NotHereToPlayGames

This may be worth a try (unable to try here at work) -- https://gist.github.com/nuxodin/3ae174f2a6a112df3ccad22459237a91 https://caniuse.com/mdn-api_submitevent_submitter

Old Farts

I'm keeping it. I will *not* be keeping any Supermium builds - at least not yet, I'll try future builds, but none to date will work on my system - NONE. While real hardware is the goal here, tyr Supermium in a VM. Not sure why it should matter, but it does! Run Supermium in a VM and you WILL throw your computer out the window, throw the keyboard out right behind it, flush your mouse down the toilet, and take your printer outside and hit it with a baseball bat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9wsjroVlu8

Use - body, body *, body h1, body h2, body h3, body h4 {font-family: unset !important;}

I'm confused. If your computer is single-core, then why were you testing in multi-process mode? Guess I "assumed" that multi-proces was ONLY for multi-core. But it is an "assumption".

That would suggest that the phone is recognized as a "hub" and what is disconnected/powered down is a "secondary" port, the port that does picture/video transfer versus the port that charges the phone. XP powers down the port when disconnected. x86 and x64.

I wouldn't rule it out, if you have a way to test without POSReady. We (plural) [work-related] had several several SEVERAL issues with POSReady. Our IT ended up "banning" POSReady on all factory computers running XP.

Possible. But I have ran both on real hardware on old laptop and from VM on fairly-modern hardware. I get the same results in both - Supermium is the only one pegging at 100% for 2 to 4 minutes, dropping to 2% for 10 seconds, then pegging again for another 2 to 4 minutes. I can only speak towards what I witness - and that is that Thorium works better, much MUCH better, on my hardware. Supermium can NOT be ran from a VM, the 100% CPU is far FAR worse when ran from a VM. But I suppose that's okay, we should be targeting real hardware.

Then you missed when the OP replied that he doesn't want something in the systray so we had to move away from that suggestion. No clue on assistant service, that is "OT to the OP". I'm liking that phrase, I may trademark it.

@bookie32 -- after a whole page of derailment, did the above link solve your issue? the discussion in that link can very easily be converted to a desktop .bat file.

No. But more importantly, why the derailing of the OP's topic?

As far as I can tell, it is Thorium that is behaving identical to Ungoogled Chromium v114 as far as fonts on Digital Spy. But I'm unsure if they are doing what they are being "told" to do (at least as far as the first issue, you seem to have two issues here). In any programming language, there is always a degree of "junk in, junk out". You have two things going on. First, your style sheet is MISSING the closing }. Your style sheet should read - from body {font-family: unset !important; to body {font-family: unset !important;} (note that the only difference is the } at the very end. Thorium and Ungoogled v114 both seem to add this missing } "for you". Second, Digital Spy &/or Stylus is not applying your style sheet for "body" to "body h4" (unsure what the official CSS guideline is on this). In your style sheet for Digital Spy, change it - from body {font-family: unset !important;} to body, body * {font-family: unset !important;} (note the added , body * so we catch not only "body" but "body h4" and "body h2", both being used at Digital Spy)

You need to ask our Singapore IT "professionals" for the answer to that.

Are you testing on a "real" system? Or an "extended kernel" system?

For me, everything falls back to sans-serif. Unsure where it pulls this from because my system font settings should have it falling back to Tahoma. The font causing all the parsing errors is a "gstatic" font, which I wouldn't normally allow a connection to anyway (I block via uMatrix).