Supermium

[VistaLover]

@Dave-H : 

https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/commit/fa695faf3889deb57b1e247293c7ceee10161172

10 hours ago, Dave-H said:

but if an 'experimental' feature is actually breaking sites,

... "Experimental" features, by their nature, do entail the probability of "breaking" some sites, so that's why they're initially launched behind disabled prefs  ; this has been happening for years now; adventurous users and/or testers are encouraged to enable those features (preferably on test profiles) and report any breakage experienced either to the browser vendor or the affected site admin(s) - this is how things work; if an obscure site breaks due to such a feature but Google has been left unaware, then that "feature" will make it onto a future Chrome update; Google very seldom revert Chrome changes (unless they're about very prominent sites/services), so in that case the onus will again be on the site admins to "comply" with latest Chrome (and that is why our "legacy" browsers often break) ...

Noone here or on GitHub has reported how the BG site currently behaves on latest official Google Chrome (v134), without (the default) and with the offending flag enabled ; maybe the experimental feature in M126 that breaks the site got dropped by the Google Devs, or it's still there behind a disabled pref; if it "makes it" to, say, Chrome 136 (i.e. separated from experimental features and promoted into a default, standard, feature), then BG will render broken in M136 and they will have to fix the issue themselves  ...

11 hours ago, Dave-H said:

as if one site breaks, surely others will as well.

This appears to have been your strong argument both here and in GH, but allow me to say this is NOT a given  ; it all depends on how an individual site has been coded; 126-r6 was released on Dec 17th, followed by 126-r7 on Jan 23rd and 132-r0 on Mar 1st; yet you were the first (unlucky?) person to report a breakage almost 3 months after r6's initial public release...

Other site admins may be already "tailoring" their site's code under the hood to "foolproof" it against future Google Chrome releases (dev channel is already at version 136), so "other sites" might not break in Sm-132, even if BG currently does ...

In any case, "your" issue will get hopefully fixed in Sm-v132-r1 (provided one doesn't touch the "#enable-experimental-web-platform-features" internal flag there) ... Should you wish to keep using 126-r6/r7, you know by now what to do...

Cheers  ...

Edited Monday at 11:45 PM by VistaLover

[Cixert]

Does anyone know how to make Supermium the default browser in XP?
Supermium's help says that it cannot be set as the default browser.
I have tried to manually assign the htm and html extensions to open by default in Supermium, but despite selecting it in the XP menu Tools+Folder Options instead of opening with Supermium they open with XPchrome.
I choose the Supermium path in file types
and a message appears saying that Chromium will be the default application.
It turns out that Chromium is XPchrome without having chosen it.

[Karla Sleutel]

16 hours ago, VistaLover said:

... "Experimental" features, by their nature, do entail the probability of "breaking" some sites, so that's why they're initially launched behind disabled prefs  

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"!

 

[hidao]

4 hours ago, Cixert said:

Does anyone know how to make Supermium the default browser in XP?
Supermium's help says that it cannot be set as the default browser.
I have tried to manually assign the htm and html extensions to open by default in Supermium, but despite selecting it in the XP menu Tools+Folder Options instead of opening with Supermium they open with XPchrome.
I choose the Supermium path in file types
and a message appears saying that Chromium will be the default application.
It turns out that Chromium is XPchrome without having chosen it.

try --make-default-browser

and there is a plugin could make chrome to a portable software(but it looks unable to use on XP ):

https://github.com/Bush2021/chrome_plus

Edited Tuesday at 05:10 AM by hidao

[hidao]

20 hours ago, D.Draker said:

Well, Dave, CentBrowser is a normal Chrome, it's not Ungoogled. The only difference is the added Chinorussian telemetry and some stunts to make it work on older OS.

The version based on 118 renders everything just fine,

In my memory, CentBrower doesn't support to XP

[NotHereToPlayGames]

9 hours ago, VistaLover said:

Noone here or on GitHub has reported how the BG site currently behaves on latest official Google Chrome (v134), without (the default) and with the offending flag enabled

From work, I can only report on the latest official Edge v134 - which "should" be the same exact behavior as official Chrome v134.
I could check in an official Chrome v134 if really needed, but I would rather not have to spend that much more time on this, to be honest.

 

The identity page does not work when the flag is enabled (non-default) -

 

The identity page does work when the flag is disabled (default) -

[D.Draker]

14 hours ago, hidao said:

In my memory, CentBrower doesn't support to XP

It doesn't, right, but the question was rather making the accent on whether "normal" Chromes are affected overall.

[D.Draker]

15 hours ago, Karla Sleutel said:

Special thanks to @Dave-H for digging down to the bottom of the problem and @D.Draker for busting down such "advisers"!

Thanks to you, too! @VistaLover is a fan of odd setups which make him unique and easily fingerprinted. Good thing, he has a will for experimenting, and much better thing would be to test extensively before publishing at MSFN.

[hidao]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

From work, I can only report on the latest official Edge v134 - which "should" be the same exact behavior as official Chrome v134.
I could check in an official Chrome v134 if really needed, but I would rather not have to spend that much more time on this, to be honest.

 

The identity page does not work when the flag is enabled (non-default) -

 

The identity page does work when the flag is disabled (default) -

It's useful to Supermim 126 R7

[Sampei.Nihira]

The "Experimental Web Platform features" flag is not in the usual condition of the other flags (default) is disabled.

Those who enable it (but it is an illogical thing to do) mean that the problems that are not there go looking for them.

I use 12 the flags enabled in Edge,if interested, I can post a list upon request.

 

P.S.

Those who want to get more benefits in Supermium, instead of looking for "miracles" in flags, should consider Command Line Switches and/or Policies.

Edited Tuesday at 11:21 AM by Sampei.Nihira

[NotHereToPlayGames]

The creator of Supermium enabled it because users at the time requested it ( read here ) in order to be able to log into "Twitch" (whatever that is).

[Sampei.Nihira]

He did an illogical thing,it is obvious.
That flag should be returned to the “disabled” condition.

Edited Tuesday at 11:24 AM by Sampei.Nihira

[NotHereToPlayGames]

The creator has already cited at GitHub that he is returning to normal defaults.

I doubt that he will release an updated v126, but v132 will be back to normal defaults.

[Sampei.Nihira]

Yes.
The developer should not make any changes that you can make by the users themselves.

For example, every Chromium browser has a default sandbox setting that (for me) is insufficient.

But users of Chromium-based browsers can improve the security/privacy efficiency of sandbox.

So there is no need to wait for the developer to change this aspect of Supermium.

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:51 PM by Sampei.Nihira

[reboot12]

Recently, when browsing the Internet, such a window appeared to me:

I did not go to the kupabol.com website