NotHereToPlayGames

Interesting. I don't mind doing another update for 2036 in the 2036 thread despite some members here not "liking" that. No skin off my back, not a fan of the gigantic "like" game here at MSFN anyway. 2036 has one "update check" telemetry item that was found while performing mods for 2044. 2036 also needs "restore defaults" button removed. There may be some other minor stuff, don't recall offhand.

This is strictly forbidden here at MSFN. See Rule #13.

Since v98 did the trick, I wonder if your v86 needs these two also - // ==UserScript== // @name Inject findLast() Polyfill [97] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (!Array.prototype.findLast) { Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, "findLast", { value: function (predicate, thisArg) { let idx = this.length - 1; while (idx >= 0) { const value = this[idx]; if (predicate.call(thisArg, value, idx, this)) { return value; } idx--; } return undefined; } , writable: true, enumerable: false, configurable: true }); } // ==UserScript== // @name Inject findLastIndex() Polyfill [97] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (!Array.prototype.findLastIndex) { Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, "findLastIndex", { value: function (predicate, thisArg) { let idx = this.length - 1; while (idx >= 0) { const value = this[idx]; if (predicate.call(thisArg, value, idx, this)) { return idx; } idx--; } return -1; } , writable: true, enumerable: false, configurable: true }); } Another common "attempt" to break older browsers can be fixed with: // ==UserScript== // @name Inject randomUUID() Polyfill [92] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (!('randomUUID' in crypto)) crypto.randomUUID = function randomUUID() { return ( [1e7]+-1e3+-4e3+-8e3+-1e11).replace(/[018]/g, c => (c ^ crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & 15 >> c / 4).toString(16) ); };

I guess that is good news and bad news. I'd be courious as to what other polyfills may need added to v86.

No surprise. I do not support the whole notion of "chasing" after updates. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Another one I used to use was called "AlfaClock". But also XP. One of these days I'll start playing around with Win10 but I've *avoided it* until literally weeks ago. Not months, weeks. I miss the XP list of recently opened programs. But have not been on 10 long enough to even compare different methods of restoring that list. I have to assume that is what SIB and SAB "is", but have done zero reading on them thus far. Admittedly, I saw the T-Clock reference and that is what brought me here, lol.

lol, I guess I should have read in full before replying.

I don't have any Chase accounts but the 360Chrome userbase already has added support for structuredClone() -- // ==UserScript== // @name Inject structuredClone() Polyfill [98] // @version 0.0.1 // @match *://*/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== if (typeof self.structuredClone !== "function") { self.structuredClone = function (value) { if (Array.isArray(value)) { const count = value.length; let arr = new Array(count); for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) { arr = self.structuredClone(value); } return arr; } else if (typeof value === "object") { let obj = {}; for (const prop in value) { obj[prop] = self.structuredClone(value[prop]); } return obj; } else { return value; } } }

<ot> re: T-Clock, are you referring to "Redux"? re: replacement - I use T-Clock Redux and DS Clock but only on my XP x64. I have only recently migrated to Win10 and have not dived into SIB+ or clock replacements on Win10 as of yet.

Been running 2044 for half a day here at work with no "nastygrams" from Global IT (they would nastygram within an hour). Gonna monitor for telemetry for a few days then upload by Friday or so.

Agreed. But unfortunately fairly common when sites allow the user to pick their own "theme" or "skin" which isn't applied until signed in. edit - though I say that as a generality, I do not have a GitHub account to verify if this is the case herein.

Ah, thanks. I was actually kind of suspecting that this was due to an unsupported OS / Service Pack basically being "played off as" some sort of "security risk" for those of us running SUPPORTED OFFICIAL Operating Systems. Future references to this "trojan scan" shall be ignored, of course. Thank you, @we3fan. edit: "official" versus "supported, since neither XP or Vista are technically "supported" operating systems

For what it is worth, I am staying on 2036 thus far. My fingers are crossed for better assistance with the Vista x64 "scan" report before I can in good conscience bring 2044 to here at work. Our Global IT is not that smart and our department forces them to change their "rules" constantly, but I can't really tell the department that I "need" 360Chrome for "work-related" tasks, lol.

