66cats
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 66cats
-
-
4 hours ago, UCyborg said:
So that's completely and utterly useless.
Try the 32-bit build of Thorium, see if (with Chrome-xp-api-adapter) it's quicker than the 64-bit build. Oddly enough, for me, it is (on x64 SP2).
25 minutes ago, D.Draker said:
Works on my machine™ (Thorium/XP x64)
2 -
3 minutes ago, UCyborg said:
It's all f***in' politics and I hate politics, I just want a working computer.
Same here.
27 minutes ago, UCyborg said:click Submit Reply and it seemed it didn't do anything,
Might have something to do with @AstroSkipper's single-core rig, happens to me all the time posting from a Coppermine PIII (on any forum).
BTW, IDA-RE's dll does seem to speed up Thorium/Supermium (launching for the first time, and at least as far as Speedometer 2 is concerned). Curious factoids: it's now called "chrome-xp-api-adapter.dll" instead of "progwrp.dll" (i renamed it), and it's 24KB vs. 131KB of the original.
1 -
6 hours ago, UCyborg said:
How does that invalidate the open-source components?
The same logic that makes Supermium closed source (if any part of the project is not open source, it's not open source) should make Linux closed source (its kernel includes [proprietary] binary blobs).
6 hours ago, UCyborg said:There are distros out there that do not include binary blobs.
I guess those are the only open source Linux distros
OTOH, most distros (including all the popular ones, the ones where WiFi & most HW works, ones using the standard, unmodded linux kernel) are proprietary. At least by that logic :\
6 hours ago, UCyborg said:Apparently Windows XP is so bad they have to emulate Windows 7+ (APIs) to make it run on XP.
Something tells me reliance on leaked/reversed MS code is the reason no source has been published for that .dll. Again, could be dead wrong.
0 -
8 hours ago, D.Draker said:10 hours ago, 66cats said:
Supermium source, and [at least] the binary of that .dll is, and always was, publicly available. Not sure how not publishing the source would affect people who wanted to support win32/needed an installer.
Please make sure to take a couple of seconds to perform a simple search before posting.
Which part of the quoted text do you disagree with? Be concise.
I concede that, like Linux, Supermium contains closed source code. If you feel this makes those projects proprietary, i got nothing.
0 -
Just now, Dixel said:
It would be odd to simply publish all of the source code of something which has *subscription mode* and paid Patreon versions, yes,
Supermium source, and [at least] the binary of that .dll is, and always was, publicly available. Not sure how not publishing the source would affect people who wanted to support win32/needed an installer.
0 -
1 minute ago, Dixel said:
another launcher app based on my knowledge
So that was the one that got famous? (forgive me, i'm a bit out of the loop when it comes to browser starter apps)
1 -
8 minutes ago, D.Draker said:
Many people started spreading rumours (based on nothing, no one ever gave any links) about Supermium being fully open source,
Probably the same people who started spreading rumors that Linux is open source.
8 minutes ago, D.Draker said:What's so hard to understand or why are you having troubles to reconcile?
I'm having trouble reconciling how something shared with a small circle of friends could be thought of as famous. Horse-famous, maybe?
2 -
1 minute ago, D.Draker said:
If you're so sure, please give the link.
Huh? I'm asking Dixel if he's sure the source wasn't published (and not getting an answer). Also pointing out the question is not rhetorical &, not being a coder, i wouldn't know where to look. Not sure how i could've been more explicit.
6 minutes ago, Dixel said:But share only with the ones I want.
having trouble reconciling this with
34 minutes ago, Dixel said:My famous Chrome/Opera starter app
1 -
11 minutes ago, Dixel said:
But no links in public.
Are you sure win32 didn't publish the source? Thought he did. (real question, not a coder & wouldn't know where to look)
11 minutes ago, Dixel said:My famous Chrome/Opera starter app.
You didn't publish the source? How come?
0 -
38 minutes ago, Dixel said:
I think Klemper's logic is very simple
Goes something like:
1. win32 publishes progwrp.dll code, which is picked up by Alex313031, and, apparently, IDA-RE
2. IDA-RE, who is not win32, releases a version of win32's dll, calls it progwrp.dll v. 1.2.0.5035
3. IDA-RE, who is not win32, takes down his work (progwrp.dll v. 1.2.0.5035) -- both the source and the binaries
∴ win32's Supermium is not open source, QED.
?
2 -
3 hours ago, Milkinis said:
what version
Using Thorium_SSE4_122.0.6261.168_WINXP_x64.zip for XP x64, Vista & 7 (multiboot, so literally the same copy). Will try Thorium_AVX2_123.0.6312.133.zip in Vista 64 & post results in a few.
