NotHereToPlayGames

That basically kind of makes my point. MSFN will not teach you how to debloat XP, Vista, 7, 10, 11... People that truly want to learn that don't land here at MSFN. Sorry, they just don't. (At least I certainly don't see it!) Most of us forget that XP was also a very HEAVY operating system with a lot of "bloat". We just had 20 years to get it to our liking and only want to spend 20 minutes to get our next OS "to our liking".

<edit: add OT tag> My conclusion here is that "computer enthusiasts" do NOT end up at MSFN. Sorry, they just don't. A "car enthusiast" is someone that owns and upkeeps a "classic" car - you would NEVER hear that "enthusiast" complain, biatch, moan, and whine that their "classic" cannot "do" the same things that a "modern" car can "do". Again, just "my" conclusion, but what we have here are NOT "computer enthusiasts". Sorry, been there, done that. I was on XP up until just this year. I quite literally removed my last strangle-hold (my Acer Aspire One POS) from daily-use just yesterday (replaced with an i5 which still does not qualify as "modern"). It's time for us to face facts and ADMIT that "we" are NOT "computer enthusiasts" !!! !!! !!! Calling ourselves such is a Red Herring !!! !!! !!! Cheap? Frugal? Nostalgic? Dance to the rhythm of our own drum? These all define "us" better than PRETENDING to be "computer enthusiasts". My brother is a "phone enthusiast". Where I do not own a phone! No land line, no mobile, no "burner", NO PHONE AT ALL. He will "upgrade" three or four times a year! Sure, not "every" year, but still. That (to me) is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever witnessed! Like trading in a car and taking *depreciation* up the, um, well, the area where our body exits waste. We are not "computer enthusiasts". CHEAP is a better word. But none of us will like the negative connotations that it seems to carry. Sure, there are countries that are impoverished and those countries receive donated XP Era computers from other countries that are not impoverished. But again, let's face facts, the countries receiving these donated computers DO NOT define themselves as "computer enthusiasts". They thank us for the donation and grin ear to ear for their gift. A "car enthusiast" has five or six of them when the average person has only one or two. A "phone enthusiast" has five or six of them when the average person has only one or two. A "XP era computer enthusiast" has five or six of them when the average person has one or even ZERO of them. But the OT Police will be here shortly. So off I go, lol...

Not everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings

This won't mean anything to you unless you also use PROXOMITRON, but uBO doesn't "see" googlesyndication because PROXOMITRON removes it before the browser ever has a split-second chance to even see it.

No I do not. "To each their own." I know how to test for list interference. My lists are fine, but thanks for the concern. You make the MISTAKE of assuming uBO is my only defense.

I'm at the age where I don't really have a use for the bloated modern web. I do not have a Facebook account. I do not have an Instagram account. I do not have a Twitter/X account. I watch news on TV instead of read online. Et cetera. So I guess from that paradigm, I kind of have no clue just what "bloated" really "is" and/or "means". Oh, wait, I do YouTube "nowadays", I can count that as "bloated". BUT... I disable the "chat" sh#t. I block the ads. Et cetera. So even YouTube doesn't feel "bloated" to me. I mean, come on, do we live in such a world of "social media" that people visit YOUTUBE to watch a music video and then post "comments" in some stupid "chat section" ??? If so, I guess it's official, I have turned into my grandpa and I'm "too old for this sh#t", lol.

