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 browser builds (part 2)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

One weird thing I did discover, though was that v1.7.8.2019.01.21 removed the option to display the version number in the Add-On Manager screen :huh: so by updating Serpent 52 to the "latest" version, I lost that bit of info. Maybe I'll roll it back to 1.7.8 so I can tick that option back on; I like having my add-on version numbers visible at a glance

... You are developing a habit lately of not closely reading my posts (just kidding, of course! :D) :

On 11/12/2019 at 5:07 PM, VistaLover said:

If you're using the official Basilisk application on Win7+, then the latest CTR_v1.7.8.2019.10.27 is recommended; if, OTOH, you're using Serpent 52.9.0/55.0.0, then CTR_v1.7.8 is the last (EoS'ed) version for Serpent; the add-ons manager (AOM) is now different between Bk and St (Bk now uses PM's AOM with no support for WEs, while St retains FxESR52's AOM),

So, for both Serpent 52/55, CTR_v1.7.8 IT IS; CTR_v1.7.8.2019.10.27 applies to official Basilisk (on Win7+) and Classic Waterfox... ;)

2 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

I can't readily tell what was added between 1.7.7.2 and 1.7.8 et seq.

Should be possible to read posted fixes/changes in

https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/releases

after Classic Theme Restorer 1.7.7.2 and including Classic Theme Restorer 1.7.8 :)

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I did read that; I merely chose to ignore it!

Share this post


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

The author explained, "Basilisk 2019 and Waterfox don't need this option, because version number is active by default." If so, that would be a question for @roytam1: What is the difference between Serpent 52 and "official" Basilisk that accounts for this slight UI change? Inquiring minds want to know....

... But don't actually pay attention to what other people made the effort to post :(
... I did mention the reason in the part you chose to ignore:

On 11/12/2019 at 5:07 PM, VistaLover said:

the add-ons manager (AOM) is now different between Bk and St (Bk now uses PM's AOM with no support for WEs, while St retains FxESR52's AOM),

When MCP chose to remove WEs support from UXP and official Basilisk, it was a perfect chance for them to switch Basilisk's AOM (WebExAM) to the one present in Pale Moon (TychoAM) - PM's AOM dates from a pre-Australis era, has no support whatsoever for WEs and, as stated by Aris, displays addon version number by default.

But it was decided (by popular demand here) to keep WEs support in Serpent 52.9.0, that meant staying with the original AOM shipped with UXP, pretty much the same as the one in FxESR 52, which supports WEs but doesn't display addon version number by default (an additional legacy extension is needed for that, e.g. CTR).

In CTRv1.7.8.2019.xx.xx, Aris removed the .css code that enables the WebExAM to display addon version number (by selecting that option in CTR), since it's now a native feature of the TychoAM present in official Basilisk.

Please read for more info:

https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/UXP/commit/2cbbc5d
https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/issues/402
https://github.com/Aris-t2/ClassicThemeRestorer/issues/408

Regards

Addendum: Mozilla had intentionally removed the default display of AVN (addon version number) in the Australis[later WebExAM] AOM back in Firefox v40, when Bugzilla bug1161183 landed:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1161183

This was again an unnecessary move, a type of "chop head to get rid of headache" approach, since the bug originally wasn't about AVN per se...

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1161183#c10

Quote

can we just completely drop the version number from the list view? I don't think it's of much use there. For those few users who need it, it would remain in the details view.

Remember, that was back in 2015 and already Mozilla devs had an opinion on what is of use in the browser GUI to most users, the rest were deemed to be few... :realmad:

I guess @roytam1 would have to revert that bug in both Serpent 52+55 (which use WebExAM) for CTRv1.7.8.2019 to be used as wished by @Mathwiz; but I don't think it's needed (now me sounding like a Mozilla dev...): if one is adamant on installing CTRv1.7.8.2019 in Serpent (which, I emphasise, is maintained with only official Basilisk in mind!), may co-install the following legacy extension:

Version Number in Add-ons Manager 1.10 (by magicp), recoverable via CAA (caa:addon/addonvernumber)

(Hope this time post is NOT ignored... ;) )

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VistaLover said:

When MCP chose to remove WEs support from UXP and official Basilisk, it was a perfect chance for them to switch Basilisk's AOM (WebExAM) to the one present in Pale Moon (TychoAM) - PM's AOM dates from a pre-Australis era, has no support whatsoever for WEs and, as stated by Aris, displays addon version number by default.

