NotHereToPlayGames

I am HIGHLY interested in the "root cause". I am hereby on record claiming that your Thorium issus is NOT RELATED TO POSREADY. *DATA* is inconclusive, but even you as a mathematician must admit that the *DATA* is steering in that direction. Has the developer of Thorium been asked if s/he runs POSReady? Has the developer of Thorium even TESTED on SSE2?

Nobody else has the same issue. We have multiple users citing no issues with Thorium on non-POSReady. You are the ONLY one. By all means, track down WHY and keep us posted. It seems to me that perhaps a BIAS is creeping in towards POSReady being your "saviour" yet it has saved no one else.

No it isn't. You have something blocking connections to i.imgur.com. His attachments are working just fine. You cannot compare to other posts unless you are also verifying that those attachments are hosted at i.imgur.com.

I reinstall my XP at least three times per year! I know EXACTLY the state of my XP. What I'm hearing you say (if I recall correctly) is that you do NOT install this often. So no offense, but I really do not believe for one second that you can "remember" what you did to the registry 5 years ago, let alone 20. I *DO* think that something you did in your registry 20 years ago is *WHY* your POSReady is not behaving the same as your non-POSReady as far as Thorium is concerned. How many "default" browsers did you install and uninstall in those 20 years? Did they have MALFORMED registry entries such as the Thorium .reg file? (I do not use the Thorium .reg file, I have no clue if this claim of inaccuracy is correct or not.)

I really REALLY don't think it's that "easy" to deduce/conclude. Have you ever MANUALLY edited the registry in your POSReady? Have you ever ran Malwarebytes in your POSReady and it removed registry entries that a "default XP install" places there that Malwarebytes sees as "malware"? Did you REPEAT those registry tweaks/fixes/cleans/optimizations in your non-POSReady? Didn't you say your XP partition was first installed DECADES ago and that you do not reinstall often, that you can keep your XP running smooth by fixing registry entries? Don't you really have to perform "all of that" in the non-POSReady before claiming that POSReady is the "only changed variable in this multi-variable equation"?

Regarding --enable-low-end-device-mode --- I have officially ABANDONED its usage. I listen to YouTube all day long here at work and with this mode, my audio stops about once an hour for only a second or so, but IRRITATING AS H#LL. Even if I only hear 6 to 8 of those "stops" throughout a work day, that's 6 to 8 too many.

Interesting indeed. But if I am keeping track properly, there has been THREE reports of Thorium WORKING without POSReady to ONE report of Thorium NOT working without POSReady. My statistics classes in college would refer to the ONE as the OUTLIER.

It says "no" for my work computer (no surprise). Will have to see what the home computers say. My hunch is that my home i7 is also a "no" but that anything single-core is a (resounding) "yes".

I am "fairly certain" that I have tried this flag IN THE PAST and witnessed the same - no effect in XP. I would have to retest in XP, to be honest, it was too long ago, but I am certain that I did try it. And I also removed it and perhaps even "unconsciously" discredited those that suggested it. It is working in Win10 - but that serves no purpose for this thread, THANKS FOR REPORTING YOUR XP TRIAL.

YES! My only conclusion is that these are not "100%" VULKAN files. The UPSTREAM Chromium programmers seem to be using "something" contained within these SO-CALLED "vulkan" files for some other purpose. And forgive the directness, but I lose confidence in those that tell me I do not need these files. I am not a "dumb" computer user, I know my way around computers. I'm no "genius", but I know my way around computers. I need these "vulkan" files on my XP x64.

I have. Regardless of what you and D.Draker think on this matter, I CANNOT LAUNCH 360CHROME ON XP x64 "when I follow your advice" regarding VULKAN FILES.

All I can tell you is that on an XP x64 system, I NEED THESE VULKAN FILES !!! Period!

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.