cmccaff1

It is great to see some activity in this thread once more! Just as a reminder for everyone, the "?dl=1" trick still works with Dropbox links and will allow you to automatically download a file without actually having to use the Dropbox online interface. Here is the link NHTPG posted, with the "?dl=1" trick applied (to NHTPG: thank you VERY much for sharing another 360 build with us!) https://www.dropbox.com/s/0hh440tcbpmzb9y/360ChromePortable_13.0.2170_rebuild_1_ungoogled.zip?dl=1

Sorry for the bump...I just wanted to post here to move this thread up again. It's been almost a month since the last post, and while the development on Mypal 68 has been very exciting to watch, NHTPG's 360 builds are still VERY much useful, and still run great in XP SP3. Hopefully I won't have to do this too often, but I would like this thread to be noticed and valued for as long as possible. Thank you again for your efforts, @NotHereToPlayGames!

Thank you very much for your archival efforts! Admittedly, I don't use or install Java all that often, but it does have its uses, so it is wonderful to have multiple EOL versions available in one convenient collection. I'm genuinely surprised Java 7 was supported for that long...from what I recall, the last (latest?) known Java 8 release doesn't even work/function in XP properly (I believe 8u152 is the final version of Java 8 that installs properly and works as it should in XP, while others install but fail to work).

Otter Browser is definitely a good option for XP, especially if you like WebKit and/or the Opera 12.x interface...I still like to use the original Opera 12.18 for some lightweight browsing from time to time, but this is a worthy successor to the classic Presto Opera legacy browsers. It has a lot of capabilities that classic Opera lacks (including correctly rendering this forum; in fact, I am writing this reply from the latest stable Otter Browser release with JavaScript enabled!), but is behind other browsers such as the UXP-based ones in other useful features. In general, it's a great browser if you understand WebKit's strengths and weaknesses (it beats Presto in rendering but doesn't quite get up to higher Gecko/UXP/etc. levels) and can live without some of the fancier features you'll find in UXP-based browsers, MyPal 68 and the like. It's also a lot more stable than it used to be, though I can imagine earlier releases may have had speed advantages over the latest builds (though speed ultimately doesn't mean very much if the browser itself isn't particularly stable). Otter Browser gets my stamp of approval (for what VERY little that's worth)!

The fact that Feodor has been able to do as much as he has, given the circumstances, is truly incredible. I admire his dedication and enthusiasm for the projects he's worked on over the years...his 'old' MyPal (29.3.0) is still one of my primary daily-use browsers in XP, and it's been very exciting to see the progress that has been made so far on the newer 68. He's one talented coder, as his 'resurrected' MyPal 68 has proven...it's a shame to look back on that whole fiasco nearly one year later, because the Pale Moon developers had an opportunity to take the highest of high roads by inviting Feodor to work with them and even help them restore official compatibility to benefit XP/Vista users, but instead they fought and alienated him and many others. In a more ideal world, there would have been a mutual respect that could have led to a long-term partnership, maybe even a friendship. I'm genuinely praying for him, his family, and all of his friends...and of course, I'm keeping Roy in my thoughts too as he's in Hong Kong. They both come from places that have been through so much, especially in recent times. To Roy and Feodor: thank you both VERY much for everything you have done. Your efforts have never, ever been in vain.

Absolutely sensational! Just when you think XP is down for the count...it's back once again! I'm going to stick with the older/faster browsers that work well for me on my Pentium D, but it's great to know that running very recent versions of Chrome is now an option for the future. Hopefully by the time I find myself needing to use Chrome 102, the One Core API will be more stable and reliable. The fact that it can even run Chrome 102 at this point is a jaw-dropping feat. Thank you for bringing this to our attention...this REALLY made my day!

