Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

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. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


roytam1

My build of New Moon (temp. name) a.k.a. Pale Moon for XP

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, dencorso said:

He's taken out code intended to enable that

That's pretty much what I hinted about, thanks dencorso :thumbup; if the original code he forked contained, by default, parts that would enable it to compile and run on XP/Vista, he would meticulously excise those parts to make sure his fork is not compatible with said (older) OSes; you said he considers those parts as bloat (which can be indeed the case, but who really knows what's inside that person's head? :rolleyes:), I merely emphasised the result of him removing that "bloat":

On 12/5/2018 at 4:51 PM, VistaLover said:

to make sure his code is NOT compatible with said OSes

Another aspect which isn't clear in my previous comment is build-time-compiler-optimizations: targeting strictly Win7+ kernel when building his forked code, so that the officially released binaries be non-executable on XP/Vista... :angry:

Moonchild et co. have a precedent on that: When they were releasing (between Nov 2017 and Mar 2018) official binaries of Basilisk 55 (on their now deprecated moebius platform), compiler opts were such that a simple lowering of the subsystem version string (from 6.1 to 6.0) in the EXE's headers would enable the Basilisk.exe binary to run on Vista (with only few flaws, namely disabled WMF features...).

When apps (Basilisk 52 and Pale Moon 28) on the UXP platform started being officially released, the binaries were built under revised compiler optimisations; previous "hack" wouldn't now work, because at least 8 (new) API function calls were introduced in various app DLLs/EXEs that are not present inside Vista's versions of important system DLLs (kernel32.dll, user32.dll, psapi.dll etc)... If you ask me, that was not a coincidence :whistle:

As for adding code to their tree that is knowingly WinXP incompatible, the Moonchild team has already done that by switching over their ffvpx library to using FFmpeg 4.0+ source; to be fair though, it's safe to assume they didn't do it out of spite for eventual XP users on forks; they simply just don't support XP or Vista, so these OSes have been totally left out from any coding considerations on their part... :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

When apps (Basilisk 52 and Pale Moon 28) on the UXP platform started being officially released, the binaries were built under revised compiler optimizations; previous "hack" wouldn't now work, because at least 8 (new) API function calls were introduced in various app DLLs/EXEs that are not present inside Vista's versions of important system DLLs

It's often hard to judge intent, but @VistaLover makes a good case. Those apps were forked from FF 52, which did target XP/Vista.

I could see adding code that wasn't compatible with those OSes, like FFmpeg 4.0, and I could even see removing code that enabled compatibility with those OSes, without deliberate ill intent; the goal could be to add features, improve performance, address obscure bugs (like the 7-week browser session limit) or even reduce the size of the final product, and losing XP/Vista compatibility was just the cost of achieving those goals. But do those "revised compiler optimizations" really improve performance and/or reduce code size enough for anyone to notice? Or do they just break XP/Vista compatibility for the sake of breaking XP/Vista compatibility?

Luckily, since these are all open source, it's possible to recompile with compiler settings targeting XP/Vista. Dealing with the other issues is harder and is probably the bulk of @roytam1's work. But the compiler settings probably speak to intent more clearly than the other changes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget an earlier patch that checked for POSReady2009 XP registry key and prevented browser startup.
The git commit for it had rather a vague title.
Their logic here was that POSReady2009 had sufficient differences from vanilla XP, that it warranted extra support issues.

The decision for this block was reversed eventually, at the community's pleas.
They said that if any POSReady2009/"XP SP4" patch user made bug report pretending to be vanilla XP, they would outright cancel this compatibility.

Then came newer PaleMoon for Vista+
 

The end.

PaleMoon_fix.PNG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 3:04 AM, 404notfound said:

Let's not forget an earlier patch that checked for POSReady2009 XP registry key and prevented browser startup.
The git commit for it had rather a vague title.

Found it:

Update application startup with proper error messages. (28 Jul 2015)

Reverted 6 months later in

Remove POSReady sanity check. (28 Jan 2016)

... with a more transparent commit title... ;)

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

Sure, we all know my present-day stance on XP, but I think it's amazing what Roytam1 has been able to get running

Not all of us, this is a long thread and I haven't run into any posts of your stance on XP, could you summarize? I still enjoy working W2k that blackwingcat kept going for so many years because like XP it's simple, fast and easy to use.

The only complaint is that I'm unable to get video hardware acceleration going with any browser in either XP or W2k, including Firefox or Basilisk 52 probably because the drivers are blacklisted. In Windows 7 that works great. 

