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 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
7 hours ago, VistaLover said:

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).

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. I remember when DECT came to the USA, the American version was numbered DECT 6.0 . Was there a DECT 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0? Of course not - it's just that the then-prevalent cordless telephone technology used the 5.8 GHz band, and they wanted a version number greater than 5.8 so folks wouldn't think it was "worse" than the old 5.8 GHz phones! :rolleyes:

And of course, there's Micro$oft jumping from Windows 8 to 8.1 to 10, skipping 9 because some marketing genius thought the version right before "10" wouldn't sell (and Apple following suit with the iPhone going from 8 to "X") - and I rather suspect both are afraid to release a version 11 of their various products, so we'll be stuck with Windows 10 and iPhone X[insert random letters here to imply additional "coolness"] for quite a while.

But it would've been easier to just number FF versions by the year (as with Windows 95, 98, & 2000). The next release would just be Firefox 2020. Let Google beat that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is now an iPhone 11, but the argument is certainly valid with desktop OSX and Windows 10, which I suspect will be with us for the foreseeable future!
:)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Windows 10 was cursed (and worried about Windows 11 too?), wait for Windows 13! It will cause mechanical HDDs to explode during the live demonstration on MSFNBCNN as a RAID-80 array of them can't keep up with the loading of their own website in Chrome 3452.456.3451.414g.

The pundits will note how well Windows 2000 works on their 75 year old ThinkPads.

Edited by win32
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New build of Serpent/UXP for XP!

Test binary:
Win32 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.4.win32-git-20190921-d59ef8774-xpmod.7z
Win64 https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.4.win64-git-20190921-d59ef8774-xpmod.7z

source code that is comparable to my current working tree is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/UXP/commits/custom

NM28XP build:
Win32 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.8.0a1.win32-git-20190921-d59ef8774-xpmod.7z
Win64 https://o.rths.cf/palemoon/palemoon-28.8.0a1.win64-git-20190921-d59ef8774-xpmod.7z

Official repo changes since my last build:
- Don't assume Intel architecture for compiler optimizations on Linux/gcc. (b8a1f5770)
- Issue #1226 - Explicitly enable sse2 on x86_64 also. (18a2244f5)
- No issue - Add 360 Safeguard to DLL blocklist (d59ef8774)

My changes since my last build:
- Revert "Issue #1124: [Basilisk] Remove Dev Edition theme." (e58930693)

Edited by roytam1
  • Like 4

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...