Without a doubt. I recently tried 360v9.5 again and was quite impressed with the speed myself. Its Chromium engine is only 6 releases older than the version used in 360v11, and seems to offer comparable if not slightly better performance on my Pentium D machine. A meaningful advantage that 360v11 does have is a better TLS 1.3 implementation (I believe TLS 1.3 is supported up to "Experiment 3" in 360v9.5, but in 360v11 it goes all the way up to "Final"), but most sites shouldn't give you trouble on that front. Chromium-based browsers seem to fare better with sites like Twitter, and 360v9.5 loads the desktop site and runs it with good speed, despite the Chromium 63 engine beginning to show its age now. It definitely handles it better than old Chrome 49, which once ran it like a champ but now struggles with it (probably because aspects of the JS backend had 'modern' JS features added that didn't exist or weren't fully implemented when Chrome 49 was first released). For people who really like Chromium and don't want to touch anything Mozilla-based, my recommendation is to keep two browsers around: Chrome 49 for basic web surfing, and 360 for sites that won't load in 49 + more serious tasks (with 9.5 or 11 advised as a starting point if you want to keep CPU usage down; you can experiment from there if you absolutely need something more modern).

Hear, hear!!! Long live Windows XP--and thank you for your own contributions! All of you have played a very big part in keeping XP alive!

Honestly, what you've done is still very impressive either way. Even if you did not do any coding in the traditional sense, you've still done some tremendous work in compiling these binaries...the fact that support is retained for pre-SSE2 processors is no small miracle, and you can rest assured I know it will get harder as time goes on. I'm grateful because you could have just as easily decided to keep your binaries for yourself--instead, you chose to share them with others, and in a world full of selfish people I am always grateful to ANYONE who is as generous as you have been. Thank you for being humble enough to be so honest--you've earned the right to pat yourself on the back, but that's all up to you. Speaking only for myself, I am definitely looking forward to your future releases! Thank you VERY much!

If I may say so, I think that's a great idea! Personally, I've been sticking with VLC 1.1.11 for years...for me, 1.1.x was when VLC truly hit its peak, but newer versions I've tested also seem to work quite well. After more than a decade, this old version still gets the job done, and can play a lot of formats with very little toll on the CPU (I believe experimental GPU acceleration was introduced with the 1.1.x series, which really helps if your GPU supports H/X.264 decoding). Also, I agree with everything you said about VLC...for me, it's still the 'heavyweight champ' of media players, and even the newest 3.0.x still knocks a lot of other programs out of the ring. I appreciate that the devs haven't changed the program too much over the years! They've added a lot of support for modern formats and other cool features, while keeping the same great interface we all know & love.

Thank you very much for your work on all of your great ffmpeg builds--and thank you for keeping all of them archived, going back several years! From the oldest available to the newest, they run with no problems on my Pentium D...it's amazing to be able to play so many different formats, and the CPU/RAM usage is kept extremely modest because you did such a great job with the optimization. I don't stop by often, but when I do I always like to show appreciation...you've done some fantastic work, and I appreciate it very much!

Wow...that is REALLY awesome! I have yet to test it with Flash Player, but Invidious-style HTML5 playback works. Doesn't look quite as polished as Invidious (the video window still needs to be properly resized because there's a lot of dead space that isn't being used), but this is quite amazing. I'm almost 30 now and remember using YouTube when it still looked like that, so this is a VERY nice throwback! Ah...are you referring to Nitter? I had a chance to try it and it's amazing--the only thing that sucks about it is that you can't log in, but I've been considering getting off of Twitter recently, so it's not a big drawback in my book. I'll have to try historio.us! Thank you!

