Leaderboard

... Yes, this is really insane of them ; it's not as if discourse-based forums, mostly containing text, need the top-of-the-line JS/CSS features released with "yesterday"'s Google Chrome version ... ... Mozilla have extended Win7's support with Fx115esr until September, but discourse will cut this support 4 months prior, on May 1st! I soon got bored reading the linked announcement and the comments that followed it, their basic reasoning couldn't hold water if it wanted to: (and, correct me if wrong, but "they" can't use English properly, I think "including" should've been "include"); what "improved experiences" for crying out loud? People just post questions (in plain text), sometimes they attach a screengrab, and they expect a helpful reply (also mostly in text); why discriminate against older rendering engines? https://meta.discourse.org/t/dropping-ios-15-other-old-browsers-in-may-2025/358131/33 Will have to wait and see how much "broken" UXP will be after May 1st on discourse-based forums/"communities" (quite a lot of them, actually) ... (above is St52 with the ! Discourse-based forums ||*/browser-detect-$script,important custom uBO-legacy filter...) EDIT: Discourse's browser-feature-checking script is, apparently: https://d11a6trkgmumsb.cloudfront.net/assets/chunk.e772cb6376a12f35fc11.d41d8cd9.br.js:139:266343

I have reviewed Supermium versions 122 through 132 R1, and I believe that even if the theory about the older engine is true, it uses the same as Supermium 124, not 122. The 122 version differs too much in my opinion, if only in the imports and wrappers used (e.g. since version 124 uses APIs such as DiscardVirtualMemory) . Besides, going into chrome://versions on Supermium 122, 124, 126 R7 and 132 R1, I discovered that the latest version of Supermium probably uses the --no-sandbox flag by default under Windows 8.1, and in the version for older systems, as well as the version for Win 10 and 11, which interestingly continues to work after replacing DiscardVirtualMemory with VirtualAlloc.

IDENTICAL results in XP. Personally, all of this "chitter-chatter" hinting/suggesting/accusing Supermium of being an older engine is FALSE, "misinformation", and "slanderous". None of us do MSFN any "justice" when all we do is go around "following" our 'favorite Lemming' over the cliff. My two cents...

... Please, STOP spreading untruths! The code is there on GitHub for those willing to read it; after all, Supermium is still OPEN source (minus the wrapper DLLs, that is): https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1290#issuecomment-2764577016

I have changed the title of my publication of ytBATCH for Windows XP. It is currently to be understood as a pre-release. My fork has moved further and further away from the original script and is becoming more and more independent. Therefore, I havel changed the version number assignment. Consider my pre-release ytBATCH for Windows XP 2.9.2 as version 1.0! This means: ytBATCH for Windows XP 2.9.2 = ytBATCH for Windows XP 1.0. Although I have made ytBATCH compatible with Windows XP, some things do not work. This is due to the fact that the algorithm in the original ytBATCH script was not quite correct or not really thought through and programmed to the end. The original script from eppic has the following shortcomings: The youtube-dl and yt-dlp downloaders are not considered and used separately. The download of subtitles can only work with yt-dlp, but not with youtube-dl. The script would not work with youtube-dl in general. The queue does not work at all. A globally defined variable causes problems in some cases. Various bugs in various places. Some actions are illogical or incomplete. This means that the original ytBATCH script only has limited functionality and won't work at its fullest on its targeted, higher OSes. I also have the feeling that eppic has given up its ytBATCH script in the meantime, as it has not been updated for three years. Updated on 29.3.2025: Today, I have found this on eppic's GitHub page: So, my feeling was correct. Nonetheless, eppic's script ensemble ytBATCH is great and worth developing further. In the meanwhile, I have already found the reasons for these issues listed above and was able to correct all of them. I have considerably changed the algorithm and modified or rewritten a lot of code. I also added new functions to make the script more informative and effective. Including a new window management and styling. Unfortunately, I can only test yt-dlp because @nicolaasjan's youtube-dl does not work with YouTube at the moment. However, the final release of ytBATCH for Windows XP will be prepared for the return of youtube-dl, whenever this will be. Cheers, AstroSkipper P.S.: Unfortunately, this all means that those using Windows XP on a computer with an SSE-only CPU will not be able to download video or audio files from YouTube using ytBATCH for Windows XP or other programmes also depending on youtube-dl at this time.

Surely he had to 'fiddle' with the Chromium code or the browser wouldn't run on XP?!

Age, my friend, age. The developer SHOULDN'T be fiddling with Chromium Code to begin with. Just port the code, as all other forks, including CatsXP and the recently ported Chrome 136, do.

