Jump to content

My Browser Builds (Part 1)

roytam1
 Share

Recommended Posts

VistaLover

VistaLover

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

while win64 builds don't.

... It could just be a case of artificial blockage by increasing the subsystem version string in the binaries to 6.1; editing it back to 5.2 might make them work in XP+ x64; better check with the zip packages, if the installer is also blocked under NT < 6.1... But then again, it could be compiler optimizations targeting Win7+; in any case, dependency walker x64 (under XP/Vista x64) will reveal what the true case is... ;)

Edited by VistaLover
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

looking4awayout

looking4awayout

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just tested the latest test build of Firefox 45 ESR SSE. It runs much faster than the previous versions. While testing it, I also managed to finally fix the choppy scrolling issue that happens on Mozilla-based browsers above 800x600 if you use an ATI card. You can find the solution in the UOC Patch thread, check out Update II in the main post, or just check the link below:

It will also increase scrolling performance at lower resolutions. But remember, it only works with ATI cards. Nvidia cards don't have this issue.

Edited by looking4awayout
2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparty411

sparty411

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, looking4awayout said:

Just tested the latest test build of Firefox 45 ESR SSE. It runs much faster than the previous versions. While testing it, I also managed to finally fix the choppy scrolling issue that happens on Mozilla-based browsers above 800x600 if you use an ATI card. You can find the solution in the UOC Patch thread, check out Update II in the main post, or just check the link below:

It will also increase scrolling performance at lower resolutions. But remember, it only works with ATI cards. Nvidia cards don't have this issue.

Wow, great work! I'll be sure to give it a go later on, and report back.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparty411

sparty411

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, looking4awayout said:

Great! I look forward to read if it improves scrolling on your system too, if I remember correctly your RDD uses an ATI card, am I right?

I have a plethora of ATI / Nvidia AGP cards that I fiddle around with. I've been using the Nvidia cards lately, due to the HW accel problem with ATI. I'll test it out on a Radeon 9600.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
looking4awayout

looking4awayout

Posted
Posted (edited)

That's cool. After enabling those tweaks I mentioned in the UOC Patch thread, now scrolling performance with the X1950 Pro is almost on par with NVidia cards, I think it might be even faster than Nvidia cards now. But it's also true I'm using an X1950 Pro. I wonder if a 9600/9800 Pro will get the same benefits.

Edited by looking4awayout
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sparty411

sparty411

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, looking4awayout said:

That's cool. After enabling those tweaks I mentioned in the UOC Patch thread, now scrolling performance with the X1950 Pro is almost on par with NVidia cards, I think it might be even faster than Nvidia cards now. But it's also true I'm using an X1950 Pro. I wonder if a 9600/9800 Pro will get the same benefits.

Well, it can’t possibly get any worse. Interestingly enough, I get excellent HW acceleration on my Latitude 100L with a 2.66 GHz Pentium 4 mobile 2GB DDR, and Intel integrates graphics. It’s even faster with Quantum in Debian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
looking4awayout

looking4awayout

Posted
Posted

Intel and Nvidia cards seem to be optimized better for single tile accelerated window. ATI cards on the other hand, seem to run better with multiple tiles, based from what I have discovered today. Guess it's just the way Gecko and Goanna behave, or better to say, how the graphics card deals with those rendering engines. I look forward to read the report about the trick applied to older ATI cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TechnoRelic

TechnoRelic

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Edit 3: It gets worse; the folder structure of BNav's omni.ja doesn't match the instructions! I'm guessing it was changed sometime between January and now. I'm giving up (BNAV Language Packs) ... BTW, 7-Zip works great on themes ...

Okay, fairly sure it was 2.49.4 Language Packs that were used when RT fixed it. I will try to find time to take a look at this situation in the near future. I have a SPANISH Language Pack that is working (installed on BNAV here).

Edited by TechnoRelic
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TechnoRelic

TechnoRelic

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/7/2019 at 10:11 AM, Mathwiz said:

IIRC, @roytam1's build of Navigator can also use Seamonkey's language packs, but they require some "surgery" first

Okay, I did try (RT) BNAV Browser with my Spanish (es-ES) Language Pack, and it FAILED now.
The Browser MENU choices are now completely missing (not visible).
This was created from the SM 2.49.4 Language Packs at the time.
I recall, that when I created that 'es-ES' LangPack, using RT instructions, it did WORK, as RT said.
I remember that it had mostly SPANISH Menu, with ENGLISH words still now and then mixed into it.
So, RT offered his LangPack FIX for BNAV Browser as a 'Quick and Dirty' minimum solution.
But something must have changed in BNAV Browser, such that his LangPacks fix no longer will work.
So for now, BNAV is again an 'ENGLISH ONLY' Browser situation (it seems).

