NotHereToPlayGames

Nobody has yet to step forward with any example web sites that work in newer versions but do not work in 86. One member sites his gym membership but no screencaps or URLs for anybody else to verify. I'd love to have a public list! But again, nobody has yet to step forward with any example web sites. A public list of URLs that stop working at version 86, 87, 101, 103, 105, 110, 112, you name it, would be a rather valuable resource. But again, and not to beat a dead horse, but nobody has yet to step forward with VERIFIABLE examples. Instead, all we get is a few members constantly citing that 86 is a bit old. Until we have a verifiable list of URLs for other members to be able to witness 86 being a bit old, then none of us that use 86 will sway from 86. Kind of not too difficult a concept to grasp.

Though as I say that out loud, I do see that post number one was last edited on October 9, 2022.

Which makes me seriously ponder just how informative or useful a thread like this is. If you weren't reading a week at a time in 2016 when the thread started, just how many people are going to read 76 pages before posting? Aren't these types of threads intended more for the person that was here in 2016 and monitored it ever since? And not for anybody that stumbles upon it only to be asked to read just under SEVEN YEARS of posts before they get slapped in the face with a "already listed"?

Opinions are like BUTTS, everybody has one but not everybody wants to hear it. waka waka waka In my opinion, Firefox started dying LONG before they sold their soul. What we have instead, is they sold their soul out of some sort of "If you can't beat 'em, JOIN 'EM". And that is where we are at - Internet Explorer couldn't beat 'em, so they JOINED 'EM. Firefox couldn't beat 'em, so they JOINED 'EM. ( Q.E.D. ) [waka waka waka]

Depends on what we are calling a "corporate environment". Our "production" computers almost all exclusively run XP. I'm talking robotics, vision systems, et cetera.

Kinda "don't care". You are more then welcome to run Firefox. But Firefox is a dying bread and losing global market share to Chrome "for a reason". The audio problem is NOT NOT NOT because of multi-process. Most Firefox users (unless running Win98!) even opt to force multi-process. Multi-process is NOT a "negative". Most audio problems on XP can be isolated to audio/video drivers that are dated newer than XP ever intended to be used. Don't use the "latest-and-greatest" audio/video driver.

That example DOES WORK in 360Chrome v13.5 (did not test other versions). This is an example of a web site that REQUIRES WEBGL . WebGL is intentionally disabled. If you "opt-in" for the security risk (the extent is often debated, so "your call") of enabling WebGL, then you need to remove the --disable-webgl switch in 360Loader.ini .

No.

I was working contract from a home office so I was never "forced" to get the vaccine due to contract versus direct-hire corporate policy differences. I told myself that if employment "forced" the vaccine, I'd live off of savings instead! I never had to test if I would actually do that because corporate HR departments here in the USA soon "backed down" from establishing any vaccine-mandate-prerequisite for hiring eligibility.

Mileage varies, of course. Because I have a 60-something year old obese neighbor that was also forbidden from getting the vaccine due to health issues but then she passed within six months due to covid. The husband tried to sue the doctor for forbidding her the vaccine but of course that went nowhere (debate as to whether it should or not is neither here nor there). Stay safe.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, to be honest. My 82yr old dad weighed 120 lbs, had COPD, asthma, and high blood pressure. His doctor strictly FORBID him from getting ANY covid vaccine. He had covid SIX TIMES and NONE of the six so much as kept him bed-ridden for a day.

Not for me. The "overview" page repeats itself three times with the phrase "any annoying contents with easy methods". If the author can't write an overview without repeating him/herself three times, then how can the app be any good? The last words, "Start to subscribe", also tells me that it's not for me. I'm not going to trust anybody's "list" but MINE.

Same here. But given one browser that scores 290 on a popular benchmark versus 330 on a different browser, I'll use that 330 despite not being able to "see any difference". Kind of like back when AMD over-clocking was much more popular than it seems to be nowadays, we'd squeeze that turnip to the point of just-below-instability but never really "see any difference".

