D.Draker Posted January 23 Posted January 23 11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Agreed. For me, it wasn't a matter of tweaking the OS. Rather, browsing the "modern" web in XP just became way way WAY too much of a WEEKLY HASSLE. I don't regret "learning experiences" from that HASSLE, but I for one have no regrests in finally ditching XP. But I still use an OS that has no "support" so I still qualify for all of the "older OS" threads, lol. What OS are you currently on? 1
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 23 Posted January 23 1 hour ago, D.Draker said: What OS are you currently on? LTSB 2016. It is possible that it qualifies for a "free upgrade" to LTSC which Microsoft still "supports" until October 2026, if memory serves. But mine is intentionally "stuck" at LTSB 2016. Maybe I shouldn't call it an "unsupported" OS, but I'm not that interested in making sure I dot the I's and cross the T's for MSFN posts, especially in light of all the "gotcha games" that go on behind the scenes.
D.Draker Posted January 23 Posted January 23 11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: LTSB 2016. It is possible that it qualifies for a "free upgrade" to LTSC which Microsoft still "supports" until October 2026, if memory serves. But mine is intentionally "stuck" at LTSB 2016. Maybe I shouldn't call it an "unsupported" OS, but I'm not that interested in making sure I dot the I's and cross the T's for MSFN posts, especially in light of all the "gotcha games" that go on behind the scenes. The OP asks strictly about Windows 7. Did you notice they behave differently? 2
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) Of course I noticed. And that is also why I said I'm not here to play "gotcha games" (which you excel at, I'm sure you are aware) [and I lack the discipline of preventing getting sucked in, working on that!, I'll call that "my problem" and not "yours"]. The thread was discussing (and I'm not going to reread to get the exact details, not interested in dotting I's and crossing T's), the thread was discussing something about time consumed to upkeep the OS. I threw XP and 7 in as an example. It was you that "made this about" me not running 7 (again, you do excel at "gotcha games", you're one of the BEST, take it as a "compliment" I suppose). Moving on... Unless the discussion reverts to uBO instead of "gotcha games"... 2 hours ago, D.Draker said: Did you notice they behave differently? Yep! I have to assume that you are referring to the different versions of uBO that have been discussed (differences which rely solely on uBO version, THE OS IS SEEMINGLY IRRELEVANT). I use v1.52.2 because I prefer the old style of being able to "purge" lists and I don't like the new "differential updates" methodology. Differential updates solves a server-side load issue. But ultimately, that is an issue that really does not pertain to actual functionality of uBO, we just need an updated list, the server load is not technically "our" problem. I'm okay with a list taking 20 seconds to update instead of 2 seconds to update. Purely hypothetical times of course, I've not really measured how long a list update takes nor compared full versus "differential". Let's tackle this next, if we shall, just what does the OS version have to do with anything at all regarding various uBO versions? Maybe I missed it because I admit that I've only used uBO for a little over a year or so. Thanks to MSFN folks for bringing my attention to it, as far as that goes. But I don't think uBO has ever had a version that work in 10 or 11 but does not work in 7. Again, maybe I missed it. Edited January 23 by NotHereToPlayGames
D.Draker Posted January 23 Posted January 23 12 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: It was you that "made this about" me not running 7 (again, you do excel at "gotcha games", you're one of the BEST, take it as a "compliment" I suppose). Thanks, from the bottom of my heart. You'll never regret skipping that pile of -rem- 12 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: THE OS IS SEEMINGLY IRRELEVANT. Let's tackle this next, if we shall, just what does the OS version have to do with anything at all regarding various uBO versions? No. it's not. There was some info about uBlock not working in CatsXP 132, but no problems on Win10. I tried myself, and it acts weird on 7 and Vista. Some ads aren't blocked, the browser is rather heavy on start. 3
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 23 Posted January 23 What version of uBO wasn't working in CatsXP? ie, was it a brand new version, still in "beta"? Or was it a "stable" version? Or was it one of the OLDER versions cited here for "faster yellow exclamation mark"? Seems we have conflicting data. We have some folks that thought they were running older versions because older versions work better, but that "work better" was not even noticed as "no longer working better" when uBO updated itself and the user wasn't even aware that uBO updated itself. How is that even possible? If the newer version is a performance drag, how can one not notice that the newer version auto-updated? NOT an indictment on the person citing such an auto-update! I personally LIKE running OLDER versions of my extensions. I'm not a fan of consuming time just to update, update, update. It's not just uBO where an OLDER version can be quantifiably measured as "faster" - NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. Bottom line is this, or so it seems - we all know what we want and seldom do threads like this change our already made-up mind. Okay, it's not exactly like that, lol.
D.Draker Posted January 24 Posted January 24 13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: What version of uBO wasn't working in CatsXP? ie, was it a brand new version, still in "beta"? Or was it a "stable" version? Or was it one of the OLDER versions cited here for "faster yellow exclamation mark"? Seems we have conflicting data. Yes, right the data is rather conflicting. Some on their forum say it did work them, some not, you have to remember, I also use French lists, visit from French IP, so the result for me will always be different! Versions, I tried several different, 1.62, for example.
D.Draker Posted January 24 Posted January 24 13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER C'mon, I already learnt it by heart, so as many, many others on this forum. xD But with uBlock, older simply stop working one day. For example, 1.48 doesn't suit my needs for a year or so.
