cmccaff1

Just writing in to let everyone know I’m not going to be as active here as I was in the past. I know it’s not on-topic but since this thread is more than likely going to be closed and deleted anyway, I thought this would be a good opportunity to speak up without drawing too much attention to myself. I’ve had a nice time talking to users here but haven’t had much to contribute other than words of encouragement. It seems this forum prizes and values those who actually know how to program/code, and I definitely don’t fall into that category. I had been a lurker for years but joined in 2021 to comment on the Feodor/Tobin situation with Mypal. Since then I don’t think I’ve had much of value to add to the discourse, and the way I see it this is a forum better left to far smarter individuals. I certainly don’t want to annoy the moderators, who have better things to do with their time than read my drivel. Indeed, it is a difficult task to keep things on-topic, and as I fell in love with this site because of all of the valuable information it provides, the last thing I would ever want to do is sully those waters with posts that are less than useful. So much has changed, but this is still my go-to site when I want to learn about what’s happening on the tech enthusiast front. I am glad I got to know what it feels like to post and to be met with varying degrees of kindness, and responses from people who know far more than I will ever, ever know about this sort of thing. Of course, I may return in the future, if I have something of value or interest to share. For now, I’ll go back to lurking, just as I was doing for so many years beforehand. To those who have been nice to me, I appreciate it more than you will ever know. To everyone who is making an effort to develop/maintain software that keeps old operating systems useful, thank you, from the bottom of my heart. To the moderators, thank you for striving to maintain law and order here. May you do your best to hold up MSFN’s legendary reputation. Take care, everyone…I wish you all peace.

That's something I always love to hear--glad to know you're keeping your P4 going! I've been saying it for a long time: with XP or 7 and a relatively modern browser, a Pentium 4 can still fly even in 2023. Even 8.x and earlier 10 releases (I recommend LTSB 2015 and 2016) also run quite well on a P4...of course, when you get into the more recent builds, P4s start to struggle a bit. I use a Pentium E6800 (basically a stripped down Core 2 Duo) with 4GB of RAM...a trusty, reliable LGA775-era machine that continues to get the job done for me every day. Getting back on topic, I've used 360 builds for years and have never had any major performance issues on my PC...of course, more recent builds run much better now that they've been properly rebased. Provided you have applied the same performance tweaks to both machines, I can only presume there's some kind of built-in 'graceful fallback' system that allows 360 to run better on older hardware (though I strongly doubt that's the case). I have no doubt that with a fresh installation of XP SP3, properly tweaked for performance, 360 should soar like an eagle on the specs you've provided. If can run well as it does on my E6800, it should be even better on a C2Q. I hope this is at least somewhat useful! And for @NotHereToPlayGames: thanks for continuing to share your customized 360 builds! I'm currently using v13.5.2036, (regular) rebuild 1--paired with Roy's latest Serpent 52 build it completes a devastating one-two punch for solid modern browsing in XP. Stable, fast, and still very capable!

Absolutely! It seems they smell even better when you give them to someone, rather than just keeping them for yourself. In all seriousness, it is always good to see comprehensive and well-written threads...I haven't tried my hand at my own thread in a while. If I find anything interesting to discuss, I will certainly share it!

Just writing in to say the latest Basilisk (Serpent) 52 build (2023-04-15) is still working absolutely fine for me, as is the latest NM28 build. Haven't had any recent crashes with either of them. Thank you very much for all of your efforts...if I have anything interesting or useful to report, I'll try to share it! All the best to everybody!

Absolutely, my brother...it is a true and timeless sentiment. Also, thank you very much for finding that installer...your efforts are highly appreciated!

Hello, everyone! As I don't really use antivirus software on anything more than an experimental/testing basis (and as I realize I've made some off-topic [or not necessarily helpful/useful] posts on the other older topic about this--apologies to Dave and the other moderators), I'll probably be keeping my personal contributions to a minimum here. I just wanted to thank you for making a new thread, with such great organization and information! I'll be happy to see what others have to say on this subject. Another great piece of work from one of my favorite posters on here!

