NotHereToPlayGames

lol, my Thorium experience is EXTREMELY limited - until when/if it ever becomes "ungoogled".

No matter. Regardless, I am impressed with this flag and so far "it's a keeper". However, I have witnessed these types of flags do great things in Win10 but do NOTHING in XP. I'm kind of waiting to see if @AstroSkipper has success with it on his XP.

That is NOT "my" thread, "for the record".

I wouldn't quite say it that way. I think it was also you (do not remember!) that was suggesting I axe "vulkan" .dll's. THAT suggestion KILLED my Chromium-based on MY computer. So yeah, I started "listening" a tad differently. "Is what it is"

It's still in Ungoogled Chromium v122. I cannot verify Thorium (also at v122!) from here at work.

Wow! I am impressed with --enable-low-end-device-mode !!! Here at work, it's not uncommon for any Chromium-based browser to exceed 4 GIGABYTES OF RAM after a few system hibernate/resume when the Chromium-based browser is running Google Voice + Gmail + Teams Chat + Teams Calendar + YouTube. This will require additional testing, of course. As these four gigabytes of RAM takes an UNKNOWN number of hibernates/resumes. On a computer with 32 GB of RAM, it's never been an issue. But from what I am seeing so far is that the amount of RAM being used by Chromium-based browser is now THE SAME before and after a hibernate/resume. Will monitor. Plans are to KEEP this --enable-low-end-device-mode flag until/if I end up seeing any possible negative side effects.

I can report that here at work, the --enable-low-end-device-mode flag reduces the below from 1.6 GB of RAM to 955 MB !!! 1 Google Voice tab 2 MS Teams tabs (chat + calendar) 1 YouTube tab playing 80s music 1 chrome: // flags tab 13 extensions But this computer (12th Gen Intel Core i7-12850HX with 32 GB RAM running Win10 Enterprise 22H2 certainly does not qualify as "low-end"). The results of this flag most definitely seems to warrant consideration for my default once I am able to try at home.

Did you try --enable-low-end-device-mode? I have not tried this yet.

We need an MSFN Member to step forward that also runs an SSE2 CPU. My ThinkPad T42 is SSE2 but I have no interest in loading Thorium onto it. At least not at the moment.

No offense, but these reports are extremely difficult to follow when the screencap is NOT IN ENGLISH.

Have you parsed "all of" the POSReady updates for what they "do"? ie, maybe "one" of those updates is a sort of "extended kernel" that provides your SSE2 CPU with an SSE3 "workaround"?

Also remember that my era-correct XP single-core Intel Atom N450 is slower performance-wise than your CPU but is SSE3 [I ran SSE2 as requestested for this test] (which I cannot recall offhand, but distinctly recall comparing in the past). SSE3 also works fine for me. Did not notice any gain or loss between the two.

Upgraded to Thorium_SSE2_122.0.6261.171_WINXP_x32 and have been running non-stop for over 15 minutes without any issues. No "gain" in going from .168 to .171. But no "loss" either. Right out of the box. No extensions, no settings changes, all defaults. Browsing works just fine. YouTube will stutter, but YouTube always stutters for me until I add my extensions then YouTube is generally flawless for me also.

I once went to upgrade to v124 but the download's own README cited it as for LINUX. I don't recall seeing a v124 XP version, but I could be mistaken.

I agree. We used to have several XP x86 SP2 forum members. They were "ran off" when they tried to "rep farm".

I'm just thankful that Saxon is on my side for once, LOL.

"no comment"

I have never worked in an IT Department. NEVER. I do use "IT deparment", IN QUOTES, as a REFERENCE to how STUPID our company's "IT department" is!

Fair enough, I can agree with that.

I'm not a fan of "extended kernels". Seems they have been a huge "target for takedowns" at github et alia. Unsure if MSFN moderators "want" projects that github "takes down" to migrate to here. Feel free to ask them directly.

I could do what your followers do - ask for proof of being a mathematician.

Still quite strange! You're a self-proclaimed "mathematician", so as you know, TWO data points do NOT form a hypothesis. Seems to me that the variable that needs changed for this research is no longer POSReady=0 versus POSReady=1 but something else. Can you perform this test between two different CPUs? Both of them with POSReady=0! Both of them with XP + SP3 + post-SP3 thru 2014.

Still very strange. Thorium works great for me without POSReady. I can easily "clone" my XP VM and install POSReady if that helps in this "investigation". It's quite confusing how Thorium can work FLAWLESSLY for me without POSReady but crash for you. For your "without" POSReady - are you referring to a "real" XP from the ground up? Or are you referring to a POSReady XP that later had the POSReady "uninstalled"?

Our Forum Rules can be found here -- https://msfn.org/board/guidelines/ I direct you to these in particular: » No Illegal/Copyrighted Software Discussion 1.a This is not a warez site! Links/Requests to warez and/or illegal material (e.g., cracks, serials, etc.) will not be tolerated. Discussion of circumventing WGA/activation/timebombs/license restrictions, use of keygens, or any other illegal activity, including, but not limited to, requests for help where pirated software is being used or being discussed, will also not be tolerated. Offenders may be banned on first violation. 1.b Respect the requests of companies who do not permit redistribution of their products without express permission - including unmodified hotfix/feature pack packages. Download sources for official software should be from the vendor directly where possible. Posts made containing this type of content may be removed immediately without warning, and offenders may be banned on first violation. 1.c Users should be made aware of what they are getting prior to any download/install package from a Member provided link. As such, every post which contains links to repackaged software MUST state specifically the nature of the software. This includes, but is not limited to, trialware, shareware, payware, freeware etc. If a trial version, the length of the trial should be stated as should whether an uninstall is part of the package. If registration keys/information is required to be input for continued usage of software in the package, then the post must state that fact as well. Any message with link(s) found to not state this required information will be removed and will result in measures being taken against the poster, up to and including a ban. Also, if the stated information is found to be deceptive or the software redistribution is found to be illegal (rule 1.b ), the poster will be banned. 1.d If a product's license agreement or license type specifically prohibits the usage of said product in a particular manner (for example, a Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial usage), please do not post questions or comments about the usage of said products in a manner that violates the license agreement. If there is any doubt about a license agreement's coverage and restrictions please question the owners or authors of the product directly if your usage violates their licensing agreement; please do not use MSFN for such requests (unless MSFN is the support forum for said product). Any offenders of this rule may be banned on first violation. We take issues like this very seriously here at MSFN. Additionally, you only have ELEVEN posts [as I write this] (five of them in this thread alone, but I'm not sure if "introduce yourself" posts are included in the count), so being a member over a year is irrelevant, this Forum Rule applies to your situation: edit - you "joined" over a year ago! but all of your posts have been in the past four days. You are too "new" here to be posting "links". 2.e Please contribute to MSFN first before posting links to your application/tutorial/site/etc. In other words, please do not advertise something of yours here without helping out around the forum beforehand, otherwise this will be considered spam. Offenders may be banned on first violation.

Define "custom oses". If you are customizing a MICROSOFT operating system, this is not the forum for you to post them!