I really don't see anything different between this decade, last decade, and the decade prior to that. I bought my first computer in 1991 - and that predates the existence of javascript. Sure, prior to that it was a Commodore 64 - and yep, I had internet on that ol' C64 that dad bought us circa '83 or so. Web sites thought they were being "cute" if they employed Shockwave, or Flash, or Java, or ActiveX, or VBScript, or scrolling/blinking text, or background MIDI music. Even back then, there were 10% of us that knew how to block/disable these ANNOYANCES. Why did we hunt down ways to block them? Because they crashed our browser or consumed all of our RAM or pegged our CPU. Then javascript was introduced. And with it came the advent of pop-ups and pop-unders. With only 10% of us knowing the difference between a pop-up and a pop-under. Or even knowing something like a pop-under is even a thing. Very quick to the scene was "ad-blockers" to assist the 90% that didn't already know how to prevent them. But that 10% still had tricks up their sleeves that the 90% were totally clueless on. The 90% only cared about pop-up ads. The 10% knew about HOSTS files and third-party cookies. But it was still only 10% of the total global internet user. I say that even nowadays, it's only 10% of us. Where does that number come from? Sure, I admit that it's kind of plucked from my butt. But if I go to the Chrome Web Store and visit uBlock Origin, it cites 40,000,000 users (40 million). A Google for "how many internet users globally" returns an AI Overview citing 5,520,000,000 users (5.52 billion). 40 million is only 0.72% of 5.52 billion. But that's also just uBlock Origin. We also have Privacy Badger -- a tiny 1,000,000 users per CWS. And AdBlock -- 63,000,000 users per CWS (okay, I would have assumed uBO to be higher than AdBlock). 63 million is 1.14% of 5.52 billion. Ghostery -- a tiny 2,000,000 users ber CWS. Factor in that for every 72 CWS users (Chrome+Edge), there is another 28 using Safari, Firefox, or Opera. You can see where I'm going. Assuming that 10% of the global internet userbase is "debloating" their internet experience is probably a very *HIGH* estimate. Sure, some searches will tell you that 31% to 36% of users use ad blockers. But blocking an ad and "debloating" are not the same thing.

I still prevent components from updating via --component-updater=url-source=0.0.0.0

Yep, that's the one. I never realized that it turns off Widevine since I never really use it. But I do want to be able to fallback and be able to use it if the need ever does present itself. I tend to not use group policies since my browser(s) is(are) "portable" and may end up on any one of 300-some lab bench log-ins at work. Much easier to migrate a portable archive then to group-policy hundreds of lab benches where only a dozen of them have Admin Rights.

I'm not sure that I agree. At least not 100% agree. Maybe closer to like 60% agree. I remember the days when all websites basically looked like a "newspaper" rendered on my computer screen. Basically all web sites looked IDENTICAL. A picture or two here and there, everything else just text. "Creativity" only stemmed from if the text "overlayed" the images or if the text "wrapped around" the image. Or 3 or 4 columns of text instead of just 1 or 2. There were no "shadows" to frame borders, there were no "anti-alias" fonts, there were no fade-ins, et cetera. The only way designers could make there web design not look IDENTICAL to everything else out there was to use STUPID things like "marquee" to add something that MOVED (ie, scrolling text). If a web designer really got creative, they employed Macromedia Flash and Java applets. And if you don't remember Flash and Java pegging your CPU to 100%, then you kind of don't really remember what the web was like before javascript (invented in 1995, mainstream by the early 2000s). Yahoo Games was Flash and there were games that could lock up the PC of the era. Geocities was javascript. I don't recall ever being locked up by a Geocity web site. I began using Proxomitron way back in those days! Originally hosted on a Geocity web site. Also on some Yahoo Groups web sites. The web "pre-javascript" was also BLOATED and HEAVY. Early days of fade-ins, big animated .gif images, hi-res banners on 56k modem transmissions. No offense, but the web has always always always had content that would lock up a PC that wasn't "top-of-the-line". Has it gotten worse? I'm not so sure, to be honest. Because back then, it was 10% of the total consumer population that knew how to block that stuff and joined web sites to converse with "birds of a feather" that flock together. Is it really that much different nowadays? I kind of don't think so... It's still 10% of us, but today we flock together at cites like this instead of Geocity or Yahoo Groups.

