NotHereToPlayGames

My view will be different than yours but still basically the same process. Click the down-arrow by your name then click the My Attachments menu item. Then delete all of the attachments that are no longer needed. Whatever post you were in the middle of that you couldn't upload will likely need started over after freeing storage space by deleting no-longer-needed attachments.

My Google Voice doesn't use verification codes. It's strictly username and password without any two-step BS. But it could be because my fake throwaway Google email address dates way back to 2004 when somebody that already had a Google account had to "invite" me to open a Google account. I admit that I kind of have no clue what is involved in opening new Google accounts nowadays.

Sure. I've been meaning to get it updated one of these days. For example, it still contains some "Google Suggest" telemetry.

<excerpt> Account creation requires an iOS or Android device regardless of the platform intended to be used. </excerpt> That rules me out. I don't own an iOS or Android device.

What is "Telegram" ??? Is it something like MS Teams that you have to "invite" the recipient to join? Is it something that I can type in a PHONE NUMBER and it will send an SMS?

Unsure what is meant by "voice chat". I use Google Voice and it works in XP using 360Chrome v13 or v13.5. If you know what Vonage or magicJack is, that's basically Google Voice. I do not own a phone - no land line, no cell phone, no mobile phone, nothing. I make all phone calls using Google Voice and an XP-compatible web browser.

Chill. Just a figure of speech. Besides, I've seen MSFN Members "threaten" other MSFN Members with "I've screencap'd what you just said, I will use it against you if I need to". That has to be much more in violation of forum rules then some "just messin" phrase and the "literal meaning" of "never heard of". Oh well, life's too short,

Yes you have. Maybe you meant that you've never used them. waka waka waka https://msfn.org/board/topic/185031-webp-virus-fears-nightmares-suggestions-or-exodus-from-the-internet/?do=findComment&comment=1252187 https://msfn.org/board/topic/183016-palemoon-drama-has-gotten-bad/?do=findComment&comment=1205651 Just messin' with ya. edit: wait, one was about never hearing of Pale Moon, not New Moon. But like I say, I'm just messin' anyway. I'm not a big fan of Firefox Forks but they DO have a VERY large following - ESPECIALLY here at MSFN. Maybe more true a few years ago than "today", but several Firefox Forks are updated WEEKLY here at MSFN and there is a VERY large following of those forks. Okay, "very large" is perhaps relative. But if you've ever opened the "most active" or "recent activity" links here at MSFN, the fork thread is there EVERY FRIDAY like CLOCKWORK.

What XP DPI are you using?

The difference between "Off" and "Standard" is very very slight. It is the "ClearType" setting that is the Biggest Piece Of "Boot Polish" ever invented (as far as XP and Vista, I have no issues in Win10).

I guess so. Something like that. I don't "regret" creating the 2036 and 2044 for users that specifically requested it! But nope, they're "not for me". But at the same time, I wouldn't really have known, with 100% certainty, that they're "not for me" UNTIL creating them and truly using them for several months.

Disagree! Browser choice is always ALWAYS ALWAYS a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Those that want to use v11, v12, v13, v13.5.2022, v13.5.2036, v13.5.2044, v13.5.1030, you name it, is all up to THEIR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

That said, I personally kind of "regret" ever releasing a 2044 - it (and 2036 and 2022) really is (are) INFERIOR to 1030.

As do I. But I can confirm Anbima's font issue in XP. I do not think 2044 and 1030 are any different whatsoever as far as font rendering.

It could also be that the web site is NOT written correctly! Some headers are supposed to be IN CONJUNCTION with OTHER headers and a lot of web designers tend to forget or overlook that.

No. What you are seeing with that is basically security "rules" changing and header rules being used differently when Chrome v69 (360Chrome v11) was released in late 2018 versus when Chrome v86 (360Chrome v13 and v13.5) was released in late 2020. In the world of web browsers, a LOT can change in two years.

Technically not true. It's because v11 is not able to access the PlutoSans font (see below) and what you are seing in v11 is the "fallback" font (I didn't track down what that is) whereas v13.5 is able to access the PlutoSans font. So of course you are not going to see the same thing when comparing what you see in v11 to what you see in v13.5 - you're not looking at the same font. You can get v11 to access the PlutoSans font by adding this startup command switch --disable-web-security But this will just get your v11 to look like v13.5 as opposed to the opposite direction.

