NotHereToPlayGames

I've never had any issues with Speedometer as a quantifiable measurement. Though scores cannot be compared directly between two people on different machines. More of a test for one computer relative to the same exact computer. But as far as comparing "my" computer/browser to "your" computer/browser, Speedometer does give the same best-to-worst even if the scores differ. I've been away from Official Pale Moon for a few years but seem to recall Speedometer would even indicate a score difference when a laptop web browser was testing while running on battery versus running when plugged in.

Your problem is XUL. And no, a new computer will not fix that underlying issue. Why do you feel you "need" XUL? Sure, I "miss it" but I never really "needed" it, per se.

It is working for me in Ungoogled v122. Yandex is doing the same thing in Supermium and newer Edge that one of my finance site is doing. I can access in v122, v123, and v124. But cannot access in v114, v119, v121, v125, and v128. Just spot-checked various versions. I was never able to track down why these *THREE* (v122, v123, and v124) and *ONLY* these three versions *WORKS*.

No clue what "yellow tile". The cited font brightness earlier in the discussion was the "Saxon" text. I'm not going to jump through this hoop for every enquiry. As I and others have pointed out, there is no difference in HTML CODE between Wayback and current. The issue is "your" DARK MODE. If it causes such a "problem" for you, THEN STOP USING IT.

The HTML CODE for the Saxon text is IDENTICAL between both!

The web.archive link is correct if you copy-paste into address bar instead of clicking it.

Wayback Machine

I agree. These "dark mode" users always always always cite color renderings in their WEB BROWSER. Not their file manager. Not their text editor. Not their email client. Not their CAD software. Not their finance software that isn't web-related. Not their office suites, be it MS Office, Google Workspace, WordPerfect, SoftMaker, LibreOffice, FreeOffice, WPS Office, OfficeSuite, Calligra, Polaris, OnlyOffice, Zoho, et cetera. ALWAYS THEIR WEB BROWSER. edit -- I do seem to recall that a MEDIA PLAYER was once cited in one of these "brightness on dark mode" reports.

Have these "dark mode" users bothered to EXPERIMENT with the FORMULA used for that MATH? There is a chrome/supermium/thorium FLAG where you can define what type of MATH is used. I would suspect that firefox/basilisk/serpent/pale-moon/new-moon have something similar.

I still think that the common denominator is "dark mode" and the math that is involved to take the original color, run math on it, and generate the color that renders in "dark mode". I really think we are looking at a "rounding error". I urge those that see this "brightness" issue to SCREENCAP the HTML CODE (not the "picture", but the HTML CODE) so that we have a BEFORE and AFTER when and if this "brightness" changes again.

I would need to check a few things from home. Unsure if it is Windows Update Blocker that I use or not. I think I have a way solely via .bat file. But Windows Firewall and Base Filtering Engine services should also both be disabled to prevent Windows Update from turning itself back on. There is also a Windows Update "task" set in Computer Management >> System Tools >> Task Scheduler >> Task Scheduler Library >> Microsoft >> Windows >> WindowsUpdate that should also be disabled.

Yep! Was a fun ride, to be honest. I am thankful to have played a role. But those that truly followed, I stated from very early that 360Chrome was only a stop-gap, to buy some time, and that none of us should expect to stay on XP "forever". My life really has improved by LEAPS AND BOUNDS now that I finally "let go". I still drive a SEVENTY YEAR OLD CAR, but nope, no longer see the 'need' to run 20yr old computers.

