cmccaff1

If I may say so, anyone who would flame you/criticize your hard work isn't someone I would want to associate with, here or elsewhere. I took a few days off to consider things, and was giving serious thought to returning to XP x64. Seeing you did another 360v13.5 build was all the motivation I needed, so I'm back (and plan to stay with it; thankfully, any concerns about future upgrades are now settled, so for now I can use XP safely and happily). Thank you very much for continuing to devote time and effort to this fantastic project! I've never had a problem with 360 at any point...aside from the weird 'rewriting files' bug for which a very simple workaround exists (one you don't need an addon for), every version of 360 I have tried, from you and other sources, has been an absolute joy to use. I think at this point I'm going to stick with 360, while allowing for other options (Mypal68, MiniBrowser, older/newer roytam1 builds, etc.) as alternate browsers and, of course, keeping track of any new developments. 360 is pretty much as good of a balance as possible: it uses a good modern engine with solid support for recent web standards, still has Flash support (and can even use NPAPI plugins!), and thanks to your optimization is performing well on my old HP S5-1020. Actually, the performance is far better than Mini and competitive with 9.5/11/12, something I wasn't sure could be achieved with 13.x. It's funny because every time I try something newer, I keep going back to XP. It is a near-flawless masterpiece of an OS. I still maintain, and I'll stand by this until the day I pass, that if Microsoft had simply let XP be the last Windows and just kept offering updates and kernel improvements, they would have avoided a lot of BS and still made a lot of money. Again...thank you for doing what you do, sir!

Writing this from Server 2008 R2 x64, and I think I've settled on the ultimate compromise now. I was amazed with Server 2003 x64, the fastest experience I've ever had running Windows XP. However, XP (while still my favorite version of Windows) is in a tougher spot than 7 at the moment when it comes to software. 7, of course, is my second favorite version (and to me, MS's last great OS). So I ended up looking into what 7's equivalent would be, hoping to see if I could reap the same benefits Server 2003 has over the standard XP. Turns out the answer is 'YES'! I can't say enough good things about Server 2008 R2. Just like 2003 it's a true 'thoroughbred' OS that trims out exactly the right amount of fat from standard 7, and carries a more powerful version of 7's already incredible kernel. All the same advantages of Server 2003, and then some, are found here (including support for more physical processors, more RAM and larger hard disks). There are quirks (such as having to enable the audio service and install WiFi support from a built-in manager), but it's still fantastic. It is an idea I wish regular Windows would implement (giving you a base set of features out of the box and a manager tool to add other features when the need arises), but it may irritate casual users, while only advanced users would really, truly, take advantage. After a lot of testing, my journey is, without a doubt, over for now. Unless the incompatibility of newer hardware makes me move up to 10, or the limitations of older hardware bring me back to XP, it's 7 or bust for the foreseeable future. XP's browser situation is just much too dire for my comfort nowadays. I'm currently on Hibbiki's last Chromium 109 build (.120 being the newest available point update at the moment), but I hope there will be more builds as more security updates are released--and of course I'll try to keep track of anything new that comes up on the browser front for Windows 7. The fact that Chromium 109 is still getting security updates is very cool, and I think that version will be perfectly usable at least for a couple more years before it can truly be considered 'obsolete'. And of course, Firefox is still getting updates for the time being, and there is also the option to experiment with older versions of Chromium/Firefox (for example, Chromium 87 and Firefox 78 ESR/84 were the last versions with built-in Flash support, so if you like to play Flash content in a browser and have a modern code base these are still worth revisiting), and to try out other browsers too. Many thanks to everyone who is still using 7, and following what's going on! If I can contribute anything of value, I will try my best.