I know you didn’t specifically ask. I’m sure you may have wondered about it, and I have done the same thing. I’ve been excited for a while to see if there will be any more updates, and there might be if NHTPG feels the need to address any remaining loose ends. But it seems all the meaningful stuff has been taken care of, and I can confirm from my end that 11 runs with the efficiency of a nuclear clock. While 11 is my go-to version, I do have uses for 12 and 13.x, and they do run well on the Pentium D for most things. I will absolutely use one of these versions for a site that has problems in 11, but I haven’t run into a major one yet. Audio/video tend to stutter in these versions, but I’m sure they have no issues on more powerful hardware. In 11 there are almost no problems with stutter, and you have to load a lot of tabs to get it to the point where there is stuttering. In 12 and 13.x it takes only a few to get to that point. I appreciate your work, my brother, and I am thankful for how you have kept us posted on these newer versions. I understand NHTPG’s perspective on how newer doesn’t always equal better, and his efforts to ensure that the fastest versions of each browser, based on a series of tests, were the ones he targeted. I think at this point that he’s happy with his last few releases…after months of daily use, I can say that they are as close to perfect as you can get. If the 360 developers had retained 32-bit XP compatibility with the latest version then it would probably be a non-issue as I have no doubt NHTPG would have taken a look at it and would be working with it right now if he felt the urge or desire to do so. It’s all up to him and however he feels, and what he wants to do. The best thing we can do is to be encouraging and show gratitude. If all that has changed with the later 13.x versions is that they moved the telemetry around, then I agree with him that it doesn’t necessarily warrant putting in the effort to make custom versions of them. If rendering improvements from later Chromium versions were to be backported to the Chromium 86 engine, or if a later Chromium engine were to be targeted for XP, then that would constitute a major change and would definitely warrant taking a closer look. But again, that’s all up to NHTPG.

Speaking only for myself, I want to thank you for your work on the versions of 360Chrome that you targeted. Having experimented with your final releases from January for the last few months, at this point I can say with tremendous confidence that you got them as close to perfect as possible. It's interesting to compare the differences between 11/12/13.x...on my Pentium D, 11 absolutely smokes the others as far as speed goes but is the weakest of the bunch in web compatibility, 12 balances speed/compatibility quite well and 13.x is extremely compatible while not being as fast (of course, on more powerful hardware, the speed gap becomes less apparent). You can count me among the 11 users, and I use it on a daily basis now; while I was using 13.x for a while for 'future-proofing' purposes, the majority of websites still work great in 11 (and run significantly faster there than in 12 and 13.x). Without any doubt, you earned the right to take some time for yourself (after all, you were doing this in your free time anyway), but I'm very thankful for your efforts in making it possible for us to have some great, telemetry-free modern Chromium browsers in XP. To Draker and anyone else who may be wondering "when is he going to release a new version?", I say to you that this man has no obligation to do a thing for you, me, or any others in this forum. This was a project pursued with personal passion and interest in mind, and it's a fortunate bonus that we have all been able to reap the benefits as he was kind enough to share his mods (which he put a significant amount of effort into, over a long period of time) with all of us. There's nothing ruling out a comeback, and I'm sure if he finds something that interests him as much if not more than 360 11/12/13.x did, he might be willing to do some more work, at least in his free time for his personal use. If he shares any of it with us, we can count it as a bonus too. Thank you very much, @NotHereToPlayGames!

Not a bad idea! It's up to you which versions you want to make available, but my recommendations would be 32.0.0.371 (last version without "time bomb") 29.0.0.171 (last version that doesn't require SSE2) 10.3.183.90/11.1.102.55 (last ESR and last regular version for vanilla Win2K) 9.0.289.0 (last version for vanilla Win98) 8.0.42.0 (last version for NT 4.0) 7.0.73.0 (last version for Win95 [and NT 3.51 with some effort]) Alternatively, for Flash 7, you could also (with his permission) mirror Nathan Lineback's custom hex-edited Flash 7 "YouTube Spoofer" that disguises itself as 8.0.42.0 (and will be recognized by browsers as Flash 8) and include it alongside the 7.0.73.0 installer (the idea being that a user would install Flash 7 as normal, then overwrite the NPSWF32.dll file with Nathan's version). Though it no longer serves the purpose it was designed for on YouTube, it can be helpful for some rare sites that reject Flash 7 and expect at least Flash 8 (a surprisingly high number of which are still available to this day and can be found by simply searching for "this site requires Flash 8"). My apologies if I've gone off-topic here...I'll try to keep my posts relevant as much as possible!