For reference -- https://www.dpd.com/de/de/pickup-paketshops/ font-family: PlutoSansLight / PlutoSansRegular / PlutoSansExtraLight font-weight: 300 Not likely.

Mileage may vary, of course. I myself have never witnessed one driver render subpixel better than another. I'd kind of have to see "before and after" and it should be able to be captured via lossless bitmap. I do have one laptop still on XP but it will likely be Christmas Break before I could do some experimenting on driver versus driver.

My XP was always set to Standard font smoothing, never to ClearType font smoothing. Standard was fine for me, but I did have to BLOCK any-and-all .css anti-alias fonts via Proxomitron, uMatrix, or Stylus, depending on how the web site was configured. Standard was always fine for me so long as I didn't allow web sites to use Roboto, Segoe, Calibri, Consolas. But I also had to disable DirectWrite - one of the reasons that even though Win10 isn't nearly the nightmare that Vista was, I continue to use 360Chrome most of the time even in Win10. Supermium has also returned GDI versus DirectWrite but I cannot bring myself to using a web browser that isn't "ungoogled". Every user will have their pros and cons, their preferences. Web browser selection is always a matter of user preference. I didn't have to switch Standard off or on depending on which programs were running, it was ALWAYS on.

I mean, if you don't have a "before", I wouldn't go out of your way for it. I've recently migrated to Win10 and it does not suffer the NIGHTMARE that I witnessed in Vista. The nightmare haunted me so much that I didn't even try Win7.

Do you have a "before and after" type of pic? I basically "had to" remain on XP when Vista came out - Vista's font rendering was a migraine nightmare I never wish to repeat. I experimented with SEVERAL drivers during my XP Years and I never witnessed any difference - they either "worked" or they "didn't" as far as reaching advertised GPU resolution but no difference in the "dancing" red and green "subpixel" rendering NIGHTMARE. My eye doctor once described it as "the exact opposite of being color blind", that my eyesight can see/detect (and still does decades later) the "subpixel" colors that many people simply do not "see". Do you have a "before" pic that shows the red and green subpixels and the "after" pic showing that the one variable changed (the nVidia driver) being the "fix"?

@Anbima - I totally get the font issue, I really do. Font subpixel rendering literally gives me migraines and I have to resort to several tactics to get fonts on my system to look "right". One add-on won't do it all. One user script won't do it all. One style sheet won't do it all. My four lines of defense are (in this order) - Proxomitron uMatrix Stylus web browser Developer Tools (F12) Sure, we "could" add Tampermonkey to the mix, but it's not really the right tool for the job. While uMatrix is "above" Stylus, it is only in the sense of BLOCKING third-party fonts, I do not use uMatrix to perform what Stylus is better at performing. Proxomitron is the "Swiss Army Knife" of web filtering - but it isn't for everyone and has a steep learning curve. A few of my Proxomitron filters associated with fonts - And you've seen what Stylus can do. But sometimes we need to consider that sometimes we make life more difficult than it needs to be and the web browser's Developer Tools (F12) is really all that is needed. If I visit something like DHL only a dozen or so visit during one month of the year and it's never visited the other ELEVEN months of the year - is a "permanent" solution for DHL really even "needed"? Especially when the web browser's Developer Tools is only a few clicks away and you can change a web pages font rendering "temporarily" within SECONDS as opposed to the HOURS it takes seeking something "permanent" or something "all-encompassing"?

You will NOT find ONE rule that fits EVERYWHERE. I will repeat what I said earlier -- I'm unsure if you are aware of how long the road is that you are about to travel. There are folks that write styles sheets with TWO HUNDRED lines of code that still don't catch "everything". There are folks that write user scripts with TWO HUNDRED lines of code that still don't catch "everything". As far as your latest URL, using body, html, h3, p {font-family: Arial !important;} catches more fonts on that URL, but still not "all". I suppose you could try * {font-family: Arial !important;} (note the WILD-CARD ASTERISK) and see if that is satisfactory.

It's not that "linear". If it takes uBO 400ms to perform what Stylus can do in 200ms and having both only increases RAM by 10 MB but results in saving 200ms a thousand times per day, then that to me is kind of a no-brainer. Every user must weigh their own pros and cons. My hunch is that you have extensions that I view as "worthless". That doesn't make them worthless to you. uBO is obviously FAILING at the task you are asking it to do or we wouldn't be having this discussion.