I see it's been a while since anyone has posted here! Writing this from Server 2003 x64, and having done a lot of testing with older and more modern versions of MAME (for anyone interested in that emulator), here is what I've found. I was not able to get an official 64-bit version newer than 0.204 working in XP x64 or Server 2003 x64...and it seems that based on at least one other source, I'm not alone: https://www.reddit.com/r/MAME/comments/fbz7db/compiled_mame_0217_or_later_that_runs_in_windows/ However, I can confirm that all official 32-bit versions up to and including 0.207 do work fine in all versions of XP (SP2 minimum). Starting with 0.208, the compiler was upgraded from GCC 7 to GCC 8, which broke XP compatibility altogether. https://old.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/b62rjt/mame_0208/ I am not sure what happened with version 0.205 that broke 64-bit binary compatibility with XP; reviewing the release notes doesn't seem to give much of an answer. So to sum it up: 0.204 is the final official version of MAME with working 32/64-bit binaries in XP x86 (SP2 minimum) AND XP x64 (which ends at SP2). 0.207 is the final official version of MAME with a working 32-bit binary in all versions of XP (SP2 minimum). This means that to take full advantage of XP x64's true 64-bit capabilities, you cannot go any higher than 0.204 officially. While it is possible to go up to 0.207 officially on all versions of XP (SP2 minimum), only the 32-bit binary is universally compatible, and only x86 XP will be able to take full advantage of it. Unofficially, there are efforts being made to this day to restore and maintain XP compatibility through custom builds, which can easily be found at progetto-SNAPS among other sites. However, your mileage will vary. Unless there is a game that was added more recently that you are genuinely curious about, I'd stick with 0.204--even by today's standards, it is a great/reliable version of MAME. Hope this helps someone!

That's very cool! Actually, it's funny that you bring this up because after some more testing, I've returned to XP. To be specific, I've settled on Server 2003 Enterprise (x64, SP2). I am going to try and keep this brief to avoid going too far off-topic, but after a lot of testing, I have found that I could be perfectly happy with 7 and 10 as options going forward. They have their quirks, but once you get used to them they're actually not bad at all. However, there is no denying XP is still my favorite OS by Microsoft; I'd call it their magnum opus, even. (7 is a close second, but despite better hardware support it still can't beat XP.) I've tested XP x64 in the past, with good results...but the last time I actually used any flavor of 64-bit XP was way, way back in 2014. After a lot of research, I decided to give Server 2003 x64 a try, and I am absolutely blown away. It obliterates x64 7/10 on the speed front (and I mean completely obliterates them), and outperforms 32-bit XP SP3. It is a true 'thoroughbred' OS, built like a stud in all the right places...it trims out just the right amount of fat from standard XP and seems to be much more extendable, supporting more processors, more RAM, and much larger hard disks. Based on my testing, nearly all of the programs I typically use work, and I won't go into a long list of them. I will note, for users of legacy IrfanView 4.44 (the last version to support 9x/ME/NT4/2K) and SDI (Snappy Driver Installer), that the 64-bit executables don't work. You will have to use the 32-bit versions. The x86 SDI executable seems to pick up the 64-bit drivers just fine. (On another note, you'll also need to enable the hardware acceleration manually, as Server 2003 has it turned off by default.) Server 2003 x64, to me, is the greatest version of the greatest Microsoft OS, a beast that can take the fullest advantage of your hardware provided you're using something XP-capable. (Of course, XP x64 SP2 is great, and for most it'll be more than enough.) I appreciate you sharing your Mini Browser discovery...thank you very much! P.S. As a final note for anyone who may be interested in trying Server 2003, the latest Mypal68 stable (68.12.5) and beta (68.13) are both working extremely well. If it helps, I keep the "layers.mlgpu.enabled"/"layers.gpu-process.enabled"/"layers.omtp.enabled" options set to 'false'. Turning off JavaScript also goes a very long way, when and where possible...but as long as you set the aforementioned options to 'false' in the about:config, your odds of a crash will decrease significantly whether JS is on or not. I bring this up because Mypal68 is now considered by many (including myself) as the best modern XP browser, and while all of the other options are worth looking at and trying depending on your needs, Mypal68 is the perfect balance of speed/convenience (it uses less CPU/RAM than Mini Browser, while being just as functional in the basics...it also has no problems with overwriting files).

