On 5/11/2024 at 2:10 AM, UCyborg said:

2574610432 bytes

Off-topic, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Why doesn't Micro$oft (or anyone else, for that matter) print huge numbers like that with commas (or periods for Europe) - or, since we don't really need to know the RAM usage right down to the byte - just abbreviate it to 2.57 GB? It's virtually impossible to quickly gauge the magnitude of a long string of digits like that - instead you have to stare at it and count digits from right to left! It's as if they've forgotten that computers were invented to do drudgery like that for us!

****

 

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira

Irrelevant!

"To each their own."

****

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira

Yes.  But at the same time both you and I are on Win10.

I will not, ever, "preach security vulnerabilities" because MOST are hype and propaganda.

I most especially "dislike" reading these "preaches" of "so-called" vulnerabilities on forums/browsers dedicated to OLDER OPERATING SYSTEMS.

****

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira

Chromium just tends to be the most popular for some reason. Security vulnerabilities are popping up all the time in it.

Regarding functional issues, more people using it, more combinations of things they click, more whining about banal things etc.

The number of open issues probably has a lot to do with how long each browser has been available. R3dfox has only been around for about 2 months. (This thread is only 4 pages long so far.) So it hasn't had much time to accumulate issue reports.

Also, I think it's harder to modify modern browsers to work on XP/Vista, at least without "help" from OCAPI or the Vista extended kernel, than it is to modify them to run on 7/8/8.1. Support for the latter was removed only recently, so there's not as much code to change - thus, not as much opportunity for Murphy....

Edit: Speaking of XP/Vista, I saw on the R3dfox author's Github page a project called R3dfox Classic, a fork of Waterfox Classic. No work has been done on it AFAICS, but the readme says it'll be an XP/Vista version, I assume using techniques similar to what @feodor2 does to make MyPal 68 work on XP.

Waterfox Classic was forked from FF 56, so if this comes to pass it'll probably look and act a lot like @roytam1's Serpent. The bad news, though, is that Waterfox Classic hasn't been updated since Nov. 2022, so there's a lot of catching up to do beyond making it XP compatible.

Edited May 28, 20242 yr by Mathwiz

****

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira

****

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira

What exactly would parallel downloading do?

****

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira

****

 

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira

On Mon Jun 03 2024 (GMT+0000) at 6:44 AM, Sampei.Nihira said:

When you download a file, the browser with the parallel downloading feature enabled will divide the file into small packets and download those small packets simultaneously.

Because of this, the download speed will increase.

network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server

The default value is (in my opinion) insufficient when compared to the downloading speed of a Chromium-based browser.

I meant to reply to this but I guess I forgot. I use HTTP Downloader if I want fast downloads, and with it I can see regressions even past 3 parallel connections.

****

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by Sampei.Nihira