NotHereToPlayGames

IDENTICAL results in XP. Personally, all of this "chitter-chatter" hinting/suggesting/accusing Supermium of being an older engine is FALSE, "misinformation", and "slanderous". None of us do MSFN any "justice" when all we do is go around "following" our 'favorite Lemming' over the cliff. My two cents...

Enabling experimental javascript and experimental web platform features results in chromiumchecker to PASS v135 pre-release checks and PASS one of the v133 checks, but still FAILS the v134 check.

I just did that test ( https://chromiumchecker.com/ ) using Supermium 132 and it passes all v132 and older checks, it fails v133 thru v135 pre-release checks. Supermium 132 is "faking" user agent and client hints as pretending to be v133. But *SMART WEB SITES* know better, LIKE THIS TEST SITE, all it takes is ONE javascript test to prove that a claimed user agent and client hints (despite them both "matching" each other) is actually FAKED. I tested in Win10 with all default flags. Will test in XP shortly.

I kind of still think that this is an Unproven Hypothesis and akin to "misinformation". Our one (and ONLY ONE?) variable is TWITCH. All other sites are behaving as they should (even the British Gas site) once the end-user swaps the flag defaults that Supermium swapped behind the scene. Seems we should be finding ways to PROVE this before we keep spreading it as "gospel".

You could try one of the below (their .js files would need modified accordingly, easy to do if we know "what" you need in the Open With list) - https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/open-with-switchbar/klgpknafjlhnpkppfbihchgfebbdcomd https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/open-in-openoffice/ioppgifkecchbmpobbkdkobildodihed https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/open-with-notepad++/hgfbigeomjlaahldcoilagphholnmhlc Or any of their "related" extensions. Note, just because they are "extensions", you don't have to use them as extensions, most are easily converted to userscripts.

Well, we kind of need more details. Are you trying to watch 4K movies on a slow computer? On my slower computers, YouTube is denied webm, vp8, vp9, and av01 video types and framerate is limited to 30. I actually disable the comment section, so I'd have to experiment in that regard.

Yeah, perhaps. I really want to remain optimistic on Supermium + Widevine = Netflix. As of now, Supermium can be made to pass some Widevine tests, but NOT FOR NETFLIX. And NO, it has nothing to do with "old hardware" because I am using Brave v134 + Widevine and Netflix WORKS on even my **OLDEST** hardware.

That's a question to post on GitHub, not in this thread. This is really just a "BS" thread that most of the Supermium userbase probably doesn't even "follow". YOUR fault as much as MINE. I'm MAN ENOUGH to share PARTIAL BLAME. Your EGO probably prevents you from doing the same. You have a God Complex, everybody should praise you. **NOT ME** FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. I've had ENOUGH of YOU over the YEARS. Yeah, it's THAT simple!

Members that SOLICIT "followers" as often as you do SHOULD BE BANNED. Solicitation = Spam.

Should we realistically expect them to? I myself really really REALLY hate hate HATE that somehow we-the-consumer has all but come to EXPECT our browsers to be updated WEEKLY if not NIGHTLY. Armageddon would befall MSFN if Roytam1 stopped updating WEEKLY.

He "undid" that change. But only after the userbase basically said, "Hey! Don't do that! I did not sign up for 'experimental' features!"

On second thought, the mere way that GitHub commits "ahead / behind" 'works' kind of disproves this? I think?

Very very interesting! Call me intrigued! This would actually be VERY EASY BUT TIME-CONSUMING to prove. Again, VERY EASY! But who among us is going to spend the TIME to PROVE this one way or the other? I do think we should PROVE IT or ask the developer directly before spreading possible misinformation. The web site CANIUSE.COM (Can I use dot com) kind of does HALF the work for us, but it only narrows down what we would have to test within Supermium. https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+123,chrome+124,chrome+125,chrome+126,chrome+127,chrome+128,chrome+129,chrome+130,chrome+131,chrome+132,chrome+133,chrome+134,chrome+135,chrome+136,chrome+137&compareCats=all Basically all boils down to CSS. Note that this and this both specifically state (for v122, for example) that the #enable-experimental-web-platform-features is REQUIRED.

