360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

[NotHereToPlayGames]

You could try this  --  https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/downloads-overwrite-alrea/lddjgfpjnifpeondafidennlcfagekbp

[VistaLover]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Serpent v52 on Win10 -

At least in Serpent 52, that behaviour depends upon the user setting in

about:preferences#general => Downloads

The default is: "Save files to: Downloads" and that generates the behaviour depicted in your screenshot...

But when "Always ask me where to save files" has been selected (my preferred choice ), then when the browser is about to save a file inside a directory with a pre-existing file with an IDENTICAL filename, you are presented with a confirmation dialog where you're asked to confirm a file overwrite or, if you decline, you're back at the "Save As" window to type a new, custom/different, filename to save the new file under...

Edited February 28, 2023 by VistaLover
Added screengrab

[cmccaff1]

19 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I thought ALL web browsers did the auto-rename when you download the same file over and over.

Even older versions of Firefox do this auto-rename.  But not if you right-click and select save-as.

Yeah! It's the funniest thing...all of the browsers in your examples don't have an issue with that. I have been able to overwrite just fine with those, from my tests on 7/10. For some reason it's only been 360 that was giving me problems in that regard. It's not a big deal--it's just kind of weird.
What I mean is, when I go to overwrite a file in 360, instead of properly replacing the original file with the rewritten version, it creates a duplicate with a number next to it. Very strange. Mini, on the other hand, rewrites the file with no issues. Doesn't even give a prompt: it just does it!

I still think 360 is great...I'm keeping Mini around because it just works more 'common-sensely' for all my daily browsing needs. The only quirk I've noticed with Mini is it doesn't seem to let me go to a link from within a tab when I use the address bar--instead, it goes to the link from within a new tab created next to it. It seems every browser has a quirk of some kind, that takes a little getting used to. But as an XP user, I'm grateful for anything we can use at this point. Definitely thinking ahead to the future now, but so far XP still has life left in it.

Also, thank you for sharing the link to that extension!
To post it again, for others' reference: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/downloads-overwrite-alrea/lddjgfpjnifpeondafidennlcfagekbp

Edited March 1, 2023 by cmccaff1

[Mathwiz]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:45 PM, cmccaff1 said:

I still think 360 is great...I'm keeping Mini around because it just works more 'common-sensely' for all my daily browsing needs.

I found a Web application that runs in MiniBrowser (Chromium 87 based) but not in 360EE v13 (Chromium 86 based): Microsoft Teams.

I had to join a Teams meeting yesterday when I was working from home and didn't have any "modern" browsers handy on my Win 7 PC (I just never got around to downloading one), nor did I want to install Micro$oft's Teams app. I was about to give up and download a modern browser, but I decided to give MiniBrowser a try first since I have it on my PC for testing - and it worked! Kind of surprised to see anything where 87 is the minimum Chromium version.

Obviously no real need for MiniBrowser on Win 7, but XP/Vista users might find my discovery useful.

[cmccaff1]

1 hour ago, Mathwiz said:

I found a Web application that runs in MiniBrowser (Chromium 87 based) but not in 360EE v13 (Chromium 86 based): Microsoft Teams.

I had to join a Teams meeting yesterday when I was working from home and didn't have any "modern" browsers handy on my Win 7 PC (I just never got around to downloading one), nor did I want to install Micro$oft's Teams app. I was about to give up and download a modern browser, but I decided to give MiniBrowser a try first since I have it on my PC for testing - and it worked! Kind of surprised to see anything where 87 is the minimum Chromium version.

Obviously no real need for MiniBrowser on Win 7, but XP/Vista users might find my discovery useful.

That's very cool! Actually, it's funny that you bring this up because after some more testing, I've returned to XP. To be specific, I've settled on Server 2003 Enterprise (x64, SP2). I am going to try and keep this brief to avoid going too far off-topic, but after a lot of testing, I have found that I could be perfectly happy with 7 and 10 as options going forward. They have their quirks, but once you get used to them they're actually not bad at all. However, there is no denying XP is still my favorite OS by Microsoft; I'd call it their magnum opus, even. (7 is a close second, but despite better hardware support it still can't beat XP.)

I've tested XP x64 in the past, with good results...but the last time I actually used any flavor of 64-bit XP was way, way back in 2014. After a lot of research, I decided to give Server 2003 x64 a try, and I am absolutely blown away. It obliterates x64 7/10 on the speed front (and I mean completely obliterates them), and outperforms 32-bit XP SP3. It is a true 'thoroughbred' OS, built like a stud in all the right places...it trims out just the right amount of fat from standard XP and seems to be much more extendable, supporting more processors, more RAM, and much larger hard disks.

