I've not yet "needed" to convert a Manifest V3 back to a Manifest V2, but something tells me it isn't as easy as changing a "3" to a "2", lol.

XP can't properly read, decipher modern certs, even though the import was a success. It's just can't. No matter what format used.

As for Manifest V3 to  Manifest V2

https://docs.automationanywhere.com/bundle/enterprise-v2019/page/enterprise-cloud/topics/product-feature-lifecycle/switch_mv3_to_mv2_manually.html

6 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

All latest versions of these are Manifest V3 extensions and this browser doesn't do Manifest V3 extensions.

so the recently updated chrome extensions that work are still developed with MV2 ? 

I just can't believe these f******  at google will remove thousands of useful extensions from the store within 4 months

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/more-mv2-transition/

not only are they killing old browsers they also want to bury not so old hardware that runs W11 perfectly

https://www.ghacks.net/2023/08/07/microsoft-removes-44-intel-cpus-from-windows-11s-processor-compatibility-listing/

18 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Unsure if this will work or not and also unsure if MSFN allows publicly discussing how to modify extensions (I modify all of mine but I don't publicly share those modified versions).

So what license does the browser come with? Because if it's restrictive, then we have clear double standards on the forum (and you're in violation). Disallow kernel extensions, allow hacked web browsers.

24 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Unsure if this will work or not and also unsure if MSFN allows publicly discussing how to modify extensions (I modify all of mine but I don't publicly share those modified versions).

should not be of any concern if the extension source code was made available to the public. 

23 minutes ago, Dixel said:

As for Manifest V3 to  Manifest V2

That doesn't really help.  How do you generate the extension ID?

13 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

So what license does the browser come with? Because if it's restrictive, then we have clear double standards on the forum (and you're in violation). Disallow kernel extensions, allow hacked web browsers.

I actually agree.  It seems to be a fine line and the moderators have to decide amongst themselves which threads are shut down and which are not.

8 minutes ago, Milkinis said:

should not be of any concern if the extension source code was made available to the public. 

Was it, though? I'm not an expert so can't comment with certaintly, just read something along the lines no license means exclusive rights to the author. And posting how-to modify rather than modified extension may not necessarily be an issue. But consult the lawyer to be sure...

9 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

And posting how-to modify rather than modified extension may not necessarily be an issue. But consult the lawyer to be sure...

there are some open threads about the modified nvidia .inf files to get the GTX 970 and 980 to work on XP

 

16 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

It seems to be a fine line and the moderators have to decide amongst themselves which threads are shut down and which are not.

One interesting area - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_patch

Moderators here might be more afraid of Microsoft. 

19 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 It seems to be a fine line and the moderators have to decide amongst themselves which threads are shut down and which are not.

this mod is a little gentler than the other one who passed away, IMHO 6 users are better than 5  

28 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Disallow kernel extensions

I actually support kernel modification discussions.  I am unsure of the HISTORY behind why they are not allowed here at MSFN.  But also know the "can of worms" it legally brings upon MSFN.

I have been members of several "modification" forums over the years (I used to publicly share an "Adobe Reader LITE" complete with how-to instructions on how to create it yourself (I provide how-to instructions for 360Chrome also, I might add)).

I don't recall if that was WinCERT, RyanVM, etc.  There were, and I'm sure still are, several folks providing a LITE versions of Adobe Reader.

I actually STILL use my "modified" Adobe Reader.  I do have to occasionally download a "portable Foxit" or "portable Sumatra" for 'modern' PDFs but this still opens 99% of PDFs that I throw at it.

Microsoft clearly is/was against such programs as vLite, nLite, NTLite, WinReducerEx, et cetera.  But isn't/wasn't MSFN the "home" for nLite?  So MSFN clearly supports something that Microsoft does not.

Like I say, "a fine line".

 

16 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

One interesting area - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_patch

Reading through that I am reminded of how even us geeks with a Commodore 64 in the mid-80s knew how to create "cheats" for Pac-Man so that we had infinite lives instead of only three.  

9 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I actually STILL use my "modified" Adobe Reader.

so do I because the full version was too big back in the day.

I deleted the version Lite 10 and kept the Lite 9 

I know it's not longer necessary because Adobe offers a lighweight free edition 

this is my main pdf reader. https://www.haihaisoft.com/PDF_Reader_download.aspx

 

I'm guilty of posting a copy-paste of *.inf as well. Compiled binaries are surely more problematic.

Don't know why I bothered with Adobe for so long, well, maybe not technically for so long considering I don't read that much PDFs, but anyway, should've checked out alternatives sooner. Switched to PDF-XChange Editor and I'm happier, it even comes with a shell-extension so you can view PDF metadata in File Explorer.