Doesn't concern me too much, to be honest. I think people over-estimate just how "fast" 'web standards' migrate through the internet. We are "forced" to use MS Edge at work (us in Engineering are exempt, thankfully!) - MS Edge has been updated THIRTEEN times this year alone! And we're only 46 days into the year. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/microsoft-edge-relnote-stable-channel I'm sorry, that's just STUPID in my "not so humble" opinion.

I would really love to learn how to "ungoogle" GDIChromium (which should in turn outline the process to basically "ungoogle" ANY chrome.dll as "ungoogle-ing" .pak files are fairly straightforward). My attempts thus far have kinda bumped into a brick wall. Unsure if this will be too great of an undertaking for my "intermediate" programming skills or not. Any suggestions are welcomed.

About the same here. I intentionally use a NON-REBASED version because of that. NON-REBASED (ie, "original") has a start time around TWO seconds (six for first launch out of hibernate/restart). REBASING may save on RAM, but it KILLS on start time - so it's a trade-off, "pick your poison".

I don't read most of your posts. So very easily missed.

I need actual URLs. I've yet to encounter ANY web site that Chromium v86 can't handle. Not claiming they don't exist. Just saying we need a LIST for future reference. Note that some web sites INTENTIONALLY will not load properly unless you enable WebGL because I disable this on purpose.

Works for me, lol. Like I say, I don't visit the Funny Farm that often, just not my cup of tea.

No clue how old Mr. D.Draker is. But all I'm hearing here is "ego" or something. He always struck me as low 30s so dating a 27yr old seems about right. But now I'm wondering if he's mid 20s and dating somebody older but looking for somebody younger. So is the post about dating a 27yr old some sort of "brag" for dating somebody older? How are we to read it? Unsure as I would personally never put that sort of detail on MSFN. This is not Facebook, lol, and I don't do Facebook. I certainly hope he's not in his 40s and posting that he's looking for a 20yr old. Another "brag"? Who knows, to each their own. Which I guess leaves him perhaps in his 20s and not liking that his current girlfriend is older and more mature, so he's looking for somebody 20, younger, and less mature than himself. But post that on MSFN? Again, this isn't Facebook. And I'm very very confused by the "her parents need to be dead" comment. A 20yr old whose parents are dead, her parents died "tragically", not of "old age" or "natural causes", but *tragically*. And to have been dead a "very long time" would have put that future girlfriend where, 6yrs old, 10yrs old, 15yrs old? Very very "formative" years in one's "upbringing" to go through the pain of tragically losing her parents. But yeah, my "left brain" is taking over and being far too "analytical" for some "blurb" regarding a 27yr old girlfriend that doesn't fit the bill, that a 20yr old would be better suited, and that the 20yr old had better not have any surviving parents trying to "parent" the new boyfriend. I guess this is just what the "Funny Farm" is all about, I don't really trek down here too often.

I can assure you that it was not "concern".

I do not own a phone. No land line. No cell phone. No phone of any kind. I don't own anything Android.

Works for me. Perhaps you have something like UBO making it not work for you?

Sounds like a very VERY tiny intersection. Like somebody whose mother died while giving birth and whose father died in a car crash or drug overdose. I was well into my 50s when my parents both passed within a year of each other. None of my siblings are anywhere near "no more than 20". You may want to cast a wider net. Or just admit you prefer living single.

I can say that I hereby have no plans to undertake any Catsxp-based project. I am extremely thankful that a "new" Chrome/Chromium Fork has risen to the challenge of maintaining functionality with Win7 that does not require an Extended Kernel and will keep an eye on it as a possible future project. But when it comes right down to it, there are better performing options available to the Vanilla Win7 crowd. Yet I also say this not knowing any web site examples that "work" in Chrome v110 but do not work in Chrome v96 - I'd rather run a "slightly older" variant and have improved performance than use "cutting edge" but take the performance hit. Win7 Enterprise SP1 - 360Chrome v13.5 build 1030 == 56.5 Ungoogled Chromium v86 == 67.3 Catsxp v3.2.4 == 68.7 GDIChromium v96 == 96.3