NotHereToPlayGames

Ah, thank you! That explains it. "Segoe UI" on XP (and 7) gives me migraines. I've not had any issues with "Segoe UI" on Win10.

I prefer the GUI in 122. But it's still "not right" on my systems. Unsure why nobody else is seeing the left edge of GUI fonts being cut off. 122 is also faster, but not by enough that typical browsing would likely even notice.

Yes. It is based on Chrome v122.

I definitely never used that word, lol. But agreed, no title bar in 10 Supermium keeps "flashing" the true XP title bar's upper-right corner icons randomly, that's even more annoying then trying to mock 10's icons on XP. I've actually been porting 360Chrome v122 but it is 64bit and requires Win10. Maybe Win7, unsure. But cannot be ported to XP. This will give me a v122 with a skin of my own creation, with a title bar of my own creation, ungoogled, no telemetry, custom GUI, everything done with v86. But very likely will not become public, just a hobby on bad weather days. While being perfectly content with Official Ungoogled v114 for the time being. The web has become a "race". See if I can get my v122 ready in time before my checking account or billpay sites stop working in v114. Then do it all over again when v122 does the same thing and when "cutting edge" Chrome/Chromium will be v150+. I've never needed, nor wanted, the latest and greatest. I stuck with v86 for as long as I could. I'll stick with v114 for as long as I can. Already preparing for v122 as my next.

Correct. I know v115 originally had / still has a "one year" time bomb. I removed this on my own copy and others (not me!) soon went public with their own time bomb defusing. There were reports that v115 had some Chinese telemetry still embedded but I myself never witnessed this (I rarely ever use it, I just have it lying around). I guess now I'm curious as to if the v92 and v108 may have some telemetry embedded as well (again, rarely use, just lying around). All of these are VM use only. Mainly because my real-life (some call it bare metal) HIGHLY prefers my own 360Chrome. It's an XP Thing - hate hate HATE not having a real TITLE BAR in any browser running on real XP. Just personal preference, of course.

Nope, did not resolve.

No clue, to be perfectly honest. That is the very FIRST thing I check whenever a browser identifies itself as "ungoogled" and if the Web Store is hosting app data, the browser is NOT for me. "To each their own", of course. Only Official Ungoogled Chromium gets this CORRECT -

My bad, my v115 is not "CatsXP", unsure why I thought it was. And yes, I have Chrome versions v92, v108, and v115 that all run on XP! v92 and v108 are corporate versions, and NO, I cannot and WILL NOT distribute them !!! v115 has been discussed on MSFN. I forget where, exactly, but this site has a "search feature" for those so inclined to hunt it down.

Yes.

My XP continues to cut off the left edge of GUI fonts (web rendered fonts are fine). This is true in Supermium, Thorium, CatsXP, Chromium ESR 92, and Chromium ESR 108. In XP only. What can I do to assist in FIXING this - I will not become a GitHub member, so what else can I do to assist in tracking this nuance down?

VERY IMPRESSED so far !!! Even in a single-core VirtualBox VM running XP x86 SP3. "Ungoogled" is still not fully ungoogled - there should be no "1 app (Web Store)" in a fully ungoogled variation.

Yay! My hope computer is still LEGACY. Shew, that's a relief. I was feeling bad for upgrading from Legacy XP. But I guess it doesn't matter since my LTSB 2016 is also Legacy.

LESS THAN 8% of web sites use QUIC. The percentage of Chrome versus Safari versus Edge versus Firefox doesn't really matter. The web site being visited has to support it lest the browser supporting it is irrelevant. https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ce-quic

In my not-so-humble-opinion - "good". "Turnaround is fair play" - I remember the day when web developers developed for Firefox and did not care about other browsers! Especially nested tables and column widths, at least that's the one that comes to mind. You'd ask for assistance with something in IE (more so than Chrome back in the Firefox "and nobody else" era) on a web site like RyanVM or WinCert (perhaps even MSFN, was not here at the time) and you would have a HUNDRED "switch to Firefox" replies before your IE enquiry was even SEEN by anybody willing to offer assistance. St52 is my secondary (to Ungoogled Chromium v114) and I also keep a NM28 profile updated. So not "dissing" Firefox-based or Mozilla-based or UXP-based, not even sure what to call 'em, lol. I'm just *beside myself* when I recall the thousands upon thousands of "switch to Firefox" posts I've read over the last couple of decades. It's not exactly like Firefox / Mozilla has really "cared" about their userbase (ie, extension support). But hey, maybe Manifest V3 will be Chrome / Chromium shooting itself in the foot. The more choices we have, the better. Tough one, to be honest. Too many Linux distros didn't exactly help that cause. So just how many brower choices is "good" and how many is "bad"? No clue.

Agreed. A CPU can only do so much per clock cycle.

Bingo! I'd say "open source" but that seems to be a rib-jab of late, so "why bother", lol.

I already have! Most of the methods used in 360Chrome carry over. I am not the end-user and I do not have GitHub account for discussing on GitHub. The Official UNGOOGLED patches can be found here - https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/patches/series

It's one of the reasons I only run UNGOOGLED variations of Chrome-based browsers.

I was going to suggest that one also but it's not in v114 and I cannot access Thorium or Supermium at work.

Disable QUIC protocol for one. But some of the other multicast UDP connections may "require" an UNGOOGLED version of Thorium.

Ah, I somehow missed that. I've only tried Supermium (and Thorium) on a single-core ThinkPad T42, WinXP x86 SP3, Pentium M 745. It's the only real (bare metal) XP that I've not upgraged.

I personally wouldn't generally advise attempting to use a one-line global font setting like you are doing. One line is never going to catch ALL circumstances.

I most definitely do not agree. Depends on just what the process is, of course. Real-time anti-virus "bloat", for example, slows your system down. PERIOD. Even if that anti-virus runs in only "one process" (most are several processes). My former company IT forced disk defrag periodically and we had no control on when it ocurred. Walk away from the computer for THREE HOURS when that is churning "in the background". Sure, the computer is "usable", but when you are accustomed to "fast and efficient", the slowdown is INFURIATING - so "walk away" is good "conflict avoidance". Yeah, our IT department is STUPID. Blame Singapore IT. Here is the office computer right after startup, before launching my several Ungoogled Chromium windows and other open-all-day applications. This is a fairly modern "business" laptop and runs well for such a high number of processes/threads - but my home computer and its 4th Gen i7 is, without a doubt, "faster" than this process-bloated 12th Gen i7.

Very true! My *host* OS is always 64bit. Even my XP is 64bit. I do prefer 32bit OSs for all of my VirtualBox VMs. The process count does fluctuate by one or two, of course.

That's not to be "misread" though. We (the XP Crowd) have "clung" to XP because we had TWENTY-SOME YEARS to tweak it to our liking! But then we FOOLISHLY turn around and compare that tweaked XP to a "default install" of newer Operating Systems! OF COURSE the tweaked XP is going to "win" !!! But "get off your rocker", old dogs CAN learn new tricks (it just takes them longer, lol) and tweak a newer Operating System - then compare that tweaked OS to your tweaked XP. My fully-updated (no POSReady!) XP SP3 x86 only runs 14 processes and only 212 threads. Update: XP SP2 x64 shows 16 processes and 219 threads. I don't really recall what a default install has in regards to processes and threads - but I'm sure it's quite a bit higher. My Win10 only runs 31 processes and 550 threads. Again, not sure what a default install runs as far as processes and threads. A quick internet search indicates anywhere between 70 and 90 processes is "normal" for a default out-of-the-box install. You tell me, which setup do you think is quick and snappy, the 31 processes or the 90 processes?