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 fork targetting XP

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

At least for Winxp-SSE true: There are still videodownload-problems on certain sites. 

e.g. this instruction video for Winfuture Updatepacks:
https://winfuture.de/UpdatePack
Only download-solution for now: Maxthon 3. it has built-in downloader which is stuck just above the videowindow.

BTW: If Win7 and newer the updatepacks(Full monthly or monthly updates) will also work on english versions. there is a workaround if one is starting with Full version(latest)  stopping UAC. its in Sticky/Wichtig in the forum. msconfig and then click on UAC and press start. then down with the regulator.

Bedside the already know browsers  i can run also Opera and Chromium only video-problems seem not solved.

UPDATE: these news-will be integrated in my thread on P136

Edited by 3dreal
simplified/these news will be integrated in my "STICKY" ON P136

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Mathwiz & @VistaLover! I'll go ahead and make those changes, thanks for the heads up. I had assumed my implementation would break pretty fast, think there will ever be an auto-update feature for the xpmod versions of Pale Moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Waterfox, if anyone uses it could you please be so kind as to post its user agent string? I have several that I like keeping up to date and use for various reasons but Waterfox eludes me since it can't be installed on my lowly 32-bit computer:

Googling for it brings up at least two different versions; one is probably right but which is it:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:56.0; Waterfox) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.2.7

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:65.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/65.0 Waterfox/56.2.7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DanR20 said:

Speaking of Waterfox, if anyone uses it could you please be so kind as to post its user agent string?

It's identical to the one that Firefox 60 ESR uses since version 56.2.8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

It's identical to the one that Firefox 60 ESR uses since version 56.2.8.

This is what I have for 60esr:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

That's Waterfox's current string?

Share this post


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

That's Waterfox's current string?

Yours lack the processor architecture bits, so it's actually:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

Yours lack the processor architecture bits, so it's actually:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Ok that looks better. --)

Wonder how long before Mozilla starts complaining about copyright or something.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

As for Waterfox, it is not based on UXP

My confusion results from the fact that it preserved XUL APIs for "classic" add-ons. In fact, Classic Add-Ons Archive had to make a special kludge for Waterfox to run in multiprocess mode. There would be no point in that if XUL add-ons couldn't be used....

19 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

... Bootstrapped Add-Ons ....

After my last question, I sort of hate to ask, but what the heck are "Bootstrapped" add-ons, and why does anyone need them?

The WebExtensions API, I dig, because of the aforementioned multiprocess mode. But another new add-on type so soon after WE? It's really starting to sound like Mozilla is just making random changes for the sake of making random changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

but what the heck are "Bootstrapped" add-ons, and why does anyone need them? 

The WebExtensions API, I dig, because of the aforementioned multiprocess mode. But another new add-on type so soon after WE?

Nothing NEW here; I'm starting to get the impression your web searching skills are falling behind :P:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Bootstrapped_extensions

aka "restartless" addons; according to the page itself,

Quote

this page will be removed by December 2020.

Regards :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so "bootstrapped" add-ons are something that have been around since FF 4.0 (!), but Waterfox is just now adding support. (Horrible name, by the way. "Restartless" is much more descriptive.)

So Jody was right: if Waterfox had been UXP-based, it would already have had that support. I'm guessing that Waterfox was forked from FF 56, the last version with any XUL add-on support, and "bootstrapped" extension support had already been removed from FF 56, and now Waterfox is putting it back in.

9 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

according to the page itself,

Quote

this page will be removed by December 2020.

Good grief. Talk about the memory hole! Not only have we removed all support for XUL add-ons, and removed all XUL add-ons from even the "older versions" section of our add-ons page, we're even going to remove the documentation and try to pretend that these things never existed!

Good thing there's web.archive.org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A newbie to this site,although have been following this thread for some time now..I am currently running NewMoon ver.28.5.0a1 -32 bit on xp....A question I have is when new updates are posted byRoy...When the updates are posted under the heading “Test Binary”..are these stable versions or are they considered as betas?...One other thing I would like to mention..I am writing this from my Ipad...because for the life of me I can not figure out how to correctly send a post from my desktop computer...Only ad blocker I have on it isNoScript whichI disable when on MSFN..Where a message appears to reply for writing your post,nothing happens!!....Hope this is understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

but Waterfox is just now adding support.
...
if Waterfox had been UXP-based, it would already have had that support. I'm guessing that Waterfox was forked from FF 56, the last version with any XUL add-on support, and "bootstrapped" extension support had already been removed from FF 56, and now Waterfox is putting it back in.

... Not quite :rolleyes:; "bootstrap" is just one category of "legacy" (i.e. non-WE) extensions, along with XPCOM, XUL overlay and jetpack; as such, they were indeed supported in Firefox 56.0.2 (last version with "legacy" support) and are still supported in latest Waterfox 56.2.9 ; what Jody wrote was actually:

22 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

as for the new Alpha release of Waterfox v68, Photon, WebExtensions and Bootstrapped Add-Ons will be embraced.

meaning that Waterfox v68α is Quantum based and will have the Photon GUI and WE support native to Quantum, but the Waterfox developer (Alex Kontos, of Greek descent) has somehow (?) managed to port to it "bootstrapped extensions" support... :dubbio:

[ IIRC, early versions of Firefox Quantum, 57-58, especially in the Nightly and Developer/Beta branches, were able to support (at varying degree) classic  extensions via flipping a pref (extensions.legacy.enabled); more here; as Quantum matured to > 58.0 version numbers, "legacy" extension APIs were eradicated to the point that pref, where still present, had no actual effect... ]

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

meaning that Waterfox v68α is Quantum based and will have the Photon GUI and WE support native to Quantum, but the Waterfox developer (Alex Kontos, of Greek descent) has somehow (?) managed to port to it "bootstrapped extensions" support... :dubbio:

Does this mean that things like Classic Theme Restorer will work?

I ask because I really like it because it makes Firefox (and, by extension, Waterfox and any fork based on FF => 3x.x) resemble a somewhat modernized version of the Firefox 24.x UI, before the Australlis UI, which I'm not super fond of, was introduced.

That being said, I'm not very fond of Photon (is this the name of the new UI introduced with 57.x?), either. The custom CSS scripts made by the creator of CTR helps, but it's not the same, and customization, compared to earlier versions, is virtually nil. Also don't like the flat look (FF 56 and earlier have a subtle gradient in the toolbars, tabs, and (in macOS), the menu bar). Again the custom CSS helps, but it's not the same.

c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cc333, the UI name is Photon.  See I think Photon represents the flat look version of a classic browser..  I have mine set with tabs below the address bar (using usrChrome.css) and it goes sooooo well with Windows 8.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, cc333 said:

Does this mean that things like Classic Theme Restorer will work?

Probably not... CTR itself as an extension targets the Australis GUI (Firefox 29-56), not Photon (Firefox >=57.0); I believe updated versions of CustomCSSforFx should be applicable in the Photon iteration of Waterfox 68.0a, but any such talk is still very premature...

In any case, Waterfox discussion, methinks, should be continued in a more "appropriate" forum, seeing that the browser requires at least Windows 7 64-bit... :(

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...