NotHereToPlayGames

Me too.

Better link for Ungoogled Chromium on Windows -- https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-windows/releases edit - criss-crossed while Humming Owl did his post, the "binaries" link is also a good source.

None of them, in my honest opinion. I personally use https://github.com/GTANAdam/GDIChromium/releases on my Win10 installs as my default. I also like https://www.softpedia.com/get/PORTABLE-SOFTWARE/Internet/Browsers/Advanced-Chromium.shtml (but it's true home page [http://browser.taokaizen.com/] has been down since Jan 1 or thereabouts). I always keep https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium/releases around also, but my home cable streaming service does not work on it but does in GDIChromium.

He posted that as sarcasm. This new guy talks identically as another forum member.

For Chromium-based in XP, make sure that you have chrome://flags/#disable-direct-write DISABLED.

Firefox has an option to block remote fonts - I don't think even that option would block a .css font. I personally block several third-party font-supplier domains and then just live-with / accept that some "icons" are also blocked. If it's a site I visit frequently, then I fix with Stylus. If it's just some random site I'm on for three minutes and never ever return to it, then I can read the content and navigate the site even if some of the "icons" are coming from a FONT that I've blocked.

It basically intercepts incoming font-family: montserrat,sans-serif and rewrites it to anything you want, such as font-family: sans-serif. Thereby totally eliminating the montserrat font whether the .css was fetched or not. But Stylus is not for the "set it and forget it" crowd.

You will likely need to start using something like Stylus.

It's because your uBlock setup is not blocking .css from fonts.googleapis.com.

<OT> My systray - recognize anything, @UCyborg? </OT>

Ah, correct you are. Maybe I was thinking 360Chrome v11.

Do you have a web site example?

Yeah, basically a "hidden agenda" if you ask me. Oh well...

Agreed! I actually see it as a POSITIVE. Makes my OS forever-fixed "static" instead of forever-changing "dynamic".

Just where did these come from? Plucked out of thin air?

Regarding the "likes" that seems to keep coming up. I would encourage my FRIENDS (they know who they are) to please please please not "focus" so heavily on "likes". Your life is NOT reduced to "likes" or "followers". The "psychology" behind thinking that way has been directly linked to teen suicides (and buried in inter-office board-room memos by very large social-media companies that live-and-die by "likes"). Please please please do not "focus" so heavily on "likes". Carry on, my FRIENDS. But I did want to throw that tidbit your way.

I've been using build 1030 as my default for about a week or so. I don't recall what base address was used by @UCyborg - I've been using 0x1001000 for both my x86 and x64.

We generally refer to that as portable also. Some (but I am not one of them) do not classify WEB BROWSERS as "portable" unless ENCRYPTED COOKIES AND LOGINS also migrate from one PC to the next.

No disagreement here. Just saying it's not exactly "black and white". This old dinosaur drives a '55 Dodge Coronet, a '61 Studebaker Hawk, a '90 Eagle Talon, and a '91 Dodge Stealth R/T.

I don't think we can really make a blanket-statement such as that. These "new standards" are not 'always' more cumbersome and heavy on loading. Some javascript functions were created out of necessity for "efficiency". "New" ways of doing things are sometimes "better". If we "parse" the full list of javascript functions "introduced" in 2015 and compare directly with the "old way" of doing the same function, I bet we will find that "newer is better". And if they are not, then at least the non-lazy web developers would still be using the "old way". But unfortunately, in this cookie-cutter world, "non-lazy" web developers are few and far between.

Agreed! However, I highly disagree with the term "Googlized" - that's just a fancy Mozilla Term in my book, some sort of "blame Google that we cannot render your web site". That "blame game" doesn't really work, in my opinion. ECMAScript 2015 is the "standard" to which javascript engines have to comply in order to render "modern" web sites. Available here -- https://www.ecma-international.org/wp-content/uploads/ECMA-262_6th_edition_june_2015.pdf There are newer standards, but for the sake of the term "Googlized" that gets thrown around here at MSFN, I'll refer to the 2015 standard. I do not know what the newer standards bring to the table, but I do know that import, optional chaining, and nullish coalescing has been around since 2015. 360Chrome v13/13.5 is a 2018 web browser and it complies with import, optional chaining, and nullish coalescing operators. The actual "base" for most of roytam1's is a bit muddy for me, but basically circa Firefox 52 (March 2017), 53 (April 2017), or 55 (August 2017) depending on your reference point. 2017 browsers should comply with 2015 standards. Will another two+ years of weekly updates on roytam1 offerings achieve better "compliance"? Your guess is as good as mine. Optional chaining and nullish coalescing operators were not in compliance two years ago and are today in some of the roytam1 offerings. So yes, "progress" is being made. But my main point here is that Google does not write the "standard", they just do a better job at complying to the "standard". I am quite positive that ECMA International did not set out to create a standard that Google could comply with but that Mozilla could not. Market share is determined by who can best comply with web standards more then by brand loyalty. Mozilla does have this for them, they're like "pirates" - the ship may be sinking, but they will go down with that ship and stand proud while gasping in that last breath.

Perhaps... But I could list one by one "at least" a hundred web sites that WORK on this "no longer actively developed" 360Chrome but do NOT WORK on ANY of the roytam1 offerings. The last TWO PLUS YEARS of weekly updates have still YET to get any of the roytam1 offerings to "work" for any of those "hundred web sites". To each their own... I'm done for the night... I tap the mat and bow out...

So now we are just battling for the "last word". So I'll bow to your expertise and assume this very post "doesn't count". waka waka waka

Not really. What do you honestly think would be "expected" of roytam1 if it was discovered that Basilisk/Serpent used "half" as much RAM if one of the .dll's were rebased? I myself think that the roytam1 user-base would NOT be expected to perform the rebase, but rather that roytam1 would be expected to do the spoon-feeding and provide the next weekly release with that rebase included.

But then again... I used to get the feeling that a TON of people "use" roytam1's WEEKLY offerings - and that they even sit on the edge of their seat each and every week in anticipation of the next WEEKLY offering. I say "used to" because nowadays, I honestly see roytam1's offerings as very very VERY similar to the 360Chrome offerings here at MSFN - ie, a very very VERY "niche market" and a very very VERY "dying breed".