NotHereToPlayGames

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?

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"