But it was decided (by popular demand here) to keep WEs support in Serpent 52.9.0, that meant staying with the original AOM shipped with UXP, pretty much the same as the one in FxESR 52, which supports WEs but doesn't display addon version number by default (an additional legacy extension is needed for that, e.g. CTR).

In CTRv1.7.8.2019.xx.xx, Aris removed the .css code that enables the WebExAM to display addon version number (by selecting that option in CTR), since it's now a native feature of the TychoAM present in official Basilisk.

Detailed explanations are always my preference; thanks!

Of course I also understand why you might not have wanted to go into such detail the first time around. (It's too bad MSFN doesn't support a "spoiler" tag - that would have been a perfect use for it.)

(Note: henceforth I will use "AM" as my abbreviation for "Add-on Manager," so I can reserve "AOM" for "Alliance for Open Media" and its AV codec.)

So from the above, one can infer that NM 27, NM 28, as well as "official" PM and Basilisk, none of which support WebEx add-ons, all use the Tycho AM, which displays add-on version numbers without the assistance of an add-on like CTR.

OTOH, any browser supporting WebEx add-ons (Serpent 52/55, Firefox 52/53) by necessity must use the WebEx AM, which does not display add-on version numbers unless "coerced" to do so via an add-on such as CTR.

However, that little wrinkle aside, nothing seems to stop anyone from running the newer CTR versions on Serpent 52. At present I'm not aware of any "killer" features that would make this worth doing, but at least we can experiment!

Waterfox (Win 7 and 64-bit CPU required) would seem to be the oddball here, as it does support WebEx add-ons (as well as classic ones), so one would think it too would use the WebEx AM, and therefore wouldn't display add-on version numbers without CTR's "help." I must therefore conclude that the Waterfox folks developed their own fix for this issue. (Since it appears to be merely a .css issue, I suspect it was a rather simple fix.)

Share this post


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

(It's too bad MSFN doesn't support a "spoiler" tag - that would have been a perfect use for it.)

It's undocumented, but you can try this:

 

]spoiler[

]/spoiler[

and invert the parentheses.

Edited by win32
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Waterfox (Win 7 and 64-bit CPU required) would seem to be the oddball here, as it does support WebEx add-ons (as well as classic ones), so one would think it too would use the WebEx AM, and therefore wouldn't display add-on version numbers without CTR's "help." I must therefore conclude that the Waterfox folks developed their own fix for this issue. (Since it appears to be merely a .css issue, I suspect it was a rather simple fix.)

Of course, I can't deploy Waterfox in my Vista SP2 x86 laptop, but a targeted GitHub search reveals plenty :P :

https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/pull/566

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 11:03 PM, win32 said:

It's undocumented, but you can try this:

Thanks, but it's useless when it goes live (i.e. in your original post, I can only switch between "Hide contents" & "Reveal hidden contents" state, while the actual "content" is void); you need to document (pun intended!) this function by stating plainly the code to be used inside MSFN's post editor... ;)

EDIT: So it should look like this

[spoiler]
contents
[/spoiler]

which, when submitted, turns into 

 

contents

Thanks :thumbup

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, since you can't add code when editing a post, here it is:

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2019 at 11:13 PM, win32 said:

since you can't add code when editing a post

Sure you can:

BxXqHaf.jpg

Do you, by any chance, have the sidebar displayed? (Because for me, when the sidebar is ON and the tab content width shrinks, the "</>" button disappears from the MSFN post editor's header... :()

Edited by VistaLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VistaLover said:

If they're using DRM (with no Silverlight NPAPI fallback), then

1. Any version of Pale Moon (official 27.9.4 runs on Vista, official 28.x.x doesn't) or New Moon don't have any support for EME, DRM and the WidevineCDM needed to decrypt the DRM'ed streams.
2. If you're actually using the Serpent 52.9.0 fork, able to run on Vista, then I have seriously bad news to tell you: while St52 does support EME/DRM, the version of WidevineCDM it is compatible with is 1.4.9.1088; that version was revoked by Widevine licence servers (owned by Google) on Aug 13th, 2019.

