NotHereToPlayGames

Because Supermium does not have a TITLE BAR. While not big to you, that IS big to a LOT of folks (maybe that's an XP Thing [which Supermium targets], it does seem to be the XP Crowd but who knows?). As I've pointed out, I HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR SUPERMIUM. It's unfortunate that when we DO get an "ungoogled" (as I believe it is still in-the-works), we won't get a v115 "ungoogled" but rather a v130 or whatever "real" Chrome is at at-the-time. But I'm sure that Ungoogled Supermium v130 will become my DEFAULT six or ten years from now when "real" Chrome is at v190 and OLDER BROWSERS (ie, THIS THREAD) simply fill the bill for me better. Just like v86 is perfectly fine for me when everyone else is running 120+.

For me, it's basically come down to a true TITLE BAR and UNIFORMALITY. I really really do HATE one program on my computer not "looking the same" as all my other programs. My current Win10 at home runs 360Chrome 13.5.1030 90% of the time (the other 10% is technically just "comparison" to Official Ungoogled v114 [which is the only browser I use at work]). I've not bothered to upload my "current" 13.5.1030 but the one I use now doesn't have any "shadow borders" on context menus, adheres more closely to my Win10 context menu colors relative to other programs, adds title bars to dialog boxes that didn't have them, etc.

My take - about time! As most of you may already know, I no longer run XP. Although I still do find myself PREFERRING v86-based Chromium Forks over the slow-a$$ "modern" 'stuff' - NO ONE BROWSER WILL EVER PLEASE EVERYONE.

I use VirtualBox version 4.3.40 with Win10 x64 as my host.

There are "acceleration" options for VirtualBox VM's. I've never "wasted my time" experimenting with them. But that's also because when I ran XP, I never ever EVER "believed in" hardware acceleration! I extend that to my Win10 usage because whenever you read tutorials on "how to fix" an issue you are having, in the top three always is the suggestion to DISABLE HARDWARE ACCELERATION. Not to be miread, I'm sure it's "great" when it works, but I do not need it for they way that I use my computer. I don't play games, I don't stream DRM, I don't video-edit, and whatever else HA is meant to "improve".

<OT> If I were to rate my three worst operating systems, the absolute worst would be Ubuntu Satanic Edition (yes, that's a real thing, lol), Win ME, and Vista. 7 wasn't for me either, but I did like it better than Vista. But I also only ran Win 7 Enterprise on work computers, so that's not really the same as running an OS at home. </OT> I just fired up Supermium in my Win7 VirtualBox. Seemed fine with no freezing. At least no more than the slowness I saw while testing in XP. But granted, that was a VM and not "real" hardware. Still is generally a bit "telling" as far as testing software.

I have high hopes for Supermium therefore I monitor its development. It's too early to tell if Supermium is "overpromised, underdelivered".

Agreed! Though I myself don't go quite that far. Official Ungoogled v114 is currently my preferred Win10 Browser (but 360Chrome remains my DEFAULT even on Win10!). I'm no longer on XP. In fact, I "now" hear the XP Crowd differently than I did when I "was" on XP. My XPS 8700 was released in 2013 but I still have and use much older hardware. But even the older hardware is now running a tweaked and optimized version of Win10. A legal version, but Microsoft themselves at times will "distance themselves" from the term "legal" when it comes to apps like nLite, as only one example. I "now" see myself as holding myself back when it came to my XP Adherence Era. But "to each their own".

I am not a fan of Mypal 68. Side-by-side comparisons of Supermium (a Chrome Fork) with other Chrome Forks is more important than comparing an apple (Supermium) to an orange (anything Mozilla-based). Supermium is v121 and runs on XP. That by itself speaks volumes. But it crashed on my XP with only 2GB RAM when I didn't even have a network connection, all I was doing was navigating through all of the settings and RAM consumption kept climbing and climbing until it eventually forced a Task Manager Terminate Task.

Agreed! I see the same thing here. Granted, I have *barely* tested Supermium. That goes for 117 or for 121 or anything in-between. It is really "not for me" until it becomes "ungoogled". What I myself would have preferred to see is a v115 (first version for Supermium) being updated, vetted by beta testers, updated again, vetted again, improved, vetted again, optimized, vetted again all while remaining at v115. For v115 to have made it to maturity (stable on XP, UNGOOGLED, et cetera). Then, only only then, for a v121 to be released with the same set of patches that brought v115 to maturity. Granted, I am a self-admitted biased Chromium User. I do NOT use the latest-and-greatest if it shows itself to be SLOWER than PREVIOUS versions. And YES, not only by "gut feelings" but by quantifiable, repeatable, "speed test" metrics. The two DO go hand-in-hand much more than the "I don't support those types of tests" folks care to bring themselves to admit. My favorite still remains v114 which predates "all" of the Supermium releases.

