NotHereToPlayGames

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.

I tried this one in the past and saw no "taming". I only tried in Chrome-based.

I would say that you are much better off with build 1030 over 2044. With each and every new "upstream" build, all that was really added was just more and more telemetry to track down and remove. 1030 uses the v86 engine. 2044 uses the v86 engine. You don't really gain anything but "risk" by using 2044 over 1030. 2036 was tested by a larger audience so higher probability of finding unwanted connections so it should be trusted above 2044.

Appears not. Will revisit but my focus has primarily been with getting 1030 "caught up".

"You are the company you keep." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/04/company-keep/ Another way to say that, especially here at MSFN, is we all know "who is who" by their meaningless "likes". I didn't read the post as a "personal attack", but more of "one school of thought" against "another school of thought" (our "likes" define who we are!) GANG WARS. Do we know if new members can register? I don't recall seeing a mod chime in on that one. But the more I think about it, the more I can't help but think that if these GANG WARS persist, then MSFN is "weighing its options" on whether "to be, or not to be".

I missed them. But even being "directed" to them, I clearly don't see them the same as you "on a scale of 1 to 10". Some of us are biased, whether we intend to be or not. Some of us are paranoid, whether we indend to be or not. Some of us take sides and troll the forum for "likes" that have no bearing on anything whatsoever other than "trolls being trolls". I stopped following these "discussions" because they have become nothing but Gang Wars.

Unbiased readers do not see it as pollution. THIS is why these sorts of "topics" are forbidden on most forums such as this.

Unable to reproduce here. I do no use the --no-sandbox flag (nor recommend it, for that matter). But I'm also on 1030 at the moment.

You may have had a "disappearing fonts" issue. This has been reported on v13.0 builds and in some v13.5 builds though much rarer with v13.5. I've never actually witnessed it in v13.5 but v13.0 builds would do this quite freqently for me (but only when Stylus was editing a userstyle). If it happens again, hover your mouse over where one of the result lines are supposed to be displayed, sometimes a mouse hover "un-disappears" the font. Or do a "Ctrl-A" to highlight the ENTIRE page and see if there is "evidence" of the disappeared font.

how about giving us a screencap or two?