UPDATE: tried AVX2 (this box is 4770k), AVX & even SSE3 flavors on W7, all from https://github.com/Alex313031/Thorium-Win/releases. Each one gives me the "not a valid win32 app" error.
AVX2 flavor performs roughly the same on W10: 144, 156, 145
The weird thing is on W10, the XP/legacy version (Thorium_SSE4_122.0.6261.168_WINXP_x64.zip) benches better (196, 200, 204) than the AVX2 version meant for Win10.
In Vista extended kernel (Nov. 2022), i get
Supermium on Vista extended kernel (Nov. 2022): 199, 203, 200
Thorium (XP SSE4) on Vista extended kernel: 192, 197, 198
1 -
23 minutes ago, Dixel said:
obviously adds performance penalty
Doesn't seem to. Just retested three times with just one tab: 136, 125, 131. Then again, not really a night-and-day difference between the two, can't notice it outside benchmarks.
1 -
4 minutes ago, Dixel said:
delete your old attachments
I think that was it, thanks.
0 -
36 minutes ago, Dave-H said:
Thorium is noticeably faster
Is for me too (in XP), both about the same in Vista & 7.
BTW, sorry for linking images, can't embed them (images of any size) for some reason.
1 -
53 minutes ago, gordo999 said:
I wonder how different the driver is from the 9xx series.
Could force a 9xx driver (install from the device manager, 'let me choose,' etc.) & get 2D acceleration. Worked for me with 1050 & 1070 (also on 8th gen B chipset).
56 minutes ago, gordo999 said:Somehow, I can no longer get a display during POST
Plug the display into the motherboard FTW?
0 -
21 minutes ago, shelby said:
youtube does not load
Works for me, though drops frames in XP, as do earlier versions. Works fine on Vista+ (decent HW, e.g. browsers like 360Chrome & Mypal don't drop frames).
1 -
8 minutes ago, Milkinis said:
up until 2025 at least for WinXP
Does MS actually have a secret XP ESU program, or are you talking about some company selling alleged security updates? Always assumed XP was down to to running aging signage, ancient-but-cool lab gear & crusty CNC rigs, that sort of thing, air-gapped from reality.
0 -
3 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:
LESS THAN 8% of web sites use QUIC
In this thread, i'm talking about browsers running on home computers (and whether these browsers have QUIC enabled).
0 -
3 minutes ago, Dixel said:
Windows 7 is a legacy OS
A mere 4 years without security updates. You win.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Dixel said:
Everything except new versions of Windows 10/11 is officially "legacy", including, but not limited to, Windows 8.1 and old Windows 10 (like LTSB 2016 version).
Which part of
21 minutes ago, 66cats said:Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes is limited to legacy operating systems (ones which are no longer supported/receive security updates).
Do you disagree with? Here we talk about browsers for legacy operating systems, the ones which no longer receive security updates.
0 -
11 minutes ago, Dixel said:
Neither this browser, nor this topic are only limited to XP
Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes is limited to legacy operating systems (ones which are no longer supported/recieve security updates).
14 minutes ago, Dixel said:Where do you get the stats about the "whole" world?
*majority of the world, please re-read.
17 minutes ago, Dixel said:Link to a reputable source, please.
Most of the world uses Google Chrome, which, in turn, uses QUIC.
0 -
1 hour ago, Dixel said:
google-quic-is-vulnerable-to-cyber-criminal-activity-creates-a-‘black-hole’-that-hackers-can-exploit/
Let me understand this correctly -- you're concerned about security implications of a protocol currently used by the majority of the world, this in the context of Windows XP (an OS that hasn't received security updates for roughly a decade)?
5 -
2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:
A CPU can only do so much per clock cycle
My single-core laptop goes through 1.8 BILLION clock cycles a second.
Take a few, they're small
2 hours ago, Dixel said:The question is, why (if both @win32 and Alexi are trying to implement at least something similar to Ungoogled) didn't cut it out first.
Because it matters not at all? And no, current Thorium and Supermium builds are *not* trying to be "ungoogled." For instance, vanilla Chromium doesn't have functional Google account/Sync(what can be more googled than that?), both Supermium and Thorium do. Think "Googled Chromium"
2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:On my weak machine, these unnecessary connections do have an impact to my CPU
Saying they don't, in any perceptible way, would be a waste of breath, wouldn't it?
2 -
Thorium on 32-bit mobile single core. A bit misleading, feels slower.
Kafan Minibrowser, same HW. Much faster IRL; faith in benchmarks & numbers in general lost.
0
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
Posted
Just a guess, but nowhere. The typically cached elements are simply re-downloaded, again and again, as if the page was visited for the first time. If @Kmuland's internet bandwidth is greater than HDD bandwidth, disabling the cache makes sense. Again, just guessing, no idea how browsers work.