NotHereToPlayGames

Then my testing is hereby over. I do not, and cannot, run Thorium or Supermium until they become fully UNGOOGLED. We all have our own "lines in the sand", that one is mine. My non-Win10 machines run Serpent 52 - d@mnedest SLOWEST browser I have ever come across! But it "works" for my old XP x86 for what I need it for.

No. That's how the X-Chromium LOADER does the switches and then chrome://version displays them. Some of those switches are via chrome://flags and some are via startup shortcut. the "end" is the dividing line between the two. I have never witnessed the X-Chromium LOADER switch order matter. My order is -

I will compare one of these days at work. It's not uncommon for me to have four or five DigiKey tabs, four or five Mouser tabs, and three or four McMaster-Carr tabs. That should be a much better test.

Their reference was with FIVE GHacks web pages. My reference was with only two YouTube tabs. Maybe (but I kind of doub it) I will try again with five YouTube tabs. But, um, my ears can only listen to one, I have never in my entire life had five YouTube tabs open. One for listening, a second for searching. I've never needed more. Sometimes we bring upon our own pain. Anybody running FIVE tabs at YouTube falls within that category.

Here is without - 1.38 instead of 1.31, that falls within margin of error and STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. 18 child processes. But 18 versus 17 is also insignificant. I bet if I waited 30 seconds, I would have seen 15. Or maybe 21, lol. Point is, if this is supposed to be a godsave on RAM, wouldn't it drop it down to below 1 GB for running two YouTube tabs ???

Here's with that switch. crap! one sec... I need to go into profile and make room for attachments... Here is with that switch. Two YouTube tabs. 1.31 GB RAM. 17 child processes.

I've never actually used Brave. I only stumbled upon their forum when searching for my bank login issues with the MOST-RECENT version of Ungoogled. It was then that I figured out that there is a "hole". v122 thru v124 works fine. For now. And for some reason, the same thing is happening with Brave. To be honest, I kind of hope that Supermium or Thorium get to the stage of development that one of them will be my next. Time will tell...

Agreed! I only updgrade AFTER one of my online banking or payment sites stop working. If that can be limited to only once every 1.5 years, I'll be happy. But it seems like it's closer to every 9 months or so and that's just INSANE.

Sure. But I will only spend that time if you can show screencaps of where you see a benefit. I know what I saw and I'm not the one claiming this switch to be useful. I'll call that "fair game" and the ball is in your court.

But as far as that goes, I never could isolate WHY my bank works for v122 thru v124. ONLY. I cannot use v121 or OLDER. And, more importantly, I cannot use anything NEWER than v124. The users of BRAVE also cite the same issue. I follow their forum just for this one issue. "Real" Chrome (ie, not the Ungoogled or the Brave) works fine for every version from v109 all the way through v128. It's something with Ungoogled and with Brave but v122 thru v124 is fine. It's a mystery that I shall leave for the BRAVE folks to isolate further.

My hunch, can't prove or disprove, would be that my bank WOULD ALLOW a login if v114 was an ESR as it would contain the "security fixes" they deem 'required'.

I just tried this one and saw no difference. I'd be interested in additional feedback. For me, I compared (as most will guess) Speedometer 2.1 scores. No difference. And two YouTube tabs, one playing music, the second just for searching. No RAM difference for sum of all chrome processes (I didn't count actual number of processes). If I remember correctly, this one breaks Cloudflare.

I agree. That's why I continue to monitor them closely. I will need for either or to be FULLY UNGOOGLED before I switch to it full-time. I don't use "plain Google Chrome" either. For me, as already noted, I use UNGOOGLED. v122 is my default at the moment. Only because my bank won't let me log in with v114. It's unfortunate, IMO, that we don't have a v114 ESR!

This is AWESOME NEWS! Finally we have a path forward where we can REMAIN on v126 when "upstream" may be at v147 or v167 at their ridiculously insane pace! I am much more in favor of an ESR approach then the constant dog-chasing-tail new "major" release every 2 to 3 weeks.