REGRETS if that any of my previous postings on this BNAV LangPacks issue seem MISLEADING.
I will try to find and update MY MESSAGES to reflect the current situation on BNAV LangPacks.
Sadly, RT would likely have to 'look at this' again for a new FIX to happen.

http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/2.49.5
SeaMonkey 2.49.5 Browser & Emailer Release (Official) - WinXP - 2019.08.05

https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/releases/2.49.5/langpacks/win32/
SeaMonkey 2.49.5 LangPacks - Note: URL is FIXED here vs. 'error' one

So, I tried the SM 2.49.5 SPANISH (es-ES) LangPack (Add-on), worked fine here.

One bad aspect (to me) is that SeaMonkey 2.49.5 Browser does NOT support
INSTAGRAM 'embedded' VIDEO playback properly under WinXP OS.

https://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/
Whereas, the RT BNAV Browser DOES support INSTAGRAM 'embedded' VIDEO
playback properly under WinXP OS.

Added Later: @VistaLover did make an EXCELLENT REPLY to my message,
located at this URL here -->
https://msfn.org/board/topic/177125-my-build-of-new-moon-temp-name-aka-pale-moon-fork-targetting-xp/?do=findComment&comment=1170250

Edited by TechnoRelic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VistaLover

VistaLover

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, TechnoRelic said:

One bad aspect (to me) is that SeaMonkey 2.49.5 Browser does NOT support
INSTAGRAM 'embedded' VIDEO playback properly under WinXP OS.

Whereas, the RT BNAV Browser DOES support INSTAGRAM 'embedded' VIDEO
playback properly under WinXP OS.

Hi :P ; what you report is to be expected, not a surprise at all... ;) ; let me explain:

1. SM 2.49.x is built on the Mozilla ESR 52 platform, same as Firefox ESR 52.x.x; for legal and cost reasons, Firefox doesn't come bundled with its own patented decoders (h264, aac), unlike Google Chrome (Google can afford the huge sums of money needed for the licenses payable to the MPEG group to bundle their patented decoders with the Chrome binaries).

In order to decode HTML5 MP4 video, Firefox must access the OS-provided patented decoders (the cost of which is included in the price of the OS, i.e. Microsoft, rather than Mozilla, paid for it...)

Unfortunately, the mechanism that gives access to these OS-provided decoders is Windows Media Foundation (WMF) framework, available only in Vista SP2 (with Platform Update + Platform Update Supplement) and higher, NOT in WinXP :angry:; hence, SM 2.49.5 on XP can't decode HTML5 instagram video (or any other HTML5 mp4 video for that matter), as XP lacks WMF and associated M$ provided decoders. And no, installed codec packs won't do the job!

If you like, you are faced with the same predicament as in the pinned thread below:

This is just an educated guess on my part, but since SM 2.49.5 is FxESR 52.9.1 based, you could try and implement what is currently valid for enabling HTML5 MP4 playback in FxESR 52.9.1 under XP in the linked thread; not tested myself, SM 2.49.5 has no issues here (Vista SP2 x86) playing back [h264+aac] MP4 files... :)

2. The bnavigator fork has been built on the UXP application platform; but @roytam1 has long ago patched the platform to fallback to its own patented decoders when WMF is unavailable (the case of XP); the patented decoders in UXP, provided via FFmpeg libraries, are contained within a custom patched version of the ffvpx third party library; it's the same reason the other two UXP browsers, NM28 & St52, can also decode HTML5 MP4 files under XP...

I hope it's clear now! :)

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mathwiz

Mathwiz

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/7/2019 at 6:22 PM, TechnoRelic said:

https://msfn.org/board/topic/177125-my-build-of-new-moon-temp-name-aka-pale-moon-fork-targetting-xp/?do=findComment&comment=1164249
Suggested (Navigator) BNAV Browser THEMES to use, instead of the DEFAULT one.
DEFAULT THEME has it where Browser ACTIVE TAB is *not* a different color from other open TABS.

With SM, if you jump through the necessary hoops to enable the "Developer Edition" theme (same instructions as for FF or Serpent) you also get a "SeaMonkey Modern" theme, which has a lighter color for the active tab. Edit: Correction - SeaMonkey Modern is available without enabling the Developer Edition theme.

(BTW, I just discovered that only the 32-bit edition of SM 2.49.5 contains the Developer Edition theme. Of course the 64-bit edition requires Win 7 anyway, but I found that surprising.)

