Dixel Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 6 hours ago, Milkinis said: https://forum.ru-board.com/topic.cgi?forum=5&topic=51193&start=364&limit=1&m=1#1 WARNING, don't use that script! I'll start with saying it deletes major European languages, just a small part of the script: !da.pak -xr!de.pak -xr!el.pak -xr!en-GB.pak !nl.pak . As you see, it deletes Danish, German, Greek, English, Dutch, not to mention you post links to a dubious Russian site. In scripting language "!" means delete, omit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 21 hours ago, XPerceniol said: I won't, but its too slow on my system with me aged hardware, but I'll keep it around. Honestly, Mypal68 is gonna stay my default browser for now and 360 for what Mypal wont load and New Moon 28 as a backup. "Please note that 2 CPU threads and at least 768 MB of RAM is recommended." https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v121 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkinis Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 47 minutes ago, Dixel said: "Please note that 2 CPU threads and at least 768 MB of RAM is recommended." dual core CPU and 768 Megabytes ? 30 vs 1 active tabs at a time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 ^See this is why its so slow on my ancient system. 4 hours ago, nicolaasjan said: OK, thanks. I see. Now I'm very curious what the real culprit might be. Maybe the author can find something in the dump files we sent him. I really don't know why I was able to get it to work with no problem whilst you and @mina7601 are having trouble - I hope you guys figure it out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 3 hours ago, Milkinis said: dual core CPU and 768 Megabytes ? 30 vs 1 active tabs at a time Maybe win32 meant to just open the browser, not to actually run it with 1 page. To me, the number of 768 is strange by itself. A standard DDR2 module is 2GB, a smaller one is 1GB, smallest DDR3 is 2GB. If by 768MB he meant 3x256Mb of SDRAM modules, they are ancient history from 2000. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mina7601 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Just now, XPerceniol said: ^See this is why its so slow on my ancient system. But it will be faster in future releases. From that same page: https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v121 "We will make attempts to improve performance on single-threaded systems for future releases." 2 minutes ago, XPerceniol said: I really don't know why I was able to get it to work with no problem whilst you and @mina7601 are having trouble - I hope you guys figure it out. I already tried everything to make it work to no avail. I will just wait win32 when he checks the dmp files we sent him, hopefully he will have solved it by then. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 3 hours ago, XPerceniol said: ^See this is why its so slow on my ancient system. Friend, it's a bit unfair to compare 86 to 121 version, but overall I agree with you, it could be less RAM hungry. Actually, I remember I liked 117 much better for the faster startup. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 I was shocked it worked at all actually on my Dell 745 Optiplex and of course not at all on the Dell Dimension 3000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven4ever Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 23 minutes ago, D.Draker said: Maybe win32 meant to just open the browser, not to actually run it with 1 page., but prices was very high. To me, the number of 768 is strange by itself. A standard DDR2 module is 2GB, a smaller one is 1GB, smallest DDR3 is 2GB. If by 768MB he meant 3x256Mb of SDRAM modules, they are ancient history from 2000. My oldest Xp computer is from 2003, has Athlon + Cpu (without SSE2), with 1.25 Gb of memory ( 1Gb + 256 Mbyte). I believe P4 with SSE2 existed at same date with higher price. The motherboard accepted 64 Mb Units too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 3 hours ago, seven4ever said: My oldest Xp computer is from 2003, has Athlon + Cpu (without SSE2), with 1.25 Gb of memory ( 1Gb + 256 Mbyte). So, how is your experience with Supermium on that computer? Please tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolaasjan Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) 2 hours ago, VistaLover said: ... Er, you might want to correct that LINK of yours there (I'm reading this "heated" thread today, on a Sunday, so just jumped on that) ... Fixed, sorry... Edited January 28 by nicolaasjan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicolaasjan Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 2 hours ago, 66cats said: Hi, sorry if this was mentioned already, but have you tried sticking progwrp.dll in \windows\system32 folder? Also: what's the file size of your progwrp.dll? Yes, I have tested with the dll (125KB) in System32 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven4ever Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 20 minutes ago, Dixel said: So, how is your experience with Supermium on that computer? Please tell us. Not possible, it requires SSE2. I have NM 28 SSE edition on it. Computers from 2003+ must have P4 to have SSE2 feature. My latest can run it, not tried yet, I'm satisfied with 360 browser and asked me what Supermium can bring more to me, as DRM is out for XP. This computer is multibooting with 7, 10 and Linux with DRM compatibility on Browsers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, D.Draker said: Friend, it's a bit unfair to compare 86 to 121 version, but overall I agree with you, it could be less RAM hungry. Actually, I remember I liked 117 much better for the faster startup. That is actually one of the UNFORTUNATE aspects of projects like Supermium. Focusing on v114 or v117 and remaining at that level is often times MUCH better than striving for v121 simply to keep up with Official Chrome. There are PROS and CONS on both sides of that coin, of course. Double-edged sword. "Secure" web browser on "insecure" OS does not equate to "secure web browsing". Rock... Hard Place... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) Looks like a Chromium with typical limitations like the older variants. Guess it's good to pay the bills if your whatever-provider's site sucks so badly. No need for polyfills. Also why is only Google on the built-in search engine list? It did crash on first startup on my XP x64 (only tried 32-bit version), but afterwards it was OK. OS is not updated beyond 2011/2012, except an odd crypt32.dll update from 2015. Laggy transitions/animations on websites, eg. changing pages on this forum, laggy videos (also doesn't prevent screen turning off during playback) etc. So CPU struggles while GPU has nothing to do. I see people being hyped up about Win2K support and what not, but, why? There's a charm in small footprint of period correct applications. Why would you want that monstrosity there? 32-bit chrome.dll is almost two hundred f***in' megabytes! 64-bit is obviously already beyond that. I don't know, maybe I'm just too old to "dig" today's kids' crazy ideas. PS.: Not this crap with the fonts again! Edited January 28 by UCyborg 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