xrayer Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Probably not the fastest for older machines but on my i7 it's OK. I run it heavy memory load with multiple tabs and after it exhausted entire free memory it silently crashed, leaving 4 zombie chrome.exe processes. But it's better than getting win32k.sys BSOD :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 XP on my i7 and with Supermium running only has 24 processes. How in Heck are you at 74? That seems EXTREMELY high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidao Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 7 hours ago, xrayer said: Probably not the fastest for older machines but on my i7 it's OK. I run it heavy memory load with multiple tabs and after it exhausted entire free memory it silently crashed, leaving 4 zombie chrome.exe processes. But it's better than getting win32k.sys BSOD it like XP x64, why don't you us Win7, my laptop is too old, it work faster with xp than win7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrayer Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 >NotHereToPlayGames I had normally some other running apps and bkgnd process e.g. of vmware ~ 45 processes and the rest was chrome.exe of Supermium. E.g. now I have only 6 tabs and there are 12 chrome.exe >hidao I don't like to, I also use some older SW linked with HW that don't run on new Windows. If everything would be ideal compatible I could run Win 10/11 and don't messing on MSFN with some alternate browsers and other XP hacks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidao Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 5 hours ago, xrayer said: >NotHereToPlayGames I had normally some other running apps and bkgnd process e.g. of vmware ~ 45 processes and the rest was chrome.exe of Supermium. E.g. now I have only 6 tabs and there are 12 chrome.exe >hidao I don't like to, I also use some older SW linked with HW that don't run on new Windows. If everything would be ideal compatible I could run Win 10/11 and don't messing on MSFN with some alternate browsers and other XP hacks... I see, if my HW could be faster, I'll use Win7,because lots of software doesn't support XP Edited February 22 by hidao 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 11 hours ago, hidao said: I see, if my HW could be faster, I'll use Win7,because lots of software doesn't support XP Yeah, its getting harder and harder to use XP as our daily driver, but I'm stuck with it and poor hardware as my computers are held together with duct tape and crazy glue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 16 hours ago, xrayer said: ... If everything would be ideal compatible I could run Win 10/11 and don't messing on MSFN with some alternate browsers and other XP hacks... Me too - my computers won't support 10 or 11 but at some point I may have to jump to 7 but I'm not there yet. I see no benefit to use Vista How can I get a legit version of 7? I see so many ISOs out there but no way to (legally) activate it? I wonder if my computer is even capable of such - I think it would be very sluggish because I have my XP trimmed to almost nothing but the basics. Edited February 22 by XPerceniol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 10 minutes ago, XPerceniol said: my computers won't support 10 You may be surprised, I used to think the same thing. I'm running 10 on a 15yr old eMachines T3656 with only 3GB RAM without any issues whatsoever. WinReducer EX-100 - Learn it, Use it! :) NO! I'm not being <insert negative adjective of choice> and trying to load up 10, 20, or 30 tabs in a web browser! Some times we bring upon our own misery and cannot blame others for that misery. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 (edited) 32 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: You may be surprised, I used to think the same thing. I'm running 10 on a 15yr old eMachines T3656 with only 3GB RAM without any issues whatsoever. WinReducer EX-100 - Learn it, Use it! NO! I'm not being <insert negative adjective of choice> and trying to load up 10, 20, or 30 tabs in a web browser! Some times we bring upon our own misery and cannot blame others for that misery. Wow ... thank you and I've never even heard of WinReducer EX-100. I just downloaded it from softpedia and will take a look at it. EDIT: I'm looking at WinReducer closer and I'm regretful to admit its (way) over my head. Edited February 22 by XPerceniol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, XPerceniol said: Me too - my computers won't support 10 or 11 but at some point I may have to jump to 7 but I'm not there yet. I see no benefit to use Vista How can I get a legit version of 7? I see so many ISOs out there but no way to (legally) activate it? I wonder if my computer is even capable of such - I think it would be very sluggish because I have my XP trimmed to almost nothing but the basics. Need to know your MOTHERBOARD. PLGA and LGA sockets are interchangeable. You could upgrade your Pentium D to a Core2 Quad Q6700 and be identical to me or you could upgrade to Core2 Extreme X9770 (not compatible with my motherboard) and be 23% better than me. Again, some times we bring upon our own misery! "Been there, done that." I stuck with XP and kept telling myself my hardware can't run 10. Folks that want to run XP, all the power to them. But MOST that still do only do it because they have a MOBILE PHONE to do what XP can not do. That was not my case. I do not own a phone. No land line. No mobile. NO PHONE. Amazon has the Q6700 for $24.95. Anybody that can afford internet service and be on MSFN can afford $24.95. https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Quad-Core-Processor-1066MHz-LGA775/dp/B000TGK05A The Core2 Extreme sells for a HELLAVUA LOT MORE but also very likely won't go with your motherboard. Point is, $25 is manageable on ANY budget! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Thank you very much for your advice @NotHereToPlayGames I very much appreciate that you care to help me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 1 hour ago, XPerceniol said: because I have my XP trimmed to almost nothing but the basics That was me also. And I had to TEACH MYSELF how to trim XP to the basics. Therefore, yeah, you can also teach yourself to trim 10 to the basics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VistaLover Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) Given that the current Google Chrome "stable" release is at v122.0 as I type this, it comes as no real surprise that sites are starting to "blacklist" our "legacy" Chromium browsers (360EEv13.x, KMB) via "User-Agent-Sniffin'", simply because they report a Chrome/86[/87] slice inside their default UA string... So far, they're not many , but this is expected to change in the future ... The most recent case I encountered is the one of "sciencedirect.com", after a Google Search result had pointed me to: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/protected-storage I was "greeted" by: I'd have expected a "science-related" site to have implemented truly scientific means (i.e. feature-detection) to check whether "my" browser is able to display it properly, but, hey, even "scientists" must have "sold their souls" to Google and company (a figure of speech, surely, but ...) ... At this point in time, I've opted for a SSUAO rather than a "global" one via the " --user-agent" cmdline flag ; several extensions offer this functionality, I've chosen Custom UserAgent String ; you need the older v0.2.1, the last on MV2 : At last, I was then able to be "scientifically" informed using 360EEv13 ... Edited March 10 by VistaLover better English (hopefully) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 5 hours ago, VistaLover said: Given that the current Google Chrome "stable" release is at v122.0 as I type this, it comes as no real surprise that sites are starting to "blacklist" our "legacy" Chromium browsers (360EEv13.x, KMB) via "User-Agent-Sniffin'", simply because they report a Chrome/86[/87] slice inside their default UA string... So far, they're not many , but this is expected to change in the future ... The most recent case I encountered is the one of "sciencedirect.com", after a Google Search result had pointed me to: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/protected-storage I was "greeted" by: I'd have expected a "science-related" site to have implemented true scientific means (i.e. feature-detection) to check whether "my" browser is able to display it properly, but, hey, even "scientists" must have "sold their souls" to Google and company (a figure of speech, surely, but ...) ... At this point in time, I've opted for a SSUAO rather than a "global" one via the " --user-agent" cmdline flag ; several extensions offer this functionality, I've chosen Custom UserAgent String ; you need the older v0.2.1, the last on MV2 : At last, I was then able to be "scientifically" informed using 360EEv13 ... Spoof to another fake agent, go here, and you will see - spoofing of UA is obsolete these days. https://chromiumchecker.com/ 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumper Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Except when it still works.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now