NotHereToPlayGames

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?

Technically, me neither as far as that goes. Listen, I "clung" to XP until just a month-plus ago, I really did "think" I was doing the right thing by doing so. I was wrong! Sometimes in LIFE, we get NOWHERE because it is we ourselves that HOLD OURSELF BACK! And MOST of the XP Users here at MSFN have admitted that periodically over the recent couple of years, they rely on their phone or tablets to get REAL work done, not their XP Dust Bunny. But yeah, "to each their own".

Circular Reasoning Fallacy Please provide a link where either one of these authors has accused the other of Intellectual Property Theft.

Agreed! (case in point - LINUX !!!)

I fail to see the point of this. OPEN SOURCE software is a "team effort". Period. If you want a good reveal on that, feel free to dive into Tobin vs Moonchild, roytam vs basilisk-dev, Chrome vs Chromium, et cetera.

It is not fixed. The left edge of several GUI fonts are not displayed for me in XP. I have this issue in Chromium ESR 92, Chromium ESR 108, CatsXP 115, most recent Supermium, and most-recent Thorium. Both inside a VM and on real hardware. Both on five-monitor PC and single-monitor laptop.

64-bit OS. Even my XP is 64-bit. I thougth the PAE patch was only for those trying to get XP x86 to see more then 4 GB RAM ???

The startup delay is a separate issue, all browsers, INCLUDING ROYTAM'S, have that delay on my system. I run *ALL* browsers using "portable launchers" but I've done that for TWENTY YEARS. It's only caused startup delays within the last three years - on *ALL* browsers. I have to force the PC off only with Supermium because it PEGS my CPU at 100% and the *ONLY* way out is to force the PC to shutdown. I suppose waiting 10 minutes is another option, but I can reboot in 90 seconds so I'll opt for 90 seconds over 10 minutes.

Dell XPS 8700. i7-4770. 16GB RAM. Five monitors, do not know all GPUs from memory. Supermium is the only browser that does this! Both on host Win10, host XP x64, and on guest XP x86 in VirtualBox 4.3.40. I have to hold the power button for 10 seconds and force a power-off !!! Each and every time I trial-run Supermium. No offense, fingers crossed on future versions, but I downright refuse to put my host OS through another one of these forced-power-off's.

Jeer as in "I want to jeer at the word beer"

That is in VMware. I am using VirtualBox. I've also confirmed that I ran 4.3.28 when my host is XP, but I run 4.3.40 in Win10 so my Supermium tests is with a FULLY-UPDATED non-hacked XP SP3 (no POSReady) in VirtualBox 4.3.40 running from a Win10 host.

I am running version 4.3 but forget offhand which "Y" version of 4.3.Y Granted, I was on 4.3.Y intentionally not updating when I was running XP. Now that I'm on Win10, maybe, just MAYBE, it might be time to upgrade, lol.

XP SP3 with *all* of the "real" updates. I do NOT use POSReady "hacks".

You misunderstood. Or I should have written a descriptive paragraph instead of a KISS Principle. My comment on the portable not working was NOT the Portable Supermium. It was in regards to a the Process Tamer app discussed just prior to my post.

Process Tamer helps but Supermium is still a NIGHTMARE on my system! An absolute and utter NIGHTMARE! I open a web page and have to wait 24 to 43 seconds before the scroll wheel will scroll the page. Then when it does scroll, I have to wait 7 to 18 seconds for the scrolled-into portion of the page to be displayed. An absolute and utter NIGHTMARE. Yes!!! This test was in a VirtualBox VM of XP SP3 with 3GB RAM - I refuse to attempt Supermium on my host until the next release!

Installer version is working. Seems to only be the "portable" version that does not work.

There are several polyfills for Mozilla's lacking link preload. I've not tried any of them. Just a few - https://github.com/jonathantneal/preloadfill/blob/master/package.json https://github.com/digitalkaoz/preload-polyfill https://github.com/aFarkas/link-preload

Jeff Dunham

Definitely not just you. I used to see that problem all over the place when I was on NM28. Too many folks tend to think that javascript is the problem that makes modern sites no longer "work" on older browsers. But that problem has nothing to do with javascript, it's a css issue and it happens a LOT with NM28 on web sites that have a "navigation banner" with dropdown menus.

Lucky you! I get that shift in EVERYTING newer than v86 that works in XP. Chromium ESR, CatsXP, Supermium, Thorium. They ALL do that shift on my system. So at least I guess they're all "consistent". Maybe they're all CLONING each other? waka waka waka

Speaking of Chase and always feeling like a dog "chasing" its own tail, I was recently "forced" to upgrade from XP to Win10 because my checking account could no longer be polyfilled or Proxomitron'd to "working" in XP. That was some time over a month but less than two months ago. I'm wondering if there was enough "backlash" because I just noticed today that my checking account is once again accessible in XP using 360Chrome! While that is good news, I admit that I am now a bit reluctant to return to XP - because that forced upgrade WILL happen again. Two months from now, two years from now, who knows when.

Are you referring to this?