NotHereToPlayGames

Same here. But I only tested in a VM so I was hoping a "real machine" report would trickle in. Personally, I've yet to EVER be able to REPRODUCE any of these "dark theme reports" of 'outdated browser'. These "dark theme reports" show up quite frequently. I've *never* been able to reproduce. At least, "so far"... ie, "these" --

You didn't "say" anything, so I have to assume that you are inferring that other Win10 users are "like me". I assure you that they are not! They may want this file and I am 123,456,789% positive that win32s will NOT remove this file. Go ahead, ask him to, I'll grab the popcorn.

I mispoke. Apologies. I can screencap from home "if I must". I prefer not to, this computer is SLOW AS SH#T. Only runs to notify me of incoming texts or email as I do not own a phone. Then I walk across the house to a REAL computer! I cited 4 GB but that was my Celeron machine running XP. I no longer have the Celeron. I too only have 1.5 GB RAM.

Deleting things just for the sake of deleting things could easily send Supermium into the black abyss. Cloudflare "protections" being BROKEN are the "unintended consequence" of deleting code. win32s is wise! I defer to him, of course. I haven't followed the report to see if win32s has chimed in yet or not. In fact, I'll go so far as this, why not "suggest" to win32s to remove Chrome_proxy.exe from Supermium. But "you heard it here first" that I don't see that happening! It's there for a reason and we do have Win10-users that also follow Supermium and whether it evolves into something they/we/me can use in the future.

NOT TRUE. I do not now, nor then, condone deleting files without knowing their true purpose.

I personally do not condone resurrecting threads from TWO YEARS AGO, then FOUR MONTHS prior to that. It's not against forum rules though. Just "pointless" in my opinion.

Not really sure. I myself (even on Win10) do not use it and I ALSO DELETE IT! My point here is that I'm not "hinting" to others to delete a file without also INFORMING them of the REAL FUNCTION of that file. You're smart enough to see that difference. But also TOO PROUD to admit that maybe somebody else may be "more right" than you. I know because I'm that way too! "Takes one to know one." Just watch, THIS IS WHAT MSFN HAS TURNED INTO. Watch, your "hint" post of a REPORTING tool *WILL* get "likes" and my post informing users of that files REAL FUNCTION *will NOT*. Sit back and watch. That is MSFN these days.

LOL LOL

I hope you are listening to yourself. You just delete files willy nilly without even knowing what they are! Got it. I hope the Lemmings that follow your every word are also listening. And we ALL know that they are. The "likes" are about to tROLL in. Sit back and watch. We all know it! "I don't know, but Dixel deletes it and that's good enough for me."

Please do not mislead like that. Just because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, that does NOT MAKE IT A REPORTING TOOL. For those that REALLY want to know what chrome_proxy.exe is, please read here and even those that don't see me as part of their "inner circle" should admit that this is a "like" instead of "liking" the MISLEAD above that the rest of MSFN already knows you will "like".

Seems nobody else is biting, so I'll bite. Acer Aspire One (weaker than yours, as we have previously discussed)... WinXP x86... 4 GB RAM... Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode... Only one empty tab... No extensions... No themes... No memory minimisations - NONE... Default out-of-the-box (no rebase) -- 356.97 MB Rebased xul.dll -- 119.22 MB

Can you show a screencap? Feel free to "block out parts" as this seems to be an undue paranoia issue if you ask me. Supermium for me only has ONE. Ironically, it is IDENTICAL to my Ungoogled Chrome's! And YES, I guess that is a tad "alarming". Thorium for me also only has ONE. Again IDENTICAL to my Ungoogled. What I suspect users should be concerned with is if yours LISTS MORE THAN ONE !!! Ask any forensics expert, you cannot ID a criminal when your fingerprint only has ONE "point". Most criminal justice departments require TWELVE.

Agreed! The one I always get a chuckle out of is when the Paranoid Types talk about a Cloudflare capcha not working and how to MAKE IT WORK. The translation being, "You aren't in Cloudflare's database but you are WILLING TO COMMIT YOURSELF to that database by getting past this capcha."

I kind of maintain that only CRIMINALS need to "lose sleep" over any FINGERPRINT that they leave at the scene. But nor do I condone a laissez-faire approach where the consumer "sells his/her soul" and just "bends over and takes it" as far as PRIVACY RIGHTS go. I once canceled a credit card for one reason and one reason only - their login page would not allow a login without a FACEBOOK SCRIPT BEING ALLOWED. I do not have a Facebook account. And will not bank on a web site "selling my soul" to Facebook. Granted, that was 15-20 years or so ago. Back when coworkers spent half their day on some childish id-iotic Facebook game called Farmville. No clue if Farmville still exists or not.

