NotHereToPlayGames

<del>

I guess this isn't technically accurate. 1809 does have a better Task Manager that will display GPU usage. But that is only important if you rely solely on Window's native Task Manager as I get GPU usage from System Informer 3.1.24333.0 and use it over the native Task Manager.

WinReducerEX100. https://forum.winreducer.net And the "base" OS is Win10 1607 (year = 2016). I do have a tweaked version of Win10 1809 (year = 2019) but it's still at trial-and-error due to a very long blank screen during cold boot. 1809 doesn't gain me anything over 1607 and I'll likely never need 1809 but would jump to 21H2 next. Only time will tell. I used XP for twenty three years. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I have my fingers crossed that I can get at least half that (call it twelve years) and sail along just fine with 1607! "Support" from Microsoft is MEANINGLESS to me. I don't even install "updates" to 1607! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

My Win10 is ALREADY TWEAKED DOWN TO ONLY 27 PROCESSES !!! (the screencap shows 28 because I had to open the Task Manager process, lol) This is technically from inside a VM but my HOST is IDENTICAL. To be perfectly fair and honest and not hide anything, the process count is 29 and 31 on two laptops but this is due to sound and graphics drivers for higher resolutions than default generic drivers. This tweaked-down version of Win10 (1607) is the result of two years of trial-and-error all while still running XP as my only OS. I could NOT bring myself to migrate away from XP until I was able to get Win10 to my liking. And as one might suspect, it was web browser and billpay access HEADACHES in XP that was the "last straw". Once I did finally end up a Win10 User, I REGRET NOT DOING IT SOONER - Win10 *is* much BETTER once you tweak out the BS!

<excerpt> Over time I have observed that the audio quality of the PC is related to the number of processes that run on it and to the latency. We all know that Windows Server has higher quality sound than Windows 10, and in Core mode even more, and if we also run it from RAM it increases much more. These facts corroborate the above, as they are related to the number of processes that are executed in the OS while listening and with the latency, always lower in RAM. To corroborate these statements I have checked how many processes are running on each OS (clean) mentioned above, and the results are as follows: 1. WINDOWS 10: 126 processes (104 applying Windows Debloater powereshell script and disabling Windows Defender) 2. WINDOWS SERVER 2019 GUI: 104 processes (with defender installed) (87 with defender uninstalled) 3. WINDOWS SERVER 2019 CORE *: 71 processes (54 with defender uninstalled) (*) with AppCompatibility FOD installed. 4. WINDOWS 10-11 PE: 27 processes.

I don't think this is the correct forum. Everything within my template was obtained from here. And a ton of trial-and-error. I intentionally break/defuse/axe things like Windows Defender and Windows Firewall and Smart Screen and Action Center for the sake of PERFORMANCE over "security". I strongly feel that if I get hit with malware/virus/trojan, then it is BECAUSE I WAS STUPID AND CLICKED ON SOMETHING I SHOULD NOT HAVE, INTALLED SOMETHING I SHOULD NOT HAVE, VISITED A WEB SITE I SHOULD NOT HAVE, et cetera. I have NO INTEREST in my computer being CRIPPLED with background bottlenecks to "protect me from me". I take FULL RESPONSIBILITY and BLAME MYSELF if I click on something I should not, install something I should not, et cetera. If a new thread is started and there is enough interest, I may reconsider. But in the meantime, there are other (better [due to membership subset]) forums for discussing these types of templates.

I have the opposite experience. The broswer is FASTER if you have the correct combination of lists. Technically, I don't think I've ever witnessed even the "wrong" combination making the browser "slower".

I use a stripped-down version (WinReducerEx100) of 1607 on five home computers without any issues. One is an ancient quad-core (may even only be duo, would have to look), one is an i3 laptop, one is an i5 laptop, one is a single-core desktop, and one is an i7 desktop. Three of the five are used DAILY. The fourth is used at least three times a week. The single-core is for music out in the garage so is only when working in garage or in backyard. VERY practical and NO ISSUES. I don't doubt that these will not last "forever". But I envision at least FOUR TO FIVE MORE YEARS before I have to worry about anything! That's an eternity for computers already 8-16 years old.

Eureka! I did not originallyhave this toggled to Enabled, but doing so definitely broke Violentmonkey's ability to inject scripts! I only tried most-recent stable (non-beta) version. It does not break Tamerpermonkey's v4.13 ability to inject scripts (only tried that version because that was already present in the 360Chrome profile). Tampermonkey's most-recent stable (non-beta) version does not work (reducing min-ver in manifest will get it to install, but the GUI will not load). That's where I stopped for now... I personally PREFER Tampermonkey over Violentmonkey but BOTH are equally GREAT and only a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE. If the OP wants to isolate how "old" of a Tampermonkey version he must go and still be able to use the "experimental-web-platform-features", I don't mind hunting that down. We do know that version 4.13 does work! Technically, I've never had any use for any version newer but cannot recall offhand "why" I opted for v4.13. t is VERY common for me to test tons of extension versions and hand-select the version I *keep*. Which is not always "latest and greatest" but the actual "why" will vary greatly from one extension to the next.

