NotHereToPlayGames

ps - if you want to try something one step further and upon your next install, launch the IE6 **BEFORE** your network driver/connectivity, then axe IE6. I personally axe IE by way of the below as a run-as-admin bat-file. Basically, the exe is replaced with a folder of the same name and the exe has its name changed. Windows does not allow a folder and file to be the same exact name. I **KEEP** IE as the OS "default browser" but my IE *cannot* launch. Nothing INTRODUCES security holes in an OS more than having a "default browser"! Unsure why SP2 requires IE6 to be launched but this is not a requirement in SP3 (my SP3's require no IE launch in order for 360Chrome to work). ; takeown /f "c:\program files\internet explorer" /r /d y ; takeown /f "c:\program files (x86)\internet explorer" /r /d y echo y| cacls "c:\program files (x86)\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" /P everyone:f @echo off C: cd "\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer" if not exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End if exist IEXPLORE.EX_ del IEXPLORE.EX_ if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR md IEXPLORE.DIR if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR goto End attrib -r -h -s IEXPLORE.EXE ren IEXPLORE.EXE IEXPLORE.EX_ if exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End ren IEXPLORE.DIR IEXPLORE.EXE echo IE disabled. echo If prompted, click "Cancel" then "Yes" on File Protection restore. echo Run enable-ie.bat to allow IE to run again. :End echo y| cacls "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" /P everyone:f @echo off C: cd "\Program Files\Internet Explorer" if not exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End if exist IEXPLORE.EX_ del IEXPLORE.EX_ if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR md IEXPLORE.DIR if not exist IEXPLORE.DIR goto End attrib -r -h -s IEXPLORE.EXE ren IEXPLORE.EXE IEXPLORE.EX_ if exist IEXPLORE.EXE goto End ren IEXPLORE.DIR IEXPLORE.EXE echo IE disabled. echo If prompted, click "Cancel" then "Yes" on File Protection restore. echo Run enable-ie.bat to allow IE to run again. :End

Agreed. Something with the OS-Level "certificate chain" is not fully installed until after IE6 is launched. No risk, in my opinion. I personally trust the 10sec launch to link that chain together over and above any other certificate-repair/update out there. I personally *avoid* interfering with that linkage via "third-party" cert-interference.

And you can rename the 360Loader to ThoriumLoader or whatever else you decide. Just make sure that the loader EXE and the loader INI both have the same NAME (but one is name.exe and the other is name.ini). Makes it very easy to have dozens upon dozens of browsers/versions all handy for testing purposes between browsers/versions.

And not to confuse the issue any more than it may already be, but I would submit that it also depends on HOW you are using Thorium. Me personally, when I did use Thorium (or Supermium), I only used them as "wrapped portables". I never (ever!) "install" web browsers (of any flavor). Again, not to confuse, but you can (because that's how I ran it) run Thorium using 360Chrome's "loader". Then you just do the UA string exactly like you did in 360Chrome (ie, edit the loader's .ini).

For my freshly installed XP x86 SP2 - All I had to do in order to get 360Chrome to finally load ht-tpS sites was to LAUNCH SP2'S NATIVE IE6, let the "internet" icon display in the lower right corner, EXIT NATIVE IE6, then 360Chrome started working. Albeit with an "insecure padlock" - but I ignore those on XP!

Freshly installed XP x86 SP2. I can load ht-tp sites right out of the box. ie, the test site from our previous discussions - ht-tp://antutu.com/html5/ But ht-tpS sites do not load. Digging...

Ah, I totally forgot about XP x86 SP2. I'd have to install XP x86 SP2 into a VM and "reinvent the wheel" as to what registry changes were made during a Portable Chromium v49 launch that then enabled internet connectivity. I didn't "log" anything at all when trial-running SP2 way back when.

I've never had any issues. I have four usb wi-fi adapters from my XP days and all four worked first time, no issues whatsoever. Although I **NEVER** install "software", I install **DRIVERS ONLY** and no bundled "software". Not sure what you are calling "RealTek SOFTWARE", but you don't need SOFTWARE for an OS to load a DRIVER.