Regardless, I cannot replicate and I cannot fix what I cannot replicate. Moving on... No need to hijack over something we've already discussed.

I preferred 1030 over everything else. While working on 2036, I accidentally corrupted my 1030 when I was byte-comparing the two builds. I'd have to redo my 1030 from scratch and haven't revisted as of yet.

Not to "sound like a broken record" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/like%20a%20broken%20record ), I need the name of the real-time "protection" that reports the CLAIMED trojan scan. Only the Vista Group is making this claim, I have installed Vista x86 and I get no trojan scan suggestion. NONE. ZIP. And that "zip" as in ZERO, not "zip" as in file compression. I even provided a screencap. Until whatever is giving that "scan suggestion" is revealed in its entirety, how in Hades is anyone expected to replicate? If I cannot replicate, I cannot fix, it's kind of that simple.

I thought somebody here posted an English Translation of some of the version "fixes". Can't find them at the moment. For the most part, there's not really anything to "gain" between one version and the next. I'd still be on 13.0 build 2206 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I briefly reverted to 13.0 build 2170 and would still be on it if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I'd still be on 13.5 build 1030 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I'd still be on 13.5 build 2022 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I'd still be on 13.5 build 2036 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I personally feel that every one of those "upgrades" never really gained me anything, never once have I ever witnessed a web site that one could "do" than another could "not". They're all v86. Nothing more. Nothing less. v86 technically still performs EVERYTHING that I throw at it. And I really do mean EVERYTHING. It remains my DEFAULT even on my Win10 computers. Sure, there has been a few .css oddities here and there - always fixable through built-in Dev Tools. But I myself do not subscribe to the notion of a "permanent fix" for a once-in-a-lifetime web site I find myself on that I will never ever be on again in four lifetimes let alone one.

That sounds to me like an error/bug in 2036 (and perhaps even older versions) and that 2044 is doing what it is supposed to do. ie, setting the system font to arial black regular creating a BOLD font in 2036 instead of a REGULAR font as "requested" by they system font == error/bug. Looks like it basically took upstream all the way up to 2044 to finally FIX that error/bug. Why import an error/bug from an older version into a newer version? More importantly, why can you not have the system setting on bold if that is the GUI outcome you are wanting? Tahoma 8 regular: Tahoma 8 bold: Arial Black 8 regular: Arial Black 8 bold:

If you want to get really complex, you can "log in" to websites without ever enabling cookies, you just need to grab the "contents" of the cookie and use them over and over again, from any computer. The power of Proxomitron.

Have you tried HyperSnap ? I still use Snagit but you will need to use older versions than even my old version. According to a few searches, Snagit 8.1.0 was the last version for Win98.

Search-engine search for "winpenpack chrome". Perhaps the "loader" used for X-Chromium will work for you? I actually use that "loader" for my Ungoogled Chromium at work so I could test tomorrow.

Perhaps use the entire path instead of using %UserProfile% ?

I have not tried this, but Chrome's original (ie, non-loader) command line argument to place the profile in the Application Data folder of the user profile was --profile-directory=Default

Absolutely. Added to my to-do list. There is at least one more telemetry leak (0 bytes, no connection, but I still want it gone 100%), but will likely be next weekend before I do another update.

Interim r2 update. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yh2qingwvf1u0jdez25cg/r2-interim-release.zip?rlkey=qfu2zn7u1bm6gfvequ0k2o9jf&dl=1 chrome.dll >> removed additional telemetry items en-us.pak >> corrected unicode error (two "spaces" being displayed as a "square") resources.pak >> will need to extract/replace regular or ungoogled depending on preference -- restores Extensions page "action links" still to-do - 2036 versus 2044 "bold" GUI font on some OSs "ProcHack" detection on some malware/antivirus scanners