NotHereToPlayGames

Awesome! When I attempted, I could not figure out how to apply ungoogled patches. Will you also be attempting ungoogled patches?

Why does that even matter? Why interject social class into this thread? I don't understand that at all. Me personally, I could care less what poor people deal with, they should be happy with what they do have and not think they are somehow "entitled" to the things they do not have. Do "poor people" complain about the tinny sound from their "Obama Phone" and think some government-subsidized program should upgrade their Free Cheese to Dolby? All of my sound is Dolby 6.1. The equipment is capable of 7.1, but I only wired for 6.1. But come on, I'm seriously failing to see the issue with Chrome and Dolby. Carry on, no further discussion required, we've both said our side.

We had Dolby CDs also. Had laserdisc and betamax when very few of even my aunts and uncles at the time ever even heard of them. I kind of agree AND disagree. Yeah, both at the same time! One of my biggest pet peeves is folks that use their d#mn mobile phone on "speakerphone". I have a work office with a door and I have no problems whatsoever in SLAMMING THAT DOOR to make a point when lab techs are on "speakerphone". The "sound" out of those d#mn mobile phones MAKES MY EARS BLEED just thinking about it! "Chrome" is *NOT* how true audiophiles get their audio !!! It just isn't, nor is it really (in my opinion) "realistic" to think that "theater sound" should somehow emanate from a laptop speaker.

Not to split hairs, but Dolby didn't really exist for home audio in '91 and it didn't migrate to the computer industry until several years later. I don't really remember when it hit movie theaters. I recall the movie "Top Gun" being heavily marketed for "3D sound", but forget what year and if it was even called Dolby. edit - side note: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/478739-netflix-plus

Agreed! Even way back at 50's version numbering, I remember it running ALL NIGHT LONG. I only tried it once, but that once was enough to know "not for me" and to be *PATIENT* in waiting for those that do share their compiles and not expect them to keep up with the latest-and-greatest just for the sake of it being latest-and-greatest. I wonder of something exists (I'm sure it does) for what BANKING INSTITUTIONS regard as "milestone releases" for Firefox and Chromium? ie, BANKING INSTITUTIONS don't throw up a "your browser is no longer supported" for EACH AND EVERY VERSION, they wait *SEVERAL* versions and even then don't force their user to the latest-and-greatest.

Bummer. Thanks for trying. Chrome was in the 50's version numbering when I last tried to compile.

My focus has basically been solely with Brave of late. I am *NOT* a fan of integrated/embedded "ad blockers" but it seems that most Chromium Forks are taking that route. At least until all the MV2 vs MV3 dust settles. One of the strangest telemetry connections that took some time in isolating is Brave's Enable CNAME uncloaking flag! DISABLING that cut down on a ton of telemetry connections! Sure, the "uncloaking" sounds like a nifty tool, but not at the expense of sending *ALL* of my browsing history to godknowswhere! No history to hide, per se, but browsers should just browse and nothing more.

I think MSFN could benefit from a Compile Chromium thread/tutorial. I myself have "successfully" compiled Chromium but I've had to take bits and pieces from four (or more, don't recall now) different "tutorials" found online. I ended up with something that would "launch" and "browse", but in the end I didn't really "trust" my own work and sent it all to the Recycle Bin.

Chrome/Chromium's "original" chrome.dll is not compressed. This seems to be standard. Compressing DLLs directly can have negative consequences, such as increased address space fragmentation, disabled asynchronous transfers, introduces run-time overhead of decompression, among other issues. A compressed DLL would also make the program unusable on systems with disabled page files (not uncommon), per several stackoverflow/reddit Q&A's which I lead the followers to research and find themselves as this kind of goes "far and wide".

Agreed. I do the same on my home computers. I call them "Hobby Hacks". I'm not smart enough to be a "hacker", but I've always found ways to "quasi-hack" and get things to work. edit - I spent all weekend "hacking" an abandonware piece of software that had the arrow key hotkeys defined as "Left, Right, up, Down". That lowercase U bugged the sh&t out of me! Took all weekend, but I found and fixed!

ps - I'm not saying to "publicly" inform the creator of the wrapper. I do know how some folks fear such public disclosures as some sort of "I can't say this publicly because I don't want Google to know, I don't want Google using this knowledge and blocking us from doing this." My view on that, Google already knows! It's only our own ego that thinks we are smarter then them!

Very cool indeed !!! I still can't help but see some sort of over-competitive don't-steal-credit "shenanigans" going on behind the scene. Just seems to me that if we are going to use Supermium's wrapper, then why selfishly not inform the creator of that wrapper just how it is being used for other projects. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, wouldn't be the first time, just still all sounds "selfish". But what do I know?

A very worthwhile read. I just have to wonder just how many folks will actually read it (we live in a Twitter/X/Whatever society with an attention span of only ONE sentence at a time) [Even members of MSFN will "complain" if a reply is more than three sentences]! I think I counted 28 paragraphs (give or take). And to me, you have to get all the way to paragraph 19 (67.9% into what I suspect most will classify as "TL;DR"). The Cliff Note version - 1) Google claims the goal is to reduce fingerprinting for the browser itself (Chrome, in this case) 2) MARKETERS are against the goal - MARKETING AGENCIES want fingerprinting to INCREASE (societal norm, you can never take away free cheese after your constituants are accustomed to receiving free cheese) 3) Google isn't just a "browser", they are ALSO a MARKETING AGENCY! (Google owns DoubleClick) 4) Google is clerverly playing both sides at the same time! DECREASING overall fingerprinting but at the same time allowing a BROWSER-SESSION that visits YouTube, Gmail, Fitbit, Waze, DoubleClick in that same session has the "data" from each other!

Though my previous post being said, I personally do not trust these either. But I do want them to evolve into something that I do trust.

Seems a bit selfish. You either want browser alternatives to succeed or you want them to fail. I don't think there really is any "middle ground". Either we are "friends" of win32ss (extended kernel success) or we are "foes" of win32ss (almost a hidden agenda of wanting Supermium to fail).