Agreed on both counts. I did do a "site:msfn.org" search for when rebasing first came up, and by whom, I knew it was a VERY long time ago. I did not find any "before and after" Mypal or New Moon reports, but the recent AstroSkipper post is the only one that actually performed the rebase. I myself did not spend the time to rebase Mypal or New Moon. I didn't search long enough to see if anybody actually did. AstroSkipper caught feodor's attention, so that is a good thing for Mypal. Yes, the cold-start versus RAM-saved is a trade off. The slow and ancient pieces of sh#t that need to be concerned with RAM never have more than ONE tab open. As mentioned in the past, we have only ourselves to blame when we think a 20yr old computer should be able to browse twenty tabs. And same here, I've moved on from XP (for the most part) and Life has Improved by Leaps and Bounds. I only had myself to blame for "sticking to my guns" and staying on XP for as long as I did. But I do not run "stock" Win10 either! Technically, I never ran "stock" XP as far as that goes.

I tried a few times, unsuccessful. Dealing with Linux drivers is a thousand trillion times worse than DLL H3LL. It's a HOBBYIST ENDEAVOR that I currently do not have time to allocate towards. Perhaps in my retirement years when I have nothing better to do than eat, sleep, and poop.

Three words? "complaints about linux" I've used over two dozen "flavors" of linux and all are very short-lived. Everybody loves to root for the underdog, but say what you want about "windoze" (the OP spelling, a spelling that represents bias by those that use it), M$ (another biased spelling) is DOMINANT and everything else is just a "hobby play toy".

I brought it up way back here but only as a reference and that it was then and remains now of "no use to me". Nobody took the bait until you jumped in, so thanks for that. For x64 (including XP) systems, rebasing always had TERRIBLE consequences on "cold-boot first-launch" browser load times.

Agreed. I have not ran the test ten times and graphed on a scatter plot, but I would expect ten same-hardware runs to all fall well below 6 to 16 percent variation.

They're listed. (My view will be styled different than your view.)

Speaking solely for myself, I did not ignore. This may be a "geolocation" issue. You may be being served different content. NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR ME. NO NEW UI, NO FONTS DIFFERENCES, NO BUTTON DIFFERENCES. Maybe your country is the guinea pig? And the rest of us will see these changes in a week or two? But for now, nothing has changed for me.

Nice writeup! I'm kind of not surprised that installing "all" WU suggested-as-critical updates actually SLOWS DOWN the computer. We used to have some XP x86 SP2 folks that swore the same for x86's SP3. I do know that a slipstreamed x86 SP3 performs much better than an XP that started life brand new, then was updated to SP1, then was updated to SP2, then was updated to SP3, and all of the hotfixes between or after each "service pack". Kind of wish the ol' x86 SP2 members were still around so that we could see these scores on x86 SP2.

Agreed! That's why I follow Supermium, to return GDI FONT RENDERING to Win10! There is this (https://github.com/GTANAdam/GDIChromium) but it's not been updated since Chrome version 103 and it's not "ungoogled". The "ungoogling" of Supermium has not matured yet, still very much buggy-beta.

But Saxon is citing "same browser". So I'm still confused. I can not reproduce the brightness difference here. My OS is set to LIGHT. The Saxon text he is referring to is white text on dark blackground with OS set to LIGHT. Even the HTML code reveals PURE WHITE (color: #fff). By his screencap, it REMAINS as white text on dark background with the OS set to DARK.

I agree. But it is also not an MSFN "update", nothing has changed that I can find. Nothing. I'd point to the "mathematics" that your OS and GPU has to perform to take the ORIGINAL COLOR and redefine it for "dark". Call it a "rounding error". In order for ANY system to use "dark", it takes the ORIGINAL COLOR and performs MATH on that color, then sends you the output of that MATH. #000 is changed to #FFF... #FFF is changed to #000... black is changed to white... white is changed to black... MATH IS INVOLVED... An "MSFN update" would imply that the ORIGINAL COLOR was CHANGED. I am seeing ZERO evidence of this.

Scroll up and also toggle this and compare/contrast the brightness contrast -

I think I found something for you, if you are really interesting in doing a Deep Dive. Right-click on top of "Saxon" where you cite the text as too bright, access the "Inspect" and scroll down to this section. The toggle these two entries and report your findings on "brightness". I have a hunch that once you disable "text-shadow", the brightness returns to what you are used to seeing.