Um, neither? I have never used (nor have any plans to use) this so-called "Lite" version. So perhaps I should have started a new thread (no plans for that either)? And I'm not sure what "classic" means. I'm using 1.59.0 (since abandoning AdNauseam recently). There are probably newer versions, I intentionally stay a version or two behind. Ignore "blocked since install" - I see it as a form of "history telemetry" and my version "resets" at each and every browser exit. Though no, I have not monitored if this "data" is sent 'outbound'.

More importantly, that image has not been modified since 2016! You really really really should show us "proof" that you are being served a DIFFERENT image than this. This topic keeps hinting at this "Member" button being NEW - again, the header and even file name reveals that it is from 2016. I pulled directly from j7n's profile page.

Technically, the .png was created from an anti-aliased font. Select one pixel, you get (255,255,255). Select another pixel, you get (237,237,237). Select another pixel, you get (228,228,228). You can get any range of those numbers just by selecting different pixels within the .png button that says "Member".

I've noticed an odd anomoly in my uBO list sizes. My lists *ARE* current, the yellow triangle is related to *NOT* enabling "auto-update" (a feature I despise, lol). Being a "portable" browser, I archive regularly as a .zip of the entire folder, profile and all. The archive size is different by as much as 16 MB with the ONLY difference being the "order" in which the uBO lists are updated. While the number of network filters + cosmetic filters is the same, each individual list of "used out of" will change depending on which ORDER the lists are MANUALLY updated. My SMALLEST archive size is if I update the LARGER "used out of" lists first and manually update ONE AT A TIME from larger to smaller as numbered below. The LARGEST archive size is if I update the SMALLER lists first and manually update ONE AT A TIME from smaller to larger opposite as numbered below. I guess my THEORY is that if we want to optimize list parsing, then we should update LARGE to SMALL and not let auto-update just update in a random order.

Disregard. It is working. Silly me forgot that I had a startup switch that disabled components. I never use widevine, but do want the "option" to be able to. Thanks. But I only use portable non-system-integrated browsers.

Didn't work for me. But I only tried in Ungoogled v122. I don't really have a "use" for widevine, but I did think that v122 was "capable" of everything 'modern'. Looks like that's not the case as far as widevine.

They do not work! Placebo Effect. I believe in measureable results and there is NO BEFORE-AND-AFTER difference. None! The only thing that works is disabling javascript (obviously), blocking ads (obviously), and those types of things that even an eight-year-old can do.

I have never used a paging file. I have never had any stability issues with not using one. My XP only runs 12 processes (the screencap shows 14 to include one from launching Task Manager and two for launching System Properties that dropped to one by time I screencap'd).

Very very very VERY patient.

Supermium "shouldn't" have its own certificates. All Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, 360Chrome, Kafan, Supermium, Thorium, Brave, Vivaldi, Ungoogled Chromium, SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon) are supposed to use the OPERATING SYSTEM'S certificates. This issue is likely Supermium-only, but it still begs the question as to why only on your computer? No other Supermium-user has chimed in to confirm your issues. This seems so far, until somebody else chimes in, that this is your computer and yours only.

This is something on your computer. I have tried for HOURS to replicate your issues, mixing and matching various settings, et cetera. My attempts have been in vain - I cannot replicate your certificate authority issues. Have you ever "manually updated" your certificates? If so, you may need to reinstall your XP to get it back to the way it was "engineered" to be. Just a theory. Until somebody comes along and shows a screencap of their Supermium NOT having the same issues as you but on a system WITH "manually updated" (or manually revoked, for as far as that goes) certificates.

no you won't... you'll find that linux FAILS to live up to the hype surrounding it... "been there, done that"... the *ONLY* solution is to TEACH YOURSELF how to remove telemetry! be it removing it from Firefox, 360Chrome, WinXP, or Win10 - *YOU* have to take control and LEARN HOW to remove the stuff you don't like... THERE IS NO OTHER WAY...

Unsure if this is it or not, but I INTENTIONALLY DISABLE "SAFE BROWSING" 'bullcrap'.

No issues here.

What web site?