NotHereToPlayGames

"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."

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.

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.

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.

<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/

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.