9 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

uBO 1.67 has no problems updating its filter lists in the Nightly 125.0.4. I also tried the Nightly 128.14.1 but too much errors and background activity under Windows XP. This version is more sluggish than 125.0.4. Uninstalled.

I keep using it for now. It's fast on my XP SP3 install. Much faster than New Moon.

(though I have to admit that this VM image sits on an SSD)

What kind of errors do you encounter?

Edited yesterday at 05:42 AM1 day by nicolaasjan

The speed comparison has nothing to do with VM and nothing to do with SSD.

You are comparing UWP to non-UWP.

UWP is painfully slow compared to "modern", be that modern Firefox or be that modern Chrome/Chromium.

Run that UWP New Moon in the same VM and on the same SSD, see for yourself.

3 hours ago, nicolaasjan said:

I keep using it for now. It's fast on my XP SP3 install. Much faster than New Moon.

(though I have to admit that this VM image sits on an SSD)

What kind of errors do you encounter?

As I’m using Windows XP permanently installed on old hardware, so to speak a real installation, I notice straight away whether software runs better or worse. Nightly 128.14.1 performs significantly more background tasks than 125.0.4, all of which, of course, end in errors, as this browser wasn’t designed for Windows XP. Broadly speaking, the higher the version, the more background faff. The Nightly 114.0.3 performed best in this respect as my self-created muzzle package had worked best there.

Edited yesterday at 09:46 AM1 day by AstroSkipper

True. But most here already know how to disable all of that background crap. Or at least I assume.

And by all means, I'd love for YOU ( @AstroSkipper ) to share (via screencap) your UWP quantifiable speed tests to your non-UWP quantifiable speed tests.

I myself really don't mind a little extra RAM consumption and process count if it also means FASTER. But I do submit that is up to each user to decide for themselves.

No Placebo Effect results allowed, obviously. Something quantifiably measureable and repeatable. ie, scientific and mathematic.

Before or after your background disables makes no difference to me, UWP is just slow, no matter what, plain and simple.

But sure, YOU are the scientific mathematician, let's see YOUR test results. To me, UWP is just a plain POS, nothing more, nothing less.

ie, I already have my test results, but sure, I'll concede to the notion that more people will believe YOUR results. So please, let's see them.

With "personal bias" removed, of course. We'd expect no less.

Edited yesterday at 10:02 AM1 day by NotHereToPlayGames

This thread is about @roytam1 browser editions. Out of respect for this fact, I will no longer be posting about these Nightly browser versions here. I have only been answering questions or responding to them, but generally speaking, this is all completely off-topic here. There is a separate thread for these Nightly browser versions. And just to be clear: I won’t be carrying out any speed tests. I’m not interested in that at all and consider it a complete waste of time.

Edited yesterday at 10:31 AM1 day by AstroSkipper

Works for me. If we went too far down this Rabbit Hole, nobody would continue to use UWP.

And that was certainly not the intent. Long Live "this thread".

Edited yesterday at 10:51 AM1 day by NotHereToPlayGames

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Run that UWP New Moon in the same VM and on the same SSD, see for yourself.

They are on the same system (3.5 GB RAM assigned).

Now I'll be looking in this separate thread for these browsers.

Sorry, wrong thread.

Edited yesterday at 11:18 AM1 day by AstroSkipper