All Activity

...and what's more, under Settings > About, they changed the layout of that panel to some utterly bad-looking expandables. Oh please Microsoft. Your art designer could've been better than this.

Win32ss finally confessed. But no apologies for not telling the public before. "... the most important of the sandboxes, so there will be further work to be done there." https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1292#issuecomment-2770908088

None! They experimental for a reason, Otherwise sites like British Gas will fail to load.

Which experimental features would you recommend switching for maximum compatibility?

I certainly hope so! So that we can nail this d#mn coffin, faking a user agent or client hint is WAY different than "claiming" to be several versions newer on an older engine. THE SUPERMIUM ENGINE IS WHAT IT IS CLAIMING TO BE !!! Plain and simple. TO H#LL WITH TWITCH! Twitch by itself proves NOTHING. It only proves bad coding at TWITCH! IT WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY IF WE HAD A HUNDRED OR A THOUSAND WEB SITES THAT DO NOT WORK IN SUPERMIUM! Let's face it, PERSONAL BIAS is leading this discussion. Not logic and reasoning.

Bingo!

With respect, that's not what @NotHereToPlayGames was saying. What he was saying was that if exactly the same modifications were made to other Chromium browsers as have been made to Supermium, for whatever reasons, then the Twitch login would almost certainly break there too. I'm sure that win32ss is investigating the reason why this is happening.

FWIW, I've just tried it, and the British Gas site breaks in exactly the same way on the latest and greatest version of Microsoft Edge if the experimental features are enabled, so this at least is not a problem peculiar to Supermium!

It's been checked already, no issues with any Chrome based (Brave, CatsXP, "normal" Chromium), all as low as 107, no issues with either nVidia or Twitch. We haven't tried lower, but someone tried 360EE, and the login window won't show up, probably, just like Supermium, v.86 also needs EXPERIMENTAL features to be turned on in the flags section to not fail!

Yes. It worked! Thanks for the tip. I used a tiny program "BAT2EXEC", from here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060512120615/http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/simtelnet/msdos/batchutl/bat2ex15.zip Mention of this wonderful program was found there: https://www.mdgx.com/newtip14.htm Combined in one BAT file a call to the original "WININIT.EXE" + "UserProg.EXE" (following it) and converted using "BAT2EXEC" to a single file, giving it the name "WININI1.EXE". Corrected and "WIN.COM" (What would be the new one "WININI1.EXE" called instead of the original one "WININIT.EXE"). As a result of all these actions, during a hot reboot, if "WININIT.INI" is found in the folder "C:\WINDOWS" - then run first "WININI1.EXE", which first calls the genuine original "WININIT.EXE" and he works out as usual, and after him immediately enters the game already and "UserProg.EXE", producing useful action. Not exactly a perfect design, but at least that's how it works. So now, as they say, both hares are whole and wolves are full I will generally observe. I hope that everything will work correctly from now on. PS: Yes, you're probably right. But for some reason, Google sent me here with my question (And I thought that maybe we should not duplicate discussions that were previously created by other participants, but instead supplement existing ones?). But if this is somehow not good - then okay, it's not difficult for me to create a new topic next time.

This is not true! Nvidia gaming website had terrible problems with Supermium, NOT ONLY TWITCH. Please closely follow the issues on github, and only then accuse people.

This is not true! Something in Supermium is indeed breaking Twitch. But "do" the same exact thing (once we find out the "exacts") in OFFICIAL CHROME v132 and Twitch *WILL* break also! If Supermium was "not even v126", a hundred or even a thousand web sites would be broken, NOT ONLY TWITCH.

We're already far beyond that point, the new Chinese browser based on v.136 works absolutely perfect with Vista. Been testing it for weeks now. No memory leaks, all is good. No buffer overflow like in Supermium.

