66cats

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

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.

I think that was it, thanks.

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.

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). Plug the display into the motherboard FTW?

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).

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.

In this thread, i'm talking about browsers running on home computers (and whether these browsers have QUIC enabled).

A mere 4 years without security updates. You win.

Which part of Do you disagree with? Here we talk about browsers for legacy operating systems, the ones which no longer receive security updates.

Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes is limited to legacy operating systems (ones which are no longer supported/recieve security updates). *majority of the world, please re-read. Most of the world uses Google Chrome, which, in turn, uses QUIC.

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)?

My single-core laptop goes through 1.8 BILLION clock cycles a second. Take a few, they're small 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" Saying they don't, in any perceptible way, would be a waste of breath, wouldn't it?

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.

There's nothing remotely malicious/harmful about those packets, simply normal Chrome behavior. For Chromecast, i guess, maybe other stuff. No need to add any firewall rules, it's not a routable address.

Literally how device discovery (SSDP) works -- on Windows, on Linux, on Android; On Chrome, on Chromium, on Firefox. What's in any way noteworthy about Thorium behaving exactly like Chromium?

Know next to nothing about this, but i think it's just Windows networking (not Thorium). Close Thorium & every every browser, start scanning -- should see 239.255.255.255 popping up. Or not. Is networking enabled on your box?

I'm trying the same, but in "go and write to the registry & wherever else you want" mode. Just installed the latest Supermium, pretty dramatic difference between the two (on a single core): Thorium's painfully slow but usable, Supermium pegs the CPU at 100% (just like the previous version) & has to be killed with Task Manager (which also freezes, so rebooting now). That explains it.

I was totally off, downloaded from /thorium-win, rather than /thorium-legacy (xp builds are there). Actually posting from it now. It's *nearly* usable, possibly still syncing. BTW, haven't tried the latest Supermium build, i think the one i tried is 121.

Fired up my Satellite A100 just for you (core solo t1350, 32-bit, single core). Supermium runs, but is unusable (nearly freezes with 100% CPU usage -- as advertised, win32 mentioned it needs 2 cores min.), Thorium (latest, all versions) is not recognized as a valid Win32 app (errors out, doesn't run). Might be my fault, though other browsers (Kafan Minibrowser, 360Chrome) run fine[ish. pretty slow]. Disregard, wrong windows version. Downloading/installing now, will update in a few mins Specs: XP 32 SP3, Core Solo T1350@1.86GHz, 4GB installed RAM.

Agree, Disabled on this box, wouldn't recommend to others. Why IT couldn't schedule such tasks for downtime is a mystery. Anyhow, defragging isn't a thing for SSDs, TRIM takes a second or two. Posting from one now (it also runs a bunch of other OS). Thorium, which emits alpha particles and mild gamma rays, is mildly carcinogenic. Back on topic: anyone else dropping frames in YT under XP? Supermium seems to have the same issue,

Both roughly the same. Here's a basically stock W10, running on a decade-old box, idling @ 1% CPU usage. If we get rid of all the unnecessary processes & even the necessary ones, we'd gain < %1 :\

vs. Feodor1/2 :'(

I'm forced to assume your Babbage engine eats hay, or, at best, burns coal. Here's a 14-yr.-old XP host running an XP guest.

The Industrial Revolution smartphone and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.