Thank you for mentioning this fantastic program! I've tinkered with it over the years and have always been impressed with it...and of course, the developers deserve major applause for continuing to support Windows 9x. (It's very nice of them to keep the last Windows 3.x version available for download too!) To this day it remains the gold standard for file managers...

Ah, true! It depends on your preference, then: WRP will work on pretty much any browser you can run in Win3.x/NT 3.1/NT 3.5, but BrowService has issues with very ancient browsers so you’d need to go for a high end offering of the time. For parity’s sake I would recommend 16-bit IE5 as it’s the last version for 3.x & NT 3.1/3.5. It’s recent enough to have good compatibility with WRP and BrowService, has a simple and intuitive interface, and runs well on old PCs. As for my recommendation of the two proxies my choice is WRP because it works with more old browsers than BrowService, but I will say that BrowService may be a better option for the browsers that can handle it properly (you’re looking at IE4/IE5 era ones minimum).

I'm surprised no one replied to this! Had to give it some thought because I have tested very old browsers in the past and do remember being curious about this topic. If I'm not mistaken, the best browser you can run on Windows 3.x and NT 3.1/3.5 is 16-bit Opera 3.62. For NT 3.51 it would be anything Gecko 1.8.1-based or older--I recommend using either the latest official RetroZilla release or one of @roytam1's custom forks. Here's a link to Roy's repository of cool 'miscellanies', including various browser releases: http://o.rthost.win/gpc/files1.rt/home.html

Very cool! It's been a while since I used your 45 fork...it'll be interesting to give this new release a try, for old times' sake, to see what that old 45 engine can still do. Hoping you have a good weekend, Roy--and thank you, always!

Having used both at different times, I find there are some interesting differences between St55 and St52, including what you pointed out. In using St55, I've found it renders pages in a manner closer to the classic Firefox 52ESR (which makes it nostalgic for just that reason). I think of St55 as the answer to "what if Mozilla had never ended their support for 52ESR and just kept updating it over the years, periodically?" whereas St52 (and by extension UXP as a whole) represents the maximum potential for what 52ESR's code base could be pushed to achieve in terms of modern web rendering. It's amazing to see UXP still getting new features after all this time, and while there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of bringing it up to current standards, the fact that it is still so capable after so long and didn't become a totally stagnant project is a wonderful thing. It definitely gives me hope for the future.

I appreciate that very much! Thank you for your kind words...I'd like to be encouraging as much as possible, especially because no one has an obligation to maintain projects like these. I'm thankful as an XP user to still have options that work well at this point. Thank you for sharing those sites too...they do seem to have rendering issues in the latest NM28, and I'm noticing an identifying text at the bottom of both pages ("PHI Theme 3.14.4"). It should be possible for them to restore compatibility by rolling back to an earlier version of that theme, or even pre-3.x.x, though I'm sure they won't as there's no real motivation (money aside) for them to do so. If these sites can be made to work, that would be absolutely great. Even so, it's amazing how well NM28 still does with the web now. About 90% of the modern web, as it now stands, still works with zero issues in NM28, and that's one hell of a winning percentage.

Oh! That explains a lot...it is good to finally have Web Components support. I did learn recently about UXP gaining support for this, but didn't realize it directly affects the ability to use GitHub without Palefill. Thank you for the explanation! (And thanks for not making me feel like an id*** about it...) I would like and do want to learn more about JavaScript, operators, etc. Though I fall into the category of your typical user (as opposed to a programmer/contributor), I don't want to be totally ignorant of how everything works...honestly, it's just amazing to go back to NM28 and see all the changes that have been made as of late. I'm finding NM28 is still very good and reliable as a 'base' browser...and for the sites that have issues in it, I'm glad there are other alternative browsers, like 360 and Mypal68, to use as well. Roy has definitely made a tremendous effort over the years with his browser forks. I am always excited to try a new release, even if there's the occasional bug...the fact that there are still browsers being maintained and updated for XP users is amazing, doubly so that it's on such a frequent basis. I feel like the XP to 7 to 10 transition, over time, can be accomplished and I feel very comfortable about it now. For now, I'm happy that I'm still able to use this legendary, venerable OS as my 'daily driver'. MS's finest hour for sure!

