NotHereToPlayGames

Here, since you don't think I belong here, MY XP-Era machine IS SLOWER THAN YOURS. I belong here! Whether YOU like it or not. PassMark did not list the Pentium 3 for a comparison and it wasn't worth my time to locate this comparison for you. REALITY IS, if you want to pit my XP in a battle with your XP, yours is FASTER. Again, I belong here! Sure, mine is only 14yrs "young" and yours may be older by five calendar quarters, but age doesn't paint the entire canvas. And YES, I took GREAT OFFENSE to your statement claiming otherwise! "You are forgiven", whether you want to be or not.

BS. I'm on an XP-Era machine. Running 52.9.1 ESR. Thanks, btw, for the download link. I would suggest that even Serpent 52 users on XP also have a SAY and VOICE in this thread. Feel free to request ADMIN RIGHTS so that you can change the title of this thread to serve your purpose.

You sound arrogant and conceited, was that your intent? Is the forum getting renamed in your honor?

I see no difference on Google Search, to be honest. All of the "processing power" to perform a search is done on the server side, not the client side. I've not yet tried Thorium on my 14yr "young" Atom N450 Acer Aspire One. Mobile user agent or not, everything is SLOW AS MOLE a**#S on the ol' Acer. I wish I could "make it faster" with just a simple user agent change, but I suspect I have it tweaked to the max just with script-blocks and what not that no user agent improvement is noticeable any longer.

That doesn't "always" work. I have seen codecs "intended for" a mobile device cause nothing but a pegged CPU on weaker desktop/laptop hardware that was otherwise just fine before sending that mobile user agent. Works "most" of the time. Just saying I wouldn't assume "mobile is lighter". Modern mobile devices have faster download speeds than some ISP Plans. So don't send a mobile user agent for one of those, you'd shoot yourself in the foot.

To me, I suspect it is an English speaker. But a "frat boy" that never matured beyond his fraternity parties and dropped out of university. His best days always behind him instead of in front of him.

AGREED. I would never click a link with that sort of word in the link !!! Never.

Take that up with an admin. I have reported dozens (plural) of spam in the last couple of weeks. They all pertain to cracks, keygens, and dating. So YES, those words should be BLOCKED !!! Admins are FAST and remove them within 20 minutes or so of being reported. And NO TOPIC here at MSFN would ever NEED those words for the sake of discussing said topic. This is about effective spam prevention on the board. Whether Dixel agrees are not, the DOZENS of spam in the last couple of weeks could have ALL been prevented had these three little words not be allowed to be posted.

dating site

keygen

crack

Use the X-Chromium loader. There is no version subfolder that way. Or even the PortableApps loader. Also no version subfolder. The version subfolder contents are dropped down a folder and reside in the same folder as chrome.exe and chrome_proxy.exe.

I still maintain that it is NOT related to CLIENT HINTS. Citibank's algorithm or reg exp parsing is not working correctly. They are doing something to attempt a fingerprint but it is failing SERVER-SIDE. They are sending different javascript files based on HEADER user agent. The javascript file is not changing with or without Client Hint user agents. It really is a Citibank issue. I'll just stick with v122 until they fix it. They basically HAVE TO fix it because Official Chrome v124 and higher can not log in! I guess it would be HILARIOUS to log in one of these days and see a banner that says my browser is TOO NEW, TO PLEASE DOWNGRADE.

Here's the best I have been able to get so far in regards to a banking web site being successful or not (Citibank business account, btw, unsure if this also affects personal accounts). Be it Thorium or Ungoogled Chromium or Official Chrome, a SUCCESSFUL browser version that CAN log in will always contain the following in the error console -

You will learn that while this is an international forum, it isn't always friendly to all nationalities. Not to be misread. I myself tend to agree with many (not all) of those "unfriendlinesses". Personally, I see it as no different than folks that "Buy American" and don't see the value in a Toyota or Honda or Mercedes or BMW or Audi or the-list-is-endless.

I used to repair. But I quickly learned that I could spend two or three days repairing versus less than an hour to archive what is needed to be kept, reinstall OS plus applications, retrieve what is needed from archives, and be done. You can repair a 20yr old car (my oldest car is SIXTY NINE YEARS OLD), that doesn't mean it will drive like a brand new car.