I learned a while ago that the final version of Flash Player before Adobe added the 'time bomb' (lockout) is 32.0.0.371. If you download & install this version of Flash, and select 'Never check for updates', this version should work with absolutely no problems in NM27 & NM28 (I can confirm from experience that it works great in both). There are ways to get later 32.x versions working, along with the China-exclusive 34.x releases, but for various reasons I cannot in all good conscience recommend going this route. Alternatively, you can install older versions depending on how powerful your hardware is...the best compromise between features and speed might be either 10.3.183.90 or 11.1.102.63 (or, if you're on Windows 2000, 11.1.102.55). (My favorite version is 9.0.289.0, as it runs well, supports modern codecs that earlier Flash 9 releases don't, and works on Windows 98 without needing KernelEx. In general, this is the earliest Flash version that will work with the majority of Flash content on the Internet with little to no problems, and it's actually quite rare to find something that legitimately needs a newer version.) Wow! I definitely hope these commits can be added to the official RetroZilla eventually! It would be nice to see a new RZ release, once the developers feel everything is stable and has been tested enough. Thank you very much for all of your efforts!

I completely agree. A lot of websites that used to work well in older browsers are now hard if not impossible to use in a browser that handled them just fine several years before, and there's no logical reason why that should be the case other than to try to push people off of old browsers and old PCs and try to force them to buy something 'new' and 'shiny'. Planned obsolescence at its worst. Considering how far back Gecko goes, I can understand why Gecko and its descendants would have trouble with HTML5 and modern 'evolutions' of JavaScript, as Gecko was never meant to run that crap in the first place. The more bloat that has to be added to a code base, the slower a browser that uses this code base is going to run. When I look back at archived versions of pages from circa 2008, it's amazing but also depressing to see how much nicer many pages looked back then. Obviously, not all of them were winners, and some sites actually improved with later re-designs, but comparing how most sites looked in 2008 to what they look like today, the 2008-era sites win by a landslide nine times out of ten. They were (for the most part) simpler, more elegant, and served their purposes effectively. I have nothing against HTML5 or other modern web technologies, but I do have a serious problem with them being used in such a way that a site literally becomes unusable without a fairly recent browser. For me, Firefox 3.6 was the last truly great version of Firefox, and in my opinion the 3.x series as a whole was the peak of Firefox overall. If you count all three versions together, then between the release of the first beta of Firefox 3.0 (in November 2007) and Firefox 3.6's last release in March 2012, that's well over four years of development. While the people at Mozilla had a great idea with having 'ESR' versions of Firefox (as it brought back emphasis on longer development cycles), my only major gripe with it is that by having it go by every seventh version (10 > 17 > 24 > 31 > etc.), they missed many versions that were the last of their kind that could have benefited more from having ESR status. For example, 12 was the last version to support Windows 2000 without unofficial kernel updates, 28 was the last pre-Australis version, 48 was the final version that did not require SSE2, and 56 was the last pre-Quantum version. It would have made more sense to create ESR versions of these, and while I realize there isn't a world's worth of difference between the ESRs that we did get and these versions, it created an interesting dilemma: stick to a 'final' version with a now-deprecated feature, or stay up-to-date with an ESR that continues to get security updates, but is also missing 2 to 4 versions' worth of improvements. Having 56 as an ESR version and the final version for XP would have been four versions' worth of improvements XP users could have gotten, and it would have been a carrot to dangle for XP users by having the last pre-Quantum version also be the last version for XP (ooh, look at shiny new Quantum--you want it? You gotta get off of XP!) My apologies for ranting...I'll make sure to stay on topic with any future posts in this thread from here on in, but I just wanted to get these thoughts out. Sometimes it's good to get these things off your chest.