I have learned about that (and I thank you for your efforts!) I guess I've just stuck to 32.0.0.371 because it works well...I have not had any security issues with it, but since I've mainly just used it on the archived Homestar Runner website and Andkon.com (my favorite Flash game site since my old middle & high school days), there's almost no chance of an exploit bringing my system down. There's no doubt that NPAPI outperforms PPAPI and ActiveX, and it's especially apparent when you go back to older, lightweight browsers and older, lightweight Flash versions. I believe NPAPI support for Chromium was discontinued with version 45 (44 was the last one with NPAPI support, but that version is extremely ancient [though still good for its time, less than 50% of the modern Web will work with it now]). Luckily, I've noticed no performance drops with any content thus far using PPAPI Flash 32/Chromium 87, though it may help that I have a dual core processor--if you're using a single core, you pretty much have to drop back to Flash 11 or earlier because as I recall there were various optimizations for dual cores introduced starting with Flash 12 (and sadly, these optimizations came with a very steep price because Flash performance became a lot worse on old Pentium III & 4-era processors).

Back on 7 x64, and have settled on an interesting compromise. Maybe just because I'm old-fashioned and still have an affinity for old Flash content (and being able to view/play Flash content in a browser), but I've decided to use Chromium 87 with the PPAPI version of Flash 32.0.0.371 (an important version because that is the very last one before the 'time bomb' lockout system was implemented, meaning you can use it forever in any browser that has Flash support). While this version of Chromium will not get any more updates, unless an absolute saint comes along and decides to start back-porting security updates from newer versions to create their own Chromium 87 fork, it's still a good browser that has support for a good number of modern web technologies. At the very least, Chromium 87 is a good 'base' version, along with Firefox 78 ESR, Waterfox G3, or Firefox 84 (the final version to support Flash) to install on your computer. With any one of these browsers, you're pretty much good to go out of the box, and from there you can look at later versions, or other browser options, if you find you absolutely need to move up from there. The fact that all of them support Flash is a very nice bonus, but I doubt it'll be a selling point for most people (since, you know, most people aren't like me and in the majority of cases aren't completely insane). (Of course, you can also be someone who's actually not insane and just keep a standalone Flash 32 around [any version will work as none of them have the time bomb], if you feel the need to revisit any Flash content--I highly recommend good 'ol Homestar Runner.) My solution for the moment is to keep a Hibbiki build of Chromium 87 around as my 'base' browser, and try out newer versions and different browsers when the need arises. Seems to be a good compromise...I can also see myself tinkering with even older versions, just to see the gains in performance (as 87, even now, is still overkill for a good number of sites).

An excellent choice, friend...feel free to let people know your thoughts on it! To me it's a great OS. You really can't go wrong with the LTSB/LTSC versions of Windows 10 in general. For now, I've gone back to 7...and before the admins get mad (I apologize for the multitude of posts--I have tried to keep them at least tangentially relevant) & other users start raising their flaming torches, this time it's pretty much final until I'm on a newer computer that doesn't properly support 7, upgrade from a HDD to a SSD, or am basically 'forced' to upgrade due to browser needs. Besides the fact that 7 just gives me better overall performance anyway, the biggest problem I've found is that 10 seems to write to disk a lot more frequently than 7 does...both tend to write to disk quite heavily at times but it's a lot worse with 10 than it is with 7. It wouldn't be an issue with a SSD, but I'm still using a HDD, and don't want the performance on that thing to suffer due to constant writes (after all, if it ain't broke you shouldn't fix it, and that old HDD is still working fine). So here's my final summary for now: if you are on a machine with a SSD, by all means go with 10 or whatever you're comfortable with running...you're pretty much good to go. If you're like me and still using a HDD, my best advice is to stick with 7 because it is much, much friendlier with older hardware in general, and with hard disk drives (and properly supports SSDs, so you're fine both ways). If your heart is set on using 10, stick to an LTSB/LTSC version--they're much more stable and 'sane' than regular 10 has ever been. If you care about performance, you may get better results with 7 on older hardware, but there should be little noticeable difference on much newer hardware, and assuming you're on a machine with full 7 driver support and a SSD, the choice is yours. I speak only from my own experience, and as others have probably figured out I'm not the most 'stable' source of information...but then again, all of us are constantly learning!