I did have one crash, but couldn't reproduce it...other than that, the latest NM28 is working absolutely fine in XP SP3 x86 for me. Not sure if it correlates to the 'RegExpShared' issue, and I'm sorry if I can't be more helpful here, but in any event I want to thank Roy as always for his continued efforts...and all my best to everyone here, always.

Just writing in to say 68.13 is working great for me on XP x86 SP3 (I've got almost all POSReady updates installed, save for a few, but have also used it and earlier versions in vanilla SP3 with no updates). Incredibly stable, and uses CPU/RAM extremely efficiently too. Thank you for your efforts, Feodor!

I completely agree...that's one among various reasons why I'd like to stick with pre-10 Windows as long as possible. 7 is the 'sweet spot' for me: close in spirit to XP (as it was the last version before Metro and apps became a thing), compatible with a lot of modern software and old/new hardware, better compatibility than 10 with legacy software/hardware, and one of the last versions with a true 'componentized' build. It seems that 8.1 Standard is one of the last versions of Windows to give an end user the opportunity to customize their installation and make it as big or small as they like within reason. While LTSB/LTSC does lose a lot of what made the Embedded versions of Windows (and pre-10 Windows in general) so good, I respect how most of the fluff found in mainline 10 is stripped out...in that sense, it gets much closer than mainline 10 to Embedded in the spirit of how it was designed. At this time, my current plan is to stay with Thin PC (though I may go back to POSReady 2009 from time to time, either to test any new XP-targeted software that comes out or for purposes of maintaining compatibility with older hardware that 7 may have some issues with) and migrate to 10 LTSC in the next few years (perhaps sooner if I end up using a PC modern enough to lose out on full 7 driver support).

