Jump to content

athlonxpuser

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    33

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Germany

 Content Type 

Everything posted by athlonxpuser

  1. athlonxpuser
    actually there are a lot more win 7 users 3 years after EOL than there were XP users back then. according to statcounter.com, win 7 has a market share of 9.55% as of jan 2023 while XP was only at 5.26% in april 2017. I guess as long as Firefox still gets updates for win 7, it is simply not necessary to make an effort in getting newer builds of chromium to run on win 7.
  2. athlonxpuser
    where do you see a pentium in that video? i hope you know that's a comparison between two graphics cards while using the 5800X3D. or did you really confuse the Radeon RX 6600 with the Pentium G6600 which indeed was released in Q2 2020?
  3. athlonxpuser
    it doesn't really matter when the motherboard or the chipset was initially released when it has been updated constantly... point is on that platform you can use a modern cpu that came out as recently as 8 months ago, namely the 5800X3D, and even the Zen 3 architecture as a whole is just around 2 years old (released in Nov 2020). so saying you can't use hardware released during the past 6 years or there are no official win 7 drivers for them is just bollocks.
  4. athlonxpuser
    lmao even amd b450 has official win 7 drivers and that chipset supports all cpus up to 5800X3D / 5950X... didn't know 2020 was already 6 years ago
  5. athlonxpuser
    Eventually there will be better web browsing options available if we have enough patience. I mean with One Core API, Chrome 102 does already kind of work on XP, even though there is definitely a lot of work to do (extensions and downloads don't work, no sound, etc). Just a few years back no one would have imagined that we will ever have Firefox 52 running on Windows 98...
  6. athlonxpuser
    I just realized Chrome 49 can't render the current Youtube design properly anymore while it still works fine in Firefox 52, albeit quite slowly. I think when I tested that final official Chrome version for XP the last time, maybe 10 months ago, it could still display Youtube without issues.
  7. athlonxpuser
    hopefully the forum is archived somewhere at least so all the knowledge about old windows systems wont be lost. is there any alternative forum where old windows fanatics will move to if msfn really shuts down?
  8. athlonxpuser
    I also started getting crashes with 360 v13 when visiting youtube. I tested two different versions of 360 v13 on two machines and for me it basically crashes immediately after loading the start page. Usually I can't even search for something and this definitely has never happened in the past. 360 v12 and other browsers work just fine with youtube.
  9. athlonxpuser
    I can't seem to find any certificates pack made by that user. Do you mean the one from blackwingcat which you can find here?
  10. athlonxpuser
    Good job and thanks for your nice work! I still have to figure out which version I want to use, but I guess I will go for v9 on older systems (Pentium M, Pentium 4) since it's noticeably faster there and v12 on newer systems (Core2Duo/AMD X2 and later) where there isn't much of a speed difference between the versions and enough RAM available so I have a browser that is more compatible with the modern web. I haven't done much testing with v11 so far though. I saw someone else mentioned here that this browser doesn't run on CPUs without SSE2 and I know it's not really related to the topic but I always wondered if it's possible to compile modern versions of Chromium (or Firefox too) without the SSE2 requirement so they could run on an Athlon XP or Pentium III. Probably not since otherwise someone likely would have done it already but I'm still curious...
  11. athlonxpuser
    Is there any reason why some of you are still on XP SP2? With SP3 installed you should have much better compatibility for more modern software (+way more recent updates) and I never noticed much of a difference in speed comparing SP2 vs SP3, not even on old Pentium III machines.
  12. athlonxpuser
    240p is barely playable but also with a lot of framedrops... since youtube stopped using Flash, such an old system can't really play videos in the browser anymore. Regarding the RAM usage, it also doesn't really matter which site I try to load, v13 is always using more RAM by far. Even when I just open a blank page, v13 still uses more RAM.
  13. athlonxpuser
    I have tested the modified 360 Chrome builds v9.5 vs v13 on one of my ancient laptops (Pentium M 1.5 GHz; 1.5 GB RAM) and v9.5 is definitely faster and also uses way less RAM. So for now I'm going to stick with v9.5, at least on old machines, as long as it can still load and display most websites properly. Here is a comparison I made on the that laptop... Loading youtube (full desktop site) from pressing enter until everything is displayed and CPU load goes down. RAM usage is only for the browser, not the whole system. Ublock addon is installed in all browsers. Chrome 360 9.5 - 22 seconds, 412 MB RAM used Chrome 360 13 - 35 seconds, 750 MB RAM used MyPal - 48 seconds, 379 MB RAM used Of course youtube videos are unplayable on such an old system in the browser (works fine in an external player though) but I thought it would be a good site for comparison since it's a really bloated and heavy site nowadays.
  14. athlonxpuser
    For me the modded 360 v9 works completely fine. No certificate issues and so far all websites I tested load and display completely fine, including ebay and amazon. Youtube does also work and is much quicker to navigate than on any firefox-based browser for XP. Are your certificates up to date?
