NotHereToPlayGames

Sad is a bit relative. Too many toes stepped on. Both sides have their pros and cons. "It's Tricky", as Run-DMC used to say.

A good not-so-good read on Speedometer 3.0 here -- https://www.techspot.com/news/97006-apple-google-mozilla-collaborate-speedometer-3-browser-benchmark.html I was hoping to find something that says 3.0 requires Chromium v109+ or Firefox v102+ or something as the "minimum requirement". Not finding any "minimum requirement" at the repository either -- https://github.com/WebKit/Speedometer

Agreed. BUT contrary to other people's computers, they do NOT do this for me on MY COMPUTERS so long as I **KEEP** the "vulkan" files! Strictly speaking for XP x64. It's on my To Do List to do that same type of "vulkan" experimenting with Supermium "one of these days".

I can also replicate this. Does not start first time but does the second. But this repeats after each and every reboot or hibernate. First start is a fail, every start from second onward is fine.

x64 users have lock-up issues if they delete the "vulkan" files - FACT The file may be NAMED "vulkan", that doesn't imply that is its SOLE purpose for existence. I will not engage in this FIGHT. I *will* monitor the official GitHub (I am not a member, but I do read the official) for discussions on what "vulkan" is and is not for XP x64 versus XP x86.

Not entirely true. Somebody here should ask win32ss direclty on just what "vulkan" is and is not when it comes to not only XP x86 but also to XP x64 which is not the same beast driver-wise. MANY x64 users have witnessed this for themselves. I think win32ss would know more about this than folks that simply delete files willy-nilly and check a checkbox, "yep, it 'works' without this file". Deleting a file in x86 does not carry over to deleting a file in x64. Speaking solely for XP. I think UCyborg has also researched the matter in the past, do not recall offhand.

Correction: Enhancer for YouTube v2.0.122.1 does not work in v86 or in v114 for the Appearance >> Hide comments function. Have not dug deeper to see if it can be restored as I can block the (stupid) comments by other means.

I can confirm that Enhancer for YouTube v2.0.122.1 works perfectly fine in v86 once you drop it back down to MV3 MV2.

I always fire up a VM with "real" Chrome (instead of Ungoogled Chrome or 360Chrome), go to the webstore and install an extension "Get CRX", then download the actual .crx. That is, unless it is already archived at Crx4Chrome (which Enhancer for YouTube was not, at least not a few days ago). I'll be updating my 360Chrome's Enhancer for YouTube over the weekend, I suspect the updated version will be just fine with v86 but I have only ran it in v114 despite it citing minimum is v120.

In case any of you missed it, Enhancer for YouTube has been updated. The manifest's Chrome min-ver is v120 but I've been using in Ungoogled v114 and everything seems to be working.

Nope.

I still kind of think that the only difference between a "complaint" and a "comment" isn't the person doing the "talking" but rather the EARS of the person "listening". Heads will roll. But they don't actually roll. The ears get in the way. Or is it the nose?

??? ??? ??? My XP was used for nothing OTHER than online!

Ah! So it's the BACKGROUND and not the FONT?

Aren't you the one that used to call folks around here "wannabe admins" for this type of post? Who was it that asked me if 100% of my posts "say anything of importance"? Doesn't that apply to these grammar FIGHTS that splatter MSFN like flung dung? "But I didn't say that out loud."

I could have told you that, lol. The title bars are embedded in the skin as .png files.

was the site ever posted? if so, i missed it. a polyfill very likely resolves this.

Dark Mode (and anti-alias fonts) gives me migraines. Do you have a way of demonstrating this brightness *without* using Dark Mode? As far as that goes, "thicker, blurry fonts" also seems to indicate anti-alias - which is disabled on my systems. So that too could be the difference between what I see versus what you see. I don't go nearly as far as I used to as far as disabling anti-alias on Win10 systems. But if Supermium has a GDI flag, I thought that disabled anti-alias, but I'm not positive on that.

Doesn't that kind of explain the brightness difference in-and-of-itself? What does self-ported detail? Surely a port by Programmer X is going to be different than a port by Programmer Y? Or am I missing something?

Perhaps. But I didn't lose any sleep over it. Can you (not any one person in particular, but the plural "collective" that keeps commenting on "text brightness") at least "humor us" and see if you notice any "brightness" difference when NOT using dark mode? Granted, this may be a difference between "pure black" and "very dark gray, almost black". If this can be isolated, then isn't the dark mode doing what it is supposed to be doing? ie, converting "pure black" to "pure white" and converting "almost black" to "almost white".

Regarding font differences, be that "brightness" or be that "wideness", aren't there flags to enable/disable GDI, it may simply be GDI rendering. I have not looked into the font differences, to be honest, I cannot confirm nor deny whether they "are" different or not. HIGH HOPES. It's just not at a level where I wish to devote any "time" to yet. IT WILL BE, eventually. Just "not yet".

To be fair, that participant "commented", not "complained". And that same "comment" has been made regarding several other web browsers also. Seems to me that it MIGHT BE something specific to that participant's hardware or self-admitted MODDED graphic's driver. I was unable to witness this "brightness" difference in one of the participants other-browser comments. Yes, the fonts were "wider" in that other-browser comment, but to me the were the same "brightness" via screencap RGB, hue, saturation. It's simply a "comment" (just like any of our "comparisons"). Yes, the fonts are "different", Yes, dark mode is always a NIGHTMARE in "my opinion". But all is relevant to the "discussion".

Agree *AND* disagree. Ode et amo. I hate her and I love her, you ask how can that be, I don't know but it is so, and I'm in agony. Programmers like win32 are NOT thin-skinned, nobody shares a project publicly that is unable to take criticisim. We are all here to IMPROVE the project. PERIOD! I have high hopes for Supermium!

Agreed!