NotHereToPlayGames

One variable is that you have four tabs open (one Chrome Web Store, two Tampermonkey, one Greasy Fork). At work at the moment, will check my memory load and chrome processes upon return home. Second variable that is kind of important - how many extensions are you running? Because yeah, 27 chromes is not normal. Something within your profile is causing that. Oh, and I would still verify if your New Moon / Pale Moon also has a rebase issue (xul.dll).

Why Black Males? Sounds racist to me. Can't it be Black Monkeys? Black Molasses? Black Molecules? Black Melanite? Black Mulberries? Black Mamba? Black Moths? Black Mold? Black Mud? Black Meteorites? Black Mirrors? Black Material? I'm going to go with Black Mold and that he/she in in the middle of a bathroom remodel or kitchen sink issue.

Oh, and he has a New Moon / Pale Moon web browser also running. So he is running two web browsers at the same time. How many tabs are open in the New Moon / Pale Moon's Disable ... window? Is the xul.dll for that browser also not properly REBASED? Sure, his Supermium ran out of memory. But his New Moon / Pale Moon / "Black_M..." / file-sharing is using a TON of memory before even launching Supermium (the second to last tab in the toolbar where Task Manager is the highlighted last tab).

I kind of doubt that it is any virus. He's running a sound card (ASIOhost64.exe) at realtime priority. What addresses are those dependencies loaded into? He's watching a "Black_M..." video on a (we have to assume) SERVER OS. He is file-sharing (ApexDC.exe) and who knows how many files are being transferred in the background. He has way too many PROCESSES running. Some times, we bring upon our own pain.

Please provide a download link. I have no interest in scrolling through dozens upon dozens of DRUG articles when trying to hunt for it! Gotta be the STUPIDEST name for a BROWSER if you ask me! Yep, you have a REBASE ISSUE. 1) Download libase from here -- https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1N4r41rCXQKVZ02XzZhhjM5I4a0dXkizS 2) Close Supermium and copy its chrome.dll file into the libase -> Release folder. 3) Open a Command Prompt window from the Release folder and execute the command libase.exe chrome.dll 4) Copy the "rebased" chrome.dll back into your Supermium (renaming original if you wish to keep it, but make sure that this "new" chrome.dll is the one that Supermium now uses). Launch Supermium and compare memory now that you are "rebased".

I personally would have preferred a WARNING of that web site's CONTENT. I just leave it at "ouch"...

I only run Supermium from inside a VirtualBox VM and my just-downloaded Supermium R6 is not displaying a rebase issue. Your memory screencap indicates that yours is having a rebase issue. Oh, I have no clue what Opium 93 is and could not find a download link with it being STUPIDLY named after a DRUG! But I digress... Your profile says that you run Server 2008 R2 but I shall detail instructions from XP. First, we should prove that you are indeed having a rebase issue. Download Process Hacker 2.38 (I'm fairly certain that this is the last version that will run in XP). Setup = https://sourceforge.net/projects/processhacker/files/processhacker2/processhacker-2.38-setup.exe/download Portable No-Install (I use this one) = https://sourceforge.net/projects/processhacker/files/processhacker2/processhacker-2.38-bin.zip/download Note from Process Hacker -> Options -> Highlighting that relocated DLLs are highlighted. (I cannot show a screencap, MSFN is throwing an error, don't know why, don't care why.) Right-click on any of the chrome.exe files from within Process Hacker and select Properties. (I cannot show a screencap, MSFN is throwing an error, don't know why, don't care why.) In Process Hacker's Properties dialog, select Modules and see if your chrome.dll (because of its file size) is being HIGHLIGHTED as a RELOCATED DLL (note that mine is NOT highlighted because I do not have a rebase issue). Unsure if you ARE or are NOT, but this will prove one way or the other. You will very likely find some SMALL files that are relocated, those SMALL files do not present a memory-hog issue, it is the LARGE files (such as chrome.dll) that can present memory-hog issues.

You have a REBASE ISSUE. All of those chrome.exe's should be nowhere near 170M each.

But you're not wanting to block the ads ???

Is it possible? YES. Have I tried? No (I don't "do" videos on computers that cannot handle them, lol). Try these. I'd be interested in your findings. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/440872-disable-autoplay https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/8022-disable-audio-video-autoplay I'm sure that there are others (MANY others), those are just the first two from a quick search.

Officially added to my arsenal. This route works hand-in-hand with my other "stuff". The as-an-extension route was not "playing well" with several userstyles where I intentionally use text shadows to hide input field "placeholders" (things like "Search" inside YouTube's search bar). Why hide "placeholders"? Because I employ a routine that automatically enters usernames/passwords but nobody looking over my shoulder (can't prevent at work) can actually "see" the entry.

