 0.5 to 2.5 seconds, so I've dropped my NoScript down to 11.2.3.0 where none of this occurs on any of the websites that I've seen it occur on while using the "newer" versions. Proving once again, newer is not always better
-
Finally got around to trying this and meeting is logged in and waiting for actual start time, looks good so far. Thanks again.
-
The gmx site is leaps and bounds better with 11.2.3.0. MSFN worked fine with 11.2.4.0 but was horrible with 11.2.9.0 and 11.2.10.0. Running with 11.2.3.0 for my config.
-
I started googling around for this issue and there have been several reports that seems to isolate it to cap_unchecked_css and reports that it actually started with 11.2.4.0 on some web sites (the most-often cited is gmx.de) and these users reverted to 11.2.3.0. I do use the legacy 5.1.9 for my MyPal and NM browsers, but I think I'll stick with 11.2.4.0 for my Chromium browsers but will drop down to 11.2.3.0 if I see this happening more often (I don't get this with 11.2.4.0 but other users report that they do). I do get the "page flow lag" here - https://www.gmx.net/ Will revisit later today with 11.2.3.0 instead of with 11.2.4.0.
-
It's not really about the moment of the page loading, but the manner in which it renders. I followed the Scientific Method six times (ie, I only changed one variable [NoScript version, same profile otherwise and same NoScript settings] and the "page flow rendering" exists in 11.2.10.0 and in 11.2.9.0 but does not exist in 11.2.4.0. For the time being, I have reverted to 11.2.4.0 - may try legacy 5.1.9 later as NoScript is the only extension I use that takes up so much memory that it shows up in the browser's Task Manager.
-
So I updated my profile today and upgraded my NoScript 11.2.4.0 to 11.2.10.0. Thouroughly unimpressed! For example, when you load MSFN with a clean cache, the page displays "while" it is loading. You get the broken menu and a long list of menu items because the menu hasn't fully loaded yet but the browser is trying to render what portions have loaded. Reminds me of how Opera had a setting to display pages "instantly" or after 1 second and pages would just "look better" if you told Opera to WAIT 1sec before displaying the page. Watching the page "flow" into existence while resources are loading is a bit "tacky" in my opinion. Confirmed by reverting back to 11.2.4.0 and the "page flow" went away. Upgraded again to 11.2.10.0 and the "page flow" tackiness returned. Anyone else notice this issue with the latest NoScript? Maybe it's something that showed up in a version somewhere between 11.2.4.0 and 11.2.10.0?
-
v13 build 2206 rebuild 2 file size == 90.0 MB v13 build 2206 rebuild 3 file size == 70.2 MB login resources have been removed (which also removed Avatar context menu [may bring it back in a later rebuild to use as dropdown for chrome URLs]) @Humming Owl's v12 modfications have been ported to v13 -- no more gstatic connection on First Run --- I have not tested for possible side effects but will report if I do find any all settings pages fit in one 1920x1080 viewport - it always bugged me that you could be three dialogs in, close that third dialog, and the second dialog defaulted itself back to the top and you have to find where you were at, just annoying so I fit all to one page https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/qyyimm3h58r3963/360Chrome%202206%20rebuild%203%20-%20unran%20-%20MSFN.zip