Dave-H

Thanks! I can't try that out at the moment as I'm away from home for a few days, but I will certainly try it out on my desktop machine when I get back home!

I've never had any issues with YouTube either. I don't use Discord. Facebook and Instagram are the main problem, the tab always crashes after doing any prolonged scrolling on either of them. If I look at the Windows Task Manager, I can see the available RAM disappearing before my eyes! 😯

My main bugbear with Supermium on XP is that tabs often fall over with out-of-memory errors on sites like Instagram and Facebook. I gather this is because 32-bit processes can each only access a maximum of 4GB of RAM (sometimes even less depending on the system configuration). My understanding is that nothing can be done to work around this, even patching XP to access all of my 16GB of RAM makes no difference because the RAM limit for each process still exists. It means I can potentially open a lot more tabs, but each tab will still crash if it goes over the RAM usage limit. That's the main reason I would never use a 32-bit browser from choice.

Now that would be a bit of a giveaway, as there has never been a 32-bit version of Windows 11 of course! I suppose you could legitimately be running a 32-bit browser on Windows 11, but why would anyone do that?

Well I guess the '32' gives away that it isn't official Google Chrome in that case but a fork which still provides 32-bit versions. I think the old-school UA string has always said 'x64' in recent times, 360Chrome was/is the same. The discrepancy doesn't seem to be causing any problems with Cloudflare-protected sites as yet, at least none of the ones which I use. It's not pretending to be a higher version of Chromium now at least, which it used to with earlier versions. Does Cloudflare even look at the old legacy UA string now?

What do you reckon? The only spoofing I can obviously see is that Supermium 144 is saying I'm on Windows 10 when I'm actually on XP. Not sure what 'platform version 19.0.0' means.

I've never had captchas on any of the banking sites I use either. They mainly rely on sending a login code, either by SMS text to your mobile or by e-mail.

They do say they support ESR versions of Firefox. It's a shame they don't seem to have the same beneficence towards the Chromium equivalent, which Supermium is based on.

You've probably already looked at this, but there's some information here about possible causes of challenges looping. https://developers.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-challenges/troubleshooting/challenge-solve-issues/

OK, but I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would want to potentially go to a lot of trouble, if it's even possible, to work around this when the answer is just to use the current version of the browser rather than one which is 22 Chromium versions older.

This is getting off-topic. It's not a uniquely Supermium issue, and the latest 144 version does not show the problem, at least not for me. Please start a new thread about spoofing client hints if you want to keep up this conversation.

I have unlocked this thread by request, as hopefully there will now be more information about this issue added to it. If it descends into personal bickering between members again or goes off-topic, it will be locked again immediately.

@user57 Er, are you sure that post is in the right thread? It appears to be nothing to do with Supermium. If it's not, I can move it for you.

I would recommend updating to version 144, that opens Cloudflare sites OK for me. Incidentally, they are now blocked on 360Chrome too, so I think that's the beginning of the end for any further use of that browser!

Good point, but whatever people call themselves on forums, GitHub, or anywhere else is not relevant to this thread. Please stay on topic.

Thanks, that is certainly good to know, that there is an alternative to Supermium should that ever become necessary for me. I've looked at other Chromium forks in the past which didn't include Google Sync, which is why I asked.

LOL, understood! Anyway, I've been using Supermium for ages now, and I've always been very happy with it. I'm not going to rush to use another browser just to gain a few more Chromium versions. The Supermium developer has mentioned in the past about using the equivalent of ESR versions of Chromium. How relevant that is, I don't know, as ESR versions are a Mozilla thing of course, but that may explain why he doesn't keep on updating with new Chromium versions as soon as they're released. He seems to update after about another 10 Chromium versions.

Sorry, but what exactly is that?

Off-topic, but your lack of a visible window could be caused by a known issue on XP, which I reported here. It seems to be hardware-related, with some GPUs. That causes what I described as a 'ghost window', which is present but invisible! Try with the --disable-gpu switch, that might fix it.

Thanks, good to know why we saw different results. It doesn't worry me, as it's not a site I will ever use anyway, and I've not had this happen anywhere else. If it starts happening a lot, that I'm blocked from a site unless I disable uBlock, I will certainly look at my list configuration. Apart from some element blocking, my uBlock is pretty much out of the box. Just as a matter of interest, off-topic, does this "cool browser made by e3kskoy7wqk" support Google Sync? If it doesn't, I won't be using it, regardless of how many Chromium versions above Supermium it is!

I disabled uBlock because the site told me I had to, as it wouldn't work with an ad blocker running. When I disabled uBlock for the site, it worked fine immediately. Why you didn't see that warning, I don't know, but the behaviour for me was exactly as expected.

It installs in C:\Program Files\Supermium unless you tell the installer otherwise.

I've tried just now, and the British Gas site seems to work fine, the Twitch login page works fine (although I don't have a Twitch account, so I couldn't test that it actually works to log in!) and the a-z-animals.com site works fine if I disable uBlock, as expected. So, as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to see here!

I have no idea, but whatever the issues are, and I'm not sure it's even still the case that there's a problem with those sites (I can't immediately check) I'm pretty sure it's nothing to do with the underlying Chromium version. 🙂

Yes, there is no Supermium above 144. I think it's been an amazing achievement for the Supermium developer to get a Chromium 144 browser to work on XP, including things like keeping support for pre-Manifest V2 extensions. A few years ago this was considered by most people to be an impossibility. BTW, I have never believed the conspiracy theory that Supermium is actually based on a much earlier version of Chromium than it's claiming to be. It passes every version test site I've ever tried it with, sometimes, in fact, reporting (by design) a higher version of Chromium. Those who were claiming fraud here were just mischief-making in my opinion.