r3dfox, a modern Firefox based web browser for Windows Vista, 7, and 8!

[vinifera]

 

love the browser fork but this annoys the s*** out of me:

Quote

R3dfox naming will return with 134
Experimental Plasmafox 133 for Vista+
Release 132.0rc-2 for Vista+
Release 115.13.0esr for Vista+
Release 128.0-2

a freaking mess of sorting names and numbers and whatnot...

Edited December 1, 2024 by vinifera

[ED_Sln]

On 12/2/2024 at 5:22 AM, vinifera said:

a freaking mess of sorting names and numbers and whatnot...

So Firefox now also has three supported versions at once, 115 ESR, 128 ESR, 133. And in the description of Plasmafox it is written that it is a night build, for tests, that's why it has a different

name to distinguish it.

[dapgo]

On 12/1/2024 at 11:22 PM, vinifera said:

 

love the browser fork but this annoys the s*** out of me:

a freaking mess of sorting names and numbers and whatnot...

I agree, it can be obvious for firefox powerusers, but without explanations it will be confusing for basic Firefox users.

For many people terms as SSE, IA32,ESR, or RC are just cryptic, we should not save characters omitting info or explanations.

Edited December 18, 2024 by dapgo

[Jody Thornton]

I've completely switched over to r3dFox ESR 128.4 on Windows 8.  (I was going to deploy my Windows 10 LTSC 2019 box, but I still love Windows 8).

I'm just curious as to when the next release of ESR 128 will arrive. (no pressure @K4sum1  )

 

[K4sum1]

I probably won't make a 134 or a true new version for a while, but I figured I would update ESR since that's a simple rebase.

I fired up the ESR VM, and apparently I made a 128.5 and never published it. I don't remember if there was something wrong or if I just forgot I did it. I guess I'll just rebase to latest 128 ESR and build that and see what it's like.

[K4sum1]

https://github.com/Eclipse-Community/r3dfox/releases/tag/v128.6.0

[grey_rat]

Win 7, r3dfox 128, eeePC 900 (CPU 900Mhz, GMA 900).

 

[Guest]

@grey_rat

Hi, I noticed from your video that you have a small cosmetic filtering flaw in uBlock Origin.

[grey_rat]

1 hour ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

@grey_rat

Hi, I noticed from your video that you have a small cosmetic filtering flaw in uBlock Origin.

Maybe I made mistakes. This is an experiment to see how it will work on a very slow computer.

1GB is not enough for new Firefox. Only MyPal or Serpent in one process

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, grey_rat said:

Maybe I made mistakes. This is an experiment to see how it will work on a very slow computer.

1GB is not enough for new Firefox. Only MyPal or Serpent in one process

No errors.
One list of filters probably needs to be selected rather than others.

[grey_rat]

I disabled most of the filters to make the browser work faster

[Guest]

If you don't have any ads list (not even the basic uBO list) you need to include at least this custom list:

https://filters.adtidy.org/extension/ublock/filters/2_optimized.txt

web pages load faster.

[grey_rat]

Thank you, I'll try to use it. On too heavy sites I still have to block manually, example

[NotHereToPlayGames]

17 minutes ago, grey_rat said:

I disabled most of the filters to make the browser work faster

I have the opposite experience.  The broswer is FASTER if you have the correct combination of lists.  Technically, I don't think I've ever witnessed even the "wrong" combination making the browser "slower".

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, grey_rat said:

Thank you, I'll try to use it. On too heavy sites I still have to block manually, example

Yes,I see that you use local dynamic filtering (so as you rightly wrote manual x website).

It is too bad that uBlock Origin Lite is no longer available for Firefox,it would have been interesting to check at the full filtering (on MSFN) which fills the gap I wrote in the opening of my post if it is lighter on your PC than uBlock Origin.