No offense, but SO ARE YOU. Don't be deceived by the legitimacy of your own myth. I claim that the trick is not to AVOID their database - you never will succeed. But rather to be listed in that database TWO HUNDRED TIMES instead of "one". Don't let your browser "auto-update" as it will keep the same "listing" within that database. At least this has always been my assumption. Don't introduce "n/a" fields but modify their contents to match SOMEBODY ELSE'S "fingerprint". You/We/I will NEVER avoid their database entirely. But we can intentionally list ourselves TWO HUNDRED TIMES instead of "one".

Removed. Though I'm still not convinced that doing so is just undue paranoia.

Let's slow down and not let bias or paranoia cloud an objective analysis. For starters, the superuser link posted above is seven and a half years old. And the register link posted above is four and a half years old. The register link specififically cites "since 2012 at least, Chrome has sent a header called X-client-data, formerly known as X-chrome-variations, to keep track of the field trials of in-development features active in a given browser". I cannot find these headers ANYWHERE. THEY SEEM TO NO LONGER EXIST. While I have no doubt that they "did" FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO. The register article also cites this to exist on YouTube - IT DOES NOT. Again, no doubt that it "did" FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO. We FIRST need to verify that these headers are still in use TODAY. Let's start there. Second, if this is supposed to be a unique identifier, why is it IDENTICAL across TWO of my computers here at home? I'll check at work later this morning.

"n/a" is not the correct way to resolve this. What you should do is REPLACE that "unique number" with one that MATCHES WHAT IS KNOWN AS "GOOGLEGOT". Or whatever Bing's or DuckDuckGo's equivalent is. DO NOT ERASE IT and be MISLEAD by that "n/a". That "n/a" is an IDENTIFIER IN AND OF ITSELF. But sure, it means that as far as Google is concerned, everybody that is being identified as "n/a" is ONE PERSON. Or are they? Not if this "unique identifier" is used in conjunction with just a few other easily-gathered tidbits. But again, "not going to loose sleep over it".

<excerpt> For years, since 2012 at least, Chrome has sent a header called X-client-data, formerly known as X-chrome-variations, to keep track of the field trials of in-development features active in a given browser. Google activates these randomly when the browser is first installed. Active trials are visible if you type chrome://version/ into Chrome's address bar. Under the label Variations, you're likely to see a long list of hexadecimal numbers similar to 202c099d-377be55a. </excerpt> Since these are HEADERS, then I can block/disable/modify via PROXOMITRON. I can't claim to really be "concerned". But sure, I'll experiment over the weekend. The Overly Paranoid keeps wanting to overlook that "n/a" is just as much of a UNIQUE IDENTIFIER as just leaving the real hexadecimal number in place. N/A stands out like a SORE THUMB on any "log".

I'll check tomorrow when at work. Though as far as Chrome-based browsers are concerned, if one seeks some form of privacy awareness (which I myself claim that MANY GO OVERBOARD with PARANOIA!), then one has to ask themself if a Google DNS Server should be "connected to" each and every time one launches ones Chrome-based browser. Granted, I also base this on reports from 2018 (here). I've just always disabled IPv6 and avoided "phoning home to the mothership" every time I launch my browser.

Agreed! Not sure I follow. Nor would I classify myself as so overly-paranoid to "lose sleep over it". I've always went by this -- Enabled = No, Recording = No, Reporting = No

Agreed. But for two or three tabs, we're only talking 350 to 450 MB of RAM. Just a guess, I did not take measurements. At any rate, it's all about weighing pros and cons. It's extremely rare (if ever) that my normal browsing habits have three or more tabs. Two is common. The real irony here is that about the only time I stray from "normal browsing habits" is to test scenarios presented here at MSFN that I would otherwise never "do".

AGREED! I've even said that same thing here before (June 2024). I may have even posted medical web sites (nope, didn't post a link). Side note - you and I discussed "tab hoarding" while discussing vertical/horizontal tabs (May 2023). Back when folks were complaining about restoring a session with THIRTY-SOME TABS and thinking they shouldn't get CRASHES under this scenario. These "types of surfers" often claim it to be "multi-tasking" - IT ISN'T. According to psychologists, it's a sign of faking productivity and deteriorated cognitive abilities (ie, you "can't" remember, so you keep the tab open so that you don't have to "remember"). Didn't you just contradicted yourself? This flag only has an effect if you are TAB HOARDING !!!

Correction - For the sake of 0.96875% at work and 1.9375% at home. It's not 400 MB. It's "only" 310 MB. If that crashes your system, then, um, you have other problems, lol.