Leaderboard

When someone writes too much in such manner, it's demagogy. The Supermium author already confessed it has nothing to do with DirectWrite. like you tried to insert/inject. "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 Why "experimental" web features are needed on the allegedly new engine, and as we saw with proof, Twitch works on Chrome 110 from 3 years ago, but you provide no proof.

Win32SS is a well known master of stubs/redirects. How else the Ex. Kernel works? I'm not saying he did it in this case, just to be clear. But that and/or similar sites are easy to fool with stubs.

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/

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

Excuse me, I'm not familiar with your shenanigans, whose ship do you mean? The developer's? Well, he reads the topic here, alright. As soon as I wrote the sandbox issue got closed, it almost immediately reverted to "open", but still no answer, either to the missiing sandbox, or Dave's question, for days now.

As I stated above, the site rendering engine had to be left intact. It's what they do in other forks, only something that is missing is replaced, redirected. And Supermium already includes fixed DWrite.dll , so no reason to dig the sire rendering part. But I too think it's the old Chrome 109 (?) with the added new features to render some modern sites upon the old engine.

103 will most likely fail on Twitch due to the fact of being too old, it even predates the official cut off point for old OS like Windows 8. So it may fail due to the old engine and simply confuse us. Any other variants?

No, and Dave'H's legit question regarding the versions is also completely ignored. I even think it's rude! Because, as we understand, the developer personally knew Dave from the days at MSFN. Dave even tagged the developer to make sure he answers, but NO answer, even though we all saw he had visited the site! https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1279

@mjd79 isn't "spreading" anything . The legit sandbox question was moved to "closed" without any answer from the developer! https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1292

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.

Thank you very much for the testings! What happens if you just click on "log in"? Supermium gets an error, as they wrote.

Member, you provided no source to backup your false claim regarding this. No cited article tells that flag disables UDP casting. Besides, it's NOT official, it's some dude over the internet, and even he never wrote what you falsely claimed. We already had a similar user which is now called "Guest". Let's focus on this.

It's working but my doorstop is struggling... I don't have an account but can watch free videos. EE360 13.5.1030.0 Chrome 86.0.4240.198 Thinkpad A31 with XP Pro SP3 P4 1.6 GHz 1.25 MB DDR RAM Radeon 7500 16 MB RAM

Disproving CONSPIRACIES is a DEATH TRAP. I'm done with the "conspiracy" of Supermium not being the engine it claims to be. H#LL, we're still trying to prove who killed JFK or whether we really landed on the moon or not. Some CONSPIRACIES will NEVER be proven - this one is NOT WORTH ANY MORE OF MY TIME. You guys are, of course, obligated/entitled to define how your time is allocated.

Apart from misspellings, this is simply not true, would I call it "misinformation"? At this point no, I *of course* probably should, but I'm not as harsh as you. Please provide your claim with the source, or ask your restless lemmings upvoters to do it for you. Thanks.

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!

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

Twitch and all of its functions, including subscriptions (upper right corner), work an the ancient Chrome 110 with the default flags position. And you, continue to kid yourselves further.

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.

... 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.