NotHereToPlayGames

@NoBuggingPlz - Did you try @Humming Owl's suggestion that he replied when you brought up fonts the first time around?

I've used that and similar extensions to always download .crx (sometimes .zip). I personally never install from the Chrome Web Store. I keep my own archived .crx's (most edited to my needs) and personally don't agree with getting caught in the endless cycle of always feeling like the "newest" is the "best" or "most secure" (it seldom is!).

I have officially lost all interest in getting an old Compaq Presario up-and-running on XP x86 SP2. I will eventually port @we3fan's and @Humming Owl's XP x86 SP2 modifications to my own builds, but I leave the testing to those that use XP x86 SP2 (I dislike having to type that all out but to me XP SP2 indicates 64-bit).

Same effect in official "ungoogled-chromium". It restores the "Add to" button but it doesn't actually 'add to', all I got was an error that says extensions cannot be loaded from this page (Official Chrome Web Store). May revisit later but for now I'm sticking with a "regular" and an "ungoogled" version and advanced users will already know how to download and manually install extensions in the "ungoogled" version.

Will have to verify in an official "ungoogled-chromium". This restores the "Add to" button in ungoogled-360Chrome but it doesn't actually 'add to', it downloads the .crx instead and the user still has to manually drag-and-drop to the extension page to install.

On 9/25/2021 at 3:49 PM, msfntor said: On this webrtc test page: https://test.webrtc.org/ - in 360Chrome 12 12247 r 7 build - have chinese text in the yellow popup for some seconds at the top of the page, then it disappears by itself, and I've blocked connection to 74.125.247.128 - owned by Google... ... then no test results (all are with red stop mark). (copied to this thread so I don't forget looking into this)

When time permits, I'll be including a "hybrid" version. It will basically be the "ungoogled" version with the NeverDecaf/chromium-web-store extension included. I'm also contemplating a "YouTube" version which will include some extensions that make YouTube a little less "heavy" - unsure at this point (in-process of building an XP x86 SP2).

Next "dark theme" question - for the tab bar, do you users of a dark theme prefer the active tab to be "darker" (more black) or "lighter" (less black) than inactive tabs? ps - yes, I am creating a dark theme, still undecided if I'll go so far as creating a Win2k theme or not (as far as close/minimize/maximize/restore buttons go)... no estimate on release...

It can easily be fixed by using Stylus, as far as that goes. An extension I already use, no need to add another @Humming Owl - I get this "font squish" in both of our v11 versions, have you been able to confirn if you get this "font squish" ?

Also note that it's only the alegreya font that is being used on that web page that isn't displaying correctly.

DirectWrite doesn't fix it in XP. Googling around and rem font-size scaling seems to have been a big issue on several Q-and-A forums in 2013/2014. Still reading through several of them, several suggestions cited do not fix the "squish" (but nor did they for several followers of those threads at the time). It seems for most that this was introduced in Chrome 72 and resolved when upgrading to Chrome 73. Even seen some posts where a background gradient causes fonts to "squish".

Humming Owl now has an experimental version (with assistance from @we3fan) of v9.5 and v11 that targets XP x86 SP2 -- have you tried either of those to see if they will run on your XP system?

I'll update the first thread post of this post thread. I've been waiting until I get my v13 caught up with my v11 and v12. But that could be a week or two (remodeling a bathroom, all new drywall, flooring, shower, sink, toilet, vanity, lighting, and exhaust fan - the whole nine yards and doing all the work myself).

Good question. "During" loading would tend to indicate a .css issue with transition or tranform types of .css functions - from the best I can tell all of these work fine. I have found several pages that "squish" the font in both mine and Humming Owl's v11. The commonality is that the squished font always (so far) has a .css "font-size" in rem.

I tried that page at 100% zoom, default XP DPI (96), and Incognito Mode (no fonts or js blocked) and both my v11 and Humming Owl's v11 "squished" the font.

Your comment didn't dawn on me until I returned from lunch break. I own a '50s classic car with white wall tires and also a '60s classic car with white wall tires, do lunch breaks on occasion with a guy in another '50s classic car with white wall tires and another guy in another '60s classic car with white wall tires. But that's not what you meant, you meant the walls IN MY HOUSE -- they are not white walls, they are an eggshell tan that FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY tends to make them look like they are white. But no, I am not one of these people with walls so dark that it looks like the inside of a cave. edit - removed names of cars, I kind of feel "stalked" that people (think they) know the color of my living room walls and "memorize" such trivial tidbits... oh well...