Based on my testing, nearly all of the programs I typically use work, and I won't go into a long list of them. I will note, for users of legacy IrfanView 4.44 (the last version to support 9x/ME/NT4/2K) and SDI (Snappy Driver Installer), that the 64-bit executables don't work. You will have to use the 32-bit versions. The x86 SDI executable seems to pick up the 64-bit drivers just fine.
(On another note, you'll also need to enable the hardware acceleration manually, as Server 2003 has it turned off by default.)

Server 2003 x64, to me, is the greatest version of the greatest Microsoft OS, a beast that can take the fullest advantage of your hardware provided you're using something XP-capable. (Of course, XP x64 SP2 is great, and for most it'll be more than enough.)

I appreciate you sharing your Mini Browser discovery...thank you very much!

P.S. As a final note for anyone who may be interested in trying Server 2003, the latest Mypal68 stable (68.12.5) and beta (68.13) are both working extremely well. If it helps, I keep the "layers.mlgpu.enabled"/"layers.gpu-process.enabled"/"layers.omtp.enabled" options set to 'false'. Turning off JavaScript also goes a very long way, when and where possible...but as long as you set the aforementioned options to 'false' in the about:config, your odds of a crash will decrease significantly whether JS is on or not.

I bring this up because Mypal68 is now considered by many (including myself) as the best modern XP browser, and while all of the other options are worth looking at and trying depending on your needs, Mypal68 is the perfect balance of speed/convenience (it uses less CPU/RAM than Mini Browser, while being just as functional in the basics...it also has no problems with overwriting files).

[AstroSkipper]

14 hours ago, cmccaff1 said:

P.S. As a final note for anyone who may be interested in trying Server 2003, the latest Mypal68 stable (68.12.5) and beta (68.13) are both working extremely well. If it helps, I keep the "layers.mlgpu.enabled"/"layers.gpu-process.enabled"/"layers.omtp.enabled" options set to 'false'. Turning off JavaScript also goes a very long way, when and where possible...but as long as you set the aforementioned options to 'false' in the about:config, your odds of a crash will decrease significantly whether JS is on or not.

I bring this up because Mypal68 is now considered by many (including myself) as the best modern XP browser, and while all of the other options are worth looking at and trying depending on your needs, Mypal68 is the perfect balance of speed/convenience (it uses less CPU/RAM than Mini Browser, while being just as functional in the basics...it also has no problems with overwriting files).

I can only agree with that! Mypal 68 was and is an interesting project with great potential. I hope that my expectations will really be fulfilled. 

[Jody Thornton]

51 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

I can only agree with that! Mypal 68 was and is an interesting project with great potential. I hope that my expectations will really be fulfilled. 

I'd say from a pure functionality and site compatibility standpoint, the 360Chrome Build 1300 is by far the best.  MyPal comes a very close second.

No disrespect to roytam1 and all of his efforts, but I think UXP inspired stuff has gone about as FAR as it can go.  My thinking is, a modern, usuable browser in 2023 MUST render the modern web as it is.  New Reddit, desktop Facebook, my Tangerine bank site, all need to render just as smooth and functionally as they would on the latest Chromium base.  You might say, "but I never go to those sites and I only browse stuff that adheres to established web standards", however, WebComponents and all of the Google-fied stuff needs to work now.  Otherwise it's niche at best.

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, Jody Thornton said:

I'd say from a pure functionality and site compatibility standpoint, the 360Chrome Build 1300 is by far the best.  MyPal comes a very close second.

Yes, in terms of site compatibility, 360Chrome 13/13.5 is still ahead at the moment. In Mypal 68, there are still many websites that do not work correctly.

1 hour ago, Jody Thornton said:

No disrespect to roytam1 and all of his efforts, but I think UXP inspired stuff has gone about as FAR as it can go.  My thinking is, a modern, usuable browser in 2023 MUST render the modern web as it is.  New Reddit, desktop Facebook, my Tangerine bank site, all need to render just as smooth and functionally as they would on the latest Chromium base.  You might say, "but I never go to those sites and I only browse stuff that adheres to established web standards", however, WebComponents and all of the Google-fied stuff needs to work now.  Otherwise it's niche at best.

You are basically right about the content. But I have to mention that I am a big, die-hard fan of UXP browsers. I will use New Moon 28 and Serpent as my main browsers for as long as I can. 

[VistaLover]

3 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

No disrespect to roytam1 and all of his efforts, but I think UXP inspired stuff has gone about as FAR as it can go.