The Chrome Web Store grayed-out button is not a product of Manifest V2. All UNGOOGLED forks intentionally result in a grayed-out button. INTENTIONALLY. You will need to install a "get crx" (or similar) from a non-chrome-web-store source then you use that to download the .crx from Chrome Web Store, save to a local folder, then install manually. The "good" ungoogled-forks will have this flag -- chrome://flags/#extension-mime-request-handling which allows you to drag the .crx onto chrome://extensions/ A "not-so-good" ungoogled fork will require you extract then install in Developer Mode. "Good" ungoogled-forks never require Developer Mode. Get CRX == https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/45042/ CRX Extractor/Downloader (note: I intentionally use v1.5.7, it WORKS, the newer versions are hit-or-miss, mileage may vary) == https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/364289/

Again, No Sh#T! Please stop this combative passive-aggressive BS! Until you provide a flag-change that affects Speedometer 2.1 scores and demonstrate with a before-and-after score, then this is nothing more than HYPOTHESIS, plain and simple. I do all of my Speedometer 2.1 scores in virgin, untouched profiles, with default profiles. That is a fair baseline, period!

IF (until I witness this either myself or you providing a screencap, then this shall be considered nothing more than Unproven Hypothesis), if this is true, then it happened before v122. I'll submit that a flag here or there might possibly affect Speedometer 2.1 a *MAX* of 5 to 8 points or so, no more, but an affect of 15+, I personally doubt it very highly. The "V8 Optimizer" or whatever it is called, yeah, 20+ if not 30+ or even 40+. Which *EXACT* gpu flag are you implying affects browser performance? I will personally screencap before and after on your cited flags. Or you are welcome to post your own, of course. Until I see it with my own eyes, then it is Unproven Hypothesis.

No sh#t. I'm comparing DEFAULT flags in v122 to DEFAULT flags in v134. Saying "it's public knowledge" is TALKING DOWN TO ME. So at this point, I'm moving on. Please "fight" with somebody else. And yeah, this is "combative" and I fight fire with fire. Moving on... "Toodles"...

Not important. No flag changes whatsoever. This would only come into play for something like Supermium where the developer changes flag defaults. This is not some "enable flag for test #1", "disable flag for test #2".

Speedometer 2.1 dropped from 402 to 385 when testing a v134. So I shall stick with v122. To each their own, of course, but I shall take the speed over the hyped-up-security-vulnerabilities any day of the week.

We both know who the "guest" is. He was not banned. He *REQUESTED* to no longer be an MSFN Member. Something the admins *WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO DO*, I have requested *multiple times*. YOU, Mr. D.Draker, is the *COMMON DENOMINATOR* in 99% of the BS that goes on here at MSFN. Admins don't care, so I guess I don't either. Or turn all of my posts into "guest" posts as well, I really don't care. YOU, Mr. D.Draker, are allowed to stir up as much sh#t as you feel like. So yeah, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". My turn to stir some sh#t. Yeah, it's that easy!

That I can agree to! A far cry from the one million you cited in your first "bs" post! BUT your computer's "vulnerabilities" DON'T MEAN JACK SH&T TO MOST OF US HERE AT MSFN! The security of your computer only ties so much to your browser, the rest is all tied to your OS. We probably have more XP users here than anything. Do you think they care how "insecure" XP is? REGARDLESS of how often somebody likes you comes along and reminds them of how many years old XP is! Tons of Vista users here also. Do you think they care how "insecure" Vista is? Are they falsely deducing that an "extended kernel" patches these insecurities? Hint - functions are added, vulnerabilities are not patched. Et cetera. You really are *BIASED* and just LOVE to pick fights! The admins allow it, nothing technically "against forum rules". Carry On, Wayward Son. Moving on... "Toodles"...

Please put this back in the hole that you pulled it out of. Thanks.

*Biased* hypocritical exaggerations like that is why I will *never* "follow you*. Unless you yourself run Win11 (maybe even Win10), then STOP RAM-RODDING THE BS ABOUT SOMETHING A YEAR OLD !!! !!! !!!

Not going to happen. Sorry, just isn't! Call it a "personality clash".

I see that Sampei.Nihira has unfortunately been "ran off the board" by folks probably jabbing his ribs too frequently. Can't say as I blame him, to be honest, sticking around here does at times feel like a "bad decision". At work, we have been "forced" to upgrade to Win11 (kind of surprised it took this long). I use Official Chrome v122 here at work. It always scored Speedometer 2.1 at a 310 to 325 range in Win10. In Win11, the same exact Chrome v122 profile scores 398 to 402. Nothing changed except Win10 upgraded to Win11. Still a far cry from Mac's that I've seen hit 530+.