Thanks! Works like a charm. Not sure what I did wrong my first trial.

Out of curiousity, what does your userscript look like? I tried and it didn't seem to work. I missed something simple, I suspect.

Good! It's a false sense of privacy/security! https://www.avast.com/c-what-is-do-not-track

Here's one that sets font weight minimum to 400. We have font weights of 200 here at MSFN so the change will be noticeable herein. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/32220-set-minimum-font-weight/code

Here's a userscript that does the same thing (applies a text shadow to all text) -- https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/3779-defprefs/code By using a userscript instead of the font enhancer extension, you have more control over the parameters of the text shadow (and one less extension to load).

Piece of cake! You don't need the extension. All it does is apply a .css text shadow to all text. You can do that in any style editor such as Stylus/Stylish/Stylem or even via Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey or even via Firefox's own userChrome.css. To me, the font enhancer extension is "redundant" if the browser profile is already utilizing something like Stylus/Tampermonkey/etc.

I mean, come on, let's be 100% honest and real. IF we lived in a world where it really is GOOGLE's or MICROSOFT's or APPLE's responsibility to "protect you from you"... then we would live in a world where NO BROWSER would ever be "allowed" to so much as READ an MSFN post regarding ANY browser fork, regarding ANY extended kernel, regarding ANY antivirus not embedded into Windows or ChromeOS, et cetera. Seriously.

GOOD !!! I would have it no other way! My BROWSER is to BROWSE. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. I have never been hit with a virus in OVER THIRTY YEARS (the only virus I have ever been hit with was during my college intern years while running Firefox). We all have the choice in how we run our own computer. You are free to run yours your way. I am free to run mine my way. Your LEMMINGS are free to LIKE your posts. You are free to like theirs. Long live REP FARMING. et cetera... Nanny State Protectionism on one end of the spectrum (blame somebody else if you get hit by a virus but sell your soul in the process of somebody else protecting you from you). Net Savvy Accountability on the other end of the spectrum (blame your own negligence if you get hit by a virus because you clicked something you shouldn't have, downloaded something you shouldn't have, installed something you shouldn't have).

Above post was requested to be deleted while I was testing the reply to that now-deleted post These download fine using UNGOOGLED Chromium, I have not tried in Supermium (just downloaded R6 but not yet tested). I have NO IDEA how to use or test an extended kernel. I have zero experience with them in the past and have no need for them at the present. Who knows for the future.

To each their own, of course. I've always been a bit weary of the hackery behind extended kernels and I only use them within VMs and never on my real hardware. Not to be read as a blanket statement, of course. These "extensions" seem to always be best of intentions. But they do do DO break terms of use agreements and can can CAN be taken to court by the owner of the software being hacked. These laws are different from country to country, of course. So again, not a blanket statement. But a "shady" business by any stretch of the imagination. Even MSFN admins will REMOVE/BAN members for stepping over the line in regards to these extended kernels. They cannot be hosted HERE. But we can "discuss" them here. That is MSFN protecting themselves from legal fallout.

Tried that. Does not explain the UGLY-A$$ fonts in that screencap! Look at the "share" icon to the left of the text. The "square" reveals that you are blocking remote fonts (as I also block them). Note that the UGLY-A$$ fonts screencap does have the share icon. BUT... More importantly! Look at the "fatness" of the H110MHV3 font. You and I both get a FAT font. That UGLY-A$$ font in the screencap is skinny and squished and jaggedy-edged. The type of font where a / is so jagged that it looks like a STAIRCASE instead of a /. I have not been able to replicate the screencap's UGLY-A$$ font. Not with remote fonts, not without. Not in three different browsers spanning both Win10 and XP. The H110MHV3 is always FAT for me.

Me too for from hibernate/sleep mode. But a cold boot/restart SUCKS in Win10.

Nope, I am not.

That's not what I was referring to. The fonts in that screencap are rendered in what is called subpixel RENDERING (aka, anti-aliased fonts, a font rendering style which my system prevents in their entirety). It is a "rendering" issue. Yes, dark mode alleviates the nuances of subpixel rendering, but so does just preventing the font style altogether. Disregard - while it still may be a subpixel font (I did not dive deeper), the letter-spacing .css declaration supercedes as a UGLY FONT ISSUE. It's really not as "simple" as being your-usual-suspect "washed out". Take a close look at the body .css declaration! It's that letter-spacing: 0.5px; that has the fonts in that screencap looking so UGLY. Blocking the remote/third-party/fonts.googleapis.com fonts may have you, me, and the poster of the screencap using DIFFERENT FONTS (I block all remote/third-party fonts), but it is that letter-spacing that is making everything so THIN and UGLY.