I do recall testing that version and enjoying it a lot. While 10 does have its annoyances, and keeping in mind what you and others have shared, I've migrated yet again, settling on what I think is the best compromise: LTSB 2016. This version of Win10 will still get extended support until October 2026, which isn't too bad...maybe I'll look again at LTSC 2019 and IoT 2021 when the time is right. I'm getting much better performance (actually, surprisingly close to 7), and less noticeable bugs, compared to later versions of 10. THIS is the version I would recommend to anyone who wants to use 10, without having to deal with some of the BS of later releases. It seems to be the best possible compromise (updates are only security/stability-based, no telemetry, and all the benefits of the 10 kernel). At this point I'm pretty much squared away, and plan to stay with 10 as my 'main' OS (though I'm not opposed to returning to XP/7 on a temporary basis, to test software that seems interesting--luckily, my PC has full driver support from Win2000 to Win10). If I were to sum it up, I'd say Windows XP was the greatest OS Microsoft ever made, Windows 7 is the last great OS from Microsoft, and Windows 10 (all versions up to/including 1709) was the last good Microsoft OS. Love it or hate it, it may be better to get used to 10, and for what it's worth it's definitely the most future-proof option. The most bleeding-edge motherboards on the market still have full support for 10. LTSB 2016, however you may obtain it, is a good way to get acquainted with 10 and have a good experience while using it, and even my old HP S5-1020 is doing just fine with it. LTSC 2019 definitely felt slower than 7 on this machine, but LTSB 2016 is actually pretty close to 7 in performance on the same hardware. So it should be snappy on old PCs.

I appreciate that, brother. For me, Windows XP was the finest hour for Microsoft in terms of designing a stable, reliable, fully-featured OS. I think 7 did regress from it in certain respects, but managed to improve upon it in other areas (such as out-of-the-box download speeds, and a far more powerful kernel). I think 7 got better over the years, and is now in all respects a worthy successor to the old, legendary XP. I'm not really on the 10 'hate train'--having used it quite a bit myself, I can appreciate the good things about it, and while it is by no means a flawless OS (actually, I think that it was an even more significant regression from 7 compared to 7 from XP, with less advantages outweighing the drawbacks), when you figure out how to deal with its various quirks it's actually not too bad. I find that to get decent performance in 10, you need a more modern dual-core or any triple/quad-core or better you can find. 7, on the other hand, can run fine even on a higher-clocked single core and flies with two or more cores. My advice to anyone who wants to be more future-proofed (because let's face it, eventually 7 is going to end up exactly where XP is now), and absolutely must be using Windows 10 at this point in time, is to choose an Enterprise release (LTSB or LTSC). These versions are a lot more stable, and while each seems to have its share of quirks and bugs, the overall experience is going to be much closer to the XP/7 days. Most of the fluff in 'regular' 10 has been removed, or can be easily turned off during the initial installation. The only updates these versions seem to get are security and stability-related, so your odds of an update ruining your OS and forcing you to do a reinstall are far less. I recommend LTSC 2019, which will get extended updates until January 2029...after that, IoT LTSC 2021 will get updates until January 2032. (Quick note if you burn to/install from disc media: LTSC 2019 will fit on a single-layer DVD & IoT 2021 needs a dual-layer).

Exactly! Even the newest supported Chromium (109) is still going to work fine for a long time to come. Luckily Firefox is still supported, which is fantastic. There are many options for 7 at this moment, and while it may eventually end up where XP is at now, the future is much brighter right now for 7 users. (It's even brighter than that if you're on 10/11, but I'm staying with 7 for now because I prefer the old-school interface and the speed).

Checking back in, this time from 7 x64. At this point there's nowhere to go but forward from here, as much as I hate to say it. Unless I'm on a PC so old that I need to use XP for full driver support, I'm pretty much sold on 7 for the foreseeable future. Though in some ways it was a regression from XP, it managed to improve in many ways that are important to me. Download speeds out of the box are MUCH better, so there's no serious need to keep a download manager around unless you are dead set on getting every last kilobyte your router is capable of routing. The kernel is significantly better too...besides being able to run a much wider range of browsers (and having much more modern options available), browsers seem to be much snappier and perform a lot better. I've currently settled on Waterfox G3 (Firefox 78-based). It's very fast, still has the now-deprecated Flash support, and just seems to be a good 'base' browser to put on a 7 build...and of course you can still download and experiment with other browsers too. I figure that I can download and try a newer version of Firefox, or a modern Chromium build, if a site gives me trouble in Waterfox. It seems 7 is on the road to taking the torch from XP as the new 'superstar' of legacy OSes and I predict that there will be many, MANY browser options for 7 users as time goes on. In general, it's good to be able to look at your options and see what works best. It was impressive to see the Mini Browser working so well in XP, but the aging XP kernel is being pushed to its limits, and of course the performance of Chromium 87 in Win7, both x86 and x64, just blows it out of the water. The fact that Chromium 87 even works in XP is amazing in itself, so I wasn't expecting miracles performance-wise.

Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention! I am excited to see what happens with Mypal going forward, but even more than that I am glad Feodor is okay for now. I was very worried about him--and of course, I still am. Always keeping everyone in my thoughts.

Yeah! It's the funniest thing...all of the browsers in your examples don't have an issue with that. I have been able to overwrite just fine with those, from my tests on 7/10. For some reason it's only been 360 that was giving me problems in that regard. It's not a big deal--it's just kind of weird. What I mean is, when I go to overwrite a file in 360, instead of properly replacing the original file with the rewritten version, it creates a duplicate with a number next to it. Very strange. Mini, on the other hand, rewrites the file with no issues. Doesn't even give a prompt: it just does it! I still think 360 is great...I'm keeping Mini around because it just works more 'common-sensely' for all my daily browsing needs. The only quirk I've noticed with Mini is it doesn't seem to let me go to a link from within a tab when I use the address bar--instead, it goes to the link from within a new tab created next to it. It seems every browser has a quirk of some kind, that takes a little getting used to. But as an XP user, I'm grateful for anything we can use at this point. Definitely thinking ahead to the future now, but so far XP still has life left in it. Also, thank you for sharing the link to that extension! To post it again, for others' reference: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/downloads-overwrite-alrea/lddjgfpjnifpeondafidennlcfagekbp

Brother, you are a legend in this community...and I thank you for everything you've done. You've fought a tremendous fight in terms of maintaining and sharing legacy OS-compatible software of all kinds, especially your fantastic browser builds. May you recover and be at peace, friend. You are always in my thoughts!

Writing this message as a communication of gratitude for the efforts of @Humming Owl, @NotHereToPlayGames and everyone else who has made it possible for people to use modern, XP-compatible browsers with as much telemetry scrubbed out as possible. After some experimentation, I have once again gone back to XP...I was experimenting with 7 and 10, and while I have no complaints with regards to how that testing has turned out, I've come to find that Mini Browser is working VERY well for me. With 360, I've noticed an interesting quirk: when you download a file and attempt to overwrite an existing file, it doesn't simply overwrite the file but creates another one with a number on the end. I've never found a solution to that rather strange quirk with any 360 version (if anyone has one, I thank you very much in advance if you're willing to share it). However, Mini Browser doesn't have an issue with that; in fact, it is very similar to the modern Chromium versions I was testing in 7/10. It uses a lot of CPU/RAM compared to all the other XP browsers I've tried, but Chromium 87 in XP is something to be grateful for. To this very day, most sites still seem to work fine with Mini Browser, though I know that's going to change as time goes on. Everything that is truly essential for me still works right now. For now, I'm going to try and keep an eye on any advancements that are hopefully made in the future with browsing options for XP. It seems to be a dire situation right now, but I still have hope good things will happen. I am prepared and willing to move to 7/10 in the future...I'm not looking ahead with any disappointment. I know I'll have to retire XP for good one day...it will someday be a 'hobbyist' OS, much as the 9x series is now, if it gets to a point where no browser is equipped to handle the modern Internet anymore. When that day comes, I'm willing to make the switch. May this OS live as long as it possibly can!

I can't front--I ended up going back to 7 x64. It's really the '20 versions rule' that keeps me on 7, because at this point in time I'm not in a situation that really necessitates moving up to 10. I'm using Chromium 90 right now, well below the cutoff point (109) for pre-10 users. The idea is to take it version by version, staying 20 behind the newest, then when we get to the 130/110 milestone, I'll probably move up to Firefox (whatever is most recent, stay 20 versions behind that and keep moving up until/unless we hit a dead end; at that point I'll probably review the options that are available by then). I have a feeling 7 will probably be usable much as XP was for a long time to come, maybe to the end of the decade and some change. My PC is old enough that it can run 7 and 10 with full driver support, so I'm taking advantage of that to stick with the older, faster 7. But I have no problem moving up to 10 in the future--if you've got at least a dual core and add Classic Shell (and make sure to turn off all the optional crap during the install process), it's actually not too bad.

