All browser for Windows XP/Vista (always being updated)

[asdf2345]

3 minutes ago, LoneCrusader said:

There's always room for improvement. I don't like some of the decisions the PM team have made, but they're far ahead of the other "main" choices.

Was just throwing out an opinion, since everyone else was doing so...lol

Main things that kill Pale Moon for me are no e10s, meaning the browser gets really slow, and no WebExtensions, which is what almost everyone programs extensions in.

[docR]

2 hours ago, asdf2345 said:

Main things that kill Pale Moon for me are no e10s, meaning the browser gets really slow, and no WebExtensions, which is what almost everyone programs extensions in.

It can definitely drag a bit compared to other browsers when subjected to script-ridden sites, but not the point of unreasonable. I mean it survives Google Photos and Docs save a stutter or two, so that's a feat in and of itself. I can play 1440p HTML5 streams and actually get away with fewer CPU cycles than Firefoxium. Multithreading improvements are an area for improvement I agree, but not necessarily with multiprocess. (uBlock Classic is ehhhh though, I found it hung the browser often. Their own Adblock Latitude with hardened list subscriptions added manually performs infinitely better)

Almost every program excluding Pale Moon. They forked from Firefox for a reason. Their objectives are clear, they have a roadmap, target audience, development looks sound, websites render fairly consistently and accurately. The extensions I like using aren't really feasible through webextensions. Many of these 'extensions' could just as well exist as userscripts. Cracking away at userChrome for skinning is a PITA (and almost certain to be sunsetted later, like all options that get shoved into about:config) I have 20 or so, and all are unique to PM, many based on old FF extensions. Some completely unique, but still designed with that XUL/bootstrap paradigm.

Biggest design principle I disagree with is lack of WebRTC. Not having to open Chromium or Firefoxium to make a WebRTC call would be nice.

(their forum can be a bit draconian at times. but newcomers on there do often ask some pretty stupid s*** that make even me grit my teeth)

Edited September 1, 2020 by docR

[Vistapocalypse]

3 hours ago, asdf2345 said:

Main things that kill Pale Moon for me are no e10s, meaning the browser gets really slow, and no WebExtensions, which is what almost everyone programs extensions in.

Assuming that Moonchild Productions has a future, they will probably abandon NPAPI and embrace WebExtensions in a future major version - but of course a future major version probably won’t be backportable (if that’s a word) because it won’t be based on Firefox 52. 

[docR]

7 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

Assuming that Moonchild Productions has a future, they will probably abandon NPAPI and embrace WebExtensions in a future major version - but of course a future major version probably won’t be backportable (if that’s a word) because it won’t be based on Firefox 52. 

With respect, you are terribly misinformed

[Vistapocalypse]

1 hour ago, docR said:

With respect, you are terribly misinformed

I didn’t realize it was possible to be terribly misinformed about the future. Are you saying that MCP will stick with FF 52–based UXP for another 5 years? Edit: Reviewing the thread reminds me that you do not regard Pale Moon as a Firefox fork, so your objection has been duly noted. It also looks like the OP of this thread is no longer with us.

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Vistapocalypse

[docR]

1 hour ago, Vistapocalypse said:

I didn’t realize it was possible to be terribly misinformed about the future. Are you saying that MCP will stick with FF 52–based UXP for another 5 years? Edit: Reviewing the thread reminds me that you do not regard Pale Moon as a Firefox fork, so your objection has been duly noted. It also looks like the OP of this thread is no longer with us.

 

Perhaps I wasn't very clear above, I do apologize. Of course it's a fork, I never meant to infer otherwise. What I meant is that it wasn't based directly on a particular version, as in not a static carbon copy. 52 was the fork-off point. And there have been CSS/js implementations unique to UXP that its fork-point, that being Firefox 52(.6?) lack. globalThis is one that comes to mind. (waterfox classic is similar, albeit less consolidated. its more of a transitional project to tide people over with old extensions)

Now of course, they are completely on their own from here on. No more shortcuts and cannibalizing newer Firefox engines with the 24 ESR UI.

v29 seems to be touching on more CSS and DOM properties, which is a good development sign. The commits are all public.

 

And yeah. It would appear we've scared the OP off -jk

[kasfruit]

Hi

I have seen a screenshot somewhere of the IE8 advanced properties with all TLS protocols 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 listed there

I have checked my IE8 settings and I only can see TLS 1.0....

what can I do to enable all other missing TLS protocols ????

 

[Vistapocalypse]

51 minutes ago, kasfruit said:

I have seen a screenshot somewhere of the IE8 advanced properties with all TLS protocols 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 listed there

I have checked my IE8 settings and I only can see TLS 1.0....

what can I do to enable all other missing TLS protocols ????

There’s an old thread Upgrading IE8 to TLS 1.2. Personally, I’ve only done that for IE9 on Vista. TLS 1.3 is not possible for your IE but is possible for Firefox 52.

[kasfruit]

9 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

There’s an old thread Upgrading IE8 to TLS 1.2. Personally, I’ve only done that for IE9 on Vista. TLS 1.3 is not possible for your IE but is possible for Firefox 52.

Thanks. can you help me out ?

the version 11 of the 360 explorer browser is based on chromium 69, the version 12 = 78 and the recent release 13 = 86

how is it possible that the same website is no longer supported by the most recent version ? (chrome settings are identical)

I have also checked out the Serpent browser @roytam1 and the TLS 1.3 certificate seems to be fine...

moreover I have installed the latest 360 browser on W7 trying to replicate this issue but everything was ok and the https was not striked out.

 

 

 

[Vistapocalypse]

I don’t use 360 Extreme Explorer myself, but without much difficulty I found a post by @ED_Sln that seems to explain: https://msfn.org/board/topic/178380-extreme-explorer-360-chromium-78-general-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=1180393.

Edit: I’m not running W7 either, but it must have systemwide support for TLS 1.3 now. (Too bad that can’t be done for XP or Vista: only TLS 1.2.)

Edited September 1, 2020 by Vistapocalypse

[ED_Sln]

10 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

Edit: I’m not running W7 either, but it must have systemwide support for TLS 1.3 now. (Too bad that can’t be done for XP or Vista: only TLS 1.2.)

No, even W10 doesn't support TLS 1.3. W7-10 has more types of encryption version 1.2 than XP and Vista, but 1.3 does not.

[jaclaz]

17 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

I didn’t realize it was possible to be terribly misinformed about the future.

Only for the record :

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict/

jaclaz

[Vistapocalypse]

15 hours ago, kasfruit said:

...moreover I have installed the latest 360 browser on W7 trying to replicate this issue but everything was ok and the https was not striked out.

 

Then upgrading IE8 (and therefore your system) to TLS 1.2 might help in some cases, depending on the cipher suite that is required.

[Dave-H]

Otter browser still has a version for XP, it works fine, but it's still very much a work in (very slow) progress.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/otter-browser/files/otter-browser-weekly333/otter-browser-win32-weekly333-xp.zip/download

[docR]

2 hours ago, Dave-H said:

Otter browser still has a version for XP, it works fine, but it's still very much a work in (very slow) progress.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/otter-browser/files/otter-browser-weekly333/otter-browser-win32-weekly333-xp.zip/download

Interesting. I always assumed they adopted Blink-based QtWebEngine to supersede QtWebKit, like Falkon did. Is WebKit even maintained outside Linux and macOS anymore? I think the GNOME Browser uses some variant of WebKit.