bricky149

Moderators
  • Content count

    466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About bricky149

  • Rank
    Junior Mage

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  1. In mx_core.pak, somewhat viewable in a text editor, there is a 'version_controller' key with values that correlate to different versions of Maxthon. There are *four* lists of domains where different UA strings are reported to sites to work around incompatibilities. The comments next to each exception list 'version' suggest this was a Maxthon-specific change. exception_list.txt
  2. Firstly, I'm glad you acknowledge said disconnect. The second and fourth sentences tell me a Chromium clone with Maxthon branding is coming. It's also nice to see the CEF component is being updated although one has to wonder when the hacky way of 'fixing' site support (i.e. old/unsupported browser prompts) by using three separate lists where Maxthon changes its UA string will unship.
  3. Despite previous efforts from years ago, there has never been a good connection between users and devs here. The main connection was from the San Francisco office and here, and after several key figures left for greener pastures the whole thing went back to how it was before. You might be able to find previous posts expressing my frustrations but I gave that up long ago too. I knew there was no point in venting in the hope someone would actually do something about it so I saved my energy to enjoy something else. Meanwhile on the Chinese forum I see negative feedback about how MX5 is slower than v4, the inability to customise skins further and startup speed. The innovation that brought me over to Maxthon 3 died with v4 and is being beaten like a dead horse with MX5. As a Firefox Nightly user, it gets better with every daily build even if it generates bad reactions (WebExtensions, for example) which is far more than from stuff released here over months. That says something.
  4. I've been wanting access to about://flags in Maxthon's Blink core and access to more advanced options via command flags since at least when Karl Mattson joined Maxthon International.
  5. Chromium/Blink 64 contains patches for Spectre and Meltdown. It would be wise for Maxthon to use it ASAP if they do stand for 'safety'.
  6. I see Chinese with their respective English translations. On the other hand, no activity since Sep 28th doesn't make it sound so transparent to me.
  7. Black screen with 4.9.4.2000

    Probably because it's a porn site. I found another thread about this and have responded there:
  8. Skype Web beta

    What they meant was the calling functionality is provided by an extension and a plugin that makes use of that extension. MX5 lacks the extension layer as the Chromium Embedded Framework doesn't provide it.
  9. Maxthon Extension Plan (merged)

    I use ShareX for GIFs and WebMs/MP4s. I then use FFmpeg to reduce the size if it's too large to post anywhere.
  10. #26 is progress, next up is disabling mixed active content handling. I also read "relevant" as "reluctant" dev.
  11. HTTP/2 support

    The "new core" the team have mentioned refers to Chromium 37, which does have support for HTTP/2 (but not fully standards-compliant, the standard was finalised after that release). As Maxthon piggybacks off the progress from the Chromium developers it's up to Maxthon when they'll make use of newer Chromium codebases.
  12. SSLv3 error alert

    Still vulnerable to POODLE though and I've been saying internally for ages SSLv3, and mixed active content handling, should be disabled. Of course, they still ship Flash Player 16 bundled which is known to be vulnerable also.
  13. Performance Improving

    I've decided to completely disable ABP in Maxthon due to the astronomical RAM usage it causes alone. Dinataspace has a clear understanding of how ABP works so I thank them. On Intel HD systems it's best to disable GPU acceleration. I've found pages to load noticeably quicker since there's no GPU thread blocking anything.
  14. ABplus and ram

    I have mentioned uBlock before on the non-public forum and I see someone has made a thread about it on the public one. I am personally not a fan of AdBlock Plus as I understand how it works; it applies its own stylesheets based on what rules are hit by the page. This increases RAM usage and slows down page loading. It's obvious we're never listened to, that's why Maxthon 4.x exists.
  15. The way AdBlock Plus works is based around stylesheets. It was designed so it would apply its own stylesheet(s) in place of elements that results in hits on your subscribed filter lists, simple but also drags down performance and memory usage (i.e. ABP in Firefox). I've been a long-time advocate of uBlock and is much more efficient at this type of job, a shame Maxthon didn't choose it for replacing AdHunter.