AstroSkipper

I think their discussion was specifically about DNS over HTTPS, which wasn't a thing until long after XP EOS. @UCyborg brought DNS over HTTPS into play. However, the original enquiry only mentioned DNS. Hence my answer.

Thanks! I will test this flag.

Here is a brief report of my testing so far if someone is interested. Thorium can actually be installed on such an old computer under Windows XP. The browser starts up still quite bearable compared to other browsers on my system. However, as always with Chrome browsers on low-performance computers under Windows, the page loading behaviour is problematic. Although I have configured all conceivable flags to increase performance and selected the settings to suit my hardware, loading web pages takes considerably much longer than with New Moon, Serpent or Mypal. Of course, websites can be loaded that no longer function properly in the already mentioned browsers. Surprisingly, RAM consumption is not a problem, it is rather perfect although Thorium is running in multi-process mode. Interestingly, it seems that I have even found a solution for my installation that considerably speeds up the loading of web pages and therefore the browser start, too. It's not a new one, though. One doesn't have to reinvent the wheel, either. But first, this method must still be thoroughly tested.

True, but you can only directly configure Windows versions released in last 4 years or so to use DOH (eg. https://www.howtogeek.com/765940/how-to-enable-dns-over-https-on-windows-11/). Older ones require to use a sort of DNS proxy or special support from the browser side. In Windows XP, you can either directly insert the desired DNS service in the native network configuration window, or you do it more convenient with a very few clicks by using a third-party tool like, for example, ChrisPC DNS Switch. I use the Pro version which has more features and is more convenient.

Disable the flag #enable-webusb-device-detection!

I thought when you post in this thread anyways, you also would surely use Supermium. BTW, Thorium has this flag, too. Yep! I already knew.

You can use the flag #disable-search-engine-collection if existent.

It is not really a necessary feature. You can change that in a very simple way inside your OS. Even by using a third party tool. Anyway! In general, New Moon 28 and Serpent 52 will get what has been developed for Pale Moon and Basilisk.

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is about @roytam1's browsers and not Supermium. There are no Chrome processes here, fortunately.

The last update of the GoodbyeAds-YouTube-AdBlock-Filter filter list seems to be performed 4 months ago. So, for me, not that old at the moment. However, if no more updates are rolled out, I will unfortunately have to remove this list from my mod uBlock Origin Legacy. PS: Not every list is maintained on a regular base. There are many lists maintained by only one person or updated when time is available. So, users have to be patient, unfortunately. But you can disable such a list at any time if you think, it has become obsolete.

Of course, I meant BPCF. Just a typo. The additional but of course optional F stands for Filters

I am very satisfied with the efficiency of uBlock Origin Legacy when it comes to filtering and blocking unwanted content. Especially when you consider how old the original extension actually is. However, the decisive factor is the correct configuration and sensible selection of effective filter lists that are still compatible with uBlock Origin Legacy. And of course, the filters and rules you create yourself are also crucial, as they make everything even more interesting and effective. If the user proceeds in this way, then the combination of BPCF filter list and user script is the icing on the cake.

Saying they don't, in any perceptible way, would be a waste of breath, wouldn't it? Right! And the reason is crystal clear. On my machine, they definitely do. Otherwise, I wouldn't write something like that. Besides that, I don't like connections that have not been authorised by me.

Seems to be switched off by default. At least, in my installation for testing.

On my weak machine, these unnecessary connections do have an impact to my CPU and are counterproductive for smoother browsing. So, I am glad to have got rid of them.

No need to add any firewall rules, it's not a routable address. I did not add any specific rules. In Windows 10 Firewall Control, Thorium is restricted to the standard web browser zone as all other browsers, too. The connection to the posted address was not allowed in this zone. Therefore, it was blocked automatically. No more, no less.

Usually, I do not use any Chrome or Chromium browsers under Windows XP. My daily drivers under Windows XP are New Moon 28, Mypal 68 and Serpent 52. And there is no such behaviour.

As I already mentioned in my Antimalware thread, Windows 10 Firewall Control is great and is doing a perfect job in controlling all system and application connections like, for example, Thorium.

