NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
Agreed. I have not ran the test ten times and graphed on a scatter plot, but I would expect ten same-hardware runs to all fall well below 6 to 16 percent variation.
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
NotHereToPlayGames replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
They're listed. (My view will be styled different than your view.) -
Speaking solely for myself, I did not ignore. This may be a "geolocation" issue. You may be being served different content. NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR ME. NO NEW UI, NO FONTS DIFFERENCES, NO BUTTON DIFFERENCES. Maybe your country is the guinea pig? And the rest of us will see these changes in a week or two? But for now, nothing has changed for me.
-
Nice writeup! I'm kind of not surprised that installing "all" WU suggested-as-critical updates actually SLOWS DOWN the computer. We used to have some XP x86 SP2 folks that swore the same for x86's SP3. I do know that a slipstreamed x86 SP3 performs much better than an XP that started life brand new, then was updated to SP1, then was updated to SP2, then was updated to SP3, and all of the hotfixes between or after each "service pack". Kind of wish the ol' x86 SP2 members were still around so that we could see these scores on x86 SP2.
-
Agreed! That's why I follow Supermium, to return GDI FONT RENDERING to Win10! There is this (https://github.com/GTANAdam/GDIChromium) but it's not been updated since Chrome version 103 and it's not "ungoogled". The "ungoogling" of Supermium has not matured yet, still very much buggy-beta.
-
But Saxon is citing "same browser". So I'm still confused. I can not reproduce the brightness difference here. My OS is set to LIGHT. The Saxon text he is referring to is white text on dark blackground with OS set to LIGHT. Even the HTML code reveals PURE WHITE (color: #fff). By his screencap, it REMAINS as white text on dark background with the OS set to DARK.
-
I agree. But it is also not an MSFN "update", nothing has changed that I can find. Nothing. I'd point to the "mathematics" that your OS and GPU has to perform to take the ORIGINAL COLOR and redefine it for "dark". Call it a "rounding error". In order for ANY system to use "dark", it takes the ORIGINAL COLOR and performs MATH on that color, then sends you the output of that MATH. #000 is changed to #FFF... #FFF is changed to #000... black is changed to white... white is changed to black... MATH IS INVOLVED... An "MSFN update" would imply that the ORIGINAL COLOR was CHANGED. I am seeing ZERO evidence of this.
-
Scroll up and also toggle this and compare/contrast the brightness contrast -
-
I think I found something for you, if you are really interesting in doing a Deep Dive. Right-click on top of "Saxon" where you cite the text as too bright, access the "Inspect" and scroll down to this section. The toggle these two entries and report your findings on "brightness". I have a hunch that once you disable "text-shadow", the brightness returns to what you are used to seeing.
-
We can all see the difference. But a PICTURE doesn't reveal anything. Not in the sense of "blaming it on an MSFN update". What you would need is the "before" and "after" HTML CODE that pinpoints that something was changed "by way of an update". That the "Saxon" text is color-code-this "before" and color-code-that "after". I don't think MSFN updated anything. Your computer is just rendering the SAME EXACT CODE from six months ago and displaying it differently TODAY. Is this a laptop with an "ambient light sensor"? Did a recent Windows Update effect RGB "calculations" for the OS "dark"? There could be a thousand reasons. But you cite/blame MSFN "update". A picture is not proof. Show me how the HTML CODE changed "before" versus "after".
-
I have seen JUST AS MANY medical claims that cite that dark theme RUINS YOUR EYESIGHT. Until you get your doctorate as an optometrist, I'll rely on my own eye doctor. Dark mode gives me migraines. Dark mode is a saviour to others. It's not "one size fits all". https://www.ophthalmology24.com/using-dark-mode
-
I plan to downgrade my Acer Aspire One POS with only 1 GB RAM from XP x86 to Windows 2000. Supermium's GitHub page cites in the "future" section that Windows 2000 will be supported. Not sure what effect this will have yet. I only know that the Intel Atom N450 CPU really does not play well with *any* XP-capable web browser. Really is the BIGGEST waste of money I ever spent money on! Its only non-frustration-inducing functionality is to use it as an oversized CALCULATOR.
-
How do you spell "too shay"?
-
I did not see where you were citing photos and upvote buttons. I thought you were talking about text color relative to background. Which I do not edit and has never changed for me. It's always always always the DARK users that complain/whine about brightness. Just wait, the others will show up soon. I have no doubt. I'm sure that they will have some insight to offer.
-
Have you confirmed/verified that it isn't your DARK THEME causing the "brighter" view on your end? Is that an Operating System "dark" or an extension that defines your "dark"? Has that extension changed from the date of your first screencap and the date of your second screencap? I do not use dark themes and nothing has changed here as far as my "view" of MSFN for several years.
-
I'll have to do some testing. But I do know this to be the case with all of the UXP browsers here at MSFN. They just get slower and slower and slower.
-
Life is too short. You have your priorities. I have mine. Jumping through hoops for image-hosting or how long an attachment has been allowed to be viewed is NOWHERE near the top of MY priority list. I do agree, images should stay long enough for proper flow of the discussion. I personally think they DID stay long enough. Folks that show up "a month" from 'here and now', not my problem. To each their own, of course. Besides, if we started pointing out net-etiquette mischief, it would only take about a month for MSFN to dwindle down to "next to nothing". Trolls would move on. Bad grammar folks would move on. Rep Farming folks would move on. All of these folks do post very useful content. But they also violate net-etiquette here and there. If we started banning the violators, we would still exist, but our numbers would be "next to nothing". Again, to each their own, of course.
-
This topic is clearly DEAD. Just a bunch of OT rambling now. @Saxon - Why not post your PCMark05 scores and bring us back ON-TOPIC?
-
Agreed ("net etiquette"). But also "do not care". My discussions are "here and now". I paste into the reply box. When I can no longer paste, all previous pastes get deleted to make room for the new pastes. I will not turn a 15-second reply into a 2-minute reply and use an image-hosting service. When I am retired and have more free time, sure, I'll jump through those hoops. In the meantime, sorry, but "do not care". Show me a Forum Rule where each and every image that I paste into a reply is to be accessible for the next DECADE.
-
Compared to the AMD Phenom II X4 920 that you screencap'd, my computer runs circles around you, lol.
-
I consider my computer to be "average". But I am "not interested" in installing PCMark on my primary comptuer. Maybe in a VM. My OS is bloatware-free. Why install bloat to my bloatware-free computer just to post "results"? Probably "faster" than the typical MSFN Member but that's because MSFN is over-populated with Vista and XP users. Nothing "wrong" with that, just saying those of us on this forum are probably significantly "below average" as far as the "average computer owner". Personally, in my opinion, all that this round of PCMark results comparisons really did was to PROVE that websites like this (my CPU) are already SPOT ON, without the need to install PCMark and post "results".
-
Does it exist on any .com Technology web sites? Or only on the .gov that you cited? Regardless, don't care and moving on. "Good luck with your poll."
-
And even you yourself hasn't "voted". You probably will now, because I pointed it out. "Dance, my little puppet."
-
Border line. Walk right up to the line in the sand, toe as close as possible without crossing the line. We all already know your views. "Good luck with your poll", I shall be moving on to more important "issues".
-
Regarding the very first three words -- "Do you think"... I think that polls/posts such as this should be "banned" on an INTERNATIONAL FORUM. That's my opinion. Some may like it. Others may not. I personally don't care who/whom falls into which category.