NotHereToPlayGames

His GitHub repo definitely hosts BOTH (normal and ungoogled). I'll leave it to somebody that USES google sync to test. The "normal" SHOULD work. But yeah, somebody would have to test. But it SHOULD work. I only use UNGOOGLED forks. "To each their own." v150 so far seems to only have the NORMAL. The ungoogled release is not out yet. Nothing against Supermium, but to me, the e3k-punch-keyboard is *FAR SUPERIOR* in essentially every way imaginable.

I'm the opposite, I have no use for Google Sync, lol. So I will have to set up a "fake" Google account and run a test. I "think" (but have to verify) that e3k-blah-blah-blah has both a "normal" and an "ungoogled".

This one is kind of difficult to track down. I haven't been able to "undo" whatever my uBO is doing and UNABLE to get the anti-adblock banner. UNABLE TO !!! Granted, I've been trying to disable ONE list at a time, but when I do, ANOTHER list prevents the anti banner. Makes me wonder just how 'bad' any uBO config "is" when any uBO user of any kind *DOES* get that banner. ie, if your uBO config is THAT *bad*, why are you even using uBO? But I digress, lol.

Correction. It's not "EasyList". It's uBlock filters - Ads that prevents the anti-adblock banner junk.

Which may or may not require this filter to be working in conjunction with. At any rate, my combination of filters "work" (for that site) and yours "do not". ie, you need a better combination of filters.

Found it. You are *NOT* using EasyList in uBO's Ads section. Blocking scripts from "adthrive.com" is why I'm not getting any anti-adblock banner junk.

What uBO version and what lists are you running? I'd kind of like to replicate your behavior (yeah, that's how we spell it over here, lol). While I *LOVE* that my setup did NOT behave that way, I'd still like to know WHY.

I tried to run Supermium in XP x86 but it would not even launch for me. Six or more chrome.exe's populate Task Manager but no Supermium ever appears. I had to terminate via Task Manager. But even that was enough to WITNESS your event log entry regarding garbage collector. But this is also a tad confusing, I thought that an EXTENSION needed to be installed? I couldn't even launch Supermium in XP x86 to even add any extension. That said, I don't own any XP x86, all of my real XP machines are x64. So this was inside a XP x86 VM (where ek3-whats-his-name works fine but Supermium has never really liked).

I don't get these event log entries so I can kind of only speculate at this point. If I were to fathom a *GUESS*, do you by chance have your Supermium sitting in the PROGRAM FILES directory? If so, MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, but don't move it to any folder that is "protected" in XP by default. ie, ANYWHERE *except* any of the following -- C:\Windows C:\Program Files C:\Windows\System32 (you're on x86, x64 users would also exclude C:\Windows\SysWOW64) C:\Windows\Temp C:\Windows\Prefetch C:\Documents and Settings\<Username>\Local Settings C:\Documents and Settings\<Username>\Application Data C:\Windows\System32\config\ C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\ C:\Windows\WinSxS C:\Windows\Logs C:\Windows\Help C:\Windows\Installer C:\Windows\Media

Why did you have to disable uBlock? I did not have to disable and the site works for me no matter how long I stay on the site, no time bombs or anti-adblock or anything. I'm using uBO v1.52.2 with all 5 of 5 uBO filters, the EasyList listed in Ads, the EasyPrivacy listed in Privacy, and both 2 of 2 EasyList/uBO Cookie Notices listed in Annoyances. People using Supermium do not (and I submit SHOULD NOT) be using any of the Manifest v3 versions of uBO. But they can go newer than my preferred v1.52.2. (As can I, but I've made too many mod's to it that I would have to do all over again if I upgrade.)

Noted, ooops. Correct, that is the e3k-weird-name fork and not Supermium. Regardless, it *DOES* work in XP and does *not* require 7.

