You have more control with ReBase. Seems MinGW's linker uses hash of DLL name by default, similarly to LiBase, at least according to this, though I didn't bother to dig into the source code, which I'd have to find first. Was software as complex as modern web browser a thing in the old days?

I'd have to jump through the hoops all over a second time, but I don't seem to recall LiBase even "working" on my system.

I had to use ReBase and experiment with the actual start address.  Whereas LiBase had no option for start address (that I recall).

Just now, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'd have to jump through the hoops all over a second time, but I don't seem to recall LiBase even "working" on my system.

I had to use ReBase and experiment with the actual start address.  Whereas LiBase had no option for start address (that I recall).

I trust you and only do what you enjoy and we're happy you share your project with all ove us. 

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Whereas LiBase had no option for start address (that I recall).

Yeah, the point of it is to pick address on its own, calculating it from the DLL file name hash.

Edit: actually, the starting address can be specified in the INI file, then the actual address will usually be somewhere above that address, depending on the name. I'm not sure, maybe with certain name it would end up at the same spot as starting address. Both LiBase and ReBase support rebasing multiple DLLs at once, so then multiple DLLs would end up somewhere above specified address - ReBase puts first DLL at the specified starting address and the rest of DLLs after the first DLL one after another, LiBase should guarantee they end up above that address and separated between each other at least as much specified in the INI, the default setting of 1 MB is definitely not guaranteeed to work correctly with larger DLLs ( > 1 MB).

If you didn't get INI file in downloaded ZIP of LiBase, you can re-download, I've re-uploaded it sometime after initial upload. Though it's possible to figure out what options are read from the INI by reading the source code.

Edited January 6, 20233 yr by UCyborg

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

If you didn't get INI file in downloaded ZIP of LiBase, you can re-download, I've re-uploaded it sometime after initial upload.

Got it, thanks.

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'd have to jump through the hoops all over a second time, but I don't seem to recall LiBase even "working" on my system.

I had to use ReBase and experiment with the actual start address.  Whereas LiBase had no option for start address (that I recall).

@Humming Owl lets the user perform the rebasing by a batch file. In his uploaded archives, for example https://archive.org/download/360EE_Modified_Version/360EE_v13.0.2310.0_Rebase.7z, you can find the file libase.ini with the following code:

[Configuration]
StartBase=0x60000000
BaseSeparation=0x00100000
IgnoreCase=1

[Generated bases]
62a00000=CHROME.DLL
6da00000=CHROME_CHILD.DLL

As you know, the file chrome_child.dll doesn't exist in 360Chrome v13.5, so forget about that command. It's only necessary, for example, for 360Chrome v11. He made the libase.ini file universal for all versions, at least I think so.
Anyway! Libase worked without any problems in my case, so there was no need to use Rebase from Microsoft.

Edited January 6, 20233 yr by AstroSkipper

<OT Rant>

So here I am, minding my own business, doing my own thing, experimenting with chrome.dll, and BAM, I'm hit in the face with a d@mn "update available" POS nag screen!

So now I'm diverted from the project-at-hand (chrome.dll) and have to experiment with Process Hacker instead, which was NOT my plans for the day!

edit - and no "do not check for updates" preference setting anywhere to be found!  in other words, built-in automatic PHONE-HOME TELEMETRY!

Preferring to be working on chrome.dll, I did not experiment with Process Hacker for too long.

But the d@mn POS nag screen INFURIATES ME BEYOND NO END!

So, without further adieu, I present to you a Process Hacker version without the d@mn "update available" POS nag screen.

There may be others, or even "newer", but this was my FIRST guess and it does NOT have the d@mn POS nag screen  --  v2.19.

Available here  --  https://sourceforge.net/projects/processhacker/files/processhacker2/

</OT Rant>

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by NotHereToPlayGames

16 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

<OT Rant>

So here I am, minding my own business, doing my own thing, experimenting with chrome.dll, and BAM, I'm hit in the face with a d@mn "update available" POS nag screen!

So now I'm diverted from the project-at-hand (chrome.dll) and have to experiment with Process Hacker instead, which was NOT my plans for the day!

edit - and no "do not check for updates" preference setting anywhere to be found!  in other words, built-in automatic PHONE-HOME TELEMETRY!

Preferring to be working on chrome.dll, I did not experiment with Process Hacker for too long.

But the d@mn POS nag screen INFURIATES ME BEYOND NO END!

So, without further adieu, I present to you a Process Hacker version without the d@mn "update available" POS nag screen.

There may be others, or even "newer", but this was my FIRST guess and it does NOT have the d@mn POS nag screen  --  v2.19.

Available here  --  https://sourceforge.net/projects/processhacker/files/processhacker2/

</OT Rant>

I use Process Hacker 2.39.124 for years. Since there is no update for this version anymore, I never saw any annoying "Update available" nag screens again. 

But that version "phones home" (ie, TELEMETRY) at least once a week (that's the only time period I checked).

You can witness this by setting your clock forward eight days then watching DNS traffic when you launch Process Hacker.

I personally try to avoid any-and-all of these "hidden" types of network traffic.

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But that version "phones home" (ie, TELEMETRY) at least once a week (that's the only time period I checked).

You can witness this by setting your clock forward eight days then watching DNS traffic when you launch Process Hacker.

I personally try to avoid any-and-all of these "hidden" types of network traffic.

You don't have a firewall ?

24 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But that version "phones home" (ie, TELEMETRY) at least once a week (that's the only time period I checked).

You can witness this by setting your clock forward eight days then watching DNS traffic when you launch Process Hacker.

I personally try to avoid any-and-all of these "hidden" types of network traffic.

When I click to check for updates manually, I always get an error message. Anyway! You can block it with your firewall. I use Windows10FirewallControl XP.

I already have it blocked via firewall.  I still prefer software versions that don't contain such telemetry to begin with.

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I already have it blocked via firewall.  I still prefer software versions that don't contain such telemetry to begin with.

Of course.

I've Process Hacker version 2.23. NEVER nag screens. And it's last version with nice System Information View, before all .. that's the reason I've stuck with this version, for many many years now... but "Users" tab is not clickable (tab pushes down, but nothing happens, is empty, show nothing), I don't know why...

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by msfntor

Isn't there a checkbox to turn off update checks in Process Hacker? I use 2.39 as rarely as XP, moved on to newer nightly builds on Win10 years ago. Apparently it was renamed to System Informer few months back (https://twitter.com/systeminformer), which I haven't updated to yet.

On 1/2/2023 at 9:46 PM, msfntor said:

My settings in DCBrowser: Page zoom 110 %, Font size: Large. I use rather Dark Mode...but NOT on MSFN nor windowsxp forums....

In 360Chrome: Page zoom: 120%, custom font size: 12.

I don't mean the font size, it's okay.

The problem is the many different fonts that use the websites.
These are often not legible.

I try to change with fontreplacer as much as possible, but there are so many different ones.

How did you solve this problem?
And why do they look different at Firefox?