NotHereToPlayGames

Sorry. Ricks-YumeYao_WMP11_Addon_ENU_V3_4_7.7z is the newest that I have. I last used it on Jan 19, 2014. All of my installation slipstreams from Apr 10, 1014 (it's extremely odd that I do not have Feb and Mar) onward uses OnePiece_Windows_Media_Player_11_True_AddOn_v1.0.0_FINAL_ENU.7z over YumeYao's WMP11. I cannot remember now, ten years later, why I intentionally discarded YumeYao's WMP11 in favor of OnePiece's WMP11.

Getting closer. Found this - Ricks-YumeYao_WMP11_Addon_ENU_V3_4_6.7z And this - Ricks-YumeYao_WMP11_Addon_ENU_V3_4_7.7z

Hmm... I also have a OnePiece_Windows_Media_Player_11_True_AddOn_v2.5.0_ENU.7z that is dated Dec 15, 2011.

I've always preferred OnePiece's OnePiece_Windows_Media_Player_11_True_AddOn_v1.0.0_FINAL_ENU.7z over YumeYao's WMP11. The OnePiece that I have is dated Sep 13, 2014.

Ugh! Or LOL! Depending on one's personal preference.

I have not tested that one in ages. I do know that not all User Agent extensions really work. There are SEVERAL ways that web sites can detect your User Agent. JavaScript, HTML Header, ClientHint, et cetera. Some extensions can spoof the HTML Header but do NOTHING for ClientHint. Et cetera.

em-sized fonts disappearing (though your font was rem-sized) have nothing to do with logged in or not. Closing the page and reopening will generally reappear a disappeared font, a refresh sometimes will reappear them. I would encounter them once every four months or so in 360Chrome, for me it was always fastest to edit the font-size from em to px. Your rem is the first time I've seen any issue with rem. em on the other hand is discussed in several Chrome/Chromium forums.

right-click on top of the disappeared italics, select Inspect, then toggle the font-size, see if the appearance of the italics toggles as well.

I've had two 16+ year old XP laptops die on me all within the last three months. I'm down to two XP laptops. One of them turned 20yrs old this month. ThinkPad T42. I'm kind of at the point where I kind of "want it" to die already, lol. No permanent web browser on that one, just a quick flyby to run Thorium or Supermium for a couple minutes then remove them completely.

I've never had any issues with the forum editor. I assume you guys are blocking cloudflare/googlesyndication/googletagmanager?

I wouldn't go that far. I have seen drivers "patched" and still retain their "whql" stamp-of-approval. You can run across them quite frequently on "overclocking" forums. They are used for "slipstreaming" the driver onto your installation media that would not otherwise install because the driver installs at a very very very early stage of installation. Primarily to add support for motherboards that were not originally supported.

My brightness is at 20%. (Screencap RGB value is value of pixel, I can set brightness at 2% and everything be three different shades of black, the pixel RGB value is still 255,255,255.) I have compared black levels. I've done everything I can here. This "issue" is not an issue to me. Supermium / Thorium / Catsxp / Brave / "real" Chrome/Chromium all display the same EXACT colors on my system! Fonts, active tabs, inactive tabs. ALL THE SAME EXACT COLORS!

And you're *not* getting a PURE WHITE active tab ??? Because *ALL* of these browsers give me a PURE WHITE active tab !!!

I've never noticed a difference either, so I too am interested in knowing of any "tests". Quantifiable measurements, no "gut feelings". I've always had better luck with having Hardware Acceleration DISABLED. Largely in part due to needing to screencap from online video conferencing and HW disabled will screencap the video image whereas HW enabled will not (at least on my work laptop).

I suppose it should also be asked of all three of the members that always cite these brightness issues - your profiles all cite Vista, are you also all using extended kernel? I suppose "one of these days" I will see if I also get PURE WHITE active tabs for all of these browsers in Vista - but it is very very very "back burner".

No clue where to find "Brave". But I would be willing to bet "your membership" that Brave will show an active tab in PURE WHITE on my system. I will document proof wholly and completely. This whole HUBBUB seems to not revolve around Catsxp/Brave/Supermium/Thorium but rather something SYSTEM-BASED.

"Whatever" At least I'm jumping through all of these hoops to show you "brightness complainers" SOMETHING. This seems to be SYSTEM-BASED. My system simply shows PURE WHITE in real Chrome/Chromium, shows PURE WHITE in Supermium/Thorium, and shows PURE WHITE in CatsXP!

"Not my problem." "Not my infatuation."

But that comment was helpful? Nope... But neither was this very post, so "there you have it", lol.

Agreed! This whole "hubbub" about brightness in A vs B vs C is all BS to me. The creator's intent should be focused toward a working and stable "port". Not creating 30 different versions that all function 100% identically but have a color change here or a pixel change there all to appease "members on this web site like it this way", "members on that web site like it that way", "these members don't know about those members but they want it this way", et cetera...

Perhaps an "alpha mask" is being used?

All I can tell you, "beyond a shadow of doubt", is that "real" Chrome/Chromium v122 and Supermium v122 both use PURE WHITE (RGB 255,255,255) for the active tab. Anything beyond that is "not my problem". My name was specifically invoked so I answered what was asked of me.

The github report is asking for v69 colorization/brightness Supermium creator hasn't "changed" anything. He is creating a v122 and is using v122 colorization/brightness. If the Supermium creator wants to "bend over backwards" and add patch v122 to v69 colorization/brightness, "all the power to him". But is it really "fair" for users to make such a request ??? What next? "I like the colorization/brightness in v19, can you please implement that instead?" "I like the colorization/brightness in v39, can you please implement that instead?" "I like the colorization/brightness in v49, can you please implement that instead?"

My own eye doctors [plural] (optometrist and ophthalmologist) tells me that if I want to RUIN my eyesight, then "use dark mode". The *three* people on this forum that discuss these "brightness" issues (in more than just web browsers) perhaps have already "ruined" their eyesight. I am not an optometrist or an ophthalmologists but I do try to heed their advise when they tell me to "do not use dark mode". Does it make any sense to me why this is the case? No! But I try to always do what the doc tells me. Is their advise "biased"? Doesn't appear to be, several medical web sites agree with them. But there is also no doubt that "coders" and "gamers" LOVE LOVE LOVE dark mode. It seems to me that it's because the "coder" and "gamer" has this infatuation with dark mode, that it is them that FLOOD the internet with PROS versus CONS. "To each their own."