Fairly decent Speedometer 2.1 score for an XP browser. But a very VERY slow 270! A ton of pauses and resumes. Kind of feels more like a 27 then a 270. Official Firefox v52.9.0 scores 63 but only takes 1 minute 42 seconds to run the test. Supermium Linked v150 scored 255, 270, and 264 when running three different times. I only timed the 264 and it took FOUR minutes FORTY seconds because of all of the pause-resumes.

Members in this discussion are permanently on my ignore list (via userstyle, so blocked/hidden even if I am not logged in!), so I apologize if this is a repeat. But I can confirm that Supermium linked v150 (I only extracted the mini-installer, I never execute "installers") does indeed work in XP. Supermium's "About" screen no longer shows it as "Supermium", but this is the extracted mini-installer. In fact, I couldn't find "Supermium" branding referenced anywhere, not in file properties, not in "About", not in "flags", but I can't claim to have spent a lot of time hunting. This is the most recent Supermium v150, not installed, just extracted, and running in XP.

This is kind of cool. A web site that you give it the URL and it analyzes for bloat -- https://www.ranknibbler.com/

I didn't have to "do" anything special to access that site. My uBO defaults let me in with no "It initially displayed, and then a moment later changed to a message about adblock being active" happening here. Perhaps the bloated problem here is NOT the normal Google Analytics and Cloudflare "insights", but that this site is, if left alone to do its crap, using FACEBOOK CRAP in the background. (can't post screen cap, going to submit reply, delete profile attachments, and then post screencap)

Not here either. But I also may be a version or two behind.

lol on roytam's bandwidth, I was thinking the same when I downloaded three files that I won't actually even use. Agreed on proper forum images. I "hate" folks that use hosting sites just to attach a TEMPORARY image (because I will delete from my profile at some point). Others prefer the hosting sites because we all have such a very tiny amount of storage that we end up with "broken" discussions when we delete for future attachment. The 20 MB is the value of the peak. When something results in a higher reading, the 20 disappears and the newer peak is displayed instead. 20 MB/s = 160 Mbps. But that PEAK is really nothing more than the same useless datapoint as your PEAK. Files this (relatively) SMALL can't really be measured accurately, the download is TOO FAST. Not all three files dowloaded at that speed for the duration of the download. And it seems that for both of us, the download is so tiny that it completes in LESS THAN one second, so a "per second" measurement is skewed by measurement precision. ie, if that speed is only measured ever 500 milliseconds and the download only took 400 milliseconds, then the graph method can only show 500. Exaggerating for illustrative purposes, but anywhoo...

I guess it (NetMeter) is really just as useless as System Informer's network graph. Sure, you can see (even in System Informer) the SPIKE when I downloaded THREE files from roytam's site. But it really says NOTHING about the actual download speed of those three files. Only that they were downloaded SO FREAKISHLY FAST that they are nothing but a "blip on the radar". And I couldn't even click three downloads in a row fast enough to try to bottleneck the download speed.

Agreed. All I knew was that it was SO DANG *FAST* that I had no way of visually catching the speed. I'll have to check out the referenced Netmeter 1.1.4.

Not to brag, lol, and this is the SLOWEST plan that my fiber optic ISP provides, and it is CHEAPER than the cable plan I used to be on. Fiber optic is less than a year old in my town, cable company was a MONOPOLY that I'm glad to no longer be a customer of. 500 Mbps and that's with my standard four video streams playing in the background.

You guys must have *VERY* slow internet connections! The download is *SO FAST* here that it is *done downloading* in a split second, I delete the download to try to catch it again, and I simply cannot catch the speed, the download is *done* before I can even move my eyes to the display of download speed.

I would have to assume (but it is strictly an assumption) that it is due to the INFERIOR memory management of 32-bit OSs and the "cheap workarounds" that 32-bit software have to employ. Even on 64-bit OSs, there is a very VERY drastic difference in memory management in 2016 OSs versus 2021 OSs. I cite specifically the FIRST RUN after a reboot or hibernate of all Chrome variations. EXTREME lags on that FIRST RUN on certain hardware in 2016 OSs but NO LAG on 2021 OSs on the same exact hardware.