NotHereToPlayGames

I've often wondered the same. It's not like I've ever walked into a bank to open a new account and told them, "I will not open an account here if you enable members to use XP."

Not sure I follow. I've only been an MSFN Member for four years (my, how time flies!). In those four years, I don't recall ever witnessing "win32" as a frequent poster. I'm sure this isn't the only forum that "win32" is a member of. His frequency being higher at the other haunts, I suspect.

Unfortunately, somebody introduced a Supermium alternative in the Supermium thread. We were discussing that alternative. Those discussions should have had their own thread started. Those discussions have also died down, so the OT has concluded itself and everybody knows this is a Supermium thread.

Just "drag-and-drop" onto the extensions page. Do not need "debug mode", just drag-and-drop.

I thought they were one-in-the-same.

This is the Chromium v115 engine side-by-side with it using memory the way it was designed to (Ungoogled v115 on the left) versus "DiscardVirtualMemory" M115XP's method on the right. To me, it's not that big of a deal, to be honest, it does "work" in XP and that is a major breakthrough. I guess if this were truly a concern to the end-user, perhaps a comparison of "virtual size" for M115XP versus something like Serpent52?

His reference is to "DiscardVirtualMemory". A minor setback in my view, but technically/programmatically a "h@lf-a$$ed" scheme that literally just "ignores" arguments assigned to the function yet those arguments remain in the code. Those "remnants" result in instability. I would have to research further for a better detailed explanation. But when it comes right down to it, you cannot "replace" a function with X arguments with a function with Y arguments and call it anything but "h@lf-a$$ed", whether it VISUALLY works or not, the side effects will not always be VISIBLE. I think this implementation will fail on Win7, but I have not verified. Still minor in my view, as I still think Win7+ has so many more alternatives than XP and it may be unfortunate that 7 and XP both land in this one thread as far as "browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes".

I think anything "made to work" in XP is impressive. Granted, I say that having officially "moved on" from XP and now run Win10. I still have XP around, of course, but it's no longer my "workhorse". I'm showing this v115 "made to work" browser faster than 360Chrome but the XP skin "bleed-through" is a bit annoying (my view is that XP software should never NOT use XP title bars).

I have my Proxo config call up a .txt file for domains to bypass and Google Drive is one of the bypassed domains.

Why not contact the author/creator of WinRar?

I use IZAarc in XP to unpack rar files, full-blown IZArc, not just the command line add-on. But no, it's not the newest version. Several years old. I don't need it that often though.

That unfairly ties anyone's hands behind their back that are trying to offer assistance, doesn't it? UNPACKING rar files is not a WinRar-only issue. There are DOZENS of programs that can UNPACK rar files. Creating the rar files is a WinRar proprietary or paid software thing, put you only asked about UNPACKING your rar files. I suggest 7-Zip and second the suggestion for Uni Extract. Generally people that prefer interfaces of things like WinZip or WinRar will prefer 7-Zip over Uni Extract. IZArc is another good one that can UNPACK rar files.

I still port everything through Proxomitron. My invalid cert errors a while back were related to forgetting to update my Proxo cert. Proxomitron sees everything FIRST, then a proxy-select extension that can select domains to go through Proxo, to not go through Proxo, or to block entirely, only after all of that does uMatrix kick in.

I prefer the numeric code route mainly because the web page route generally only "explains" 10 or so error codes out of hundreds (I didn't actually count them, lol). And in the case of 360Chrome's "default" error code "web page", it connects to Chinese URLs to pull those "explanations". I use the built-in list of error codes, all Chromium-based browsers should have this list -- chrome://network-errors/ There are 10 proxy errors in that list alone, NONE of which are "explained" by 360Chrome's web page (at least not if you block the Chinese URLs that the "explanation" page reaches out to). chrome://network-errors/ isn't a list of clickable links, even though it appears as though they are (they're not clickable in Official Ungoogled Chromium either). But the name of the error associated with the numeric code is technically all I've ever needed - and again, NONE of the proxy errors that I often encounter are "explained" by the 360Chrome web page.

Ah, thanks. I was wondering how a post with dead links still got a "like", lol.

Is it just me, or are both of those links 404's?

Not sure I follow -- this is what I use for all my scanner needs. https://www.naps2.com/

"Shorts" are not universal vernacular. I wouldn't expect the average MSFNer to know NPN, PNP, FET, BOM, CAN, CAM, DDE, FBD, MCU, PCIU, et cetera. It's like when younger generations use things like SMH, TL;DR, PAW, PITR, PBB, POMS, PAH, TNTL, ADIH, IDC, et cetera and I have to acronym-search them the first 50 times I see them before they sink in to long-term memory.

I agree! Though I will add that many folks' definition will vary. I myself find POSReady2009 a Frankenstein Hack OS and do not use these "updates" on my XP machines. But I also remove Cortana completely (I don't "install" with the OS installation then remove it later, it NEVER lands on the hard drive!) on my Win10 machines - some may define that as a Frankenstein Hack OS.

Not one of my daily thread-reads, but I finally now know what OCAPI crap was in reference to.

Good enough for me. It does present a very interesting case study, to be honest. (Has Roytam detailed why he does not compile x64?) I don't know how to test and would be interested in insights towards testing. I hope I'm not over-simplifying, but I've always viewed it this way (I am a "debugger", not a "programmer", but in a very different line of work [automobile engine controllers]) - x86 versus x64 being ran on an x64 system (all of my machines are x64) is two highways running side-by-side. One highway has 8 lanes of traffic (the x64 lanes) and the other has 4 lanes of traffic (the x86 lanes). The x64 lanes of traffic have 200 cars traveling on it, quite congested and where one "multi-clock-cycle" algorithm slows the entire highway to a crawl until it squeezes through. While the x86 lanes of traffic have only 20 cars traveling on it, no congestion whatsoever, miles between each car. Unloading 10 of the 20 cars and moving them from the x86 lanes onto the x64 lanes creates a traffic jam and slows things down. I'm probably over-simplifying. Fingers crossed that one of our resident high-skilled programmers can chime in.

Why? For "small" programs, there is no programmatic benefit to compiling an x86 into x64 "just because".

This is Win10-related and not XP-related but placing here for future reference for skin colors - https://www.askvg.com/tip-get-rid-of-dark-context-menu-in-windows-10-taskbar/

It makes perfect sense that Firefox 52 could be faster than Serpent 52 (I have not personally tested). When it comes to browsers, it is VERY COMMON for OLDER browsers to be faster. And technically, Serpent 52 is not really "52". It's more like "52 and three fourths". Just as one example, Firefox does not support "nullish coalescing operator" until version 72 -- https://caniuse.com/mdn-javascript_operators_nullish_coalescing But despite Serpent being only "52", my Serpent 52 dated 2023-07-31 [I run an older version intentionally] does support "nullish coalescing operator". So by that operator alone, we are not 52 but 72. But what else can 72 do that 52 cannot? So we cannot really call it 72. So "52 and three fourths". Although, if you look at the about screen, we don't really call it 52... we call it 52.9.0. So "52 and nine tenths".

I'm technically completed with 1030-9 as far as the way that I use it. But I'd have to "restore" a few things for the uploaded version. One is the "links" within Extension manager that I hide for less "clutter" on my local copy. I also remove Default Browser from my local copy.