That is a very good point. The Chromium developers are on the right track in terms of optimizing for speed (and I really hope it stays that way), but it is inevitable that as the capabilities of the browser increase, so too does the CPU/RAM required to make it run well. Chromium 109, I am sure, would run as well or better than 96, but it would come at the cost of a slightly higher CPU/RAM footprint. Actually, I just went back to Chromium 90 as I noticed some 'quirks' with 96 (including certain files not downloading with a left click; I would have to copy/paste the link into the address bar--I have had this happen in Chromium 109 too, ungoogled and Hibbiki builds, so I'm sure it's not a hardware or OS issue). It's inevitable that I'll have to move up to 96 according to the 20 version rule, but I want it to happen over time, gradually. In real world use 90 seems to be offering equal if not better performance compared to 96 and 109, and is a bit more stable in my experiences (I've had 96 freeze and lock up several times with a certain number of tabs loaded, if the memory use is high enough; this does not seem to affect 90). Obviously, I'm not making sales pitches to convince people to use an old version of their favorite browser; everyone has their own use cases and unique needs. But as someone who uses a PC that is now over a decade old, there is a lot to be said for staying on old versions of software, unless you have a use case that absolutely necessitates making the switch to something more up-to-date. No doubt I'm speaking to the choir here, since the people who frequent this site know their stuff better than the 'average' person.

Absolutely, completely agreed. Actually, I just upgraded to v96 and I find it to be a solid improvement over v90. You made a believer out of me on this one--I've decided to 'cheat' a little bit and stay with v96 for the time being. I believe there is truth to the '20 versions' rule and I'm sticking with it, but I'm going to let it kick in when the stable version is up to v117 (at which time I'll move up to v97 and just keep going from there). In general, that rule keeps you more or less 2 years behind the latest release, which seems to be as far back as you can go and still have that 95% compatibility with the modern Internet. That percentage drops if you keep a version that is too old, but I do think that older versions are still worth tinkering with (as they tend to have a lot of interesting/useful features that were taken out of later ones). Hopefully the speed and performance will stay on the road it's on, but either way once v117 is out, I'm moving to v97 and staying 20 behind the latest from then on. It's going to be a long time before I will need to worry about it, presuming the speed drops in the future. UPDATE: As of the time of writing, I have moved back to Windows 7 x64. I actually enjoyed getting a feel for what to expect with 10 in the future...but there is nothing that really seems to necessitate the jump to 10 right now. 7 seems to be the best 'bridge' between XP and 10, with a kernel that is closer to 10 but performance that is comparable with XP (and better compatibility with 'legacy' hardware & software). It runs a lot better than 10 on the same hardware, but 10 honestly wasn't performing that badly (so I do feel optimistic for the future). Right now, the plan is to stay with Chromium 96, make the jump to 97 once 117 is the newest stable, keep going version by version until we get to the 109/129 milestone, and then maybe I'll switch over to Firefox once 130 is the newest stable Chromium (again, 20 versions rule...whatever Firefox version is the current, be 20 versions behind it). Hopefully Firefox is still going to be supported by Mozilla by then...if not, I'll keep going until I reach the inevitable dead end and then either stay with Firefox indefinitely or look at the other options that are available by then. I have a feeling Windows 7 should be usable for the rest of the decade, and then maybe in the 2030s I'll have to make the switch to 10.

Very interesting results! It seems the Chromium engine got some significant speed optimizations starting with version 96. Performance seems to have stayed more or less consistent since then, with some versions being faster than others. Of course Hibbiki's builds aren't the only game in town...I ended up finding out about them when I figured out how to download the 'stock' Chromium 95, only to discover it didn't come with a full set of codecs. As it turns out, there are multiple maintainers who have been nice enough to work on and share Chromium builds that restore some of the better aspects of 'normal' Google Chrome (including proper codec support), and Hibbiki seems to be one of the trusted folks in that regard. So far I haven't had any issues with Hibbiki's builds...Chromium 90 is working great. Smooth, speedy, and stable.

