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

Just now, roytam1 said:

because AMD64 implies SSE2. I think you may need to have a look in NSS's config to see if there is any SSE2 specified.

I was able to get UXP / Serpent to build ok for SSE only processors. Pic related! Thanks for your help :)

UXP_SSE.png

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work, but keep in mind UXP's JavaScript compiler will still output SSE2 code, so JavaScript will often foil your SSE-only version of Serpent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mathwiz said:

Good work, but keep in mind UXP's JavaScript compiler will still output SSE2 code, so JavaScript will often foil your SSE-only version of Serpent.

I'm using Umatrix to block most unnecessary scripts, but you're right, it does choke quite badly on JS heavy sites. Still leaps and bounds faster than the SSE only version of Quantum that ships with antiX! That one really takes the cake :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's interesting... I wonder if it could be possible to do the same with the Windows version? I never had the opportunity to check Serpent out, as y'all know, my PC has an SSE only CPU. I'm quite curious to find out how an hypothetical SSE Windows version would perform with the UOC Patch and the other essential add-ons.

Edited by looking4awayout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, looking4awayout said:

Now that's interesting... I wonder if it could be possible to do the same with the Windows version? I never had the opportunity to check Serpent out, as y'all know, my PC has an SSE only CPU. I'm quite curious to find out how an hypothetical SSE Windows version would perform with the UOC Patch and the other essential add-ons.

That would be neat. NM28 builds for me as well here. It's fast enough out of the box, that I don't really need to do much about:config fiddling. Umatrix will suffice.

NM_SEE.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep in mind that the UOC Patch is actually JavaScript - but it's pretty simple JavaScript, so maybe (just maybe) it'll run without outputting SSE2 instructions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that means it could be possible to compile Serpent and New Moon 28 for SSE only CPUs in Windows? I'm not a programmer but would be interesting to see such a thing see the light of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, looking4awayout said:

So that means it could be possible to compile Serpent and New Moon 28 for SSE only CPUs in Windows? I'm not a programmer but would be interesting to see such a thing see the light of day.

That’s a question for RT to answer. I’m using a modern Linux distro, so I have access to newer libraries, etc, that may not be available for XP. But then again, he’s already demonstrated that these browsers can be built for XP, so common sense tells me dependencies shouldn’t be an issue.. 

Edited by sparty411
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, looking4awayout said:

So that means it could be possible to compile Serpent and New Moon 28 for SSE only CPUs in Windows? I'm not a programmer but would be interesting to see such a thing see the light of day.

I don't know if MSVC SSE build will work or not. GCC(MinGW) build may work.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Build_Instructions/Cross_Compile_Mozilla_for_Mingw32$revision/1019972

Edited by roytam1
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neat. I'm not a programmer at all but it's interesting to see that such a thing might be feasible on Windows.

Edited by looking4awayout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly OT, since XP/Vista users have no hope of running FF Quantum, but still seems worth mentioning here:

12 hours ago, erpdude8 said:

btw, Mozilla plans to release new Firefox versions every 4 weeks starting next year in 2020:

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/09/moving-firefox-to-a-faster-4-week-release-cycle/

And I have to wonder: is this really necessary? I mean, security updates I dig, but 13 new FF versions a year? That's 13 chances to mess around with the UI, break web sites, etc.

Of course, compared to the NM 28/Serpent 52 release cycle we're used to here (nearly every week), 13 updates/year seems downright relaxed; so I guess it just depends on your perspective.

Share this post


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

NM 28/Serpent 52 release cycle we're used to here (nearly every week)

to be clear, I don't make any "Release Quality" builds. Fedor2 do "Release" builds.

my builds just like mozilla's "Nightly" builds, but in weekly style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mathwiz :

The @roytam1 UXP browsers are built from the

https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/custom

branch, itself derived from the corresponding master branch:  

https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/master

itself forked from the upstream master branch:

https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commits/master

The upstream master branch, in terms of code development, can be likened to the Mozilla trunk branch,

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/

on which the (twice-daily updated) Firefox Nightly builds are built (currently at version 71.0a1); so, that makes a staggering 730 Nightly builds released per year! The 52 (or less) UXP-based browser releases per year (from Roy) is really a small number compared to the above figure... :whistle:

22 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

That's 13 chances to mess around with the UI, break web sites, etc.

With such short development cycles, there's really no room for proper testing and evaluation by beta/nightly testers - expect more bugs to be released in the wild on unsuspected Release Channel users, which would in turn require more frequent "point" and/or "chemspill" bugfix releases!

But I think the driving force behind this inane change is to surpass Google Chrome in absolute version numbers; Mozilla is now targeting more and more younger users (who already stay clear of desktop browsers - the web to them means mostly mobile devices :( - or use the prevalent choice [Chrome] when they don't) who, in their naivete, may think a larger version number actually means a more recent/updated application (say, Firefox 110 vs Chrome 92). :whistle: If I'm not mistaken, that was Mozilla's main argument when, back in the day, they switched to the 6 to 8-week release cycle...

In all honesty, I'm not surprised by any of Mozilla's recent moves - their ship is sinking, they'll do any gimmick to keep it afloat for just a little longer... ;)

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the ridiculous version numbering nowadays, but I certainly hope Mozilla's ship isn't actually sinking!
That would be a great tragedy, and an indication that effectively Google Chrome and Edge (also now soon to be Chromium based of course) have finally permanently won the "browser war", and will permanently control all of the web's browsing technologies.
I'm sure you're right about "rapid release cycles" being all about "looking good".
In the "old days" a "version 10" for instance, would last for years, going to 10.1, 10,2, etc., with sub-increments even between them.
Nowadays there would probably be more than 20 full version increments where before the main version number would have only changed once!
:lol:
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...