I was going to suggest that one also but it's not in v114 and I cannot access Thorium or Supermium at work. Yep! This one did the trick. No more entries in my firewall log. I just found this by accident, and its description made me prick up my ears:

No. It is indeed Thorium trying to connect to this address. To be more precise it is the process thorium.exe. Disabling the flag #media-route-dial-provider seems to be the solution I found by checking all available Thorium flags.

No. It is indeed Thorium trying to connect to this address. To be more precise it is the process thorium.exe.

Can anyone tell me why Thorium is trying to connect via UDP to the address 239.255.255.250 using the port 1900 almost every minute? My Windows 10 Firewall Control is blocking and logging this connection, fortunately. I performed a WHOIS check and got this information: # # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use # available at: https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/tou/ # # If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at # https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/inaccuracy_reporting/ # # Copyright 1997-2024, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd. # NetRange: 224.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 CIDR: 224.0.0.0/4 NetName: MCAST-NET NetHandle: NET-224-0-0-0-1 Parent: () NetType: IANA Special Use OriginAS: Organization: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) RegDate: 1991-05-22 Updated: 2013-08-30 Comment: Addresses starting with a number between 224 and 239 are used for IP multicast. IP multicast is a technology for efficiently sending the same content to multiple destinations. It is commonly used for distributing financial information and video streams, among other things. Comment: Comment: A full list of IPv4 multicast assignments can be found at: Comment: Comment: http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses Comment: Comment: A document describing the policies for assigning multicast addresses can be found at: Comment: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5771 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/224.0.0.0 OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority OrgId: IANA Address: 12025 Waterfront Drive Address: Suite 300 City: Los Angeles StateProv: CA PostalCode: 90292 Country: US RegDate: Updated: 2012-08-31 Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/IANA OrgAbuseHandle: IANA-IP-ARIN OrgAbuseName: ICANN OrgAbusePhone: +1-310-301-5820 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@iana.org OrgAbuseRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/IANA-IP-ARIN OrgTechHandle: IANA-IP-ARIN OrgTechName: ICANN OrgTechPhone: +1-310-301-5820 OrgTechEmail: abuse@iana.org OrgTechRef: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/entity/IANA-IP-ARIN # # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use # available at: https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/tou/ # # If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at # https://www.arin.net/resources/registry/whois/inaccuracy_reporting/ # # Copyright 1997-2024, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Ltd. # It seems to be somehow related to multicast. Can this be turned off in Thorium?

As a technically interested person and die-hard Windows XP Professional 32-bit enthusiast , I installed Thorium on my very old and very weak computer for testing purposes only. My hardware and OS specs are: Windows XP Professional SP3 with all updates after SP3 and additionally all POSReady updates, an Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.80 GHz CPU (single core, 32 Bit), 1.5 GB SD-RAM and a NVIDIA GeForce 6200 graphic card. I am using the version Thorium_SSE2_122.0.6261.168_WINXP_x32 in portable mode. Nothing has been installed to avoid any compromising of my system. It was hard to adjust the browser settings and flags to load pages as it actually should be. I am using the extension uBlock Origin as I do in all my browsers to filter and block all crap. However, uBlock Origin had to be exactly adjusted to not interfere negatively the loading of websites. I will test Thorium for a while to see how it behaves on my very weak Windows XP computer. But in any case, I am also interested in experiences from other users with Thorium on old 32-bit computers.

You should use the version Thorium_SSE3_122.0.6261.168_WINXP_x32.zip as your CPU supports the SSE3 instruction set at maximum. You can use the SSE2 version, too but I would try the SSE3 one first.

Personally, I would like to know about experiences of users who have installed Thorium under real (bare metal) Windows XP 32-bit on very weak hardware, especially equipped with a 32-bit (single-core) CPU like, for example, Pentium 4. Which Thorium version has been used? How does this browser behave there? How does the browser start? What does the loading behaviour of websites look like? What about performance and resource consumption in general? And above all, which settings and Chrome flags are used in those installations? It would be great to provide your hardware and OS specs when sharing any experience.