That is true! Compared to 10, it would definitely be a baby, but I can imagine many 11 users are happy with it by this point. I'm just a bit reluctant to make the jump, not just because my PC falls a little bit short of the requirements but because it isn't very mature yet. I recall that Windows 10, over the first few years, still had its fair share of random crashes and major bugs. By the time LTSC 2019 came out a lot of that had been ironed out, and though there are still some strange quirks and minor bugs it's a great and stable OS all the way around. With my '20 versions' rule (I'm still on Chromium 90--the latest is 110), I could still be quite comfortably on Windows 7, but 10 is more future proof (and LTSC brings it very close to 7, by allowing you to disable most 'extras' in the initial install and with all future updates being strictly security-based; its performance is also a bit closer to 7 than 'regular' 10, at least in my experiences). By the time I have to even think about moving to 11, it'll probably be even more stable than 10 is now!

That seems to be a very good range for performance, especially on older PCs. Just to have everything perfectly 'round' I decided to go back and try Chromium 90 (Hibbiki has a build for that one), and it works GREAT. Actually, I'm writing this from Chromium 90. Now that I think about it, I think you can even go back 20 versions and still get good results. Remembering old experiences with Firefox before I started to focus more on Chromium-based browsers, I remember that back when 30 & 31ESR were still current most sites still worked in 10ESR. When 52ESR was current most sites still worked in 31ESR & 32. It seems that going back 20 versions may actually be the ultimate performance/compatibility compromise: you are now at a point where many 'fancy' websites will start to run into problems, but your version is still recent enough that over 95% of sites will still work as things now stand. And you can use the 'jump up five versions' trick if any 'critical' sites are not working properly, and keep jumping up until they do. Having 95% of today's Web working is a high enough percentage for me--to me, it's not worth having the latest, even if it does work, to get that 100% compatibility when you will lose so much in performance. It's better to slowly work your way towards these newer versions...it can't be avoided that upgrading is inevitable, but giving yourself 20 versions' worth of leeway gives you more room to work with, and many more years of good and fast Web browsing. For anyone using a pre-10 version of Windows, the '20 versions' rule will guarantee them at least two more years of excellent web browsing...they would not have to look at upgrading to 10 until version 130 is the current stable release.

I may have to try that one! I'm honestly open to trying all the different builds of 10 on an experimental basis...I don't think you can go wrong with any of them, though I'm sure you will hit less bugs after a certain point (though new ones will be created that may not have been there earlier). For now, I've settled on LTSC 2019, though I was briefly considering LTSB 2015. I am sure both will run fine on my hardware, but it's hard to argue with extended support until January 2029, and the few quirks/bugs I've found aren't an issue. 10 has a little bit of a learning curve connected to it, and the performance isn't quite what I was getting with XP and 7 (even with a fair number of tweaks), but 10's kernel absolutely blows anything before it out of the water. Aside from the many years of extended support that still remain, on capable hardware 10 smokes everything (though XP & 7 should run faster than 10 on older hardware). I anticipate that when the time comes that we all have to look at using 11, spoofing the version string should get most 'incompatible' software running perfectly fine on 10. I plan to keep using 10 until I can't use it anymore. I see there's a project called 'Tiny11' in the works, but I'm going to wait for that to get mature, and to see what else is available by then. 11 is still a baby--10 has gone from being a baby to a fairly mature OS by now. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was in the early days. I think it will be remembered almost as fondly as XP and 7 when it's all said and done...history will paint it in a better light.

I'll have to try that version out...it's amazing how many Chromium forks there are. Being on Windows 10 makes it possible to run just about everything, and staying behind the latest version works out in multiple ways (better performance and the knowledge that what you're using will run well in an earlier OS too, at least until we get to version 130 and 20 versions behind that is now 110). I'm glad GDIChromium works well for you--if it gets your stamp of approval then I have no doubt it'll be more than enough for me! Ungoogled Chromium does work well, and I can see myself tinkering with it and other forks, but I've actually decided to switch to Hibbiki's Chromium x64 builds...and to amend what I mentioned earlier, I think the best rule is actually to stay, as much as possible without fail, 20 versions behind the newest stable release. (This reply was sent from Chromium 95, which works great on my PC, as does 90!) If you find a site is having issues, then you can jump up 5 versions and see if that fixes it. If it's still not fixed, jump up 5 more versions. This rule tends to work well not only with browsers but with most software, though not everything is updated on the same time table.