I am unable to replicate. Violentmonkey and scripts install and execute just fine for me in 360Chrome v13.5.1030 ungoogled, v13.5.2036 ungoogled, and in v13.5.2036 regular. Both in XP and in 10. The only thing I did during my testing which seems different from your testing is that I did not "import" scripts. I installed "new" because I had nothing to import at the time. So I just ran some greasyfork font scripts just for testing. Everything worked as expected.

Yep, that's the one. I keep it at the HIGH preset ALL OF THE TIME. I'm too old to have to turn up the volume to hear the normal scenes then get BLASTED TO H#LL with LOUD VOLUMES during action scenes.

@VistaLover - I'd be interested in the Promise.withResolvers() (first implemented with Chrome v119) polyfill code.

Not quite that simple. I run 15 extensions and only have 12/13 processes running. I don't know the exact "formula", so to speak. But I know my Chromium will run eight (or is it four?) processes when I have NO EXTENSIONS installed. And I've had times where I'm testing extension after extension after extension after extension to look for one I want to keep and may have FORTY extensions installed but have NOWHERE NEAR forty processes running. Update: For me, zero extensions equals 5/6 processes. So adding FIFTEEN extensions only "added" 7/8 processes.

I do not use Supermium (I use Official Ungoogled Chromium v122 in conjuction with the PortableApps Portable Chrome loader). I personally have zero interest in anything based on Chrome v126 or higher! (Time may change that... eventually...) Using Supermium or not is irrelevant to the question, everything that I use for my YouTube experience can be used in Supermium. I've actually flip-flopped on YouTube. Six months or so ago, I dang near NEVER used it! Nowadays, I use it DAILY and even stopped paying for Netflix and Hulu in favor of YouTube without any advertisements! Project VORAPIS is "good"... But not great! It will wholly and fully depend on your own use/expectations/wish-list. It does not work "for me", but it may work "for you". Only you can answer that. For starters, one must realize that it isn't all about number of chrome.exe processes. YouTube with no extensions will run a higher CPU than YouTube with FOUR OR FIVE extensions and SLIGHTLY higher RAM consumption. For YouTube ads, I use uBlock Origin v1.59.0 (modified, I defuse the whole "blocked since install", "blocked on this page", et cetera as I see them as "usage tracking telemetry" that serves no purpose for functionality [and is inaccurate compared to other measurements]). But my YouTube experience relies on much MUCH more than just blocking ads. Tampermonkey v4.13 (modified to prevent Google Analytics telemetry, no "thanks for installing/uninstalling" auto-visits, cosmetic changes, et cetera) is used to set default preferences for Closed Captions, Annotations, Stable Volume Ambient Mode, home page view, what codecs are allowed, disable mouseover inline play, remove "shorts" as I am not interested in the general "lack of intelligence" of users that submit "shorts", disable "most replayed" graph as what OTHER people like to replay has no bearing whatsoever on what I may or may not replay, add autoplay button for playlists, et cetera. Stylus extension (modified) to add my own userstyles. Enhancer for YouTube extension (modified) for selecting playback quality on initial load versus entering full screen mode, for the popup player to watch the video while scrolling the list of suggested videos, for the "loop mode" control. Ears Audio Toolkit extension (modified) for equalizer effects (not limited to YouTube). Audio Compressor extension (modified) to alter dynamic range of audio (not limited to YouTube). PiP Floating Player extension (modified) to be able to minimize video as an always-on-top resizable player with its own player controls (not limited to YouTube, very useful for watching YouTube or news at work). Fullscreen Videos extension (modified) for NOT using Chrome's "full screen" mode, but using a "windowed" full screen where the video uses the entire browser window but maintains the Operating System's taskbar and the browsers tab/address/title bars.

I do not get video ads or static ads. And I'm not too keen on disabling my ad-blockers just to seek a solution. My main point is that all of these methods can be *combined* into a script that does what you are wanting it to do. ie, if one of the previous scripts is what you prefer, but you want to be able to pause then restart, then simply add the mouse/keyboard detection from the third script to be included in whichever of the first two scripts that you prefer to use.

So did you try this script?

I had the same experience with one of the disable autoplay scripts but forget which one it was, to be honest. The two previously cited scripts attempt to target "all" web sites, not just YouTube. For me, I pause and restart YouTube with the keyboard shortcut "k" and it would not start replaying when using one of those scripts, maybe even with both, I forget at the moment. This is the stop autoplay script that I am currently using and it seems to be working fine for me -- https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/372780-stop-youtube-autoplay/code Please report if this one also works for you. I'm always looking for better YouTube experience, lol. Not having autoplay at page load is one of those improvements that never dawned on me until you brought it up. Note that this one only targets YouTube and does not attempt to stop autoplay on "all" web sites. That limitation also makes this one much easier to see what it does and much much smaller of a script. It literally just forces a pause "continuously" every 200ms after loading a YouTube page. And unloads itself whenever the user pressses any mouse button or keyboard key to interact with the YouTube page. I have noticed a very tiny number of YouTube videos where there is audio within the first 200ms of the video and so you might occasionally hear a tiny blip of audio before the script performs its pause. The 200 could always be reduced to a smaller number if this becomes too frequent, but for the most part 200 seems just fine. Generally, audio that quickly into a video is just a very bad practice on the video itself, no "fade in" time.

