NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
Um, when I extract that file, I'm getting WINAMP files dated 11/20/2013.
-
Ublock Origin Lite (MV3) vs AdGuard MV3 Chromium Extensions
NotHereToPlayGames replied to a topic in Web Browsers
I should have searched for the suggested version, lol. Thanks for the suggestion, btw. From memory, I thought you suggested 1.45.x. I've been running 1.45.2 and so far I am impressed with it over 1.26.2. 1.45.0 had this (link) commit and it seems to have solved several "time delay" issues I have had with uBO (where an ad is blocked but it "flashes" for a split second before being blocked). Admittedly, my preference towards 1.26.2 is a ghost from my XP days. Version 1.26.2 was (if I recall), the last version without anti-aliased BS, I'd have to verify, just that the GUI looked HORRIBLE in XP for anything "newer". That's no longer the case now that I am on Win10 and I've been quite pleased with 1.45.2. The strange irony is the configuration that I have stumbled upon that works for ALL of my computers. The office computer is a screaming fast top-of-the-line (at least it was 1.5 years ago) with 64 GB RAM. My primary computer here at home is an i7-4770 with 16 GB RAM. My secondary computer (but primary for paying bills) is an Intel Core 2 Quad with 4 GB RAM. I have miscellaneous i3's and i5's. It's always been a bit "tricky" to get ONE configuration to work for ALL. One adblocker would not work across this wide range of computers. One size really does not fit all. The combination that WORKS FOR ALL is actually something "they" always tell you "don't do". Running uBO v1.45.2 SIMULTANEOUSLY ALONGSIDE AdNauseum v3.21.4, both with identical lists (9 lists), and running that pair SIMULTANEOUSLY ALONGSIDE "AdBlock - best ad blocker" v5.22.0 (only 1 list) is working FLAWLESSLY. Across the entire wide range of computers in my arsenal. It's actually the first EVER config/combo to not split-second-flash ads on my Intel Core 2 Quad on YouTube. -
No luck so far
-
File Hippo has this, but it doesn't specifically say "Premium" -- https://filehippo.com/download_comodo/10.1.0.6476/
-
I may have it. I'll report back this evening, will take some time to dig through a stack of burnt DVDs.
-
Not to sound like a broken record or to beat a dead horse, but only if you don't tweak and optimize!
-
Only if you don't tweak and optimize! Again, only if you don't tweak and optimize! Which, YES, is a lost art! And even web sites that used to specialize in that ART are long gone. I kind of don't believe for a second that you run XP with "defaults", you yourself tweaked and optimized. I would like to think that NOBODY HERE AT MSFN runs any OS at "defaults".
-
In my opinion, even XP is a crappy version of Windows! The only reason it isn't is if you know how to tweak it, optimize it, axe the extras, et cetera. Which is the same exact thing to be said of ANY version of Windows! ie, you're not really running XP, your running XP plus Windows 10 Firewall Control Plus XP 7.5.105.217, plus who knows what else, that's not "technically" XP.
-
Nope, not in the least. Even MSFN members ADMIT that they don't use their "ancient" XP computers exclusively. Ditch your tablet, ditch your phone, ditch anything and everything othat than your "beloved" ancient XP then we (any one or all here at MSFN) shall have this conversation again.
-
In Comodo 2.4.18.184, I can break my rules down not only by app, but by the app that launched the app. For example, I can launch my web browser from the start menu and it would have one set of rules. Launch the same exact web browser from a desktop shortcut and it would have an entirely different set of rules. Launch the same exact web browser from File Manager and it would have a third entirely different set of rules. Launch the same exact web browser from Email Program #1 and it would have a fourth set of rules. Launch the same exact browser from Email Program #2 and it would have a fifth set of rules. And, most importantly, if I am INSTALLING a program and that INSTALLER launches the same exact web browser, all traffic is disabled wholly and completely because the launch sequence did not fit one of the five sets of rules.
