NotHereToPlayGames

<copied from a Google search> Windows Defender was first introduced as a downloadable anti-spyware tool for Windows XP (Service Pack 2) and Windows Server 2003, then became a built-in feature starting with Windows Vista, evolving into a full antivirus suite with Windows 8, and is now part of the integrated Windows Security in Windows 10/11. </copy> If you allow/enable "Windows Updates", then it can add Windows Defender. I always disabled Windows Updates when I ran XP x64 so I am unsure if Windows Defender would have been installed via that route.

Nah, not really. Just typed too fast. I edited my post but you read it before my edit went through. Regardless, the bottom line here is that Supermium users only have themselves to blame if they are "opting IN" on these 'protection services'.

I would have to investigate further. ie, Supermium can be keeping the setting in the GUI but that doesn't technically mean that the setting "works". Doesn't really interest me further at this point. Not at v138 at least. Who knows about future releases.

You made/forwarded/cited this so-called claim. The burden is on you to prove it. Citing two people arguing in Russian is no proof of anything. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. But technically, I AGREE WITH YOU. No skin off my back either way. Supermium couldn't log into my bank. But yeah, I did try, and yeah, I *immediately* changed my bank password after the failed login attempt. Supermium (and all Chrome forks above version 79 [December 2019]) have password data breach "protection". Personally, if you "trust these", you only INVITE man-in-the-middle and you VOLUNTEERED for your password hash to be TRANSMITTED !!! You REQUESTED it be analyzed via THIRD-PARTY to see if it exists in the wild. You ASKED for that when you opted in for the "protection". This is no different than VOLUNTEERING your local files to be SUBMITTED to antivirus firms if you allow them to be scanned by antivirus software. Technically, I AGREE WITH YOU, there *ARE* settings in Supermium (and all Chrome versions since 2019 !!!) that transmit data that I **OPT OUT OF**. But for the enduser that does "trust" the 'service', I leave that up to them to decide on their own, I would suggest they disable these "settings". But there will be just as many that claim they are "safer" having some embedded Chrome "service" acting as their "nanny" to protect themselves from themself.

Without some sort of PROOF, this shall be considered "fearmongering".

This one is easier to use. But also doesn't let me use an EQ in conjuction with it. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/decibel-limiter/jhdflfacjalpcajleapijmclnbilnjlh

This seems to be a great replacement for Audio Compressor. Audio Compressor was "always on" but this one has to be "turned on" whenever you load a web site. I haven't yet looked at the code to see if it can be configured to turn itself on. This one doesn't let me use an EQ in conjuction with it. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/audio-limiter-pro/nbegknfbjphdkfigiepacdkichbmdaof

Seeking suggestions to improve video streaming experience. 1) ability to save presets specific to Computer A's speakers, Computer B's speakers, and Computer C's speakers 2) ability to prevent things like action movie LOUD scenes from being TOO LOUD 3) should work on multiple web sites (ie, not YouTube-only types of extensions) My current config uses two extensions that work decent for the most part. But one of the two extensions (Audio Compressor) has a tendency to LOCK UP (video freezes and/or stutters) and needs disabled/re-enabled quite frequently. Re-enabling also requires the streaming video web site to be reloaded. Currently using Audio Compressor version 0.1.28 in conjunction with Ears Audio Toolkit version 1.3.12. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/audio-compressor/daomidlfpcfjchpalpjogmnhabkekbnn?hl=en https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/Ears: Bass Boost%2C EQ Any Audio!/nfdfiepdkbnoanddpianalelglmfooik

Disregard. Based on bank account login, I will need to wait until Supermium releases a v140 or higher. But even then, I also forgot that Supermium will never be able to work with Widevine on Netflix (not a showstopper, per se).