Yep, surprisingly similar! I did not have an ad-blocker installed and was looking only at Supermium + Tampermonkey + the four tabs that were posted by the OP at the time. I don't even recall what the Tampermonkey's "thanks for visiting" home page URL even is, but I have a hunch it is likely a bit heavy with ads. The OP at the time, if I recall correctly, wasn't even a fan of ad-blockers.

Be warned that these "user-disabled" settings (in Tampermonkey) do NOT prevent the at-every-browser-launch line-of-communication to Google Analytics. I cannot speak towards "what" data is transmitted as I never allowed this at-every-launch transmission to ever occur, not even from within a VirtualBox VM. I did once give Violentmonkey a trial run. I do not recall having any issues with it, per se.

<quote> On January 6, 2019, Opera banned the Tampermonkey extension from being installed through the Chrome Web Store, claiming it had been identified as malicious.[7] Later, Bleeping Computer was able to determine that a piece of adware called Gom Player would install the Chrome Web Store version of Tampermonkey and likely utilize the extension to facilitate the injection of ads or other malicious behavior. The site stated, "This does not mean that Tampermonkey is malicious, but rather that a malicious program is utilizing a legitimate program for bad behavior," going on to call Opera's blacklisting the extension for this reason a "strange decision".[8] </quote> Personally, I never (and advise others [at least the savvy ones that become members of such sites as MSFN] to also never) install any extension without looking through their javascript files &/or monitoring your DNS connections after installing! I actually also go so far as to never install via Chrome Web Store, or Edge Store, or whatever other "stores" that are out there. I personally quite enjoy downloading source and modifying to my liking before ever even installing. Mainly because I *despise* "phone-home" telemetry and equally *despise* "donation links". Donations should be solicited from where the extension is obtained, not annoyingly from each and every time you view the GUI. Just an opinion, of course.

That line only applies where the original before-adding-shadow font has an alpha channel parameter in its original coloring. While I only spent a few minutes to hunt, I cannot find a web site that defines text with an alpha channel. I would kind of need to see in real life to see how the math is working. ie, if the original alpha is 0.5, maybe it is intentional that the shadow uses 0.45 (plucked from the air, not a mathematical resultant of Opa formula) for visual aesthetics. Again, I'd kind of need to see it in action. edit - on second thought, look at the next line. ie, if (Lum<128) Opa=1. I think right there is your answer on why Opa is not "full range", because Lum<128 is already reducing the Opa range. edit2 - this is also why I'm a fan of this font improvement as a Tampermonkey script. Full control. And even could use "alternate formulae" on 'whitelisted'/'blacklisted' web sites.

Profound disconnects are almost always an "internal struggle". I certainly wouldn't cite MSFN as the proper place to externalize an internal struggle. Coming from a family with adopted siblings with internal struggles, with uncles and siblings both with addictions, with nephews and neices both with psychological trauma, with family with PTSD from military service, I could go on, I can only add that "I feel your pain". But must conclude with "MSFN is not the proper place to externalize". H#LL, as far as that goes, families of this "wide array" are just a "sign of the times" here in 21st century America. Perhaps 21st century ALL COUNTRIES ON THIS BLUE ROCK. But I digress...

Out of intellectual curiousity, please install TAMPERMONKEY and ALLOW it to open its "thank you for installing" HOME PAGE. I have NEVER witnessed Supermium open up OVER A HUNDRED chrome.exe's until I installed TAMPERMONKEY in a fresh Supermium profile and as the first-ever Tampermonkey "default as-is" install.

<OT> My only reference here is that I once had a girlfriend that experienced both and preferred the "surgery". To the point where she would ask any guy interested in her before even considering "dating". The 20s (age, not era) was a very different age. Even more so to be 20-something in today's world. I wouldn't wish being 20-something in today's world on my worst enemy! At least not to anybody who carries a MOBILE PHONE. But I digress... </OT>

While *I* agree with this, I suspect that *most* users will tend not to agree and that in their mind they have "modern capabilities" (a step or two behind but not a thousand steps behind). One only needs to look at bug reports to see this. A "modern web site does not work" so-called bug is reported. It gets "fixed" with the next release or gets re-reported as still being a bug. Has the developers EVER replied with, "We are not a modern browser, we will not implement the functions required on that modern web site." ??? ??? ??? edit - I ask rhetorically as I do not follow PM bug reports. Some do get cited here at MSFN and from those, no, I don't ever recall reading the developers reply with "We are not a modern browser, we will not implement the functions required to resolve that issue."