NotHereToPlayGames

That's one way to look at it. But another way to look at it is that your computer is supposed to do some of the work for you, otherwise you may as well be living in the 1800's. At work, I can do the work of THREE people because I use scripts and macros and know how to get my computer to do some of the work for me. That is, afterall, why they hired me instead of another one of the folks doing 1/3rd the "efficiency".

ps - if you want to try something one step further and upon your next install, launch the IE6 **BEFORE** your network driver/connectivity, then axe IE6. I personally axe IE by way of the below as a run-as-admin bat-file. Basically, the exe is replaced with a folder of the same name and the exe has its name changed. Windows does not allow a folder and file to be the same exact name. I **KEEP** IE as the OS "default browser" but my IE *cannot* launch. Nothing INTRODUCES security holes in an OS more than having a "default browser"! Unsure why SP2 requires IE6 to be launched but this is not a requirement in SP3 (my SP3's require no IE launch in order for 360Chrome to work). ; takeown /f "c:\program files\internet explorer" /r /d y ; takeown /f "c:\program files (x86)\internet explorer" /r /d y echo y| cacls "c:\program files (x86)\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" /P everyone:f @echo off C: cd "\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer" if not exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End if exist IEXPLORE.EX_ del IEXPLORE.EX_ if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR md IEXPLORE.DIR if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR goto End attrib -r -h -s IEXPLORE.EXE ren IEXPLORE.EXE IEXPLORE.EX_ if exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End ren IEXPLORE.DIR IEXPLORE.EXE echo IE disabled. echo If prompted, click "Cancel" then "Yes" on File Protection restore. echo Run enable-ie.bat to allow IE to run again. :End echo y| cacls "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" /P everyone:f @echo off C: cd "\Program Files\Internet Explorer" if not exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End if exist IEXPLORE.EX_ del IEXPLORE.EX_ if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR md IEXPLORE.DIR if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR goto End attrib -r -h -s IEXPLORE.EXE ren IEXPLORE.EXE IEXPLORE.EX_ if exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End ren IEXPLORE.DIR IEXPLORE.EXE echo IE disabled. echo If prompted, click "Cancel" then "Yes" on File Protection restore. echo Run enable-ie.bat to allow IE to run again. :End

Agreed. Something with the OS-Level "certificate chain" is not fully installed until after IE6 is launched. No risk, in my opinion. I personally trust the 10sec launch to link that chain together over and above any other certificate-repair/update out there. I personally *avoid* interfering with that linkage via "third-party" cert-interference.

And you can rename the 360Loader to ThoriumLoader or whatever else you decide. Just make sure that the loader EXE and the loader INI both have the same NAME (but one is name.exe and the other is name.ini). Makes it very easy to have dozens upon dozens of browsers/versions all handy for testing purposes between browsers/versions.

And not to confuse the issue any more than it may already be, but I would submit that it also depends on HOW you are using Thorium. Me personally, when I did use Thorium (or Supermium), I only used them as "wrapped portables". I never (ever!) "install" web browsers (of any flavor). Again, not to confuse, but you can (because that's how I ran it) run Thorium using 360Chrome's "loader". Then you just do the UA string exactly like you did in 360Chrome (ie, edit the loader's .ini).

For my freshly installed XP x86 SP2 - All I had to do in order to get 360Chrome to finally load ht-tpS sites was to LAUNCH SP2'S NATIVE IE6, let the "internet" icon display in the lower right corner, EXIT NATIVE IE6, then 360Chrome started working. Albeit with an "insecure padlock" - but I ignore those on XP!

Freshly installed XP x86 SP2. I can load ht-tp sites right out of the box. ie, the test site from our previous discussions - ht-tp://antutu.com/html5/ But ht-tpS sites do not load. Digging...

Ah, I totally forgot about XP x86 SP2. I'd have to install XP x86 SP2 into a VM and "reinvent the wheel" as to what registry changes were made during a Portable Chromium v49 launch that then enabled internet connectivity. I didn't "log" anything at all when trial-running SP2 way back when.

I've never had any issues. I have four usb wi-fi adapters from my XP days and all four worked first time, no issues whatsoever. Although I **NEVER** install "software", I install **DRIVERS ONLY** and no bundled "software". Not sure what you are calling "RealTek SOFTWARE", but you don't need SOFTWARE for an OS to load a DRIVER.

I've never had any issues with 360Chrome not connecting to the internet. The only problem I ever encountered was with first-launch-after-reboot-or-hibernate and ONLY IF taking FALSE INFO from this very forum in regards to specific dll files and only on XP x64. Ignore that FALSE INFO and KEEP the specific dll files that was "sworn up and down to remove" by non-XP members of this very forum and everything worked flawlessly for me. dll files that I do not need in Win10 or Win11 x64 but *WAS A MUST TO KEEP* for me when running XP x64. Again, only affected first launch after a reboot or resume from hibernate. And only affected XP x64.

Go to this page -- https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/:where If the "output" pane of the "try it" section is empty/blank, then your first hunch is correct and lack of :where() support is your issue.

There are only three "requirements" for Win11 that I am aware of. TPM, Secure Boot, and 8+ GB RAM. RUFUS removes all three. Legal and legit OS by all metrics. Just modifies the installation to install on systems not meeting all three of those "requirements". (edit: though I'm not sure why a Win11 requirements post was placed in a Win10 ESU thread, but regardless, use RUFUS to remove those ARBITRARY "requirements", be it Win10 or Win11)

Just a hunch, but you (Antonino) are very likely replying to a "spambot" (RDS).

There are some good AI-blocking lists for uBlock. Unsure if they would remove what you are encountering. Me? I haven't used them. I just use custom style sheets to hide the dumb AI content. But I also use custom style sheets to also hide YouTube "comments". So we are clearly two birds of a different feather.

Sounds like an oddly "modern" metric to gauge a web site's usability. Not for me, but yeah, "to each their own".