Supermium simply lies about the real version, UA (User Agent) and Client Hints (extended info about the Client) both pretend to be a higher version, which is not true. @VistaLover wrote about it here. But from the reality, as we see with Twitch, for example, it's NOT even at version 126! Why? Because the 3 year old Chrome 107 works fine with Twitch, and Supermium needs EXPERIMENTAL features to be turned on in the flags section, otherwise it fails! https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/?do=findComment&comment=1279237

/USERVA addresses the split between application and kernel memory, which is normally 2 GB but can be increased to 3 GB, not the total available memory, which is limited by /MAXMEM. The /3GB switch is known to cause compatibility issues, and I never recommended using it. I would just accept that the biggest single program you can run is about 1.6 GB or so. Direct3D 9 on XP/2003 uses a lot of paged pool memory, which has to fit in the shrunken system area. It just keeps growing as more game objects come into view. Understanding the effects of the Windows USERVA and 3GB switches: https://documentation.bluecieloecm.com/BCWebHelp/en/teamwork/2012/sr/Content/Meridian AG/Understanding the effects7.htm

So what you're saying is that Supermium is older than it claims to be? But all in all, is still the most "modern" we got out of all options, right? I have the last working Opera (Opium), which shows warning banner on sites like Discourse, but Supermium doesn't show it.

Does anyone know if the default builds are compiled for SSE4.x/AVX? I have Thorium-Win7 on my Ivy Bridge, but the author hasn't updated it in a while and I want to switch. Thanks

this is to much getting compared with a nt6.x engine i once told dibya that i dont have interests in creating a vista version, still he pushed it up so dibya came up to make a redfox to "vista" one but it was over 150 internal functions to be changed for xp, and like 10 changes from win7 to vista from what i remember dibya then made some code and the vista version was already working vista has a problem vs 7, 7 is just a upgraded vista so 7 is in advantage - sure you can make it backwards to vista the method dibya used was to change the code itself but, not the redirections in a project with 150-300 functions thats a lot a better method would be to overrule some redirection or different linking in the c-runtime or a different c-runtime, in llvm and maybe others what is easier then in vs2019 vs2019 has a hidden c-runtime.obj file - you can make some changes but hmm i dont know ... it almost sounds like a chinese student made a better version but no - you cant compare nt6.x with xp , in our comparison a compare would be 15 times as much to have a "vista vs xp" version, what the chinese guy dont have he might have a 7 version - that certainly can be changed to vista somehow, there are already codes that can can that the sandbox is also a such example it dont have a real use, the sandbox is rather a mitigation question and mitigations are OS based - also they not function based - the code is going fine without it (and no bugs) reality is that the sandbox in win10 have a lot more then vista and 7 actually have - so having some flags popping up that you have a sandbox wont do much either when the chinese want to challenge supermium he has to challenge it on nt5.1 (aka xp) not 7 vs xp 1 reason more i dont want to make a vista/7 version is exactly this discussion - once done they say they got a better solution - what is not true a other reason you dont make vista/7 stuff is that you lose focus for your normal common OS - dont get me wrong i have nothing against people who like vista or 7 but they have it simplier then we have if not the chinese guy has to come up with a XP version and proof us wrong i would not be unhappen to proofen wrong in this case what i also have to say when i added that redfox code (that also works for vista) i saw redfox works with vista - so the code gone there im glad that he has the code ... but then you get something like this "the chinese guy made a better vista version" - sounds weird to me

Did some searching and found the latest extended core, tried installing it and got the same lockups when trying to use VLC, I'm just going to reinstall, install the latest extended kernel and leave extended core out of it-I have a radeon 3450 512mb card I know I can use with BWC's drivers.

Created Issue.

Xonar drivers also glitch out,

For example, problems with PAE support. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/game-ready-drivers/13/14719/pae-support-in-nvidia-drivers-i-have-problems-with/ Alleged fix. "Try the boot option /USERVA=2800 to make sure that there's still enough mappable memory for the card itself. My startoption line looks like this:" /NOEXECUTE=OPTIN /FASTDETECT /3GB /USERVA=2800 /PAE

I don't know any problems with Nvidia drivers. Maybe they only arise when using a hack on XP. Nor do I know any particular Intel device that has a problem, although they may well exist. Intel parts are found on legit server boards. I put the GPU through its paces while experimenting with CUVID as well as with games. Creative Labs sound cards don't work however.

Why won't you tell us about the well known, famous problems with drivers, Nvidia and Intel for example, which will arise from using PAE?