I respect your opinion, brother. Naturally, people's use cases will vary. FX, PM, Basilisk, etc., like any other browser, will never be 'perfect'. For me, I've had very good results over the years with most of the builds I've tried, but a lot of that can be attributed to keeping JavaScript turned off as much as possible, which seems to make a big difference towards speed and security. Of course, Gecko/Goanna/UXP have had problems in recent years with bloated code bases. Especially if you keep JavaScript turned on, web browsing tends to be a slow experience as the aging JS engines are running into more challenges with badly designed web pages and their abundance of badly coded HTML5, but for all their flaws Gecko/Goanna/UXP still do a respectable job with the modern web. If I could use something like Firefox 3.6, RetroZilla or Netscape 9 on a daily basis as my all-purpose browser then I absolutely would, because it is frustrating to see how web browsers have had to adjust to accommodate all of these bells/whistles that the incompetent web designers ('script-kiddies') of today like to add to their pages. There are literally no advantages to how most sites are designed today versus what was possible for browsers to handle back in 2008. (I could go on, but I don't want to rant.) Even with its flaws, I'm still using MyPal 29.3 as my main browser, but MyPal 68 is very useful as a secondary option, and I'm happy that both versions can coexist with no problems in the same XP installation. Unless MyPal 29.3 becomes too outmoded and dated for daily use, it will likely remain my primary browser for the foreseeable future. It will be exciting to see what improvements are made to MyPal 68 going forward, and what will happen with future MyPal versions.

I can confirm that MyPal 68 works absolutely fine on my end (and am typing this reply from MP68 right now). In fact, it hasn't crashed on me once (not even when I was using the beta version from before the current release). Of course, my use cases are different from those of others, and I am very grateful I've been lucky enough not to have a crash or error yet. It seems the 68ESR code base was already quite stable when Feodor decided to fork it for XP--I'm not sure if any updates, aside from security fixes, are still coming out that are applicable to that code base, though. (Of course, I know Mozilla ended support for 68ESR quite a while ago, but there are still bits and pieces of later/future code that could be used to perfect & stabilize it as much as possible.)

With regards to @roytam1 and @feodor2, I appreciate their builds very much. I'm sure just about everyone else here does too...they've played a big role in maintaining modern & reliable browsers for our daily use. The fact that they still support XP is an incredible bonus, and I definitely don't take that for granted as a longtime XP user. Funnily enough, there was a time when I was sticking with Feodor's builds because Roy's were updated 'too frequently', and after that there was a time when I switched over to Roy's builds because Feodor's weren't updated 'frequently enough'. Now I use browsers by both of them, and enjoy them considerably. The important thing to remember is that Roy's builds tend to be weekly or bi-weekly snapshots of where a particular code base is currently at from a maturity standpoint, while Feodor's builds (at least when he was still working with MCP code) follow the release schedule of the official browsers. It doesn't make one inherently superior or inferior to the other...it just means their approaches are different. I've never had any issues with either of them--in fact, if I'm not mistaken, there have been times when Feodor and Roy both mutually benefited from each other's work and helped one another. For all we know, Roy might end up helping Feodor with MyPal 68 & future MyPal versions, and Feodor might end up helping Roy too. Actually, I find it quite interesting to go back in the archives and try older versions of some of Roy's browsers...if you go check the gpc/files1.rt section at his website, he has an incredible treasure trove of 'alternative' browsers and other cool stuff. Early experimental builds of Serpent and New Moon, classic browsers updated with TLS 1.2 & even NSS patches to add TLS 1.2 support to older browsers open up a world of possibilities. Currently, I'm using MyPal 29.3, both the NHTPG and Humming Owl ungoogled builds of 360EEv11, and a recent Serpent 55 build. I also use other browsers (Roy's Firefox 3.6, RetroZilla and Phoenix with added TLS 1.2, Netscape 9 with updated NSS, Opera 12.18, QtWeb, etc.) for more lightweight browsing. Using a Classilla (Nokia N90) user agent keeps them quite viable even in 2022, even if their rendering capabilities are dated by today's standards...with other user agents, there are a lot of possibilities for experimentation. And of course, the vintage Geocities/Angelfire-era sites render with no problems...TheOldNet, 68k.news & FrogFind are truly amazing. I don't expect even Roy's newest build of Serpent 52/55 or New Moon 28 to be able to view every site...some, like DeepL, are starting to run into problems, but I wouldn't abandon them as lost causes just because not every site works 100% correctly. I care more about a code base being fundamentally solid, stable and reliable than anything else, and that is very true of Roy's browsers. Feodor was able to prove that he didn't need MCP code to make a good browser, and I think his 'resurrected' MyPal is quite fantastic. Roy's also done one hell of a job in maintaining mature code bases for his own browser builds. I believe we can appreciate Feodor without putting Roy down, and appreciate Roy without putting Feodor down...they've both gone above and beyond the call of duty to maintain reliable browser code bases, and by fortunate extension sustain the long-term usability of XP long after many mainstream companies started leaving XP users in the dust. Too many old computers end up in landfills...because of their work, a lot of computers that would have otherwise ended up at a dump are still in daily use (including the Pentium D-based machine that I use on a daily basis--the 'average' person would have thrown such a PC out by now, often because they'd see the 'Designed for MS Win XP' sticker on it & automatically assume it's old, slow, & useless). (I'll stop here before I end up in rant territory, if I haven't gotten there already.) My sincere gratitude to Roy, Feodor, and everyone else here at MSFN! Long live XP and all other great OSes!

