Apologies, but no.  This rabbit hole is far too deep for me to get pulled in any further.  Sorry.

 

8 hours ago, AndreasB. said:

The test works with Supermium.

You will need to use Supermium and "let go" of the notion that a v86 Chrome engine can be made to do whatever you throw at it.

59 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You will need to use Supermium and "let go" of the notion that a v86 Chrome engine can be made to do whatever you throw at it.

Yes, I'm already working on that.
I've installed version 126.0.6478.261 and am trying to reduce memory usage there.

You've had good success with rebasing 360Chrome.
I tested this with Supermium's chrome.dll, but the memory usage is higher there.

Can you see if you can improve memory usage with rebasing?
Or would you recommend a different Supermium version for XP?
Do you have any other tips for reducing memory usage?

Apologies again, but I'm afraid I'm not the person to ask.

I ditched XP roughly a year or so ago and my life has IMPROVED a million-trillion-zillion times a million-trillion-zillion ever since!

XP was holding me back !!!  It's up to you to decide if all of the time spent to do things on XP is a waste of your time or not.

Sorry.  XP, to me, is like Linux, neat and novel, a good HOBBY, but nothing more than a HOBBY.

Could you perhaps give me some basic information about the rebase?
Perhaps you could give me some parameters/addresses I could test.

You're right about Windows XP.
It's very dated, but I need programs that only run under Windows XP.

I can't run them in a VM either, because the manufacturer's activation no longer works.
It only works on my Windows XP computer.

I would be grateful for any help.

Google Gemini answer to rebasing Supermium...

 

1 hour ago, AndreasB. said:

Perhaps you could give me some parameters/addresses I could test.

No firsthand experience.  Supermium was never very stable on my computers.

But as @jumper pointed out, I'm pretty sure that the developer already provides rebased .dll's.

Haven't visited that GitHub project in a very long time so no clue where they are located.

I've actually erased/deleted/permanently-moved-on from all of my XP "experiments", be they Supermium, Thorium, Pale Moon, New Moon, you name it, they ***ALL*** were nothing but "headaches".

I obviously keep my own 360Chrome's around, but seldom are they ever launched.  And the only Serpent that is reliable for my needs is a VERY OLD version - new updates only introduce new problems, nothing but "headaches".

360chrome:

https://web.whatsapp.com/ does not work (but it was ok recently), now it requests chrome +100  (but: in the UA it is > 100).

will it stay like this forever? :)

(in post no. 1 of this topic, the links for download 360chrome are down - is that the end?)

 

 

37 minutes ago, covo said:

(in post no. 1 of this topic, the links for download 360chrome are down - is that the end?)

Yes, that is the end.  I no longer use XP and "to each their own" that prefer to remain on XP.

I recommend/suggest the e3k-blah forks.  These **WORK** on XP.

https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7-REWORK

 

@xper / @Dave-H / @Tripredacus

Is it "intentional" that screencap images are no longer able to be pasted into MSFN replies ???

9 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I recommend/suggest the e3k-blah forks.  These **WORK** on XP.

https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7-REWORK

14 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

@xper / @Dave-H / @Tripredacus

Is it "intentional" that screencap images are no longer able to be pasted into MSFN replies ???

Not as far as I know. An image is an image, and I can't imagine that the forum software has any way of telling if something is a screencap.
It looks like you managed to do it in your subsequent post, so it was probably a temporary glitch.
We're having a lot of problems with bots at the moment apparently, which is why the forum has been a bit flakey recently.

No, pasting into the reply editor NO LONGER WORKS.  It used to.  For many years.  Just paste the contents of a "print screen" or clipboard directly into the reply editor.

It no longer works, *forcing* us to use "file hosting service BS" instead.

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I recommend/suggest the e3k-blah forks.  These **WORK** on XP.

https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7-REWORK

(??) --> https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7-REWORK/releases/tag/150.0.7871.46

but which ones?:

do-not-download-this-chrome-win32-syms.zip

do-not-download-this-chrome-win64-syms.zip

mini_installer.exe

mini_installer_x64.exe

ungoogled-chromium_150.0.7871.46-1.1_installer_x64.exe

ungoogled-chromium_150.0.7871.46-1.1_installer_x86.exe

hmm, there is nothing portable...

 

Technically, *ALL* Chrome/Chromium browsers can be made PORTABLE.  Just use a "loader" or "Chrome++".

And *never* (my opinion!) use any "installer".  None needed.  Just use 7Zip (or similar) to extract the contents of mini_installer.exe for 32bit or min_installer_x64.exe for 64bit.

Same goes for the ungoogled versions, just extract using 7Zip (or similar).

Chrome++ is found here:  https://github.com/Bush2021/chrome_plus/releases (I use v1.11.1 because of preference on older method for [RunAfter] not popping up a visible command prompt).

 

Most importanly, *ALL* versions of Chrome/Chromium and *ALL* of their forks **ARE** portable - you just have to extract them and use with your preferred "loader method".