Unfortunately, for BNav, that trick requires the UserChrome.js add-on, which won't install (well, it could probably be fixed the same way you fixed the themes, but if you're going to that much trouble, you might as well just modify and install a theme!)

Edited by Mathwiz
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VistaLover

VistaLover

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/3/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mathwiz said:

When enabling and using the hidden "Developer Edition" theme, the "Classic Theme Restorer" add-on can no longer "square" the browser tabs! The Tab Appearance selection is greyed out, and there are new messages on the Classic Theme Restorer Tabs settings (Page 1) that say "Tab appearance is controlled by the current theme." and "Third party theme detected! Some options do not work with third party themes!" Apparently CTR now considers the Developer Edition theme a "third party" theme, but didn't in earlier Serpent 52 versions.

I don't know if that's a new bug or a fix for a bug (i.e., square tabs were never supposed to work with the Developer Edition theme, but did anyway until now).

That's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, but I did happen to like the Developer Edition theme with squared tabs. I guess you can't have everything though.

... It's all because of upstream changes:

https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/1124

This was again code clean-up, conceived and executed by Matt A. Tobin: 

Quote

Basilisk isn't Firefox and Firefox Developer Edition features at our level were barely implemented let alone useful

Specifically, the DevEd Theme GUI breakages are due to:

[Basilisk] Remove Dev Edition theme.

Like you, I also happen to like the Dev Edition Theme over the default Australis one, even in my Firefox days; did you know there's also a light Dev Edition theme in FxESR 52 (with square tabs)?

yKWlF7Y.jpg

You just have to first install the legacy extension DevEdition theme enabler (v1.0.1), which then adds a Developer Edition entry in about:addons/Appearance; enabling that and restarting the browser will give you the light theme (attached snapshot); to change to the more familiar dark DevEdition theme, just modify in about:config the pref devtools.theme to dark (instant application).

Mozilla in Firefox 53.0+ (not compatible with XP/Vista) had added the two DevEdition theme flavours as default themes, they had simply rebranded them as Compact Dark and Compact Light:

https://www.askvg.com/2-new-themes-compact-dark-and-compact-light-added-to-mozilla-firefox/

But to achieve the same in Fx 52.0.x-52.x.x, you had to employ the help of aforementioned extension; I should also mention at this point that the maintainer of the now defunct browser project called Cyberfox had successfully backported this Fx 53.0+ feature to his v52.9.1 browser, forked off Mozilla ESR 52 code: 

RilfwAl.jpg

... i.e. whereas other developers liked to backport additional Firefox features, it is, once again, demonstrated how fixated the MCP team is at removing inherited Firefox features (Container tabs, Web Extension support, to name just some recent beheadings in Basilisk...) :angry::realmad:

Given the underlying supporting code has now been axed, I don't expect the DevEdition theme enabler extension to work now with latest Serpent (52.9.0) builds (it was, with older builds such as 2019-05-31). :(

Edited by VistaLover
3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TechnoRelic

TechnoRelic

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Mathwiz | @VistaLover <--

https://msfn.org/board/topic/175591-enable-mp4-h264-aac-html5-video-in-firefox-on-windows-xp-without-flash/?tab=comments#comment-1123505
(Adobe) PRIMETIME CDM Plugin 'fix' for INSTAGRAM Video Playback

https://msfn.org/board/topic/178259-instagram-videos-not-working-in-firefox-52-esr/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1161357
Another (newer and easier) 'fix' for INSTAGRAM Video
(This WORKED for me with (RT ST) BK55 Browser, but NOT for SeaMonkey 2.49.5 Release)

Okay, so I tried both of these (above URLs) 'fixes' with SeaMonkey 2.49.5 Release Browser
under WinXP OS. They FAILED to fix the INSTAGRAM Video playback problem for me.
Others may have success with these fixes, even though it did NOT succeed for me.

One can do a 'work around' by doing a RIGHT CLICK and choose (Menu) VIEW PAGE INFO.
Then find the VIDEO 'File Type' under the MEDIA tab (2nd one).
Then COPY and PASTE that (MP4 Video) URL into a (Browser) NEW TAB.
Or, use that same URL and open it in (external) VLC Player or another (PotPlayer) of your choice.

For me, since ENGLISH is my Language, the RT BNAV Browser is definitely preferred.
Because RT did 'fix' the INSTAGRAM Video problem via his personal 'tweaking' of BNAV Browser.
Unfortunately, again, RT BNAV Browser is NOT currently supporting Language Packs.
https://o.rths.cf/boc-uxp/

Added: Also, RT's level of support on his Browsers is fairly AMAZING too.

Edited by TechnoRelic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...