Twitch is an important site many youngsters use this day. The developer is still somewhat young, I don't buy it for a second he didn't check out Twitch, before the releases came out, Second, @Dave-H, there already were several releases after you found the problem in v126, but the horse is still there, and the author even introduced an odd "fix", again with "experimental features" turned on for Twitch. @NotHereToPlayGames, probably, you missed. https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1279#issuecomment-2760133080

Quite. Just because Twitch works in a Chromium 110 browser but not in Supermium 126 or 132 doesn't mean that the latter browsers are using even older Chromium versions, despite their names. There could surely be any number of reasons why Twitch doesn't work in Supermium which are nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying Chromium version. I'm sure that the reason is being investigated. The fact that it apparently comes good when the experimental features are enabled must surely be a very big clue as to the cause!

You're not listening. Twitch this, Twitch that. Is Twitch seriously the *ONLY* web site out of roughly 1.1 BILLION of them that isn't working in Supermium? If so, that's about 438,692,547 times better than Pale Moon, Basilisk, and Serpent. I myself have never heard of Twitch until this "hit the fan". But YES, apparently it is "important enough" of a web site that the developer SHOULD BE finding out what he did to the Chromium Code that broke Twitch.

Thanks for confirmation and clarification! So, we'll have to wait until it is fixed if it is possible at all.

Not only my youtube-dl. The official one doesn't work either. [youtube] PD-MdiUm1_Y: Downloading player 20830619 WARNING: [youtube] PD-MdiUm1_Y: Unable to decode n-parameter: expect download to be blocked or throttled See issue #33102

In any case, the disabled sandbox, without any information on github or in the browser itself (other than chrome://version or chrome://sandbox, which 99% of users will never look into), is simply a scandal! https://no-sandbox.io/

I kind of still think that this is an Unproven Hypothesis and akin to "misinformation". Our one (and ONLY ONE?) variable is TWITCH. All other sites are behaving as they should (even the British Gas site) once the end-user swaps the flag defaults that Supermium swapped behind the scene. Seems we should be finding ways to PROVE this before we keep spreading it as "gospel".

Then the likelihood is that Supermium 124 and above are based on Chrome 111 or similar, and Supermium 122 and older are based on 110, 109 or even older. Edit: As I see, I am not the only one who discovered this sandbox problem and it has already been reported on github. It will be interesting to see how the author responds to this. https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1290

The arrogance of Discourse knows no bounds. Just as we learned to live with its quirks and hidden vertical scrolling, they announced a few days ago that even "recent" Chrome browsers will not be allowed. I saw this on Mp3Tag. They want even more "modern" features. https://meta.discourse.org/t/dropping-ios-15-other-old-browsers-in-may-2025/358131

Oh, and the UI is neat and clean, unlike in Supermium. NO over-brightness issues or blurry, over-contrast texts, like Supermium/Thorium has.

Back up your profile first!!! Copy it to the new browser. Then start the browser with these. --disable-machine-id --disable-encryption-win Voila! Now always start using those flags, only one time without them would be enough to get the profile lost!!

ME? Lol. Over Supermium? Of course! Any second! Supermium is buggy (to put it very mildly and politely). With this one, I was able to use my old Ungoogled profile from over two years ago, without the icons and tab distortions many, including @Jody Thornton were having. Over Supermium? Especially after this. https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/page/123/#findComment-1279153

Not actually suitable for streaming to a Home Theatre due to the lack of Dolby and H265. No biggie for the most here, I guess.

So how do you explain the result at https://chromiumchecker.com/? That site would be pretty much discredited if it couldn't detect an old Chromium version masquerading as a newer one!

Highly HIGHLY improbable. We either need to NAIL THIS COFFIN SHUT or we need to PROVE this CONSPIRACY once and for all. Let's all of us take a step back and come up with some sort of D#MN PROOF. Twitch PROVES NOTHING. Let's start thinking outside the box that we have all buried ourself in. I've already "seen enough" to see THIS IS MISINFORMATION !!! But the "west side story gang" is always always always going to stick together and "go down with the ship".

Yes and no. I give it the benefit of the doubt. Only the next release would indicate if the author accepted the critique or not. I don't think that the author "owes" a reply to every issue/bug being reported. I mean, there's over 500 open and 600 closed. Yes, "gigantic" bugs would be nice to have a reply. But I myself do not see them as "owed" to us.

It will be interesting to see if this is addressed in the next Supermium release.

Same to you:

Ok, you can find information about this in the source code, but there should be mentions with the releases themselves that Supermium 132 is much less secure than 126 with a working sandbox.

That seems perfectly fair and legit. Afterall, all of Roytam's and Feodor's releases spoof useragent overrides for the same exact "better webcompat" reasons.