You're absolutely welcome! I can't take credit for it, of course. Actually, it is because of a post by @Skorpios in the MyPal 68 thread in the XP forum that I now know about CloudTube. The discovery that it supports Flash 9+ in Netscape 9 for watching YouTube videos surprised me. I would never have expected that such an old browser would even be considered as a support target for CloudTube, and the idea of finally being able to watch YouTube videos through Flash again, after many years of support being killed off, is really cool. Of course, it's preferable to use the HTML5 player (any modern browser makes it possible), but Flash/NS9 support is quite nice to have. It's more like a VERY stripped-down modern YouTube. I would have loved to see it designed in the style of 2007-era YouTube (while having all the functions working just as they do on the regular YouTube site, including uploading videos, posting comments and logging in to check your notifications; basically, a lightweight YouTube front-end that can function in the same way and lets you do all the same things while being compatible with older PCs/browsers), but it's quite nice. It trims all the fat & leaves you with the tender, juicy meat. Because it isn't loading the Polymer layout and all of the HTML5 and JavaScript crap that comes with it, you get to have a good time going from video to video, without your CPU or GPU taking a big hit. CloudTube and Invidious succeed where modern YouTube fails...CloudTube is in part inspired by/adapted from Invidious, but there are of course differences in the design/functionality.

I wouldn't try to use it for serious browsing myself. I definitely don't recommend Netscape 9 or any other Gecko 1.8.1-based browser as a primary browser if you have better options, but it's good to keep around if you want to read the news, look things up on Wikipedia, download files from trusted sources, or check out old-school websites. A lot of banking sites, and other sites that work with sensitive data, will fail on it anyway due to the age of the Gecko 1.8.1 core. Fourteen years ago it wouldn't have been a problem, but a lot has changed since then (to say the absolute least). I was hesitant to even make a thread about this, because it's not like most of this stuff is breaking news...a lot of people already know about 68k.news, FrogFind.com, and TheOldNet.com. However, not as many people may know about Roy's NSS (TLS 1.2) update for Netscape 9, or the Netscape ISP homepage still being available and getting news updates (while still having an NS9-compatible layout). What really stunned me was support for Netscape 9 being added to CloudTube, and the fact that the Flash Player actually works on it for viewing YouTube videos. This is clearly an update that fell under the radar and slipped through the cracks; the fact that Netscape 9 and Flash 9+ is even an option for watching YouTube videos in 2022 blows my mind. If it hadn't been for that, I probably would not have posted here at all. This is the first time in at least half a decade that I've been able to view YouTube videos through Flash in a browser, a feature that should never have been deprecated in the first place, and while I hope support for more old browsers will be targeted in the future, this is a very good start. Perhaps if people reach out to Cadence, other old browsers may get the Flash option. I'm not sure if there are any features in CloudTube itself that allow it to sniff user agents, or override a faked user agent to use the real one, or analyze a browser's rendering capabilities to determine whether it is capable of using the HTML5 player or would need to use Flash instead. More testing may need to be done...and of course, reaching out to Cadence may help. I'm grateful that Netscape 9 and Flash support was even added, because I would not have expected in a million years that it would even be an option, no less a reality.