Apologies for bumping the topic, but I find it interesting! After going back and forth trying out different OSes, I've settled on what I feel is a good option going forward. I ended up returning to Windows 7--not one of the 'standard' versions, but the obscure and highly underrated Windows Thin PC. One of the things I've always loved about XP is how lightweight it is...it was the last proper version of Windows that could fit on a CD-ROM (I think only Windows 10 IoT Core has achieved this since then, but sadly it can't be used as a proper OS). I've found a few unofficial 7 builds that can also fit within the CD-ROM limit, but aside from my reservations about using unofficial builds (though I have a lot of respect for those who make them and am always excited to see what they're cooking up), it seems so much has to be stripped out, including certain system files (which breaks some drivers/software in the process). As much as possible I want to stick with 'official' versions, and I have noticed that when Microsoft makes the effort themselves of making their own 'stripped down' versions of their OSes, the results tend to be quite great. The Embedded series as a whole is excellent, and the legacy lives on through Windows 10 LTSB/LTSC...and of course, the 'lower end' offerings among the standard versions (e.g. XP/Vista/7 Home versions) also seem to strike that perfect features/performance balance. After doing some research and comparing ISO sizes, the smallest post-XP Windows version I've found that can also be used as a proper OS is Thin PC, the vanilla ISO of which clocks in at a stunning ~1.5 GB. I was able to get everything set up with no problems. Didn't have to reactivate any disabled services or tinker with any settings I don't normally touch when installing a standard 7 version. Software compatibility is just as good as standard 7, and most of the drivers found in standard 7 installation media are still on this ISO. And of course, using Legacy Update it is still possible to fully update a vanilla installation (though for the moment you may not need it as Microsoft's official 7 update servers still seem to be functional; it does help to have it as you can update root certificates with it too). I'm open to trying other versions of 7, and later Windows releases, 32-bit and 64-bit alike, in the future. But for now I can say for sure that I'm very happy with Thin PC and plan to use it as long as I can. The future seems much brighter for it...being able to run the latest Firefox versions and very recent Chrome versions gives it a major advantage over XP, and I anticipate that just as we've ended up with a good number of modern browsers that saved the day for XP users once Chrome and Firefox support ended, it'll be the same story for 7 too. For the moment, the way I see it, it seems either an Embedded 7 version or Windows 10 LTSB/LTSC is the way to go if you're looking for that balance between performance and modern software compatibility. (Of course XP will still have its uses, especially for those who are keeping ancient hardware and software in use.) Your future is brighter with 10 than 7, but 7 is much closer in spirit to XP...at this point I believe it has just about taken XP's throne in terms of becoming the new 'nostalgic' Windows, and will be getting more attention from tinkerers and hobbyists & the public at large. And of course there's still the 8.x line, the bizarre yet beautiful bridge between 7 and 10 that is still worth revisiting (and a good way to ease the learning curve before heading into 10). So to answer the question posed by the OP, I will continue to use Thin PC (or another suitable 7 release) as long as possible. I believe that with good habits and common sense you can stay safe no matter what OS you use, and I'm not opposed to making the switch to 10 in the future, but I'd like to do it on my terms. Just as XP was extended by many dedicated hobbyists for many years, I want to stick around and see how 7 ends up being extended. I believe that 7 will be useful up to the end of the decade, and then once we're in the 2030s we may have to seriously consider 10/11. Apologies for the long message! Hopefully someone will find it interesting or useful!

I definitely noticed it on my end. The JavaScript feels smoother in more recent releases of New Moon...not sure if there's been some code optimization but anything that can be done to enhance the JS speed is always welcome. (Of course, with JS turned off all New Moon releases I've tried are lightning fast, but there are precious few sites now that don't use it.) Up until very recently I noticed I still needed to install Palefill--this seems to have changed (and it is nice to have WebComponents enabled!) but as Ramon said, I think it is better to download Palefill anyway as a precautionary measure. Things can & do happen.

For what it's worth, I was able to install Legacy Update just fine on POSReady 2009. Did a fresh 'minimum' installation of the OS, took care of the drivers and some basic software, and then installed the latest version of Legacy Update. It took a while, but I was able to install pretty much all of the major updates...the only ones that didn't install were the .NET Frameworks (no big loss there; I suppose doing a full install with all the extra stuff may solve that problem) and Windows Live. So now I've got a fully patched POSReady--it was running fine in its 'untouched' vanilla form, but having all the updates is very good. I'm not sure if it will make any difference, but if you can get used to its unique quirks POSReady may be an interesting base to work with. It seems to be a bit faster than standard XP SP3, and I like how you can tweak the installation...a minimum install takes up less than 1GB of HDD space, and that's with the supplemental language files. So very similar to Windows FLP & standard XP Embedded.

Just want to say that I wish you good fortunes going forward with the rebasing! Currently using the latest NM28 build in POSReady 2009 (my favorite version of XP now and the one I plan to stick with on hardware that can natively run it), and it works beautifully. (It now seems to truly support nullish coalescing/optional chaining without needing to install palefill, which is fantastic!) I respect all the hard work you've done and am very excited to continue testing XP compatible software. If I can be of any help in the future I'll do my best. Thank you for doing what you do, Roy! (And many thanks to all others keeping the legendary XP useful!)