There is a task underway by a Moonchild Productions developer to port support to latest official Basilisk for currently supported WidevineCDM v4.10.1440.19; this task is currently stalling due to real life issues affecting that developer; even if/when that attempt reaches fruition, it is a moot point for the Serpent fo

rk on Vista; new WidevineCDM dlls contain functions (actually, only one: TryAcquireSRWLockExclusive, Win7+) not compatible with Vista's kernel32.dll system file; as WidevineCDM is proprietary closed source code and Google don't support the CDM on Vista, there's practically 0 chance DRM services requiring WV will ever work again on Vista :realmad:

If Disney+ use DRM with WV, then, if you can, try Firefox Quantum 60.9.0/68.2.0 (with WV v4.10.1440.19) on a supported OS (Win7+); or the latest Chrome there; as I can't try D+ myself, I speculate your predicament is DRM related; if they don't employ DRM - highly unlikely - then some other member here (in the US, CA or NL) might throw some light...

PS: If you don't grasp some terminology in this post, Google is your friend (actually, in the above WV context, your foe... :angry: ).

Regards

Thanks for the reply. I will try on Windows 7, as I just could not get it working on Vista with any of the browsers found in this topic. 

11 hours ago, kitaro1 said:

LAV Filters installed? Directx 9.29 redist? All Visual C ++? Enable MP4 (H.264 + AAC) HTML5?

Server Disney + now works correctly in mypal, newmoon, basilisk.

Thank you, I did all of this and could not get it working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VistaLover, it turns out it was because I was at 100% zoom on my 1024x768 screen. It does appear when I zoom out a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest Flash (32.00.293) doesn't work with the latest Serpent 55 (2019.10.22). It does work with the previous Serpent 55 version (2019.08.18).

I tried a clean profile; same result.

Share this post


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

The latest Flash (32.0.0.293) doesn't work with the latest Serpent 55 (2019.10.22).
(snipped)
I tried a clean profile; same result.

Cannot reproduce here:

ZUQpukd.jpg

TKnw041.jpg

9hgFqa1.jpg

New clean profile of latest St55 (32-bit) on Vista SP2 x86 - NPAPI Adobe Flash properly installed systemwide:

Y7lgs6L.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very strange. The new version of Flash does appear to be correctly installed, and shows up on about:addons and about:plugins as installed and set to "Always Activate." Everything looks the same as the screen shots you posted above, except the "Check Adobe Flash Version" page, which shows blanks where the two Flash controls should be. Like you, I have Flash "protected mode" enabled.

Closing the latest Serpent 55 build and launching the previous build allowed the "Check Adobe Flash Version" page to run normally. The Flash animation and the version detection both worked as expected.

For the clean profile test, I was careful to make my clean profile the default and restart the browser. In the past I've noticed that the "Launch Profile in New Browser" button doesn't always do the job. Unfortunately, results were the same.

I also tried the same tests on Windows 7 and got the same results. Maybe it only works under Vista? (jk)

However, I am now home and about to try again. Be back soon....

Edit: I'm back. This is all on 64-bit Windows 7, BTW.

  • 2019.08.18 32-bit: works.
  • 2019.08.18 64-bit: works.
  • 2019.10.22 32-bit: doesn't work (same as on my work machine and on the XP VM). But it works on @VistaLover's PC.
  • 2019.10.25 64-bit: works!

I haven't tried a clean profile on this machine yet; BRB....

Edited by Mathwiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

2019.10.22 32-bit: doesn't work (same as on my work machine and on the XP VM).

Does the previous version of NPAPI Flash (32.0.0.270) work there? :dubbio:Of course, just a sample of two people (works for one, doesn't for the other) has no statistical value... :no:

Edited by VistaLover

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...