NotHereToPlayGames

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.

Although, I guess I also have to admit that I have NEVER had a tab crash when using Win10 + Ungoogled. It used to happen "often enough" in WinXP that I guess now I'm just being "hypersensitive" in safeguarding against losing something in one-of-five or ten or 15 tabs when ONE other tab from the same web site crashes for whatever reason. And that is what this switch will do - open 15 tabs here at MSFN and if one of the 15 crashes, for whatever reason, then you just lost the other 14. Again, has never happened for me in Win10 + Ungoogled. But as everyone here knows, WinXP is an entirely different eXPerience.

I have 16 GB RAM on my primary home computer and 32 GB RAM here on my work computer. Saving 400 MB is INSIGNIFICANT to me. It is 400 MB on my computer with 16 GB RAM. That doesn't mean it will be the same for someone running 4 GB or 8 GB RAM. I rarely have MULTIPLE tabs from the SAME WEB SITE but when I do, I don't want the risk of ONE of them crashing ALL of them all for the sake of saving LITERALLY 1.25% (work computer) or 2.5% (home computer) of RAM. The Risk Reward just isn't there. Not to me. But to each their own. Regarding IPV6 - I have no clue if we have it here at work. But I don't have it at home and I just use the same EXACT "portable profile" at both locations.

Granted this is still in Win10, but I can conclude that --process-per-site does make an "improvement" when five MSFN tabs are open (with the switch at the VERY END of my LOADER parameters line). With switch: - 15 child processes, 0.99 GB RAM for all chrome processes. Without switch - 19 child processes, 1.3 GB RAM for all chrome processes. However, that said, I have no plans of adding this switch for my everyday needs. I do not want the RISK associated with one DigiKey or Mouser or McMaster-Carr tab crashing all other tabs of the same web site. Multiple tabs of the SAME web site is the ONLY situation where this switch will "do" anything. And that's jut not my "norm" (except for rare times at work, where I do not want the RISK).