My Browser Builds (Part 5)

[NotHereToPlayGames]

[roytam1]

4 hours ago, VistaLover said:

... The time is now Sat May 16th 2026, 18:00 GMT and I'm experiencing severely throttled download speeds  : 

Is this something on my end or server-side? My current IP is 46.12.xx.xxx  ...

maybe someone is mass-downloading in the moment. you may try again to see if problem persists.

[roytam1]

(dup)

Edited May 16 by roytam1

[user57]

not every server offers 500mbit/s

often they also have a limit they can offer, therefore they often limit a speed per user

sometimes the executable also dont reach a such speed, a browser is a executable

if a ISP has a own test server this server might be from the ISP itself or one choosen by them

while others dont reach that speed either, having 500 of 500 mbit available is a lot

when i had 16k in the past i only reached about 12 k in the speed test

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Agreed.  All I knew was that it was SO DANG *FAST* that I had no way of visually catching the speed.

I'll have to check out the referenced Netmeter 1.1.4.

 

[Ben Markson]

6 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'll have to check out the referenced Netmeter 1.1.4

For earlier OS . . . https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/netmeter.html
 1.1.4 is/was for XP/2003/08/Vista/Windows7

Later version . . . http://metal-machine.de/readerror/netmeter-evo
 2.2.0 is for Windows Vista or newer OS (64-bit only)

It's stupidly light-weight and gives a simple real-time visual of network activity.

This is a picture of downloading from o.rthost.win . . . there's more traffic shown but it's too small to see with the graph having just peeked at 189.30 Mb/s . . . it's not that usual to see such high bandwidth coming from the internet.

Ben.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I guess it (NetMeter) is really just as useless as System Informer's network graph.

Sure, you can see (even in System Informer) the SPIKE when I downloaded THREE files from roytam's site.

But it really says NOTHING about the actual download speed of those three files.

Only that they were downloaded SO FREAKISHLY FAST that they are nothing but a "blip on the radar".

And I couldn't even click three downloads in a row fast enough to try to bottleneck the download speed.

Edited May 17 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Ben Markson]

45 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But it really says NOTHING about the actual download speed of those three files.

There's my speed . . . 189.30 Mb\s. Which seems pretty clear.

Your graph has a mysterious 20 MB but I don't know what that means.

I actually find the meter more useful on slower downloads as it allows me to see the progress of a download while I focus on something else – the image I posted is the full size (and can be made much smaller) of the meter. The problem I have with system monitors is that they tend to take up huge amounts of space and want to show me all sorts of other measures besides just network activity.

I'm going to stop wasting @roytam1 's bandwidth now.

Ben.

PS. And thanks for posting with proper forum images instead of imgur images that all show as "Content not viewable in your region" for me.
 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

lol on roytam's bandwidth, I was thinking the same when I downloaded three files that I won't actually even use.

Agreed on proper forum images.  I "hate" folks that use hosting sites just to attach a TEMPORARY image (because I will delete from my profile at some point).

Others prefer the hosting sites because we all have such a very tiny amount of storage that we end up with "broken" discussions when we delete for future attachment.

The 20 MB is the value of the peak.  When something results in a higher reading, the 20 disappears and the newer peak is displayed instead.

20 MB/s = 160 Mbps.

But that PEAK is really nothing more than the same useless datapoint as your PEAK.

Files this (relatively) SMALL can't really be measured accurately, the download is TOO FAST.

Not all three files dowloaded at that speed for the duration of the download.

And it seems that for both of us, the download is so tiny that it completes in LESS THAN one second, so a "per second" measurement is skewed by measurement precision.

ie, if that speed is only measured ever 500 milliseconds and the download only took 400 milliseconds, then the graph method can only show 500.

Exaggerating for illustrative purposes, but anywhoo...

[LordGarfio]

Browsec VPN v3.16.16.2 Unofficial Add-on for Firefox v52.9.0 ESR
Windscribe VPN v0.1.61 Add-on for Firefox v52.9.0 ESR
https://www.upload.ee/files/19357845/Palemoon_VPN_Add-ons_28.10.7a1.win32-git-20260509-xpmod.zip.html
https://nitroflare.com/view/F3DE3A647D7C04E/Palemoon_VPN_Add-ons_28.10.7a1.win32-git-20260509-xpmod.zip

Do the above mentioned plugins still work on PaleMoon v28 or Basilisk v52?

[roytam1]

Notice: next build will bring you libdav1d instead of libaom for AV1 decoding, not fully tested but looks like working from my limited testings.