Just because it "says" it is supported, I wouldn't believe it until tested/verified. I can show you SEVERAL web sites that list web browsers "supporting XP" that will not even launch in XP.

I suppose that is one way to look at it. But doesn't it kind of assume that they were "trying" to fix it? Nobody but us here at MSFN really even use 32-bit these days. So I kind of look at it as an issue so rare that it isn't WORTH "fixing". Basically, force that 1 out of 500,000 web pages to redesign their "index". If that index even pertains to 32-bit audiences? I mean, if this has been around since 110, that was February 2023. So it only took TWENTY MONTHS (19?) for any of us here at MSFN to catch wind of it. That sort of index page is kind of "dumb". But that's just my opinion, lol.

Wow! 2.55 GB for that particular tab! Looks like win32s is going to attempt a reversal.

Agreed! Same here. I don't even HAVE an old FB (or Instagram, or Twitter, or TikTok, et cetera) account. So you are "closer" than I am, lol.

Here at work (Win10 x64, 32 GB RAM, 12th Gen i7), my score decreases from 170 all the way down to 138. I am aware that Win10 is not our reference point here (Thorium is not needed on Win10), my only point here is that the switch in question should be "vetted" and not just by "gut feelings".

I did give it a trial run in Thorium earlier today. I was going to post screencaps but was afraid that I would appear "biased". I'm honestly not, lol. My test-case was WinXP x86 dual-core with only 1 GB RAM. My Thorium with one tab (Speedomter 2.1) with this enabled used approx 360 MB of RAM. Without this switch, the same one tab (Speedometer 2.1) used approx 480 MB of RAM. The switch improved my Speedometer 2.1 score - but only by 6 points which I would consider within "margin of error". On an old-but-not-ancient hardware running Win10 with eight cores and 16 MB RAM, I forget the RAM consumption but my Speedometer score DECREASED from 134 all the way down to 87 !!! I ran the tests four times both with and without this switch, all four tests in each case was within 3 or 4 points of each other. Win10, eight cores, and 16 MB RAM definitely does NOT like this switch.

With that command enabled is on the left. Without command is on the right. There is one 2.79 MB additional process without the command. So that is "something". Both Supermium most-recent on XP with only 1 GB RAM.

I had the illusion of success with that command. But additional testing turned me against it. I concede that this was in Win10 and not in XP. That seems to have been AstroSkipper's experience also (in XP) - https://msfn.org/board/topic/186133-thorium/?do=findComment&comment=1270824 Only your own testing (Dave-H) will dictate if this command is right for you or not.

My theory after trying all day (unsuccessfully) to reproduce that overlay popup is narrowed down to two -- 1) The overlay popup is so RARE that none of us will be able to reproduce the "follow these steps to replicate" algorithm, and 2) It's not rare and our defenses are blocking it 999 times out of every 1000 times that it is sent to us, with that 1-out-of-1000 time LEAKING through our defenses and we then need to track down what causes the LEAK But in the case of UXP browsers, nobody has ever been able to SOLVE LEAKS. We just all accept it as a fact of life and live with it.

Same here. None of our defenses were really blocking it, we just weren't getting it to begin with. I may be able to replicate during the work week as that's really the only time I have YouTube running ad-free and fully unattended. I am 100% positive that it WAS triggered by a FIXED number of videos. I was getting that overlay popup constantly. I cannot recollect the exact "when", but it was when I requested uBO lists to try and you obliged with a web site. You kind of seem to always divert the conversation when asked for your "lists". I don't recall ever seeing you reveal just what lists you use. That web site you directed me to is HUGE. But it did not solve my issue at the time, useful resource nonetheless. I have zero doubt that it was so long ago that YouTube has changed things several times since. And will continue to change things... over... and over... and over again...

AGREED! But, um, I/we could say the same for MSFN. How many of us block MSFN's adverts? As my old boss used to say, "I cannot confirm nor deny" whether I myself block adverts here at MSFN. Irony there is that I have seen members post screencaps and citing the "blank space" left behind when their ad-blocker blocks the ad but not the ad's "container".