Dave-H

I guess it won't be much more use than 360Chrome is now if it hasn't been updated further than Chromium 87.

FWIW, I'm still using 13.5.2036, which has served me well for getting on for a couple of years now. I'm starting to see malfunctions as well now of course, very often just blank pages. The wine merchant I use, whose site has always worked fine, now also has a problem, OK on the login and account pages, but every catalogue page now loads and then crashes to this - I guess Chromium version 86 is now just too old to be compatible with current standards, but it was a good run. I'm on the point of deciding to reconfigure my system so Thorium is my default browser instead of 360Chrome.

@kin003 You have not been banned from posting anywhere. When Vista was released is irrelevant to the topic concerned, and the off-topic posts have now been removed. Please continue the conversation if you wish, but do not return to this subject.

Off-topic posts removed.

Mine's pretty much the same, although the file is older.

The certificate in the ProxHTTPSProxy certificate store chi.uk2.net.crt was updated 10 days ago, according to the date of the file.

How strange, it's definitely a green padlock now with the proxy enabled, and I haven't knowingly changed anything! I have now updated the cacert.pem file, but I did that after it had already showed a green padlock when I checked, so it can't have been that which fixed it.

Wow! And it is the site of a web hosting service too!

I have a green padlock with the proxy, but not without it.

Thanks. I'm seeing the same. In Thorium, it's the same as well, but the details still appear, but perhaps that's a different mechanism? If I use 360Chrome with the proxy enabled, it all looks completely different! A puzzle. As I said, this did work fine for a very long time without the proxy, but I guess the site changed the coding somehow and stopped it working with a direct connection. Cheers, Dave.

Thanks. The URLs I've found the problem with don't have any hash characters in them or anything like that. One is https://chi.uk2.net/. Going there shows a login dialogue, with the username and password already filled in if I use the proxy, but not if I don't. I have never intentionally used the proxy with that address. I did wonder why the details suddenly no longer appeared after working for a very long time, but I only found out that they did appear when the proxy was used by pure chance because I enabled the proxy temporarily for another site as a test, and then forgot to turn it back off again! Suddenly the login information appeared again, and I made the connection! I don't use the proxy on the web browser because it slows things down considerably, it's mainly there for my ancient e-mail client, which uses the IE HTML engine to display messages, and now throws up certificate errors all the time with a direct connection.

Anyone any thoughts on this?

There is a lack of respect for other members being shown in some posts here recently. May I remind everyone of Rule 7b. Consider this to be a warning.

Isn't this getting a bit off-topic for this thread guys?

Another puzzling thing has started happening on my copy of 360Chrome 13.5.2036.0. I do use the password remembering mechanism on non-critical websites, just for convenience. It has always worked as it should, automatically filling in the login information. I recently noticed that it was no longer doing this on some (but not all) sites. By pure chance, I've now discovered that if I switch the proxy on from the menu, which is ProxHTTPSProxy in my case, the logins appear again. If I go back to a direct connection and refresh the page, they vanish again! Anyone any idea why that would be? Have the sites in question perhaps changed their code such that they need the proxy to allow the display of the login information? The same sites' login information still appears fine on Thorium and Supermium with a direct connection. It;'s not a big deal, just annoying, the sites still login fine if I put the information in, it's just very puzzling why the automatic system is now malfunctioning.

OK, thanks.

OK, no problem. I just thought you might know, as you've presumably used r3dfox. I don't know whether you've used it on XP of course!

@Sampei.Nihira Just a very quick off-topic aside, do you happen to know which version of r3dfox is the most recent to work on XP (32 bit)? The latest one certainly doesn't work, and the others say they've not been tested on XP.

In XP. I don't use 360Chrome on Windows 10.

Thanks all, the user agent modification has indeed fixed it. Very bad design though for it to just not load with the original version. Most incompatible sites put up a page saying that you need to update your browser. Doing what they were doing just looks lake some other type of fault.

Thanks everyone, I will give the UA fix a try and report back tomorrow. Just off to bed!

Could someone using 360Chrome please try this site for me? www.bbcpa.org.uk In my copy of 360Chrome 13.5,2036.0 it won't load, it either produces a connection error or just sticks on the new tab page. I'm pretty sure that it used to work! It's fine in Thorium and Supermium on XP. Thanks, Dave.

Any further posts in this conversation and this thread will be locked.

OK, this is getting personal, and that must stop please. This thread is to discuss technical aspects of the Supermium browser, not to have a debate about who may or may not have 'borrowed' code or ideas from whom. If you want to discuss this further, take it to PMs. Any continuation of the present discussion will be deleted.

@IDA-RE-things This is not our issue, and there's no reason for people here to feel that they need to take up cudgels on your behalf. You and win32s(s) are on GitHub, and this issue, if it merits it, should be raised and resolved there. FWIW, as far as I can see the 'borrowing' of someone else's code is something which should be asked for in advance as a matter of courtesy, and acknowledged by the 'borrower', and in many cases I'm sure that would be accepted by the code's originator, even with closed source projects. If those niceties were not observed in this case, that's regrettable, but it's between you and win32s(s) and should be resolved on GitHub, not here.