Technically, I never asked for YOUR assistance. Talking to you seems to always always always lead to "strife" of some sort. "Sorry" You "thrive" in the environment that you yourself try very hard to create. I could easily easily easily find a DOZEN posts on this forum where members have "requested" YOU to STOP talking/replying to them. It never works, of course. You somehow always seem to "step in it" with those DOZEN members (on purpose, I have NO DOUBT). It is what it is. Carry on wayward son!

You haven't been listening. I have already reported that even other web sites are reporting this bank's login issue. It is something on THEIR end. Nothing YOU can do about it. I'll wait it out a few days and try again. I'm certain that THEY did not INTEND for their "improvement" to block THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF CHROME. Which happens to affect MISCELLANEOUS versions, be it Thorium or Ungoogled or Official Chrome. Again, NOTHING FOR YOU TO DO. I thought I made that part clear.

Things must be very VERY different here in the USA for a "captcha" question to even be asked in regards to a non-working bank's login. I have never, and I really do mean NEVER, in 35 years plus of online banking, had any BANKING web site request a "captcha". In fact, I would abort the online banking activity immediately and drive to the bank's local customer service office if a BANKING web site ever popped up a "captcha".

No offense, but I for one will not download a .bat or a .reg from a member that has only been here a couple of weeks. Please post the CONTENTS of the .bat and .reg within your POST so that we do not have to download it just to see what they contain.

To be honest, and as I have also "bent over backwards" blocking/disabling/and-now-even-faking Client Hints, I kind of have to wonder if this is just one of those things where we, myself included, shout Privacy Rights from the rooftop, but I have to wonder if we are just starting our own Conspiracy Theories and that "client hints" is really not as a gigantic "privacy rights violation" as we, myself included, pretend it to be ??? I mean, I view it this way, I shout Privacy Rights all day long, my own bank accounts do not have a real email address and I have threatened to close accounts when they claim they "require" one. I once cited a Federal Law regarding their claim to be illegal, but I cannot remember what it is/was at the moment. Basically, NO bank transactions can be done over email, NONE, so no email address should EVER be tied to the account. Not to go too far "off topic", we have way too many OT Police, lol. But in all seriousness, just how "bad" are Client Hints? In a world where NO MATTER HOW HARD WE TRY, IN VANE, to avoid "fingerprints", the reality is that if you are ON THE INTERNET, then you have been fingerprinted.

The banking site issues does not seem to be tied to Client Hints. That was my original assessment. But I can FAKE Client Hint results, both header and javascript, via PROXOMITRON and I can now rule out Client Hints. There are some Reddit and Nerd Wallet reports citing that they have called into Customer Support because they can access via most-recent Firefox but can not access via most-recent Chrome. I've technically not tried most-recent "official" Chrome. But I can attest that newest Thorium and newest Ungoogled Chromium both can NOT log in. I have no interest in most-recent Firefox. The prevailing theory at the moment is that it is a password check for "special symbols" but I have not confirmed that with the bank's own Customer Support "chat". My password DOES HAVE a "special symbol", so this theory doesn't seem accurate. But it is all I have heard thus far. At any rate, I think we can conclude that it is NOT a Thorium or even an Ungoogled Chromium issue - but rather some "script kiddy" working on "improving" the bank's web site. Given the month on the calendar, I would almost assume some college student is behind this. Bright and intelligent, but not quite ready for the "real world", lol.

As far as proper spelling, is this supposed to be "of" or "if" ??? This coupled with the incessant spelling point-outs just make you sound like a pretentious snobby snoot. Or is that your goal in life ???

Thorium is reacting identically to Ungoogled Chromium as far as my banking login web site. Though it is off by ONE release. In Ungoogled, I had to increment upward in versions from v94 and increment all the way up to v122 before I could log in (with the BS banner about my browser being outdated blah blah blah crap). It is the v122 that misled me into thinking it was Client Hints (I disable in v94 through v121, I had to resort to Proxomitron for v122). Thorium will not let me log in on v97, v114, and v119. But does let me log in on v121 - so one version prior to Ungoogle v122 successful login. Ungoogled will NOT let me log in on v126 (with or without Client Hints disabled). Thorium does not have a v126 yet. Did not try Thorium v122, v123, or v124.

"Bite me". I don't see "admin" next to your name, as the infamous saying goes around here. The other post you posted within minutes of the one above has ZERO to do with THAT thread. But no, I will not start trolling you around and citing "stay on topic" like you seem to be doing here. The "Thorium" discussion evolved into Client Hints (and a banking site login). But sure, "fair enough", I shall test in THORIUM. Eventually...