MyPal 68

[cmccaff1]

On 4/18/2022 at 8:21 AM, NoNameNeeded said:

I understand that Feodor actually plans to port Fx 68, 78 and 91 to XP and then provide updates etc. for the version that works best on XP.

Fx 68 is only the first step, according to Feodor.

 

 

I would have been perfectly happy with just 68, but I'm VERY excited that Feodor plans to try and take it further. Even if they don't run as fast, it would be wonderful to have 78 & 91 working because of the extra web compatibility we would get as a result. Depending on how powerful their processor(s) is/are, some users probably won't notice a big speed difference between the older & newer Fx versions.
If you're like me and still using an old 2.8GHz Pentium D (or something else from that era), it'll become more apparent, but even then I'll try to keep the faster versions of these browsers around and use the newer ones when and where necessary.
After lots of trial and error, I'm currently using Feodor's old Mypal 29.3 as my primary browser for most websites, 360EEv11 for others, and others for experimental purposes (Feodor's latest Mypal68, a roytam1 browser [New Moon, Serpent, Firefox 45ESR, etc.], newer 360EE versions, and even classic ones like Netscape or Presto Opera to mess around with for viewing really old websites and some very basic web surfing).

On 4/18/2022 at 1:24 PM, grey_rat said:

68 is the fastest version of the browser. 78 and 91 are much slower. In 69+, some features are removed.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's true...Mypal68 is running EXTREMELY well so far on my Pentium D. It uses a little more RAM than 360, but seems to work as fast if not faster for many sites. One really nice advantage it has over 360 is a better download engine. Let's say you want to overwrite one file with another...if you try to save it under the same name, it creates a clone, but Mypal (as with the other Mozilla-core browsers) properly overwrites and replaces the file. This is one reason I've been keeping Mozilla-core browsers like Mypal, Firefox, Serpent & New Moon around...they're very stable in general, but they do the little things right that some other browsers don't.

[XPerceniol]

20 hours ago, cmccaff1 said:

I...but I'm VERY excited that Feodor plans to try and take it further. Even if they don't run as fast, it would be wonderful to have 78 & 91 working because of the extra web compatibility we would get as a result.

Agreed! I Wish him good luck going forward. 

[AstroSkipper]

It has already been reported that uBlock Origin doesn't work in Mypal 68 at the moment. I tried several versions and couldn't install any of them too. But I found an interesting alternative adblocker working in Mypal 68. It's AdBlocker Ultimate and works without any problems. I'm fine with that.  Here is a link: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/adblocker-ultimate/ . You can use the latest version 3.7.16.

And @feodor2, my compliment for your great work! I am really impressed by the performance on heavy loading web sites in this early state of development.

Kind regards, AstroSkipper

Edited April 24, 2022 by AstroSkipper

[Jody Thornton]

8 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

It's already reported that uBlock Origin doesn't work in Mypal 68 at the moment. I tried several versions and couldn't install any of them too. But I found an interesting alternative adblocker working in Mypal 68. It's AdBlocker Ultimate and works without any problems. I'm fine with that.  Here is a link: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/adblocker-ultimate/ . You can use the latest version 3.7.16.

And @feodor2, my compliment for your great work! I am really impressed by the performance on heavy loading web sites in this early state of development.

Kind regards, AstroSkipper

Hmmm, I was able to get uBlock Origin working, even with my custom filters.  Now I am testing it on Windows 8.  I wonder if there's a caveat there.

I have another extension, RSSPreview, that does not work though.

[UCyborg]

uBlock Origin 1.42.4 seems to work fine here as well (XP x64).

I noticed Firefox add-ons site doesn't let you find add-ons which current version is no longer compatible with the browser you're using unless you spoof the user agent with the newer version or access the particular add-on page directly (eg. via search engine), where there's a link to access the older versions of the add-on.

Edited April 24, 2022 by UCyborg

[Dietmar]

I just notice,

that with the new Quantum browser 68.12.2b

download and upload on XP SP3 are about 6% faster than with Firefox 52.9.0 .

Ping is the same

Dietmar

[AstroSkipper]

Quote

 Feodor2 commented 7 days ago

New information: ublock fails on older without sse3 cpus and winxp, but good on vista+ cpu whatever - needs further investigations.

In my computer is only a SSE2 cpu working. uBlock Origins fails to install as reported above. I quoted @feodor2's comment to issue #9. In case of uBlock presumeably only people using older computers like me are affected. Generally I think it's an early state of development and addon support is still immature at the moment.

Edited April 25, 2022 by AstroSkipper

[XPerceniol]

Hmmm ... will have to give this another go then seems like.