I've never had any issues with 360Chrome not connecting to the internet. The only problem I ever encountered was with first-launch-after-reboot-or-hibernate and ONLY IF taking FALSE INFO from this very forum in regards to specific dll files and only on XP x64. Ignore that FALSE INFO and KEEP the specific dll files that was "sworn up and down to remove" by non-XP members of this very forum and everything worked flawlessly for me. dll files that I do not need in Win10 or Win11 x64 but *WAS A MUST TO KEEP* for me when running XP x64. Again, only affected first launch after a reboot or resume from hibernate. And only affected XP x64.

Go to this page -- https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/:where If the "output" pane of the "try it" section is empty/blank, then your first hunch is correct and lack of :where() support is your issue.

There are only three "requirements" for Win11 that I am aware of. TPM, Secure Boot, and 8+ GB RAM. RUFUS removes all three. Legal and legit OS by all metrics. Just modifies the installation to install on systems not meeting all three of those "requirements". (edit: though I'm not sure why a Win11 requirements post was placed in a Win10 ESU thread, but regardless, use RUFUS to remove those ARBITRARY "requirements", be it Win10 or Win11)

Just a hunch, but you (Antonino) are very likely replying to a "spambot" (RDS).

There are some good AI-blocking lists for uBlock. Unsure if they would remove what you are encountering. Me? I haven't used them. I just use custom style sheets to hide the dumb AI content. But I also use custom style sheets to also hide YouTube "comments". So we are clearly two birds of a different feather.

Sounds like an oddly "modern" metric to gauge a web site's usability. Not for me, but yeah, "to each their own".

No firsthand experience. Supermium was never very stable on my computers. But as @jumper pointed out, I'm pretty sure that the developer already provides rebased .dll's. Haven't visited that GitHub project in a very long time so no clue where they are located. I've actually erased/deleted/permanently-moved-on from all of my XP "experiments", be they Supermium, Thorium, Pale Moon, New Moon, you name it, they ***ALL*** were nothing but "headaches". I obviously keep my own 360Chrome's around, but seldom are they ever launched. And the only Serpent that is reliable for my needs is a VERY OLD version - new updates only introduce new problems, nothing but "headaches".

Apologies again, but I'm afraid I'm not the person to ask. I ditched XP roughly a year or so ago and my life has IMPROVED a million-trillion-zillion times a million-trillion-zillion ever since! XP was holding me back !!! It's up to you to decide if all of the time spent to do things on XP is a waste of your time or not. Sorry. XP, to me, is like Linux, neat and novel, a good HOBBY, but nothing more than a HOBBY.

Apologies, but no. This rabbit hole is far too deep for me to get pulled in any further. Sorry. You will need to use Supermium and "let go" of the notion that a v86 Chrome engine can be made to do whatever you throw at it.

You're not going to like the answer. You need something like PROXOMITRON to change ":autofill" to "-webkit-autofill" for any version of Chrome older than v110 for the below javascript - But that's ony the FIRST HURDLE. Once you get past that, the error console will fill up with tons of more errors to overcome one by one. ie, once you resolve the required -webkit-autofill for Chrome versions older than v110, the paypal site then loads TWO captcha's that 360Chrome cannot pass (especially in XP). One from www.recaptcha.net and one from hcaptcha.com.

You would have to provide the web site where you are not able to register. I highly doubt that the autofill error in the console is the root cause for the inability to register.

Unsure of your real end-in-mind. If it is for your browser to autofill usernames and passwords, this is what I use -- https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/328301/

The test also works with Chrome v126 and Supermium is now at v132. The test would have "started" working at some version between v97 and v126 - feel free to try each and every one of those versions to track it down specifically. Generally speaking, you cannot use javascript (querySelectorAll) to affect pseudo-elements (:after, :before, :checkmark, :placeholder, etc) or to affect pseudo-classes (:autofill, :active, :modal, :fullscreen, :enabled, :disabled, :nth-child, :checked, etc). You could try "::autofill" instead of ":autofill" (two colons instead of one), but I suspect that won't solve the javascript code using querySelectorAll to hunt down a pseudo-class.

Your issue is with the developer.mozilla.org "test". findLastIndex does not require a polyfill in Chrome v97 and that "test" does not work in Chrome v97. It most likely does not work in v98, v99, v100, v101... et cetera... And doesn't "start to work" until who knows where. Again, Chrome v97 wholly and fully implements findLastIndex and even v97 cannot 'pass' that "test".

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.