So I admittedly find myself fully rethinking Supermium on MODERN HARDWARE. We tend to think of forks like Supermium existing only for the sake of "keeping XP alive" or for "ancient hardware". I "was" a member of both! We all know the type, frowning upon friends and family using anything but XP and using our ancient hardware as somewhat of a "badge of honor". Again, we all know the type, we kind of saw ourselves as "better than" folks with newer computers and "better than" folks that use Win10 or Win11. I have *zero* regrets in "finally" upgrading to a HEAVILY TWEAKED *ancient* and no-longer-supported version of Win10. So I saw things like Supermium as "not for me" (mainly due to *horrific* experiences with Supermium when I was on *ancient hardware*, so why use it on modern hardware?). That changed yesterday... My bank account "forced me" to upgrade from Official Chrome v136 to Official Chrome v140 back in November. The force was actually several months prior to November. November was just when I finally realized that an "older browser" was the ROOT CAUSE for login "extra steps". As of today, I will be running Supermium as my DEFAULT. At least for the sake of testing must-have web sites (bank account, pay my utility bills, et cetera). I don't know (yet) if v138 will be "new enough" for my bank account login. So why "downgrade" when v140 works for everything I need a web browser for? Well, and unsure why it took so long, but it only hit my v140 *yesterday*. I had a "screen_ai" folder suddenly appear in my browser profile! Some 106MB "extension" that Chrome added "under the radar"! I caught it during download and before "install", but just seeing it sneak in, well, basically p#ss#s me off! Reading into what it "does" is kind of scary. I can see SUPERMIUM (and maybe other forks "targeting" XP / 7) as a route of preventing this "under the radar" AI [BS].

It was good content. Maybe if you pasted into a .txt editor THEN copy-paste from the .txt editor into MSFN's post-editor-box? ie, if you copied from a web site could be why it pasted the way it did.

Um, why did you post it all as a *LINK* to https://www.wireless-driver.com/ralink-rt2500-rt256x-rt266x-wireless-windows-98-me-2000-xp-drivers/ ???

Agreed. "Liked".

Admins don't care. The numbers are meaningless so there is no need for them to care. That doesn't mean we are not allowed to discuss them. And think about it. We have members that are no longer here FOR A REASON. None of us know that reason. None of us need to know. The problem arises because we have members that "believe" in the numbers, BRAG about them PUBLICLY, and cite them CONSTANTLY as if they "do" mean something, as if they are "real". THAT is the real problem. Bottom line is this, this thread is here to discuss "numbers" being shown on this web site. We have done that. The smart people here can believe what they want. The not-as-smart can believe what they want. To be honest, no skin off my back either way. Reality is this, the *fake* numbers are a result of people with nothing better to do logging in daily, tracking down EVERY post by three different members, and hitting the "like" button. THEY RAN OUT OF POSTS TO CLICK "LIKE". THAT IS WHY D.DRAKER FELL OFF THE LEADERBOARD. Again, believe what you want, be blind to what you want, makes no difference to me. I have stated my case, I have *FACTS* to back it up. Our "numbers" are MEANINGLESS, admins admit that, I have informed as to WHY they are MEANINGLESS and HOW they were MANIPULATED. I cannot be banned for speaking the truth. Report me as a "thorn" all you want. I have made my case and I can 'move on' now. Dot Org. Waka waka waka.

It's not rocket science. The "views" on MSFN are cheated, rigged, manipulated. Meaningless, as even our mods point out. I agree with YOU, they are there for us members to read, they are supposed to tell us something. I'm telling you that they are *FAKE*. We have people (they know who they are) that visit the "profile" page to keep track of how many DECADES they have to go back to post a "like" they haven't yet posted. I can do the same. Four people live in this house. It isn't against forum rules for those other three people to register an account here and start viewing my profile daily and rack up their daily limit of "likes". Here, I'll show you. 100+ "views" in less than two minutes of my time. Just visit and refresh the page a few times. Notice that the count jumps TWO INCREMENTS for every ONE refresh. On a profile who is no longer an active member because he cannot log in due to email now required. "Auto Refresh" scripts are a piece of cake. I can "view" my profile once per minute for my 6hrs of sleep and return to a computer that "viewed" my profile FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY times. Well, not my profile (I disable the recent visitors), but how 'bout yours? Do you want FOUR THOUSAND "views" by the time I cook my breakfast? It appears that a logged in member view counts as two views and a not-logged-in view counts as one view. Before: After: