NotHereToPlayGames

I can confirm that Enhancer for YouTube v2.0.122.1 works perfectly fine in v86 once you drop it back down to MV3 MV2.

I always fire up a VM with "real" Chrome (instead of Ungoogled Chrome or 360Chrome), go to the webstore and install an extension "Get CRX", then download the actual .crx. That is, unless it is already archived at Crx4Chrome (which Enhancer for YouTube was not, at least not a few days ago). I'll be updating my 360Chrome's Enhancer for YouTube over the weekend, I suspect the updated version will be just fine with v86 but I have only ran it in v114 despite it citing minimum is v120.

In case any of you missed it, Enhancer for YouTube has been updated. The manifest's Chrome min-ver is v120 but I've been using in Ungoogled v114 and everything seems to be working.

Nope.

I still kind of think that the only difference between a "complaint" and a "comment" isn't the person doing the "talking" but rather the EARS of the person "listening". Heads will roll. But they don't actually roll. The ears get in the way. Or is it the nose?

??? ??? ??? My XP was used for nothing OTHER than online!

Ah! So it's the BACKGROUND and not the FONT?

Aren't you the one that used to call folks around here "wannabe admins" for this type of post? Who was it that asked me if 100% of my posts "say anything of importance"? Doesn't that apply to these grammar FIGHTS that splatter MSFN like flung dung? "But I didn't say that out loud."

I could have told you that, lol. The title bars are embedded in the skin as .png files.

was the site ever posted? if so, i missed it. a polyfill very likely resolves this.

Dark Mode (and anti-alias fonts) gives me migraines. Do you have a way of demonstrating this brightness *without* using Dark Mode? As far as that goes, "thicker, blurry fonts" also seems to indicate anti-alias - which is disabled on my systems. So that too could be the difference between what I see versus what you see. I don't go nearly as far as I used to as far as disabling anti-alias on Win10 systems. But if Supermium has a GDI flag, I thought that disabled anti-alias, but I'm not positive on that.

Doesn't that kind of explain the brightness difference in-and-of-itself? What does self-ported detail? Surely a port by Programmer X is going to be different than a port by Programmer Y? Or am I missing something?

Perhaps. But I didn't lose any sleep over it. Can you (not any one person in particular, but the plural "collective" that keeps commenting on "text brightness") at least "humor us" and see if you notice any "brightness" difference when NOT using dark mode? Granted, this may be a difference between "pure black" and "very dark gray, almost black". If this can be isolated, then isn't the dark mode doing what it is supposed to be doing? ie, converting "pure black" to "pure white" and converting "almost black" to "almost white".

Regarding font differences, be that "brightness" or be that "wideness", aren't there flags to enable/disable GDI, it may simply be GDI rendering. I have not looked into the font differences, to be honest, I cannot confirm nor deny whether they "are" different or not. HIGH HOPES. It's just not at a level where I wish to devote any "time" to yet. IT WILL BE, eventually. Just "not yet".

To be fair, that participant "commented", not "complained". And that same "comment" has been made regarding several other web browsers also. Seems to me that it MIGHT BE something specific to that participant's hardware or self-admitted MODDED graphic's driver. I was unable to witness this "brightness" difference in one of the participants other-browser comments. Yes, the fonts were "wider" in that other-browser comment, but to me the were the same "brightness" via screencap RGB, hue, saturation. It's simply a "comment" (just like any of our "comparisons"). Yes, the fonts are "different", Yes, dark mode is always a NIGHTMARE in "my opinion". But all is relevant to the "discussion".

Agree *AND* disagree. Ode et amo. I hate her and I love her, you ask how can that be, I don't know but it is so, and I'm in agony. Programmers like win32 are NOT thin-skinned, nobody shares a project publicly that is unable to take criticisim. We are all here to IMPROVE the project. PERIOD! I have high hopes for Supermium!

Agreed!

I'm a bit CLUELESS as to the rampant speculation regarding "win32" and why he does or does not post here at MSFN. He seldom posts, period, this is NOT his HOME. For those of us who do make this our HOME, why in Hades do we assume that others do the same?

Useless, that's what it is. The error console is where the actual error is displayed, NOT the normal viewing pane. This viewing pane message is displayed when you need to add a polyfill.

win.ini

system.ini

hiberfil.sys

booty.ini