Leaderboard

Thanks for linking! Unfortunately, such comparisons are not particularly useful. It also depends considerably on other components such as the RAM memory, north and south bridge, the bus clock, the graphics adapter, processor features, hyper-threading and so on.

Not quite true. I use both my old Windows XP computer and my Android tablet for what you call "real work". And in some special cases, a notebook with Windows 7 and Windows 10. But that was not the point here. Anyway! This thread is actually about Mypal 68, and I am happy to confirm that this browser works well on my old hardware. And much better when optimised.

Probably @Cixert assumed, and rightfully so, the double engine of 360 Explorer or something similar would be implemented in Supermium, too.

@win32

You mean ChatGPT suffers a notorious paranoia?

I think we have to take Shane's word for it that the patch has been applied to Supermium 132. As I said earlier, it's an ESR version, which surely should be capable of having the patch applied to it, as it should be fully supported until the next ESR version is released. I'm not sure how we can test whether the patch has been applied successfully or not.

This is not a bug, but an improvement to indicate disabled window. There is/will be a setting to disable shading for confused ones [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\StartIsBack\DarkMagic] FadeDisabled = (DWORD)0 There are acrylic effects alright, but it's not supposed to be pure black, maybe extra tweaks on your system.

Then it's a good idea to use the patched ungoogled for Server 2008 R2. No one knows and no one can guarantee how good and when the old 132 Supermium will (ever?) be patched for that serious vulnerability. https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7/releases/tag/ungoogled-chromium_138.0.7204.96 Edit/ They say it's been patched in R5. But in the article they say the patch is for 138+! Contradictory. https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v132-r5

His post is neither useless, nor senseless. Learn to look for before you write your senseless posts It's been confirmed by reputable members of MSFN that those don't work. "This didn't work for me." https://msfn.org/board/topic/186420-mod-for-intel-haswell-4600-hd-graphics-drivers-for-xp/#findComment-1271208 "Edit: After a while (5-8hours) if the PC is not used, the mouse works but I can't open anything that was minimized in the taskbar. I have to restart the PC to get it working again. Did you see this kind of behaviour? I'm using 32bit XP." https://msfn.org/board/topic/186420-mod-for-intel-haswell-4600-hd-graphics-drivers-for-xp/#findComment-1271490

Eh, everything is described in this forum - learn to look for before you write senseless posts https://msfn.org/board/topic/183956-asus-b85m-e-with-core-i5-4590-code-10-in-device-manager/ https://msfn.org/board/topic/176356-simple-xp-32bit-64gb-ram-true-pae-guide/page/10/#findComment-1280987

Yes, I can. Then leave only one, what stops you? Never heard of XP using two modern cards all at once in one setup troub;e free.

So has Win32ss engineered the patch for Supermium, even though it's only at Chromium 132? It is based on the ESR version, which should surely be able to have the patch applied?

This topic is designed to compare the overall performance of different computers with each other under Windows XP.

@NotHereToPlayGames Here we are: Define the parameters of such a test and I will engage in this battle. Quantifiable measurements where neither one of us can "cheat". Then we'll let the rest of MSFN members "decide for themselves". Since the word offtopic is apparently not in your vocabulary, I hereby move our conversation to this thread created specifically for the purpose of computer performance comparisons in order to finally be ontopic again. Your proposed test procedure is far too fiddly and time-consuming. I am more in favour of using a well-known, locally installed test tool (i.e. offline tool) that tests all components and generates an overall performance index for the purpose of comparison. My suggestion: PCMark05 which still supports Windows XP.

I am not always right. But a pure comparison of CPUs is not sufficient. Read here, for example, about the difference between SD-RAM and DDR2-RAM: https://www.transcend-info.com/support/faq-296#:~:text=DDR2 SDRAM(Double Data Rate,(double of DDR SDRAM). Maybe now you'll realise what I'm talking about. And apart from that, an Intel Pentium 4 is not the same as an Intel Pentium 4. There were different series like Willamette, Northwood, and Prescott. And within these series different FSB clock rates. So, forget about these comparison sites! The only way to compare our computers is doing the same test regarding all hardware components. P.S.: Due to my motherboard layout, there are several bottlenecks. Firstly, the extremely slow SD-RAM memory, then the very low bus clock rate and finally the AGP 4x interface, although my graphics card actually is an AGP 8x one.

Please, don't come up with your "gut feelings"! I have presented all the essential facts that you have not commented on. My presentation has nothing to do with subjectivity and hypotheses. But as I said, it's offtopic here anyway and actually totally irrelevant. Your cucumber is old and mine is many years older.

Glad that explains it, I do have the Segoe UI fonts installed on XP. I can't remember why.

Akin

Neither this browser, nor this topic are only limited to XP, I don't use XP (most of the time). Where do you get the stats about the "whole" world? Link to a reputable source, please.