To anyone who sees this, hello! Originally, I wasn't planning to make a thread about this...for most people it won't serve much of a purpose, but some of you may find this to be interesting. Actually, I only intended to share this information as comments on a couple of YouTube videos, but it was a real PITA because the comments wouldn't stay up. I tried everything I could, including rewriting or even removing links, but nothing worked. Of course, I don't want this information to go to waste, so for the few who are hopefully somewhat interested, here you go. While Netscape 9 is a very outdated browser by today's standards (which is to be expected for something that came out when Bush Jr. was still President, and I was still in high school), it is still one of the best options available for 9x/ME (and a good option for newer OSes if you want a lightweight browser that loads fast and works well). Because it was designed with 9x/ME in mind, you don't need KernelEx to run it, and because of its lightweight Gecko 1.8.1 browser core it runs very well on older PCs (and lightning-fast on modern ones). Though it shares many similarities with Firefox 2, there are some differences, and a good example is the Options menu (which offers a deeper range of options compared to Firefox 2's Options menu). It has a notable place in history as the final version of the legendary Netscape browser that was at one time the most popular browser in the world, and as such has better compatibility with the modern Internet than any version preceding it. For the pages it can still render, and for as much of the modern Internet as it can still work with, it is much faster than any modern browser. (Just so people know, I use much more modern browsers under XP on a daily basis, but I still find it fun to experiment with older browsers.) Most people will dismiss Netscape 9 as a relic and a product of a bygone time, which is understandable. But in spite of its age, this old browser still has some life left in it, and I'll share with you what I've learned that can help you get the most out of it in 2022. Back in 2020, @roytam1 was kind enough to release an NSS update for Netscape 9, which you can download from the following link: http://o.rthost.win/gpc/files1.rt/ns9-nss-update.7z If you save this file to the same folder where the Netscape browser files are (for example, C:/Program Files/Netscape/Navigator 9), extract the contents using 7-Zip and overwrite the existing files in the folder, you will have full TLS 1.2 support, which 'unlocks' many websites that will not load under normal circumstances. This update should work with all versions of Netscape 9, but of course 9.0.0.6 (released in Feb. '08) is recommended as it's the final version. From what I understand, due to compiler-related limitations, TLS 1.3 is not possible for any Gecko 1.8.1-based browser without using some sort of proxy, or other forms of ingenuity. However, fully working TLS 1.2 is still quite good for any browser of that time period, and many sites should still load with little to no issues. 68k.news, FrogFind.com, and TheOldNet.com are GODSENDS for old browsers like Netscape 9, and should work well on most if not all older versions of Netscape as well, with varying levels of usability depending on the age of the particular version. Communicator 4.8, for example, will have problems with more sites than Netscape 9, but considering the first 4.x release came out in 1997, that goes without saying. Even in 2008, when Netscape 9 saw its final update, 4.x was already a relic...even then, it could not render many then-modern sites correctly. If anyone knows of any other sites like 68k.news, FrogFind.com, and TheOldNet.com, please feel free to share what you know...anything that makes the modern Internet more accessible on older browsers is absolutely appreciated. Though the Netscape name has not been attached to a browser since 2008, it is still associated with Netscape ISP, a dial-up Internet service. The Netscape ISP homepage can still be reached at https://isp.netscape.com/ and not only does it continue to get daily news updates to this day, much of the site's design is still Netscape 9-compatible! Some of the links on the left-hand side now redirect to AOL or other websites, but based on the testing I've done I can confirm that all of the news article links on the homepage work, and of the links in the Channels section, "Entertainment", "Gadgets & Tech", "Money & Business", "News", "Sports", and "Weather" all adhere to the old-style layout and work fine. Now, for the biggest surprise I've found: using CloudTube, Netscape 9 can actually be used with Flash Player to view YouTube videos. Several months ago, support was added for Netscape 9, and thanks to Goker Cebeci's embedded open-source f4player the ability to view YouTube videos through Flash Player was miraculously restored. Based on my testing, Flash 7 and 8 do not work. Flash 9 is the first version that displays the player properly, so Flash 9 seems to be the minimum Flash version compatible with f4player, but 9.0.47.0 did not seem to load any videos when I tried it. However, 9.0.289.0 (the last Flash 9 update) does, and works perfectly fine in 360p. The combination of Netscape 9/Flash 9.0.289.0 means that watching YouTube with Flash Player is possible online in 2022 without KernelEx (i.e., in vanilla 98/ME)! I have yet to test this myself, but by using a Netscape 9 user agent, other browsers could potentially be 'tricked' into using Flash instead of HTML5 on CloudTube, which could make a difference on under-powered older PCs that may have difficulty running the HTML5 player well. Here is a link to the CloudTube website: https://tube.cadence.moe/ The sourcehut page for the CloudTube project: https://git.sr.ht/~cadence/cloudtube Specific info on added Netscape 9 support: https://git.sr.ht/~cadence/cloudtube/commit/9babaccd3b92105f6c48a9479febf9e202b3193b This is getting long, so I'll start wrapping it up here. Netscape 9, like the other Gecko 1.8.1-based browsers, is definitely showing its age in 2022, but with some patience and a desire to experiment, still has some life left in it! For the things it can still do, it does them extremely well...as a product of a time when the Internet wasn't bogged down by heavy JavaScript and bloated HTML5 code, and a time when processors weren't as fast as they are now to make the bloated, heavy code harder to notice while browsing, it loads up nice and fast, doesn't have any unnecessary bells & whistles, and still works admirably for simple, basic browsing. It helps if you go into the Options menu and carefully tweak everything to your liking (turning off JavaScript goes a long way towards speed and security, especially on old browsers like this), but with effort and a desire to experiment, there's almost no limit to the possibilities. These old browsers were built for speed in a way modern browsers aren't. As long as possible, they deserve to still be useful for something. I hope this helps someone! Best wishes to everyone here at MSFN (and apologies for this big wall of text)!