  15. athlonxpuser
    360 Explorer and Mini Browser are both quite similar Chinese forks, however it seems like Mini Browser comes with less chinese telemetry and the interface can be easily completely turned into English (or any other language). That's why at first I liked Mini Browser more, but with that extreme RAM consumption it's almost impossible to use on older systems with less than 4 GB of RAM.
  16. athlonxpuser
    This Mini Browser works quite well and definitely feels quicker and more compatible than any Firefox-based browser for XP, however its RAM comsumption is insane. I feel like it hogs even more RAM than regular Google Chrome on Windows 7. On my C2D machine with 4 GB RAM installed (3.25 GB detected under Windows XP) I can barely open a few tabs until I get close to 100% RAM usage, and on my Pentium M laptop with only 2 GB of RAM, just a youtube video and another tab with a google search was enough to use up the whole memory so the system started swapping a lot and became unusably slow... Serpent or MyPal don't even use 500 MB with the same sites opened.
  17. athlonxpuser
    Thank you, I just replaced the manifest.json with your modified version, it installed just fine and works as intended. I'm not sure why it didn't want to work with my version but maybe it still refused to install because I didn't include "strict_min_version".
  18. athlonxpuser
    Hey there, I want to install the extension Youtube Redux in my Serpent browser, however when I try it I only get the message "This add-on could not be installed because it appears to be corrupt". I already found a post on this forum where it is explained that you just need to patch the xpi file by editing the manifest.json and adding an application ID but it still doesn't work for me. The same add-on installs just fine in Firefox 48.0.2. Is there any way to make it work with Serpent?
  19. athlonxpuser
    Thanks for your detailed description! Well my P3 system is a dual socket 370 system with 2x 1 GHz Coppermine cpus, 2 GB of SD-RAM and a Radeon HD4670 graphics card. The bottleneck here is definitely the cpus since they are at 100% usage all the time when loading web sites. Currently I use Serpent/Basilisk which I guess should be the same as New Moon 28, just with a different design. I already have NoScript installed and don't allow any scripts whenever it's possible but many sites still take a long time to load, especially bigger sites with a lot of content. But maybe my expectations are just too high and I should stop thinking about a time (until around 2012) where even an old single core could still browse the web smoothly and could handle youtube playback etc. I feel like the fastest browser on this old machine is still Chrome 34 which is the last version that doesn't require a CPU with SSE2 but unfortunately it's from 2014 so it's quite outdated at this point and fails to load some web sites already.
  20. athlonxpuser
    Which browser do you use to go online on a pentium 3? I feel like new moon 27, serpent, etc are so slow on a pentium 3 that they are almost unusable and even basic sites like google take forever to load.
  21. athlonxpuser
    I found an option in the network settings to adjust the Receive Buffer Size for my Realtek integrated network card where I can select 8k, 16k, 32k or 64k but no matter what I choose, it doesn't change anything when it comes to using newer versions of Firefox with Javascript enabled. After that I also tried some old 3com PCI network card but with that one it didn't work either. Yes, I just installed that one and it works very well, it can load the pages quickly and displays most pages correctly or at least readable. Even sites like wikipedia work which didn't want to work with Retrozilla. Unfortunately youtube doesn't even load the start page but that's no surprise with such an old version of Firefox. Palemoon 26.5 doesn't want to start here on Windows 98. I can still see the browser window but then it crashes immediately, no matter if I select Windows 2000 SP4 or Windows XP SP2 compatibility for both palemoon.exe and Xul.dll. I tried of all of that already but it doesn't help, I can't get it to respond again when it has frozen, even after waiting for many minutes.
  22. athlonxpuser
    No, unfortunately starting Firefox in safe mode didn't change anything. I also can't open the web console since Firefox freezes instantly when trying to load a website and won't respond to any input. graphics section under about:support looks like this for me:
  23. athlonxpuser
    That line is already there in my prefs.js file.
  24. athlonxpuser
    So I removed KernelEx completely, reinstalled it and then used exactly the same files you mentioned but still nothing has changed. Firefox of various versions will freeze instantly whenever I try to load a page and the only way to make it work is to disable Javascript completely. By the way I also found out that I have the same issues with K-Meleon 74.
  25. athlonxpuser
    I installed 81.98 for the nvidia card and 6.2 for the ati radeon card, both of them were found via the driver search on the official nvidia / amd site. So later this evening I will reinstall Windows 98 but before that I wonder if I might have used the wrong updated KernelEx files? I installed KernelEx 4.5.2 normally and then copied the KernelEx 4.5.2019.24 Updates in DOS mode. However in the first post of this thread it's stated that KernelEx 4.5.2016.19 should be used. Does that make any difference?


×
×
  • Create New...