Edited by DanR20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DanR20 said:

Not all of us, this is a long thread and I haven't run into any posts of your stance on XP, could you summarize? I still enjoy working W2k that blackwingcat kept going for so many years because like XP it's simple, fast and easy to use.

The only complaint is that I'm unable to get video hardware acceleration going with any browser in either XP or W2k, including Firefox or Basilisk 52 probably because the drivers are blacklisted. In Windows 7 that works great. 

Not in this thread.  Look up the thread on Windows XP: Impressions (or something like that).  I'm not going to dump on the crew here.  I've also benefited from @roytam1's work while I was running Vista.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

Windows XP: Impressions (or something like that).

Windows XP - Deepest Impressions to be exact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 404notfound said:

Let's not forget an earlier patch that checked for POSReady2009 XP registry key and prevented browser startup.
The git commit for it had rather a vague title: Update application startup with proper error messages. (28 Jul 2015)
Their "logic" here was that POSReady2009 had sufficient differences from vanilla XP, that it warranted extra support issues.

Micro$oft has made similar claims themselves, but all evidence I've seen to date is that it's a completely bogus claim: The differences between POSReady '09 and vanilla XP all appear to be purely cosmetic (startup screen, default wallpaper, etc.). There was never a reason for PM to support one but not the other.

13 hours ago, 404notfound said:

The decision for this block was reversed eventually, at the community's pleas.
They said that if any POSReady2009/"XP SP4" patch user made bug report pretending to be vanilla XP, they would outright cancel this compatibility. 

And there, they mixed up two things: XP "SP4" is just a convenient collection of all post-SP3 updates, hot fixes, etc. for "vanilla" XP. There's not even a registry key to test for SP4 and AFAIK it includes no POSReady '09 updates.

None of this speaks to the question of whether anyone should stick with XP (or Vista) or move on to a "supported" OS like Win 7 (or, technically, POSReady '09, for a few more months at least). But it strikes me as odd that the PM team is so willing to (ab)use PM's popularity to try to dictate others' choices. We programmers are often a strange lot. Some of the most talented of us also seem to have some of the most difficult personalities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 404notfound said:

Their "logic" here was that POSReady2009 had sufficient differences from vanilla XP, that it warranted extra support issues.

1 hour ago, Mathwiz said:

Micro$oft has made similar claims themselves, but all evidence I've seen to date is that it's a completely bogus claim

True enough.

14 hours ago, 404notfound said:

The decision for this block was reversed eventually, at the community's pleas.

And because we, here at MSFN, had found out how to bypass it within the 1st hour after the blocked version was released, actually... :angel

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New build of basilisk/UXP for XP!

Test binary:
Win32 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.1.win32-git-20181208-09cf17339-xpmod.7z
Win64 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.1.win64-git-20181208-09cf17339-xpmod.7z

diff: https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/UXP-xp-gitdiff-20181110.7z

PM28XP build:
Win32 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.3.0a1.win32-git-20181208-09cf17339-xpmod.7z
Win64 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.3.0a1.win64-git-20181208-09cf17339-xpmod.7z

Official repo changes since my last build:
- Limit the CSS string length for resolved variables to sane values. (f8e83e7e6)
- Remove DirectShowReader Part 1: Conditional code (f68b57c0b)
- Remove DirectShowReader Part 2: Build system (b867c50ee)
- Remove DirectShowReader Part 3: Directories (f2723fc8b)
- Remove DirectShowReader Part 4: Tests (caabbb2a0)
- Clear HAVE_LINUX_PERF_EVENT_H defines in ffvpx config before setting them for lib use (1f8a1f3fd)
- [PALEMOON] Complete making Sync optional at build time (e5e21699c)
- [PALEMOON] Complete making Sync optional at build time - Part 2: Packaging (d3e5569ee)
- Remove MediaTelemetryConstants (b78915e46)
- Merge pull request #895 from trav90/code-cleanup (8d553fef6)
- Merge pull request #896 from trav90/media-work (f7430355e)
- Merge pull request #897 from trav90/telemetry-cleanup (b07aad353)
- Stop feeding a Firefox compat mode to AMO. (93705a7d0)
- Add an option to process favicons. (3411dd572)
- Fix incorrect preference reference in feed reader. (09cf17339)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New build of BOC/UXP for XP!

