NotHereToPlayGames

I believe that's already been asked and answered here -- https://msfn.org/board/topic/183657-mypal-68-in-windows-xp-custom-buttons-and-extensions/?do=findComment&comment=1226364

Key word being "was". I've never met anyone that pays for a web browser. Doesn't mean they don't exist, especially for the mobile phone community. But certainly not the "norm". Agreed.

I only witnessed the standard 20-30 connections to Google IP Addresses that all Chromium Forks make unless "ungoogled'. Primarily 172.217.x.y and 142.25(0|1).x.y. Also saw a 34.104.x.y in the list, not sure I've seen that one in other Chromium Forks, possibly tied to "DNS Protection" which is just another way of saying "give us your DNS records instead of giving them to your ISP".

I'm a bit concerned that the author has this note -- "valid for one year"

I'm not sure if that is a VPN IP indicator or not. I know there was an extension posted a while back that places the flag of the web site's location. So that US Flag could just be indicating that the web site being connected to is located in the US. As opposed to indicating a VPN using a US IP.

I am well aware, I wasn't born yesterday, lol. I'm actually planning six different Win10 color choices. I call them Win10 because the title bar (and min/max/close/restore icons) is (are) "flat" where XP's title bar (and min/max/close/restore icons) is (are) "rounded". My RGB / HTML color combos are below. I figure SIX is more than enough for members to grab one that suits them. No timeline, they will be done when they are done. The color combos are basically being defined "for me". Official Ungoogled Chromium does NOT use Win10's "inactive title bar" color (Win10 defaults to white [Light App Mode]), but selects its own "inactive" color based on 'masking' the "active" color. Once an "active" color is manually defined (registy entry also provided for reference), it is Official Ungoogled Chromium revealing the other colors used in my skins, I don't just pluck them out of thin air, lol. Blue 0 99 177 = #0063B1 72 143 199 = #488FC7 26 115 232 = #1A73E8 Olive Green 112 130 56 = #708238 153 166 133 = #99A685 232 113 10 = #E8710A Metallic Silver 170 169 173 = #AAA9AD 194 193 196 = #C2C1C4 128 134 139 = #80868B Iron Gray 82 89 93 = #52595D 131 136 139 = #83888B 128 134 139 = #80868B Bronze 177 86 15 = #B1560F 199 134 83 = #C78653 176 96 0 = #B06000 Brick Red 170 74 68 = #AA4A44 194 125 121 = #C27D79 217 48 37 = #D93025 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\DWM] "AccentColor"=dword:ffb16300 "AccentColorInactive"=dword:ffc78f48 Note that Win10's registry uses BGR instead of RGB and the first two letters define the "mask" (typically ff for Light App Mode and 00 for Dark App Mode). I've not yet experimented with "masking" 'in the middle' for a skin that works well in Light App Mode and Dark App Mode.

I plan to upload an all-new from-the-ground-up build 1030 within the next few weeks or so, I don't really have a timeline on it. It merges much of 2044 into 1030 and uses a Win10 skin. It's still "blue" as I intentionally use XP's "blue" desktop even in Win10 and accent color and title bars in Win10 are also "blue" for me. I also axe Win10's "immersive menu" and revert it from can't-stand-dark to love-my-light menu colorings. I've been rewriting the menus to include icons and added an avatar menu "User Center" (still in-process). No real reason, "just because".

But this browser does "phone home" to the Chrome Web Store. Granted, I would have to experiment because I've never actually used any Chrome Fork that isn't "ungoogled" in some form or another. For members that do use the "regular" version versus the "ungoogled" version, does your extensions "update" or notify you that an update is available? If so, then that is at least the first sign that your setup is talking to the Chrome Web Store. If a line of communication is open, I wouldn't doubt in the least that the Chrome Web Store has (or will soon have) a means to disable MV2 extensions. But as mentioned, I would need to experiment. ps - I still use 360Chrome v11. Not as much as v13.5, of course, but still three or four times more frequently than New Moon 27.

Users of UNGOOGLED versions are not affected. Thanks.

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?