NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
Again, you are being biased. The original was not changed by the developer. "Real" Chrome/Chromium uses PURE WHITE for the active tab, as does Supermium's active tab. I meant to grab a screencap of v122 and not v125 but both use PURE WHITE for the active tab. Win10 "app light mode" is where this PURE WHITE comes from. Perhaps the underlying issue here is only for those using "dark mode"? But the github report is showing tab colors for "app light mode" as that report is "complaining" about a PURE WHITE active tab. And both Supermium and "real" Chrome/Chrome BOTH have this PURE WHITE active tab.
-
Thorium
NotHereToPlayGames replied to mockingbird's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
I guess technically I've never used either of them for more then four minutes at a time, lol. I do know that Thorium can last for four minutes. And Supermium only takes forty seconds or so to totally CRASH my single-core XP to the point of UNPLUGGING IT (it's an old laptop that doesn't even have a battery anymore). I've not seen any font issues in those four minutes, but that window wouldn't exactly be a good test case. -
Thorium
NotHereToPlayGames replied to mockingbird's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
Agreed! Same here. -
I disagree. I myself would "ignore" these types of "reports" if I were win32. You see, in life, we all place our own "scale" on things like this. On a scale of 1 to 10, this "brightness difference" is a ZERO on my radar. A zero on a scale of 1 to 10. But the three people on this forum that love, love, love to talk "brightness", this issue is clearly a 12 to them. A twelve on a scale of 1 to 10.
-
ENCRYPTED. The "padlock" display will not always display correctly in XP. Period. End of story.
-
Root Certificates and Revoked Certificates for Windows XP
NotHereToPlayGames replied to heinoganda's topic in Windows XP
<delete> -
RGB values always range from 0,0,0 (pure black) to 255,255,255 (pure white). For the active tab: As a proportion, if 255 equals 100%, then 242 equals 94.9%. ie, a 5.1% difference - nowhere near "30%". For the inactive tab: I suppose for establishing a "percent difference", an averaging of RGBs should serve our purpose. For "worst case", we shall compare the non-gradient "your variant" to the dimmest "authentic look". 222+225+230 / 3 = 225.7 166+167+168 / 3 = 167 As a proportion, if 225.7 equals 100%, then 167 equals 74.0%. Okay, I'll give you this one, the difference is 26.0%. But it is a gradient, you have to average that in with the "best case" bright RGB and that one is "different" by only 17.9%. So I would call the inactive tab "different" by only 22% - nowhere near "30%". Granted, that is for the INACTIVE tab only. I strongly suspect that those that "complain" about "brightness", it is the PURE WHITE ACTIVE TAB that they are "complaining" about.
-
Agreed, same here. That is to say, on my XP, there is ZERO reason to run either in my Win10 systems. Perhaps an "aero" or "glass" or "transparency" effect that XP would IGNORE? re: "30% brighter" All I can say is "don't care" - and that is 100% honesty. Supermium crashes my XP - and again, zero reason to run in my Win10. Citing "30%" does reveal BIAS - that is not a 30% difference. The "authentic look" inactive tabs technically have a gradient color whereas all other tabs do not have a gradient. But sure, out of curiosity, and being a three-day weekend, sure, I'll find a better "percentage" than throwing out a biased "30%" plucked-from-someone's-butt percentage. One minute... I'll report back...
-
Yes. But at the same time both you and I are on Win10. I will not, ever, "preach security vulnerabilities" because MOST are hype and propaganda. I most especially "dislike" reading these "preaches" of "so-called" vulnerabilities on forums/browsers dedicated to OLDER OPERATING SYSTEMS.
-
Irrelevant! "To each their own."
-
I still see that as Chromium came first, then Chrome. BOTH are owned/maintained by Google. One "department" (Chromium) hands over their "engineering" to another "department" (Chrome). That "department" (Chrome) adds their "content" and then it is released to the public (as Chrome). Chromium may have been a "Google INTERNAL" but it existed FIRST. We would not have Chrome (created by Google) if Chromium (created by Google) did not exist FIRST.
-
The OLDEST version of Chrome I could find is v7 dated November 2010. Its own About basically states it would not exist without Chromium.
-
Yes. At least that has been my understanding "from the beginning". https://phoenixts.com/blog/history-chrome-for-those-who-dont-know/ https://www.howtogeek.com/202825/whats-the-difference-between-chromium-and-chrome/
-
Configuring Mini-PC's With Zero Auto Updates On Windows 7
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Bondppq's topic in Windows 7
-
Configuring Mini-PC's With Zero Auto Updates On Windows 7
NotHereToPlayGames replied to Bondppq's topic in Windows 7
I've wholly and completely disabled Automatic Updates (and Windows Firewall, Windows Defender, Security Center, Search Indexing, Prefetch/Superfetch, Connected User Experience, Diagnostic Tracking, Insider Service, Font Cache, ...) in every OS that I've ever used !!! Up to and including Win10 LTSB 2016 !!! -
Technically, Chrome itself is a "port" or a "fork" or a "knock-off" !!! I'm still very much UNCLEAR of the DEFINITION of each. Without UPSTREAM CHROMIUM, Chrome itself would not exist.
-
I seldom, if ever, vote on any of these types of polls.
-
This is probably going to be counted as a "loss" - but I'm posting it anyway, lol. D r . A s s
-
I myself have no clue just how to define "ported" versus "knock-off". To me, NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR was not the "first" web browser (a program called "WorldWideWeb" was!) but it WAS the first for PUBLIC USE. EVERYTHING ever since is a "knock-off" of NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR.
-
Good Series! The actor went to something called (if I remember correctly) "The Good Doctor". I haven't watched any of "The Good Doctor" to know if it's as goos as "Bates Motel".
-
I know. And that's exactly how I read it. At the time you wrote that, you said I only lost ONCE. I said that won't do, I can do better than losing ONCE. So I intentionally lost 10 times! 10 is binary for TWO. I have lost TWICE because "last" is a "loss". But I clearly "lost" you aslo, lol.
-
scale
-
LAST
-
so for my "last" word and to put me at an even 10 ---
-
Well that just won't do... I'll need to get to an even 10. But there will only be 10 types of people that will understand - 1) those that understand binary 2) those that do not