Test binary:
MailNews Win32 https://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/mailnews.win32-20181208-8509d9d-uxp-09cf17339-xpmod.7z
Browser-only Suite Win32 https://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/borealis.win32-20181208-8509d9d-uxp-09cf17339-xpmod.7z

source patch (excluding UXP): https://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/interlink-src-xpmod-20181129.7z

Official repo changes since my last build:
- [PLATFORM] Update commit pointer (7798333)
- [MAIL] Add about:logopage as the mail start_url (df20c98)
- [MAIL] Feed off Pale Moon instead of Basilisk for Emoji fonts (824164d)
- [MAIL] nsAboutRedirector needs bitwise not logical or for logopage flags (dcd12c6)
- [PLATFORM] Update commit pointer (897f500)
- [PLATFORM] Update commit pointer (04ce75a)
- [PLATFORM] Update commit pointer (674d720)
- [ABPRIME] Insert the Tools menu item before the Web Developer menu (52e1697)
- [MAIL] Leech searchplugins from Pale Moon and don't involve locales at all (339b4be)
- [MAIL] Attempt to fix close buttons for tabs (a2eeb92)
- [MAIL] Clean up LWTheme from tabmail.css (655c4cd)
- Revert "[MAIL] Attempt to fix close buttons for tabs" (06e74c0)
- [MAIL} Fix tabs on MOZ_MAIL_LEGACY (abb364f)
- [MAIL] A level of linux tab fixes (ee88234)
- [MAIL] Locally define XP_LINUX for the classic theme (ded1994)
- Revert "[MAIL] Locally define XP_LINUX for the classic theme" (fd5a334)
- [MAIL] Try %ifndef XP_WIN (672842c)
- [MAIL] More Linux close button fine tunes (adde05c) [ N.B. commit message was rewritten for not having offensive language, for original commit message please view https://github.com/binaryoutcast/binoc-central/commit/adde05c ]
- [MAIL] Split tabmail into OS Specific versions (fcc9021)
- [MAIL] Soft tabs on linux (46459f3)
- no message (9d048c6)
- no message (9b5f559)
- [PLATFORM] Update commit pointer (07b90ac)
- [MAIL] Clean up LWTheme bits from the tabbedmails (643a1c5)
- [MAIL] override tab's close button image on linux (94ce5d6) [ N.B. commit message was rewritten for not having offensive language, for original commit message please view https://github.com/binaryoutcast/binoc-central/commit/94ce5d6 ]
- [MAIL] Remove What's new menu item and code that pops up What's new on upgrade which won't trigger anyway because of how versions are done for Interlink (adc6019)
- [CONFIG] Make version2k use UTC date (585927f)
- Fix typo in 585927f (3986fcc)
- Issue #45 - Create Official and proper Unstable Branding - Part 2: Mail Official Branding (1a8ff25)
- [PLATFORM] Update commit pointer (dd0226b)
- [PLATFORM] Update commit pointer (8509d9d)

For UXP changes please see above.

Edited by roytam1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been toying around between latest UXP basillisk, last non-UPX basillisk, palemoon 27 and 28, with new profiles.
Youtube playback performance seems roughly about the same between browsers, although I couldn't test PM27 there.
I've used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvbPSf2JwrE in 1080p for testing. It probably has a high framerate and tends to get choppy on my end.

As for my previous npapi flash complaints, I think old Basillisk and PM27 did things slightly differently from UXP-Basillisk and PM28. Something changed under the hood.
The latter two seem to have that gross inefficiency in rendering flash.

Edited by 404notfound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 404notfound said:

I've used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvbPSf2JwrE in 1080p for testing. It probably has a high framerate and tends to get choppy on my end.

IF you do a 'RIGHT click' (Mouse) inside of the YOUTUBE video browser player 'box' that you have it open, a MENU presents itself. IF you pick the 'STATS FOR NERDS' choice (at the bottom), that will show you EXACTLY what quality VIDEO and AUDIO that you are currently streaming it. You MIGHT be getting say VP9 on the VIDEO, and OPUS on the AUDIO. Which, on some OTHER YOUTUBE streaming choice, you MIGHT get MP4 Video and Audio instead. I have no idea IF that you are 'forcing' some kind of particular Video and Audio quality from YOUTUBE. Anyway, this comment intended as helpful.

Edited by TechnoRelic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 1:44 PM, Dibya said:

Any love for bk55 fanboy?

as I need an AOM library testbed, yes there is new build coming soon.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, roytam1 said:

as I need an AOM library testbed, yes there is new build coming soon.

Thanks man

  • Like 1

Share this post


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.

×