[VistaLover]

On 5/18/2026 at 8:39 PM, LordGarfio said:

Browsec VPN v3.16.16.2 Unofficial Add-on for Firefox v52.9.0 ESR
Windscribe VPN v0.1.61 Add-on for Firefox v52.9.0 ESR
https://www.upload.ee/files/19357845/Palemoon_VPN_Add-ons_28.10.7a1.win32-git-20260509-xpmod.zip.html
https://nitroflare.com/view/F3DE3A647D7C04E/Palemoon_VPN_Add-ons_28.10.7a1.win32-git-20260509-xpmod.zip

Do the above mentioned plugins still work on PaleMoon v28 or Basilisk v52?

... I'm always puzzled by that type of a query ; both links you posted are currently live/valid, so, with respect, why can't you test yourself? Why do others have to test them for you?

In any case, both extensions (not plugins, BTW) belong to a "hybrid" type of an extension, in reality a WebExtension format inside a JetPack extension format; you can see for yourself, if you open the XPIs with 7-zip; as such, they may install under NM28, but they WON'T function as expected  (e.g., there's no way to even access their toolbar buttons) ...

I haven't tested with latest St52/St55, but they would install there and SHOULD work as expected ; from past recollection, Browsec only offers 4 free/anonymous nodes; unsure what the current state of Windscribe would be; many years ago already, they had disabled the "anonymous" free tier option (initially 2GB, then just 1GB of monthly traffic was allocated to a fresh extension install), now all versions of their extension require you to register an account with them; a valid/verified e-mail address will grant you 10GB of monthly traffic, on a limited subset of their nodes; but v0.1.61, being an ancient one, might've been blocked from connecting to their servers ...

PS: Please, don't confuse the official upstream apps with the roytam1 forks; use the terms New Moon 28 and Serpent 52 (55) for the latter; FYI, official Basilisk does not support WebExtensions...

[LordGarfio]

10 hours ago, VistaLover said:

... I'm always puzzled by that type of a query ; both links you posted are currently live/valid, so, with respect, why can't you test yourself? Why do others have to test them for you?

In any case, both extensions (not plugins, BTW) belong to a "hybrid" type of an extension, in reality a WebExtension format inside a JetPack extension format; you can see for yourself, if you open the XPIs with 7-zip; as such, they may install under NM28, but they WON'T function as expected  (e.g., there's no way to even access their toolbar buttons) ...

I haven't tested with latest St52/St55, but they would install there and SHOULD work as expected ; from past recollection, Browsec only offers 4 free/anonymous nodes; unsure what the current state of Windscribe would be; many years ago already, they had disabled the "anonymous" free tier option (initially 2GB, then just 1GB of monthly traffic was allocated to a fresh extension install), now all versions of their extension require you to register an account with them; a valid/verified e-mail address will grant you 10GB of monthly traffic, on a limited subset of their nodes; but v0.1.61, being an ancient one, might've been blocked from connecting to their servers ...

PS: Please, don't confuse the official upstream apps with the roytam1 forks; use the terms New Moon 28 and Serpent 52 (55) for the latter; FYI, official Basilisk does not support WebExtensions...

You assume wrong, I created and published those links, so it is normal that they are live.

I remember installing them and they worked properly, however not now, so that's why the question.

Normally, when you try to install something that is not appropriate, the browser notifies you and aborts.

So it is a hybrid extension that can be installed, but, as you explain, there is no way to even access the toolbar buttons, and it is only accessible from the plugin manager.

Plugins and Extensions have the same purpose, so they are assumed to be the same.

Yes, Windscribe still offers 10GB, but we are on "Windows XP" and we want it to run within the Browser temporarily.

Are there free VPN alternatives for XP and can they support Roytam1 browsers ?.

 

Thank you very much for the explanations.

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, LordGarfio said:

but we are on "Windows XP" and we want it to run within the Browser temporarily.

Do we really want this?  No. VPN in browsers is a slimmed-down and not really sensible solution. A system-wide VPN is the real deal.  I personally avoid those VPN extensions. And Windscribe is unfortunately crap. But TBH, there are dedicated threads here in the Windows XP forum with all necessary information about VPN. Keep in mind that all such browser extensions are old and no longer maintained for legacy browsers! Although updated very regularly, New Moon 28 and Serpent 52 are still very old browsers that are not really or not at all taken into account in the development of extensions. And in terms of VPN not at all. In any case, I would not install an extension in my perfectly adjusted and completely error-free browser that is obviously no longer compatible. Either you fix the extension yourself or it goes to the data graveyard.

Edited May 20 by AstroSkipper

[NotHereToPlayGames]