126-r7 spoofs v132, for better webcompat :

I'm well aware that deception is possible, but Supermium 126 appears legit when tested here. It's spoofing version 130 in its default User Agent string, but we all knew that. I don't know about version 132, as I haven't installed it yet. I'm waiting for at least one more update before I do!

I fired up my old Vista notebook with CatsXP, it's based on the oldish Chromium 115, I had no troubles logging into Twitch, and zero warnings like described on github! Again, Chromium 115 from two years ago has no troubles with Twitch! I suspect Supermium might even be older than @D.Draker thinks.

It also doesn't support "to" Win93, what a shame! I don't think we have enough 4 year olds here to appreciate your language, sorry. In the meantime, the developer tries to evade the subject, suggesting a "solution" for the "new" version, I'm not even gonna comment on that. One would need to be really, really naive to still trust, esp. after this. Luckily for him, there's no D.Draker to ask, why a fix needs to applied for the allegedly new engine, lol. "I developed a method to ensure that the "experimental" web feature support could be used only on specific sites, but I thought this would not be problem this early in 132 ESR's life. With that in mind, twitch.tv should be defaulted to use it, but other sites should be untouched, to avoid breaking other websites such as British Gas." https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1279#issuecomment-2760133080

Jody, friend, there's a huge improvement for us, Vista fanatics, a simply marvellous browser! Released recently. Two versions. Choose marked "Vista". 136 (non-portable) https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7/releases/tag/136.0.7063.0 134 Portable, Ungoofed. https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7/releases/tag/ungoogled-chromium_134.0.6998.165 Made by a student from China, so I can't give any personal guarantees, you understand.

I have only one explanation - it's the content served. Yes, the content you order. I recently ordered Supernatural 2005, the one where only Crowley speaks normal language, and it was served in H265, my card could barely play it!!! And I have a 10 years old High end card with 12GB of Video RAM, nowhere near your 1gb stub, also 16 for the system RAM. But my CPU is similar to yours, the one that only a grand-grandpa would use.

Supermium made an attempt to incorporate some modern codecs, but those are open source LAV, so we can't say how well they would work with the paid streaming sites.

I shan't do this because of @Dave-H. My understanding is, Dave likes Supermium, @D.Draker is a known buster, if I start to ask such *inconvenient* questions there, the developer may flee github, too.

Members that are DISRESPECTFUL, don't read posts BEFORE posting, therefore resulting in pointless discussions, as often as you do, SHOULD BE BANNED. Pointless discussions = Spam. You still don't answer my inconvenient question about the real number of the engine in Supermium, Twitch problems went back as soon as the developer returned those flags to "normal" condition. But why would they? The version was allegedly bumped to 132, so they shouldn't be there. no? xD

You again missed my post* and replied harshly, it resulted in a pointless discussion of what had been already discussed (about v.126). I reported about the same thing happening again in v.132 and Twitch. Why it happens, if this version is even *allegedly* newer - by the claims of the developer? 132 Chromium works fine with Twitch, with disabled experimental (default setting) features, so? What exactly you don't understand? You both still wanna say it's the real version 132? https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/page/123/#findComment-1279153 *This usually happens when members forget to hit "follow" button on my profile to stay in touch with my masterpieces.

It doesn't explain why there was a desperate need to enable those experimental, not yet implemented features, unless it's indeed the old version 122. 126 and 132 Chromium, both work fine with Twitch, with disabled experimental features, so?

And to give you an impression of the state of development, here is a screenshot of the current Main Menu of ytBATCH for Windows XP: Of course, this is just a small insight into my project. The internal changes are much bigger and of course more important. However, I thought a little colour would make the DOS windows less boring. Frankly, this is all retro at its best. And @nicolaasjan, here you can see that I do not forget to give credits to creators for their work. This is a screenshot of the freshly created About ytBATCH for Windows XP window: When I look at my fork, I'm reminded wistfully of my old DOS days.