-
In my opinion, BETTER than anything offered in this thread! I have trial-ran Windows 10 Firewall Control and no, it did not change my opinion of Comodo Firewall 2.4.18.184. Nope. That ThinkPad T42 is a real POS. It's used solely out in the garage to tune turbos. I do not have the "patience" to do anything else with it. It has all of my automotive engine control module software on it otherwise I would have smashed it with a hammer a decade ago. What takes 30 seconds to do with a 15yr old computer takes 3 minutes on that 20yr old POS. And that's with me tweaking and optimizing every far-fetched corner of XP. To each their own, of course, but I personally do not advise anybody "in their right mind" to use a 20yr old computer.
-
Yes. A 20yr old IBM ThinkPad T42. But it's not an everyday XP. It's used for tuning aftermarket turbo project cars.
-
Back when I used software-firewall versus hardware-firewall, Comodo was my favorite by far. But I intentionally stopped upgrading beyond Comodo Personal Firewall 2.4.18.184. Strictly speaking of my "ancient" XP machines.
-
Ublock Origin Lite (MV3) vs AdGuard MV3 Chromium Extensions
NotHereToPlayGames replied to a topic in Web Browsers
Agreed. I do applaud the discussion of alternatives. One size will never fit all. Currently, my Intel Atom (single core) and my Intel Core 2 Quad (4 cores, "unthreaded") computers perform best with uBO v1.26.2 for everything that I have tried on them. With identical lists however, my Core i7 (4 cores, 8 threads) would leak YouTube ads! My Core i7 computers are currently using AdNauseam v3.21.4 (forked from uBO) and have yet to ever leak an ad on YouTube. Despite AdNauseam being my best performer on my Core i7 (not even so much as a split-second visual "flash" of the ad being blocked!), when I run the same exact extension with the same exact lists on my Core 2 Quad, it will not block any YouTube ads! Both running Win10 Ungoogled Chromium v94. But uBO will show a split-second visual "flash" of the ad being blocked. One size will never fit all. -
Agreed, same here. There is no "need" in Win 10.
-
Please advise if you did this in XP or 10. Thanks.
-
No, I didn't. Like somebody else alluded to, it seems you are seeking strife where none exists. I'll take guidance from that other person and conclude this discussion herein.
-
My 13.5.1030 Redux is dated November 2023. I was XP and XP Only way back then. (Well, not at work, but XP and XP *ONLY* at home.) It was only "months" ago that I switched from XP to 10 (at home). But my Acer Aspire One is still on XP at home (but I use Serpent 52 on it).
-
They were not blacklisting "older browsers" or faking a Chromium v77 would have not worked. They were, seemingly, blacklisting v86 and nothing more than that. Of course, I'm not about to try a hundred different user agents just to find out "exactly" what they are doing, lol.
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
That is likely not the tell-tale error. What other errors are in the console? Fix them and this 500ah is likely fixed as a result. -
Wrong. Their is no Client Hints in 360Chrome v13.5. And Win10 doesn't change that fact. At least, not in my releases. Do not recall if they existed "upstream".
-
Did you intend to link to an ht-tp instead of to an ht-tpS? Other than that, it would not load for me in my default setup for v13.5.1030 either. But DOES LOAD when I use my default alternate UA - which is Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.120 Safari/537.36 Generally speaking, whenever I bump into a site that does not work (and if I remember to change the UA at all!), I DROP TO AN EVEN OLDER v77 THAN TO TRY "NEWER" OR "MOST RECENT" UAs. And that works in this case too, the site LOADS WITH A V77 UA.
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
ps - I may be able to narrow it down more precisely. The July 2023 version simply always worked for Restore Session. I have only recently upgraded from July 2023 (due to Promise.allSettled discussions herein). -
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
@roytam1 Somewhere between the July 31, 2023 version of Serpent 52 and the July 4, 2024 version of Serpent 52, the Restore Session tab does not seem to work. Sometimes it will never show up and the last session is restored without this tab. Sometimes it will show up but the table will not be populated with the windows or tabs that are to be restored (such as the below screencap). Sometimes it will work correctly and does display the windows or tabs being restored.