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 24 Posted January 24 (edited) Seems to me that the reason that CatsXP has issues with uBO is because CatsXP has its own built-in ad and tracking protection. Embedded/built-in ad blocking is clearly interfering with uBO. Is that uBO's "fault"? I would submit "no". Not to sound like a broken record skipping back into the same groove over and over and over, browsers should just render web pages, they should not have added features and functions that have nothing to do with being a "browser". Maybe that can be a project for someone - DEBLOAT CatsXP and turn it back into a "browser". Mr. D.Draker, you yourself are smart enough to know that embedding an ad blocker or tracking protection is very SHADY and adds a level of "blind trust". Afterall, I think it was you (thanks again) that was the one to find 360Chrome's embedded DNS Resolver code - CatsXP's ad blocking and tracking protection WILL HAVE something similar, just nobody bothered to find it and is "blindly trusting" CatsXP. In my "not-so-humble" opinion... I mean, how many of us would use uBO and Privacy Badger and Ghostery and AdBlock Plus and whatever else there is and "expect" them all to "play well together". Don't most (if not ALL) ad-blockers tell you right up front to not use with other adblockers? Why would anyone do just that with CatsXP's embedded/built-in adblocker and "expect" them to "play well together"? Edited January 24 by NotHereToPlayGames
Tripredacus Posted January 24 Posted January 24 21 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: It is possible that it qualifies for a "free upgrade" to LTSC which Microsoft still "supports" until October 2026, if memory serves. It may depend on the SKU, there is no upgrade path on the IOT side although it is still technical possible to do it. I'm no expert on browsers, but I figure I can post what I am using in case it makes any difference. Windows 7 SP1 x64 Iron 109.0.5550.0 64-bit uBlock Origin 1.62.0
D.Draker Posted January 24 Posted January 24 13 hours ago, Tripredacus said: I'm no expert on browsers, but I figure I can post what I am using in case it makes any difference. Windows 7 SP1 x64 Iron 109.0.5550.0 64-bit uBlock Origin 1.62.0 You might want to consider a newer browser, 109 is simply too dangerous to use any further. Chromium's latest beta is at 135, a mesmerising difference. Stable is at v.134. https://www.techspot.com/downloads/4936-chromium.html There are only two rather serious options left for Vista/7/8. I don't suggest you the China made CatsXP, it's mostly for extreme riders like me. But Supermium is made by a guy from Canada, I'd assume it's safe to try, especially if you're that much dedicated to an OS many years out of support. From what we saw earlier, uBlock Origin can simply discard v.109 soon. 2
D.Draker Posted January 24 Posted January 24 21 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Mr. D.Draker, you yourself are smart enough to know that embedding an ad blocker or tracking protection is very SHADY and adds a level of "blind trust". Done, done and doner. 2
D.Draker Posted January 24 Posted January 24 21 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Mr. D.Draker, you yourself are smart enough to know that embedding an ad blocker or tracking protection is very SHADY and adds a level of "blind trust". Afterall, I think it was you (thanks again) that was the one to find 360Chrome's embedded DNS Resolver code - CatsXP's ad blocking and tracking protection WILL HAVE something similar, just nobody bothered to find it and is "blindly trusting" CatsXP. In my "not-so-humble" opinion... For some reason, multiquote doesn't want to work today, sorry folks. I already switched it off, disabled completely the embedded blocker. It's something they did in the Chromium's engine to prevent running on the old OS, 7 and 8 were the main target. And I bet uBlock Origin creator would't even bother to test on 7.
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 24 Posted January 24 I guess I'm more skeptic than you are. Disabling the embedded blocker, in my skepticism, is not enough! I've seen too many "disables" over the years that aren't 100% disables! More like 95% disables with embedded "favoritisms" applied to specific phone-home URLs that can not be disabled. I may investigate one of these weekends. But my very strong hunch is that CatsXP is not as "safe" and "private" as many believe it to be. I parallel it to Firefox and Iron. Many think those to be "privacy conscious" but IceCat is the only only only Mozilla Fork that I have stumbled upon that doesn't "phone home" at each and every launch. Most "privacy browsers" really are just marketing scams - tell a "soccer mom" that a salvage-titled vehicle is "safe" and poor ol' soccer mom will spend twice what it's actually worth.
D.Draker Posted January 25 Posted January 25 13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: I guess I'm more skeptic than you are. Disabling the embedded blocker, in my skepticism, is not enough! I've seen too many "disables" over the years that aren't 100% disables! More like 95% disables with embedded "favoritisms" applied to specific phone-home URLs that can not be disabled. I may investigate one of these weekends. But my very strong hunch is that CatsXP is not as "safe" and "private" as many believe it to be. I parallel it to Firefox and Iron. Many think those to be "privacy conscious" but IceCat is the only only only Mozilla Fork that I have stumbled upon that doesn't "phone home" at each and every launch. Most "privacy browsers" really are just marketing scams - tell a "soccer mom" that a salvage-titled vehicle is "safe" and poor ol' soccer mom will spend twice what it's actually worth. No, you aren't. Scepticism is relative, and in this particular case is hard to truly determine. I was pretty sure you knew, after 20 years of us here together, when I write "disable", you'd have to assume I didn't just turn it off via user allowed policies like @Sampei.Nihira oftenly suggests. I'll give you a hint, not sure if you need it though, I cut it out from resources.pak, you can do the same. Only after that, I added the uBlock from this topic.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now