I would have been perfectly happy with just 68, but I'm VERY excited that Feodor plans to try and take it further. Even if they don't run as fast, it would be wonderful to have 78 & 91 working because of the extra web compatibility we would get as a result. Depending on how powerful their processor(s) is/are, some users probably won't notice a big speed difference between the older & newer Fx versions. If you're like me and still using an old 2.8GHz Pentium D (or something else from that era), it'll become more apparent, but even then I'll try to keep the faster versions of these browsers around and use the newer ones when and where necessary. After lots of trial and error, I'm currently using Feodor's old Mypal 29.3 as my primary browser for most websites, 360EEv11 for others, and others for experimental purposes (Feodor's latest Mypal68, a roytam1 browser [New Moon, Serpent, Firefox 45ESR, etc.], newer 360EE versions, and even classic ones like Netscape or Presto Opera to mess around with for viewing really old websites and some very basic web surfing). I wouldn't be surprised if that's true...Mypal68 is running EXTREMELY well so far on my Pentium D. It uses a little more RAM than 360, but seems to work as fast if not faster for many sites. One really nice advantage it has over 360 is a better download engine. Let's say you want to overwrite one file with another...if you try to save it under the same name, it creates a clone, but Mypal (as with the other Mozilla-core browsers) properly overwrites and replaces the file. This is one reason I've been keeping Mozilla-core browsers like Mypal, Firefox, Serpent & New Moon around...they're very stable in general, but they do the little things right that some other browsers don't.

Dave, thank you very much for your generosity in sharing the 2019 "seguiemj.ttf" with us! I've saved a copy to my flash drive for personal use, and just in case anyone needs it.