NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
We can all see the difference. But a PICTURE doesn't reveal anything. Not in the sense of "blaming it on an MSFN update". What you would need is the "before" and "after" HTML CODE that pinpoints that something was changed "by way of an update". That the "Saxon" text is color-code-this "before" and color-code-that "after". I don't think MSFN updated anything. Your computer is just rendering the SAME EXACT CODE from six months ago and displaying it differently TODAY. Is this a laptop with an "ambient light sensor"? Did a recent Windows Update effect RGB "calculations" for the OS "dark"? There could be a thousand reasons. But you cite/blame MSFN "update". A picture is not proof. Show me how the HTML CODE changed "before" versus "after".
-
I have seen JUST AS MANY medical claims that cite that dark theme RUINS YOUR EYESIGHT. Until you get your doctorate as an optometrist, I'll rely on my own eye doctor. Dark mode gives me migraines. Dark mode is a saviour to others. It's not "one size fits all". https://www.ophthalmology24.com/using-dark-mode
-
I plan to downgrade my Acer Aspire One POS with only 1 GB RAM from XP x86 to Windows 2000. Supermium's GitHub page cites in the "future" section that Windows 2000 will be supported. Not sure what effect this will have yet. I only know that the Intel Atom N450 CPU really does not play well with *any* XP-capable web browser. Really is the BIGGEST waste of money I ever spent money on! Its only non-frustration-inducing functionality is to use it as an oversized CALCULATOR.
-
How do you spell "too shay"?
-
I did not see where you were citing photos and upvote buttons. I thought you were talking about text color relative to background. Which I do not edit and has never changed for me. It's always always always the DARK users that complain/whine about brightness. Just wait, the others will show up soon. I have no doubt. I'm sure that they will have some insight to offer.
-
Have you confirmed/verified that it isn't your DARK THEME causing the "brighter" view on your end? Is that an Operating System "dark" or an extension that defines your "dark"? Has that extension changed from the date of your first screencap and the date of your second screencap? I do not use dark themes and nothing has changed here as far as my "view" of MSFN for several years.
-
I'll have to do some testing. But I do know this to be the case with all of the UXP browsers here at MSFN. They just get slower and slower and slower.
-
Life is too short. You have your priorities. I have mine. Jumping through hoops for image-hosting or how long an attachment has been allowed to be viewed is NOWHERE near the top of MY priority list. I do agree, images should stay long enough for proper flow of the discussion. I personally think they DID stay long enough. Folks that show up "a month" from 'here and now', not my problem. To each their own, of course. Besides, if we started pointing out net-etiquette mischief, it would only take about a month for MSFN to dwindle down to "next to nothing". Trolls would move on. Bad grammar folks would move on. Rep Farming folks would move on. All of these folks do post very useful content. But they also violate net-etiquette here and there. If we started banning the violators, we would still exist, but our numbers would be "next to nothing". Again, to each their own, of course.
-
This topic is clearly DEAD. Just a bunch of OT rambling now. @Saxon - Why not post your PCMark05 scores and bring us back ON-TOPIC?
-
Agreed ("net etiquette"). But also "do not care". My discussions are "here and now". I paste into the reply box. When I can no longer paste, all previous pastes get deleted to make room for the new pastes. I will not turn a 15-second reply into a 2-minute reply and use an image-hosting service. When I am retired and have more free time, sure, I'll jump through those hoops. In the meantime, sorry, but "do not care". Show me a Forum Rule where each and every image that I paste into a reply is to be accessible for the next DECADE.
-
Compared to the AMD Phenom II X4 920 that you screencap'd, my computer runs circles around you, lol.
-
I consider my computer to be "average". But I am "not interested" in installing PCMark on my primary comptuer. Maybe in a VM. My OS is bloatware-free. Why install bloat to my bloatware-free computer just to post "results"? Probably "faster" than the typical MSFN Member but that's because MSFN is over-populated with Vista and XP users. Nothing "wrong" with that, just saying those of us on this forum are probably significantly "below average" as far as the "average computer owner". Personally, in my opinion, all that this round of PCMark results comparisons really did was to PROVE that websites like this (my CPU) are already SPOT ON, without the need to install PCMark and post "results".
-
Does it exist on any .com Technology web sites? Or only on the .gov that you cited? Regardless, don't care and moving on. "Good luck with your poll."
-
And even you yourself hasn't "voted". You probably will now, because I pointed it out. "Dance, my little puppet."
-
Border line. Walk right up to the line in the sand, toe as close as possible without crossing the line. We all already know your views. "Good luck with your poll", I shall be moving on to more important "issues".
-
Regarding the very first three words -- "Do you think"... I think that polls/posts such as this should be "banned" on an INTERNATIONAL FORUM. That's my opinion. Some may like it. Others may not. I personally don't care who/whom falls into which category.
-
Ublock Origin Lite (MV3) vs AdGuard MV3 Chromium Extensions
NotHereToPlayGames replied to a topic in Web Browsers
This doesn't really prove a pro or a con either way. A "block" is a "block", the ad site does not show a DNS record for either uBO (MV2) or for Adguard (MV3), BOTH PERFORM THE BLOCK 100%. -
You'd have to upload it somewhere and post the link. In a PM if you prefer.
-
I guess I would have to have a copy of "your version" to really be able to answer that.
-
Personally, in my opinion, if you ask me, et cetera, I do not believe this for one solitary second, NOT WHEN THIS IS STILL PRESENT (launched via "Classic Ungoogled" .cmd shortcut) [this is TODAY'S release of Supermium!] -
-
"Shouldn't". But I cannot claim to know 100%.
-
I manually updated the manifest. I've noticed nothing "not working" so the min-ver 100 wasn't based an any "need" per se.
-
But if we are keeping track, that's one "for" 'all necessary updates' and two "against". I can think of at least two that were "ran off the forum" that were intentionally sticking with XP x86 SP2 and were both deadset "against" the 'necessary' SP3.
-
I'm currently using 2.0.126 and it seems to work fine. But I'm at work and will need to verify for 100% upon an inspection at home.
-
Will very likely affect the "regular" version. Should not / has not thus far affected my "ungoogled".