Of course, when it comes to browsers, everything is going to be a matter of preference. After a lot of trial and error I've decided to make the leap to Windows 10 (I was testing LTSC 2019 for a while, but as I'm using an old HP S5-1020 I want to see if I will get better performance with LTSB 2015). I have found Chromium, and its related forks, to be absolutely perfect for my needs. Recently I was testing a bleeding-edge version (110) and the last 'official' for Win 7/8.x (109). They seem to run well enough on my PC, but I felt like I could get better performance. With the latest version as of now being 110, I've decided to go back to 90, and my new personal rule (which should also apply just fine for users of other browsers) is to keep track of whatever the current stable version is and, if possible, stay 20 versions behind it. This should strike a good balance between performance on older hardware and compatibility with the modern Web. I learned a long time ago that you don't need the most bleeding-edge version of any browser to be able to get by on the Internet, but if a browsing engine is too old you will run into problems sooner or later. For the longest time I used XP, but had to make the switch when I found that some 'essential' sites would no longer work properly in 360 v13.5, Mypal68 or the latest Serpent. Originally the plan was to switch to 7, which I have tested with good results, but it seems almost anything that can run 7 will run 10 and in all its releases is much more future-proof. Right now my plan is to slowly work through the LTSB/C releases all the way to IoT LTSC 2021, but if LTSB 2015 is still performing well enough on my PC when extended support ends, I'll probably stick with that for as long as I can, until/unless it starts to run into any major problems.

Been a while since I posted here! Sorry to bump the topic, but I find it very interesting. It took a bit of trial and error, and a lot of consideration, but after giving it thought I decided to migrate to Windows 10 LTSC 2019. So far I can't say I have any complaints. It is definitely a transition compared to XP and 7, which I became used to and was able to learn the ins and outs of, but I've had some experience working with Windows 10 before, and have figured out to a certain extent how everything works. The only big interface modification I had to make was installing Classic Shell...I can live with everything else in terms of how it looks and sounds. I don't want to make it feel like XP or 7, because I honestly like the Win10 look. I've loved it in every single version I've tried. It is smooth, refined, and still feels refreshingly modern compared to every version of Windows that came before. I definitely miss the performance of XP and 7, and wish everyone well who is still trying to keep those OSes alive. The big reason I went to 10 is because I'm no longer bottlenecked by the OS in terms of how many programs I'll be able to run. I appreciate the LTSC versions in particular for being more focused on security and stability, and having less bloat than regular 10. LTSC 2019 seems to be a good 'future-proof' option, with extended support up to January 2029. Aside from the really old/esoteric stuff, a good number of the programs I used in XP and 7 still run fine in 10. It also supports all the drivers on my 'daily driver' out of the box--I only had to update the card reader, ethernet and sound drivers. (For what it's worth, LTSC 2019 seems to be the last LTSC/LTSB version that can be properly burned onto a classic single-layer DVD in both 32-bit and 64-bit releases; 32-bit LTSC 2021 can also be burned to single layer DVDs, but goes out of extended support before LTSC 2019 does, so the older release is the winner. Of course, I'm not counting any unofficial/modified versions that trim the excess.) I might transition to IoT LTSC 2021 when LTSC 2019 goes out of support, but it'll be quite a few years before that even becomes an issue (and even then it would simply be a matter of buying a pack of dual-layer DVDs, if you're like me and you prefer the nostalgia factor of old-school optical media). Honestly, I think I could be happy with any version of Win10, once it is properly tweaked. Even when Windows 10 starts going out of support, the 'final' forms of each release, with all updates applied, from the early 2015 releases to the latest ones, should serve users admirably for years to come. If you are careful with your option selection on an initial installation, many of the things people complain about are avoidable or can become non-factors. I'm happily using Ungoogled Chromium and plan to stick with it as my main browser for the foreseeable future, but I am definitely open to trying other browsers out. Win10 gives you a lot of room to experiment, as almost everything you can find still targets it (though Firefox still supports Windows 7 for the moment, which is absolutely amazing). Unless I find myself using a PC that is prohibitively ill-equipped to handle 10 (and even then, lite versions may be an option before I absolutely have to go back to XP or 7) I plan to stay on Windows 10 as long as I possibly can. It ain't perfect but it's close enough.