NotHereToPlayGames

@ED_Sln - Is it possible to totally remove/disable the "AI" features in the e3k Chromium fork?

This feels like a "trolling". Is it? You probably only want "two" tidbits, but some things aren't "that easy". 1) Because I placed blind trust in one (it was not from here at MSFN but the "ideology" behind it is/was) and I had to reformat/reinstall because that trust was misplaced. The "updater" broke more web sites than it fixed. My mistake, I own every mistake I ever make. Personal Accountability. My only way to restore those broken web sites was to restore my computer to Official Microsoft and the way that Official Microsoft updates its own certificates. Which I guess is a form of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". 2) "Your computer, your rules." You really have to decide for yourself if you are going to "hack" your system. Maybe your system is already a "hack job", so what's one more hack on top of the several other hacks? Official Microsoft operating systems &/or Official Web Browsers already perform these certificate updates. "If your hack bricks your system, then who is really to blame, the publisher of the hack or you yourself for placing trust in that hack?" You asked me directly, that's my answer. Call it "Been there, done that." Or "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But sure, that doesn't mean that YOUR experience with these "updaters" will also result in a reformat/reinstall. I can only tell you from my own experience that my trial on a "certificate updater" did result in unbroken cites being broken and a reformat/reinstall to fix the unbroken.

Our fellow member @soggi also hosts them on his web site if you wish to try it for faster downloads (scroll down about 3/4 of the way): https://soggi.org/misc/tools.htm

First and foremost = *personal preference*. I've stated here at MSFN *dozens upon dozens* of times over the years that there is never a "right answer" to the question of "what browser is better", it *always always ALWAYS* boils down to PERSONAL PREFERENCE. **ALWAYS** My hardware is not the same as yours, my OS is not the same as yours, etc etc etc. What I need for my browser to do is not the same as what you need your browser to do, etc etc etc. Just off the top of my head - I am down to only two computers still running XP. Both of them run x64, I've not ran a 32bit OS in over twenty years. Whether it is x64 versus x86 or whether it is how my XP is configured for "subpixel font rendering" or "smooth edges of fonts" or whether it is the graphics card or driver, the list is endless, but Supermium has *SEVERAL* areas within the GUI where the font is *CUT OFF* on the very left edge, the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the very first letter is INVISIBLE, the font is SHIFTED to the left. Discussions do suggest, however, that the FONT CUT OFF ISSUE has been fixed. No clue, I don't follow Supermium's development on a daily basis. I *do* keep CURRENT with Supermium as fas as always keeping the MOST RECENT version (as often as I can) on my VirtualBox VMs. And therein is one of my biggest issues with Supermium. It does not "behave" the same from inside a VM as it does on real hardware. From inside a VM, it is absolutely **USELESS**. Let it sit idle for so much as two tiny minutes and it LOCKS UP, has to be task-killed. But if you don't catch it fast enough, the CPU is pegged to the point where you CAN *NOT* task-kill, you have to shutdown the VM entirely and restart. I've used HUNDREDS (literally!) of browsers over the years. Supermium is the *ONLY* one I have ever encountered that behaves this way inside a VM. I'm a "patient man" for the most part and these LOCK UPS gets me so INFURTIATED at the computer that I want to pick it up and THROW IT OUT THE WINDOW. And it's not like Supermium does that "rarely", it does it EACH AND EVERY TIME that I let it sit idle inside a VM. But it's not like it's just inside a VM, it is TERRIBLE on REAL HARDWARE also. But yeah, *MY* hardware is *NOT* the same as yours, so you may not have the same experience. All that aside, the e3k-blah fork is WORLD REKNOWN. It is FAR more KNOWN around the world! To the point of other DEVELOPERS turn to IT for GUIDANCE. You see it on Firefox forks and Chrome/Chromium forks alike, "new developers" will reference e3k-blah OFTEN. When they are debugging BUG REPORTS, the DEVELOPER will ask "is this bug also present in e3k version?", they will *NEVER* ask "is this bug present in Supermium?" The e3k forks have a VASTLY SUPERIOR REPUTATION in the circles that I run. That buys "trust" in my book. I do *NOT* "trust" Supermium, it CRASHES my VMs far too often. You literally cannot PAY ME to run Supermium on a daily basis!

The e3k-blah fork by FAR. You couldn't PAY ME to use Supermium! To each their own, of course. Browser preference is (and always has been!) a purely personal preference. There never will be any "one size fits all" browser.

That paste was a test. So I can confirm it works if I *bypass* uBO (which I've never had to do before). So okay, yeah, I should have checked that first, I didn't isolate which list/rule is the culprit. But it is something with uBO preventing the pasted image from posting. No clue, at least I know I can do things the "easy way" (NO FILE HOSTING) and just copy/paste as long as uBO is temporarily bypassed.

The image DOES NOT POST. Despite being displayed in the "editor". That it how I've posted screencaps my entire history of being a member. It hasn't worked (for me) since when xper cleared out a bunch of fake accounts and whatever else he did back whenever that was. March? April? It was when all of the Google results and "siamese" or whatever language was hacking the "google index" or whatever it is called. The pasting into the editor hasn't worked for me ever since.

I type a message... I *paste* my image into the editor... ie, as I did just now, right here >>> It SHOWS IN THE EDITOR... I "Submit Reply"...

Also, it could be possible that whatsup just does not work with UNGOOGLED. To the best of my knowledge, Supermium *STILL* is *NOT* a truly ungoogled fork. This is an old thread, but this was *TRUE* with the last version of Supermiun that I tested - https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1674 Supermium isn't "as" ungoogled as OTHER ungoogled forks.

Bummer. I don't even know what whatsup / watsap is so I couldn't try it here. But that version of Chrome does work in XP, so maybe whatsup / watsap has an issue with XP and it's not the browser ???

Can you please post a pasted image ??? I should have been more "detailed". I can paste into the editor, BUT IT DOES NOT POST THE IMAGE TO MSFN WHEN I SUBMIT THAT REPLY.

It is not the restriction or profile storage space. It's the "editor" that MSFN uses. It **CHANGED** recently. Ever since the time span where xper had to manually delete "fake profiles" and whatever else was done at the time. In this "editor" that I type this very message in, you **USED TO** be able to **PASTE** a screencap from the OS's "clipboard". You **USED TO** be able to **PASTE** jpg/bmp/etc just by TYPING in this "editor" box and doing a "ctrl-v" from *ANY* image editor whereupon the "ctrl-c" was done from within that image editor. NOW, the *only* way to post images is to use a hosting service or link to an image via "Other Media". It didn't *USED TO* be that way, we could just PASTE into the "reply editor".

Technically, *ALL* Chrome/Chromium browsers can be made PORTABLE. Just use a "loader" or "Chrome++". And *never* (my opinion!) use any "installer". None needed. Just use 7Zip (or similar) to extract the contents of mini_installer.exe for 32bit or min_installer_x64.exe for 64bit. Same goes for the ungoogled versions, just extract using 7Zip (or similar). Chrome++ is found here: https://github.com/Bush2021/chrome_plus/releases (I use v1.11.1 because of preference on older method for [RunAfter] not popping up a visible command prompt). Most importanly, *ALL* versions of Chrome/Chromium and *ALL* of their forks **ARE** portable - you just have to extract them and use with your preferred "loader method".

No, pasting into the reply editor NO LONGER WORKS. It used to. For many years. Just paste the contents of a "print screen" or clipboard directly into the reply editor. It no longer works, *forcing* us to use "file hosting service BS" instead.