Karla Sleutel

Wasn't Haswell (2013) not supposed to work with 7? And what is the purpose of AVX being integrated in Chrome?

Good browser, version 137 for legacy OS released, leaving Thorium 15 versions behind. https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7/releases/tag/137.0.7106.1

Do you work at NASA, FBI, NSA, CIA? then I see no reason to hold off your screenbcaps, the one you just showed, is from a very old hardware, not to mention very cheap initially. As for Supermium, it's not its fault, your card doesn't support most codecs surrounding us since 2012 anyways. H264 developed a quarter of century ago would be the maximum, but it's not widely used these days.

Thanks! 12 is what your OS has, the one in the brackets is what your hardware can theoretically do. But as I suspected, the card is an odd, cheap OEM, the name is odd, probably Chrome simply doesn't know what to do with it! And then again, it's very, very old.

It's not true, your processor is at least 12 years old. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/75122/intel-core-i74770-processor-8m-cache-up-to-3-90-ghz/specifications.html

Please be calm, we all are friends here, Don't you read what I write? DXDIAG shows only what OS is capable of, NOT your hardware. For your hardware, you need to take a sccreencap from GPUZ. (Videocard)

How do you know that? DXDIAG shows what OS is capable of.

This happens because the browser simply can't get a hold of D3D11 hardware feature {no direct bypass happens} due to the fact of using the obsolete, Windows 2000 Era DX8{9} GPU, or it's simply very cheap (OEM) version or the such. So the browser emulates DX11 in soft mode, and the load distributed to the CPU, resulting in the enormous cache. Clear?

He said Vista and up. Not only Vista. That includes all OS starting with Vista (NT6.0) and Win10/11 Dave H. uses. They all support DX11, the question is, would your card be capable of DX11, most likeky no, considering the fact you wrote about your hardware.

@D.Draker already asked @win32 to remove the unnecessary disk killing "feature", it was several years ago, when the project was only starting. https://msfn.org/board/topic/184046-future-of-chrome-on-windows-7/page/38/#findComment-1245198

Do you know what is stored on that astonishing 500mb? Log files on you?

Is Elon even a US citizen?

Oh, so now you say it! You advised to keep them turned on all over MSFN! I listened to you. And I was wondering why many sites have malfunctioned for me! Now I got them back at default, all works fine immediately. Special thanks to @Dave-H for digging down to the bottom of the problem and @D.Draker for busting down such "advisers"!

Could you try the same with Brave or CatsXP?

He can still read without logging in. Lost the password. simply don't want to login, etc. The login details had been been changed since last summer (coincidence?), now need to know your email, he could've lost it. - And some here created a drama around it.

Why? So you would continue to use it for free, without the need to buy a new OS?

I've recently discovered, this browser runs without sandbox! Is it true!?!!?

Looks like a temp folder for some software, but also could be an encrypting virus that was interrupted while encrypting your files.

They say there's a spoiler function added to the site about 20 years ago.

Thanks, now this mystery is solved, at least we know the reason. All roads for Win 8 lead ro Supermium, I guess. I still not want to use it. And seeing its streaming problem, it adds more to the point.

Thanks for a good laugh, guys, sorry for the off-top. When I lived in Denmark, we had a mini ATX Fujitsu at work, they were incredibly quiet. Fans would spin up only during summers, and only under a considerable load like encoding.

Right, it looks absolutely different from the standard WD Red platform that they produce themselves. I own a WD40EFRX, I can tell. This one is indeed made by Hitachi, just look at the air breather. A classic Hitachi breather

Seeing how Supermium follows all modern trends, I'd rather assume it will be similar to the standard version 132, as we saw before. Take all those "experiments" features, for example. And I too want the classic design they dumped in favour of the new.

It'd be much more productive to write on github. The creator doesn't visit us anymore, he won't see your wishes.

Lossless, obviously, requires higher file size. We are talking the mere 3kb size for a profile pic.