Just posting to move this thread up a little bit...and to thank @NotHereToPlayGames for sharing his releases for a browser that is still very capable on the modern Web. Chrome 80 seems to be the bare minimum (for Firefox the earliest 'regular' release is 72, first ESR is 78--please correct me if I am wrong) to support nullish coalescing and optional chaining...this 'unlocks' a good amount of the modern Internet, though not all sites work properly. That is to say, 360v13.5 will still get you around on the Internet these days, but once more web designers start embracing the later ECMAScript standards, the percentage of sites that work will go down, but that's a given with any browser from any era. I am excited to see what happens with XP going forward, but it looks like for the future it'll be either 7, 8.x or 10 to get you through your daily tasks, without question.

Very well said...it's going to take some time, but I'm going to get used to 10. Scrapped the XP partition and reinstalled LTSB 2015 fresh--and I'm very impressed with the speed. There's no denying that when it comes to the kernel, under the hood 10 has major improvements compared to XP. It's really not even close. And once the bloat is dealt with, it's not too far removed from what XP was. I find that for the most part all the stuff that was in XP can still be found--it was just moved around. And for everything else there's the WinAero Tweaker (I don't bother with it in general usage but have tried it and was quite impressed with all the features it has). The funny thing is that for offline use, 10 is actually still compatible with a lot of old 9x-era software that already worked fine in XP. I stick with a lot of 'legacy apps' that have low CPU/RAM overhead, but it is necessary to have a modern browser for today's Web. I was greeted with a sobering reminder of XP's browser mortality when I fired up the latest build of Serpent 52 and found the main Reddit site doesn't render properly (the 'old' Reddit does work fine, though). Sadly, we got to a point where XP fell too far behind the curve compared to what the latest Chrome or Firefox can do...I'm now using Chromium 112 and it's brilliant. It actually uses the integrated GPU properly, taking a load off the CPU (this really helps on a dual-core PC). There is a truly pronounced gap in capabilities between the best browsers XP can handle and what you can get out of even 7/8.x (and especially 10/11). I admire the efforts to keep classic OSes alive by kernel extensions but I'm not interested in possibly corrupting my OS just to get a few modern programs running (especially not when most of the stuff I stick with will run fine even in 9x; aside from my browser, just about all the programs I put on a fresh Windows target 9x or are possible by KernelEx). It wouldn't be an issue for me if XP could still run the latest Firefox/Chrome, but unless some truly gifted coders step up to the plate we've just about hit the ceiling of what it can handle. 10 isn't perfect, but in pure power it runs MARATHONS around XP. Mobo manufacturers still support 10, anything with SSE2 and 1GB+ of RAM can run 10...it's a future-proof OS old HW can still run and the latest HW is still designed for.

Thank you! I settled on the compromise of dual-booting LTSC 2015 and XP x64 SP2...best of both worlds! On newer hardware I'll have to go all in on 10, or I might get lucky and be able to dual boot it with 7. For now I'm happy with what I've got!

I appreciate your honesty, and thank you for your efforts to maintain a good XP-compatible browser! I've taken your words to heart and decided to finally commit to upgrading to 10, this time for good. Unless I'm on a PC so ancient it will run like a one-legged dog with anything newer than XP, it's 10 all the way. I went back to my favorite version (LTSB 2015) and so far, it's running fine! No kernel-related issues are preventing me from running the latest versions of my favorite software (typing this from Chromium 111, which works absolutely beautifully)...there were a couple quirks that don't merit elaboration, but other than that it was a butter smooth transition. I also have the latest stable OpenShell and StopUpdates10 updates running just fine. LTSB/LTSC are pretty much what 10 should have been from the beginning. It's just the right proportion of useful features kept to bloat taken out, and the versions I've tried run beautifully on my old PC. LTSB/LTSC is a good road to take to ease the 10 transition.

Ah, good call...thanks for being so cool about it! I probably couldn't add much to the discussion, except to drunkenly type "WOO! CLAMAV IS THE BEST!" and scream like a banshee while waving my shirt in the air. It is nice to know there are specific threads for things like this...that makes it a lot easier to find what you're looking for, rather than combing through pages and pages and getting nowhere.