... Actually, the ball has always been on upstream's court, i.e. MCP... Roy basically makes sure nothing "they" have coded conflicts with his stupendous efforts to maintain XP/Vista compatibility in his UXP forks - of course, genuine platform improvements have been committed to his UXP tree (by backporting stuff from Mozilla and others), but if it's webcompat you're mainly interested in, you'd be in fear of disrespecting MCP, not roytam1 ...

3 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

all need to render just as smooth and functionally as they would on the latest Chromium base.

... And that's exactly the crux of the issue: Due to Google's browser monopoly, ALL sites "that matter" are being tailored to work best on latest Chrome  ...

3 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

however, WebComponents and all of the Google-fied stuff needs to work now.

WebComponents+CustomElements have been fixed to work in the UXP builds released by Roy yesterday ; but sites/Google will always be several steps ahead UXP wrt Web Compatibility  ; currently, several of "my" sites are broken due to "??=" (nullish coalescing assignment) ...

Regards

Edited March 5, 2023 by VistaLover

[Mathwiz]

6 hours ago, Jody Thornton said:

I think UXP inspired stuff has gone about as FAR as it can go.

What @VistaLover said.... but let me add that in the long run, I think it's the opposite! At the moment MiniBrowser (Cr 87 based) leads the pack in rendering the modern Web on pre-Win 7 systems, but I have very little hope of ever seeing a browser based on Cr 88 or later for Vista, let alone XP. Even the Chinese have moved on to Win 7.

UXP is still behind 360EE v13/MiniBrowser, lacking dynamic module imports, that worthless ??= Googlism (as I've said before, some Googlisms are quite useful, but this one does nothing that can't easily be done without it: A??=B is clearly equivalent to A=A??B), and I'm sure several other things I've forgotten. And UXP will undoubtedly always be behind, because MCP doesn't have a partnership with Google like Mozilla does. (And they don't want one either, and I don't blame them. I see no reason to develop a browser platform that is just Cr under another name, which is what FF has become.)

But here's the difference: Unlike 360EE, MiniBrowser, et al., UXP is still being developed. So, as long as it can be back-ported to XP and Vista, it keeps those OSes "in the game." (Although there are other challenges to those older OSes - I recently started a thread on OAuth2-compatible email clients for them. There are a few that work, but none are really acceptable at present.)

[msfntor]

11 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

that worthless ??= Googlism

TEST page of the nullish coalescing assignment (x ??= y) operator:  https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Nullish_coalescing_assignment#syntax

Expected to perform well in this test are our forks: MiniBrowser, 360Chrome 13.5 and 360Chrome 13 (result: > 50 > 25).

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by msfntor

[AstroSkipper]

22 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

I recently started a thread on OAuth2-compatible email clients for them. There are a few that work, but none are really acceptable at present.)

With all due respect, I see it a bit differently, and your statement (underlined by me) does not describe the situation correctly. There are two email clients that work with Windows XP and Vista and can handle app password or Oauth2. And MailNews in particular. For me, it's completely sufficient. Its Oauth2 protocol works great with Gmail. It should be mentioned that not everyone needs a Microsoft 365 account in pre-Win 7 systems.  And its light web version Outlook.com works flawlessly in MailNews. And that means MailNews (and even DreamMail Pro) are more than acceptable in any case, especially for such old OSs like XP and Vista.  Additional support of Microsoft 365 would be great, of course, even if I had nothing to gain from it. 

PS: Sorry for being off-topic here, but a reply to a comment can already cause something like this. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[VistaLover]

2 hours ago, msfntor said:

Expected to perform well in this test are our forks: MiniBrowser, 360Chrome 13.5 and 360Chrome 13

Yes , because "??=" was first implemented in Chromium 85; 360EEv13.x are based on Ch86 and Kafan MiniBrowser on Ch87; but, I suppose, most members here already know this piece of info ; "we" are indeed lucky "we" still have the above forks in "our" arsenal , but, it's easy to realise, "our" luck under XP/Vista32 will run out when Google push out something working only on Chrome88+ ("we" already are hands-off from MV3 extensions ) ...

Kind regards

[msfntor]

4 hours ago, VistaLover said:

Kind regards

Much appreciated @VistaLover, the same kind regards to you...

[UCyborg]

6 hours ago, VistaLover said:

Yes , because "??=" was first implemented in Chromium 85;

Which was released in August 2020, a long time ago in IT world.

20 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

I see no reason to develop a browser platform that is just Cr under another name, which is what FF has become.

I don't think Firefox would look like it does today if that was the case. It's not a Chromium fork.

Edited March 6, 2023 by UCyborg