[AstroSkipper]

Here is a tip how to get completely rid of an installed addon in Mypal 68:
1. You have to find out the extension ID of that addon. Click Help -> Troubleshooting Information. In section Extensions you can copy the related ID.
2. Under Tools -> Add-ons remove the problematic addon.
3. Close browser.
4. Go to your profile folder and open the file extensions.json in a good editor like Notepad++ which supports highlighting of brackets. 
5. Search for the extension ID and delete its complete string from {"id": to "location":"app-profile"} curly brackets inclusive. Each extension begins and ends with these curly brackets. Between two different extensions may be only one comma.
6. Now delete in subfolder extensions related xpi file and its staged folder if existent.
7. Now start your browser, open Add-ons and you'll see the problematic addon has gone completely.

Kind regards, AstroSkipper

Edited April 24, 2022 by AstroSkipper
addition

[UCyborg]

Just now, AstroSkipper said:

Here is a tip how to get completely rid of an installed addon in Mypal 68.

Right, I actually wanted to write removing extensions doesn't work properly, but forgot. Since you already wrote about it, I may add references to the add-on may also remain in prefs.js, extension-preferences.json and extension-settings.json (maybe it only really remains in ONE of the latter two files, not sure), plus there's also extension's storage folder under storage\default\moz-extension+++*.

No idea how to identify the correct folder, it may be guessed by other extensions' accessed/modified date of files in their respective subfolder...

[AstroSkipper]

On 4/24/2022 at 6:56 PM, UCyborg said:

Right, I actually wanted to write removing extensions doesn't work properly, but forgot. Since you already wrote about it, I may add references to the add-on may also remain in prefs.js, extension-preferences.json and extension-settings.json (maybe it only really remains in ONE of the latter two files, not sure)

Thanks for your complement!  But to get manually rid of an addon (remove function doesn't work properly, indeed), the file extensions.json is the most important. The other files prefs.js, extension-preferences.json and extension-settings.json contain only preferences and settings, and do not harm i.e. can be left there. Cleaning these files isn't necessary, and for a lot of people it is simply too complicated, I think.

On 4/24/2022 at 6:56 PM, UCyborg said:

plus there's also extension's storage folder under storage\default\moz-extension+++*.

No idea how to identify the correct folder, it may be guessed by other extensions' accessed/modified date of files in their respective subfolder...

In folder storage\default\moz-extension+++* the symbol * is a string of numbers and letters until ^userContextId=. For example ee6c8d43-8548-44cf-8b7a-f045e5a7edd9 is relating to adblockultimate@adblockultimate.net. Where do I get this information from? Simply open site about:config and search for this string! In Preference Name extensions.webextensions.uuids you'll find the answer.

Cheers, AstroSkipper

Edited April 26, 2022 by AstroSkipper

[Eclectic]

I use windows XP pro sp3 x86, though I came across a post by someone who states that he has enabled MyPal68 to work on Windows 2000, though I don't use windows 2000 and am unable to verify whether MyPal68 will work on 2000 or not I will share the link for the benefit of those who want to try modifying the mozglue file as indicated in the link and test it on 2000 ,so here is the link:

modified mozglue file and claims MyPal68 will work on Windows 2000
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&p=1059912

I hope the information in the link will be interesting and helpful to someone.

[UCyborg]

I got around playing with media.ffmpeg.hwacc_type setting mentioned in the release notes, it's supposed to enable HW video decoding through either CUDA and DXVA. Both crash. I wonder if it actually works for anyone.

[grey_rat]

UCyborg, this is still being done. May be in beta 3. http://forum.ru-board.com/topic.cgi?forum=2&topic=5894&start=240#11

If have a new Intel processor, try installing uBlock 1.32.2 https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/3699732/ublock_origin-1.32.2-an+fx.xpi

[AstroSkipper]

Here are my experiences with Mypal 68 until now.
Windows XP Professional with all POSReady updates is  installed on a very old computer with an Intel Pentium Northwood 2.80 GHz CPU (single core, 32 Bit), 1.5 GB SD-RAM and a NVIDIA GeForce 6200 graphic card.
My settings in about:config are:
dom.ipc.processCount -> 1
browser.tabs.remote.autostart -> false
That means I use the browser in single process mode only.
Running Mypal 68 with 5 extensions and one empty tab, it consumes 245 MB of RAM.
Running Mypal 68 with 5 extensions and three loaded tabs (Google, MSFN, Github), it consumes 349 MB of RAM.
For me, perfect values especially regarding my low hardware resources. Mypal 68 is working fine and flawlessly. The overall performance is perfect, cumbersome web sites are loading fast without permanent processor load as I always observe in roytam's releases.  I am totally happy, regarding the early state of development. Of course, a lot of functions are missing, (un)installing of extensions is not working properly and some sites fail to work as they should do, but anyway, for an early build very impressive. I'm looking forward to the next releases.

So long!

AstroSkipper

Edited April 29, 2022 by AstroSkipper