Jump to content

nicolaasjan

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    394

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Netherlands

 Content Type 

Posts posted by nicolaasjan

    My Browser Builds (Part 5)

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    FYI;

    From the Pale Moon forum:

    Planned system requirements changes this year

    Quote

    Later this year (probably somewhere in the summer), we will be changing the minimum system requirements for 64-bit Pale Moon builds (which means all main-line builds we publish except for Windows 32-bit) to once again be more in line with "modern processor optimization" as-advertised on our website.

    This follows a lengthy discussion about the impact of this and a baseline poll on the forum to decide on how best to approach this issue. The gist of it is that our processor and build optimizations have fallen behind what current hardware supports, and we're leaving a lot of performance on the table as a result. This seriously holds back the browser's potential and lies at the root of some of the slowness users have been experiencing when dealing with very heavy "modern" websites.

    What changes will be made to the system requirements?

    Our requirements for 32-bit Windows will remain unchanged.

    For 64-bit on x86 hardware, we will move from a minimum requirement of a CPU with SSE2 support, to one that supports at least the AVX instruction set. In Intel terms, this means x86_64 v2 + AVX.
    Any desktop Intel CPU released after approximately 2011 (Intel Sandy Bridge or later), and any desktop AMD CPU released after approximately 2013 (AMD Bulldozer or later) should support AVX. Some users have indicated that particularly low-power mobile CPUs have lagged behind in their support for AVX a little (Some 10W Celerons, for example) so if you are running a particularly low-end CPU or laptop, you may want to double-check. If you are unsure, you can use e.g. CPU-Z on Windows to see what your CPU supports. Linux and other operating systems may have tools available inside the distribution itself to query CPU capabilities; please check your documentation (or community fora) if you need help.
    For some alternative operating systems that would normally run on much older hardware (e.g. Solaris/Illumos), we may continue using an SSE2 baseline. Please check your maintainers' information if this is the case or not. It is expected that all our main distribution channels follow this requirement change, though, i.e. Windows, binary Linux from our website, and package distributions for major Linux distributions (Debian/Ubuntu/etc.)

     

    3

    Latest-ish MPC-HC ported for XP

    in Windows XP

    Posted

    1 hour ago, IXOYE said:

    Mpc-hc2.1.7.2 works very well on xp sp2 but it produces empty "evb*.tmp" type parasite files each time we launch the "Mpc-hc" prg. The files are located in the "temp" folder which is located in ":\Documents and Settings\.....\Local Settings\temp" of Windows, and we have to delete them regularly. this did not exist in the "Mpc-hc2.1.2" version...:)

    Good catch. :)

    Same here:

    spacer.png

    But PrivaZer removed them (CCleaner didn't).

    1

    My Browser Builds (Part 5)

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted · Edited by nicolaasjan

    2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

    In my browser New Moon 28 (32-bit) 2024-02-23), the code seems to look okay. In full windows size, there is of course no need to scroll horizontally, only vertically. But if I reduce the size of the window, however, I can confirm your issue with horizontal scrolling. Here is a screenshot to show this issue taken from New Moon 28:

    Same here on the latest New Moon.

    Well, at least the scrollbar at the very bottom works to display the rest of the code. :D

    spacer.png

    But I hope for you all that this can be fixed.

    In the meantime, click on the 'Raw' button and there will be no scrollbar. :)

    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ntvmb/wxp-installer-for-winpe/main/INSTALL.BAT

     

    3

    Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    On 2/23/2024 at 10:08 PM, AstroSkipper said:

    I have again updated my special mod uBlock Origin Legacy from version 1.16.4.32 to version 1.16.4.33. I fixed the loading errors of the filter list

    Thanks! :worship:

    Quote

    The "StevenBlack/hosts" filter lists are very strong and restrictive. So in some cases, you have to set exclusions when using them.

    I had that list enabled in the distant past, but it is indeed very restrictive and will cause false positives.

    (see e.g. this old issue in the uMatrix repo)

    It currently has 161.498 entries! I don't think that's beneficial, especially on older hardware...

    Also, the maintainer is known to block domains based on his personal opinion (mostly in his additional lists)...

    3

    Latest-ish MPC-HC ported for XP

    in Windows XP

    Posted · Edited by nicolaasjan

    On 1/29/2024 at 5:22 PM, 66cats said:

    These?


    MPC-HC 2.1.4
    MPC-HC 2.1.4.7z

    MPC-BE 1.6.11
    MPC-BE 1.6.11.7z
     

    On the MDL forum I see that MPC-HC 2.1.5 is out, but I don't see a working link anywhere (yes; I'm logged in)... :dubbio:

    https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/some-of-my-latest-apps-done-for-xp.87973/page-2#post-1825868

    [Edit]

    I see now that @Maroc has edited all his posts with links to his programs, so that what are supposed to be links are now just plain text...

    This happened on Wednesday, between 19:38 and 19:45.

    Relevant threads:

    https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/mpc-hc-ported-for-xp.87702/

    https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/some-of-my-latest-apps-done-for-xp.87973/

    0

    My Browser Builds (Part 5)

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    7 hours ago, mina7601 said:

    Unfortunately, I am not a uBO user, but thanks anyway. Would it actually be possible with Adblock Plus? Since that's what I use.

    <Offtopic>

    I would say, try in a fresh test profile. :)

    But I think it doesn't support that syntax.

    Copilot:

    Quote

    I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find specific information about Adblock Plus supporting the $removeparam syntax. However, it’s worth noting that Adblock Plus does support most of the EasyList filter syntax 1. For the most accurate information, I recommend checking the official Adblock Plus documentation or their support forums.

    The URL for the "AdGuard URL Tracking Protection" list is: 

    https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/ublock/filters/17.txt

    That said, why don't you try uBO?

    It's far superior to Adblock Plus. :yes:

    </Offtopic>

    2

    My Browser Builds (Part 5)

    in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, mina7601 said:

    Hmm yes, much better, thanks!

    uBO (web extension version) can strip these parameters. :)

    • AdGuard URL Tracking Protection (built in)
    • Actually Legitimate URL Shortener Tool; from: 
    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DandelionSprout/adfilt/master/LegitimateURLShortener.txt

    For Pale Moon/New Moon: Pure URL.

    https://deusrex.neocities.org/xul/pureurl/pureurl

    https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/pureurl4pm/

    1
×
×
  • Create New...