It appears as though you might be comparing my v11 to Humming Owl's v12. My v11 and Humming Owl's v11 both display that "squished in and crowded" font for me.

Noted, thanks, will see what I can find.

Oh wow! Is that v11 by chance?

What am I looking for in particular? Can you post a screencap? I open that link and everything looks normal, not finding anything "wrong with fonts".

I work in an Engineering office with 60 other Engineers (two of them are IT but they are lumped in with Engineering Department). My computer "brightness" is not any different than any of theirs, both by "my eyes" and by "their eyes". It is the "vampires" eyesight that I worry about - I'm 20/20 and "healthy as a horse". My only doctor that disagrees is my Dentist - but that's a Mountain Dew issue I guess my BIGGEST thing is this - I have HUNDREDS of software packages installed on this system. It's an EYESORE for ONE of these software packages to be "dark" and the other HUNDREDS MINUS ONE to be of a "universal color scheme". I guess, to ME, it's also this - when I buy a book or newspaper, there is no such thing as a "dark theme". You get black text on white paper - period. I do have a "theory" but it's also admittedly just an off-the-cuff theory with no research behind it. My theory is this, that 'gamers' are huge into "dark themes" but those of us that read to read (anything from Aristophanes to MSFN) are fine and dandy with "black text on white paper". However, I do acknowledge that one of our IT guys does use a task-specific software package where all of his text is red, maroon, cyan, blue, yellow, green, purple, and white all on a dark gray almost-but-not-quite black background. But his WEB BROWSER is still black text on white background. I would hate to have his job and have to constantly toggle back and forth between the two. So for him, "I get it". But also for him, he never once has ever complained that his web browser, his AutoCad, his Microsoft Office, his dozens of other software programs, he's hever once complained that they don't have a "dark theme". Oh well... Carry on, fanboys

My hunch is that the Google monopoly plays HEAVILY into that !!! There is a very large amount of .css code dedicated to the "dark theme" that has nothing to do with the 360Chrome user interface - so it seems evident that there was a "concensus" by complying websites that wanted to be "included". Or I supposed more than likely something of the form of "publicly disclosed .css code" -- "If you want to follow in our footsteps and be 'dark' at night, use these .css selectors and users will flock to your site like a dung beetle to a turd." Google fully owns and controls YouTube, DoubleClick, and Fitbit (among others - YouTube our primary concern here). There were industry rumors circa 2015/2017 that Twitter was going to be acquired by Google or Microsoft - that didn't happen but Google did acquire "portions" of Twitter. But in all honesty, I just don't get it! I hear (over and over and over, actually) that my XP theme is "blindingly bright". My monitors are only 1920x1080 - they have higher resolutions but I only use them for certain map-based programs where I want to see more of a city/town at one time. I do not "hide" the taskbar so that's 1920x1050 usable by 360Chrome. If you use default tabs in the middle, my theme uses 76 rows of pixels at the top and another 25 at the bottom for the status bar. 76 + 25 = 101. Consumed from a total of 1050 horizontal lines of resolution. That is 9.62% of total horizontal lines, not undermining that - but my point is that it is the remaining 90.38% of your screen that is "blinding" you (ie, the web site that you are visiting). Auto-hide the XP taskbar and it only drops from 9.62% to 9.35%. Display tabs on top instead of bottom and we are down to 7.50% to 7.71% depending on taskbar presence - and 92.29% to 92.50% of the screen being the website that you are visiting. It "seems to me" that if you don't want basically 91% to 93% of your screen "blinding you", then we are talking about Stylus .css sheets customizing those pages and not the brower user interface only consuming 7% to 9% of your screen. Okay, we do have the settings menus - black text on white background -- but just how often are you "in" the settings menus ??? Is it the MENUS that you dark-theme users are so "against" ???

By "classic" do you mean my blue XP theme? And when you say "for most pages it has little to no effect" -- by this I wonder if the pages that ARE effected are owned by Google and Google/Chrome/Chromium is trying to force its users to use those Google-owned web sites?

Question -- for you "vampires" <chuckles> that prefer a "dark theme", does the dark theme effect only the GUI or does it also effect web pages that you visit?

Thanks.