<OT> All of the goat talk reminded me of this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrTUmYxnNlo </OT> re: "Tough crowd". Yep, MSFN seems to always be a "tough crowd". Good and bad.

That is actually one of the UNFORTUNATE aspects of projects like Supermium. Focusing on v114 or v117 and remaining at that level is often times MUCH better than striving for v121 simply to keep up with Official Chrome. There are PROS and CONS on both sides of that coin, of course. Double-edged sword. "Secure" web browser on "insecure" OS does not equate to "secure web browsing". Rock... Hard Place...

That's not what it was. Scientific Approach has to eliminate ONE variable at a time. That was the ONE variable that OTHERS needed to chime in on once it was introduced AS a variable. Supermium DOES work for OTHERS that have PosReady, so NOW we can eliminate that variable.

I do NOT use PosReady updates! Unsure if this is why Supermium WORKS on my XP but not on your "XP".

And cookie tied to machine ID has never been a concern for me. So again, I leave that for those whom find that as a concern for their needs.

The X-Chromium loader works perfectly fine. You have to use the .ini correctly and adhere to folder/file structure. Then there are no registry writes and there are no permanent files stored in Local Settings. I did not try the 360Chrome loader as I've always used X-Chromium for all forks other than 360Chrome and only use the 360Chrome loader for 360Chrome. Both require knowledge of their respective .ini files.

I haven't tried it but go for it. The "X-Chromium" loader should work also. Until Supermium is "ungoogled", I don't plan on ever doing anything with it. Making a "non-portable" a "portable" is extremely easy (as far as the Registry Writes and the User Data folder that it places in Local Settings\Temp\Supermium). Cookies tied to a hardware ID is also some folk's definition of "portable", this one never concerns me so I'll leave that for others to decide for themselves.

Personally, I never run "installers". In this case, you only need to use 7-ZIP (and extract TWICE). The FIRST extraction will give you the progwrp.dll file, MANUALLY place that in the Windows\system32 folder. The SECOND extraction will give you the Supermium files (that will not run unless you performed the MANUAL first extraction and MANUALLY placed the .dll into your system32 folder). I only tried the 32bit just to see if it does "work" (it does!) WITHOUT the need of running an "installer".

Yes.

No offense here, lol.

Work did "catch me" using 360Chrome on my lab benches and "slapped my hand" with an IT Warning. So technically I no longer use 360Chrome during office hours. IT didn't like build 2044! I did not track down if it was something about build 2044 that put me on their radar. Build 2044 was very early in its infancy when IT slapped my hand for using it at work. Personally, I have never never NEVER trusted "newer" versions of 360Chrome - while some v86 "engine" compiling is possible (but unproven!) with "newer" UPSTREAM builds, what IS IS IS provable is the ADDED telemetry with every new UPSTREAM build that we just REMOVE here at MSFN anyway.

Humming Owl abandoned his a very very long time ago. He even has a post here somewhere stating that he will no longer be updating any of his modified browsers. He did use public archive sites so despite the project being "abandonware", the downloads are still available. I have abandoned all EXCEPT the Redux release. Despite being on Win10 nowadays, I still use my own Redux release the vast majority of the time (with Official Ungoogled Chromium v114 the remainder of the time). I actually PREFER 360Chrome to Ungoogled Chromium v114 even though 360Chrome is SLOWER. I prefer the drag-and-drop auto-maximize, I prefer the ease of customizing the GUI, I prefer the ease of customizing context menus, the list is endless. And perhaps at the VERY TOP of that list, 360Chrome has a TITLE BAR! I really really hate hate HATE how Chrome abandoned a real TITLE BAR! It's not quite to the point of triggering a migraine or a seizure of some sort, but I NEED TITLE BARS!

PM Forum = https://pmforum.co.uk/ There's also an AM Forum = https://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php

NOT RECOMMENDED! One has to be realistic with their expectations when running "Older NT-Family OSes".

Cool! I have seen dozens of YouTube videos that show "my" 360Chrome but do not give credit to the MSFN Forums where it was found, at least that one kept the MSFN file name! "Mine" is EXTREMELY easy to spot! Because despite some (mainly Vista users) not liking the "blue" theme, my release is the only version of 360Chrome with XP Title Bars. But they are "embedded", 360Chrome does not use the Operating System's "title bars" [nor does "real" Chrome!] That version appears to be very close to the latest as far as the .2036 branch (I no longer use .2036 and use .1030). The timestamp for chrome.dll is more important than the timestamp for 360chrome.exe - I think "beta3" was/is five days older than the non-beta. iframe.srx was also updated between "beta3" and the 4/15/2023 version.