Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Latest Version of Software Running on XP


Recommended Posts


35 minutes ago, RainyShadow said:

Same as the SumatraPDF port - exception c000001d

It appears Both SumatraPDF & Audacity don't like non-SSE2 processors..

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Nojus2001 said:

It appears Both SumatraPDF & Audacity don't like non-SSE2 processors..

SumatraPDF v.3.0 works fine here, as does Audacity v.2.0.3

The building guide for Audacity suggests MSVC 2017, didn't that come with a default setting to enforce SSE2 optimisation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

Out uBlock Origin Legacy v.1.16.4.22 (July 4, 2020)

... which, sadly, removes support for Pale Moon 27 based forks, like @roytam1's New Moon 27.x.x (whose sse builds are very popular with our members running pre-SSE2 CPUs):

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy/pull/239#issuecomment-651090892

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy/blob/3524cbc34b30d9555eb7e9089aa4a5ea91465741/platform/firefox/install.rdf#L47-L54

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy/commit/990daae

:(

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

MSFN members who use these versions of the Roytam1 browsers can also use AdBlock Latitude which is compatible with version 27:

https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/adblock-latitude/

Edited by Sampei.Nihira
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

can also use AdBlock Latitude which is compatible with version 27

... That's good to know... :)

 I have not ever been myself a user of ABL or other members of the AB family of content blockers, last thing I remember reading was how much more resource-greedy they were compared to uB0 (and RAM/CPU consumption should always be a consideration on those old hardware setups where NM27-sse is being deployed...). Resources-usage aside, the crux of the matter here is the following question:

Does current ABL address successfully the very issues/reasons that forced uB0 to drop PM27 support?

 As detailed in the previously linked GitHub PR comment, uB0-legacy now needs ES6 support in the browser itself to tackle the removal of certain classes of unwanted content ; does ABL handle such content in a different way?  If not, then existing users of uB0-legacy 1.16.4.21 in NM27 should probably stay put at that version (sadly no longer updating :() and face some random/occasional breakage in their ad-removal... It'd be like Chrome 49 users on XP/Vista, who are now confined in using uB0 v1.16.18 for good...

Unless something new crops up?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 8:25 PM, VistaLover said:

... That's good to know... :)

 I have not ever been myself a user of ABL or other members of the AB family of content blockers, last thing I remember reading was how much more resource-greedy they were compared to uB0 (and RAM/CPU consumption should always be a consideration on those old hardware setups where NM27-sse is being deployed...). Resources-usage aside, the crux of the matter here is the following question:

Does current ABL address successfully the very issues/reasons that forced uB0 to drop PM27 support?

 As detailed in the previously linked GitHub PR comment, uB0-legacy now needs ES6 support in the browser itself to tackle the removal of certain classes of unwanted content ; does ABL handle such content in a different way?  If not, then existing users of uB0-legacy 1.16.4.21 in NM27 should probably stay put at that version (sadly no longer updating :() and face some random/occasional breakage in their ad-removal... It'd be like Chrome 49 users on XP/Vista, who are now confined in using uB0 v1.16.18 for good...

Unless something new crops up?

Duplicate cosmetic filters are a problem.
UBO cannot always efficiently analyze 2 differently written cosmetic filter rules.
All of this causes performance decreases.
The ideal would be to have few cosmetic filters, which are necessary, however, compared to the network filters.
As I have written elsewhere, malwares lists and predefined multipurpose lists are also inefficient.
Better to insert some personalized lists.

I insert my final UBO filters list in the dedicated 3D.
MSFN members who want to try Adblock Latitude could take my lists as an example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...