@nicolaasjan As part of my further development and testing of ytBATCH for Windows XP, I have also thoroughly tested your two releases youtube-dl and yt-dlp. As already reported, yt-dlp works great and can download video files and audio files easily from YouTube. Unfortunately, this is not the case with youtube-dl. Even with the very latest version 2025.3.26.0, I cannot download video or audio files from YouTube. I have tested this link as one of many: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffcitRgiNDs Here are two screenshots, the first one with a successful download via yt-dlp and the second one with an unsuccessful download via youtube.dl: Is youtube-dl currently not working with YouTube? Or is there anything else to consider? Of course, I know that the development of youtube-dl had many problems in the past, but I thought it would work again. I really tried different links but none of them are working with youtube-dl. In a lot of cases, I even got the message 403 Forbidden. This is of course bad news especially for those using a computer with a SSE only CPU. Greetings, AstroSkipper

While testing my further developed fork ytBATCH for Windows XP, I also tried to use youtube-dl for downloading YouTube videos and audio files. Unfortunately, without success. Eppic, the author of ytBATCH, uses the same command line options for both downloaders youtube-dl and yt-dlp. That does not make any sense. The way of setting subtitles internally, for example, only works with yt-dlp, but not at all with youtube-dl. The command line options for subtitles are unfortunately different. youtube-dl uses the command line option --write-sub where in contrast yt-dlp uses the --write-subs option. Their negations are also different. Therefore, I have changed the script ensemble considerably and made the internal setting of flags, if different in both downloaders, dependent on the downloader that is currently active. The same applies to the youtube-dl.conf configuration file. Eppic uses one and the same file for both YouTube downloaders, although the command line options are by no means identical. This is not expedient. I therefore have now changed this too and assigned a separate configuration file to each downloader. Now, each of the downloaders can be assigned its command line options stored in its own configuration file. These are major changes to the script files, and the development and testing phase continues.

That's why I do not get any security warnings when opening the Add-ons Manager :

I checked and it seems to be a problem with Supermium 132 R1. Even my custom 2830.0 doesn't work, which works on all other Chromium browsers under Win7, including Supermium 126 R7. BTW I also discovered that the pwrp_k32.dll included with Supermium 126 R7 allows 2830.0 to run in any reasonably modern (not tested below v109) Chromium browser in Windows 7. Just open widevinecdm.dll in CFF Explorer and rename the import from kernel32.dll to pwrp_k32.dll

If you are using 10/11 it should work fine. Delete this manually copied Widevine and update in chrome://components https://dl.google.com/widevine-cdm/4.10.2830.0-win-x64.zip Alternatively, try version 2830.0.

Currently, the case is as follows: Windows 8.1 and 8.0 - Widevine is running the latest version, 4.10.2891.0, in every Chromium-based browser as well as Firefox (although 115.21.0ESR is likely to download 4.10.2830.0, which also works) Windows 7 - so far I have not been able to run Widevine newer than the aforementioned 4.10.2830.0, even in Supermium 126 after applying the included patch. I didn't respond to inquiring users earlier because the original method of running Widevine from Firefox on browsers like Chrome 109 or Opera 95 required the use of the kernel64 library, which is a wrapper of kernel32 created by a Russian cracker porting closed-source browsers to older systems. I will try to find another option which is legitimate and presentable on MSFN without breaking the rules.

You're welcome! Glad it is working for you as it should. If you want to change to a light theme one day, you have of course to reinstall the original version of User Agent Status then. The modded version is only for dark themes.

@Mathwiz You can change the background and text colour as you prefer. The text can also be formatted in bold type. Here is another screenshot with bold text in the status bar panel: And here is the code: #ua-status-toggle {width: 24px; height: 24px;} toolbar[iconsize="small"] #ua-status-toggle {width: 16px; height: 16px;} #ua-status-main, #ua-status-label, #ua-status-main-input, #ua-status-button-setua, #ua-status-button-resetua { background-color: black !important; color: yellow !important; font-weight: 700 !important;} Just edit the overlay.css file to your liking exactly where I added the code! Greetings from Germany, AstroSkipper

Right! The overlay.css file inside the folder /chrome/skin is the one you have to modify. I have installed the theme FT DeepDark 14.3 theme and the extension User Agent Status 1.7.2 in Serpent 52. No problems here. The text in the status bar panel is readable. Here is a screenshot: At next, I added a bit CSS code to change the appearance of the status panel. I decided to keep the background colour which is obviously black and changed the text colour to yellow for better visibility. Here is a screenshot: Here is the download link to the modded version I made for you just for fun: https://www.mediafire.com/file/v4wa5byn6vgzeu4/ua-status-1.7.2-FT-DeepDark-mod.xpi/file Cheers, AstroSkipper

You're welcome! As I already mentioned, the most recent versions of CustomCSSforFx will contain CSS code targeting the much more recent Firefox versions. That's why I pick only single CSS stylesheets, test them in terms of compatibility and implement them if needed or wanted. The time range for picking them is from July 2019 to August 2020 as I already wrote in a previous post. Maybe, some of the CSS files from more recent CustomCSSforFx versions will also work in Mypal 68 but surely less than in the versions that have been specially adapted for Firefox 68. Apart from that, I prefer those CSS stylesheets that do not contain unnecessary code for versions of Firefox 69 and higher.