NotHereToPlayGames

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

<OT> NOT MY PROBLEM. I've been told that it is a form of Aspergers Communication Skills - which I make NO APOLOGY FOR. All MSFN members are "opinionated", myself included. My opinion never trumps yours. Your opinion never trumps mine. Or any other member that anyone here decides "today I'm going to publicly argue with so-and-so, because I'm bored and need something to do and it only walks right up to the line of violating Forum Rules without actually crossing that line." <OT> Agreed!

Because Supermium does not have a TITLE BAR. While not big to you, that IS big to a LOT of folks (maybe that's an XP Thing [which Supermium targets], it does seem to be the XP Crowd but who knows?). As I've pointed out, I HAVE HIGH HOPES FOR SUPERMIUM. It's unfortunate that when we DO get an "ungoogled" (as I believe it is still in-the-works), we won't get a v115 "ungoogled" but rather a v130 or whatever "real" Chrome is at at-the-time. But I'm sure that Ungoogled Supermium v130 will become my DEFAULT six or ten years from now when "real" Chrome is at v190 and OLDER BROWSERS (ie, THIS THREAD) simply fill the bill for me better. Just like v86 is perfectly fine for me when everyone else is running 120+.

For me, it's basically come down to a true TITLE BAR and UNIFORMALITY. I really really do HATE one program on my computer not "looking the same" as all my other programs. My current Win10 at home runs 360Chrome 13.5.1030 90% of the time (the other 10% is technically just "comparison" to Official Ungoogled v114 [which is the only browser I use at work]). I've not bothered to upload my "current" 13.5.1030 but the one I use now doesn't have any "shadow borders" on context menus, adheres more closely to my Win10 context menu colors relative to other programs, adds title bars to dialog boxes that didn't have them, etc.