dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Black content and black ui work very well. Doing all that I'm sure to lose some things. As I discover them, I reenable, if deemed necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 4 hours ago, dmiranda said: I did research them at the time Major, important, fundamental flags like --no-first-run or --time-zone-for-testing=UTC, they didn't change, so no worries. What was a pleasant surprise, you study right from me, so maybe not all is lost. I took a quick look at your list, your research is far better than the same of @Sampei.Nihira. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) I learn from everybody who has something of value to offer. You have made your valuable contributions, but they are (in my opinion, no offense intended, just the facts) of no comparison to those of @Sampei.Nihira. You'd do better were to stop offending people, particularly due to their proficiency in a second or third (for some of us, fifth or more) language, and keeping the high road. It does exist. Back on topic: in yourprofilepath, next to the default folder, one can find a file called "Local State." It holds all the chrome://flags you move out of default. As I was saying, " I'm systematically disabling flags related to: autofill, webrtc, webgl (now unnecessary, chrome finally caught up), payment, credit (reviewing card with detail, for there are some related to cards other than credit cards and smart card), share/sharing, password (most of them), sync (most of them), geolocation, and history (most of them)." Those choices get saved in "Local State". If you save that file (together with your extensions and browser settings in the "Default" folder, you can then recreate your profile from scratch, with your preferred stuff and preferences, fresh as the same day you finished customizing your browser. Which I did today. Cheers! Edited January 30 by dmiranda 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 The result is much faster loading, better privacy, reduction of spyware features, and so on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 I'm impressed by how this browser behaves in XP, how well documented it is, and the scope of choices it has, including many ungoogled options. I would prefer to have a search engine of my choice, but well, you can't have it all. Congratulations to the developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 5 hours ago, dmiranda said: You'd do better were to stop offending people, particularly due to their proficiency in a second or third (for some of us, fifth or more) language, and keeping the high road. It does exist. Yes, you'd do better were to stop offending people, particularly due to the profanity in your second language, and keeping the high road. It does exist. https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/?do=findComment&comment=1259172 5 hours ago, dmiranda said: In yourprofilepath, next to the default folder, one can find a file called "Local State." It holds all the chrome://flags you move out of default. As I was saying, " I'm systematically disabling flags related to: autofill, webrtc, webgl (now unnecessary, chrome finally caught up), payment, credit (reviewing card with detail, for there are some related to cards other than credit cards and smart card), share/sharing, password (most of them), sync (most of them), geolocation, and history (most of them)." Those choices get saved in "Local State". If you save that file (together with your extensions and browser settings in the "Default" folder, you can then recreate your profile from scratch, with your preferred stuff and preferences, fresh as the same day you finished customizing your browser. Which I did today. Cheers! I use Dixel's launcher, it prevents Supermium from storing crap in the LocalState file. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 5 hours ago, dmiranda said: The result is much faster loading Like @NotHereToPlayGames always says, we'd like to see the documented measurements. No disrespect to win32, but I see the 121 version is much slower and buggy, comparing to the fast'n'good 117. Probably, it has something to do with the XP porting. And I'm not the only one noticing. https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/?do=findComment&comment=1259143 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 But, the proof is in the pudding. I cant even get to open the YT page without a tab crashing, and loading gmail takes forever. Maybe with 4 to 8 extra GB of RAM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 3 hours ago, dmiranda said: But, the proof is in the pudding. I cant even get to open the YT page without a tab crashing, and loading gmail takes forever. Maybe with 4 to 8 extra GB of RAM... So how it correlates with what you wrote before? 4 hours ago, dmiranda said: I'm impressed by how this browser behaves in XP, how well documented it is, and the scope of choices it has, including many ungoogled options. I would prefer to have a search engine of my choice, but well, you can't have it all. Congratulations to the developer. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Well, you do comprehend English, right? I tested the software. To do so, I first deployed, adapted it with settings I knew (at least used to) work in prior chrome versions, I surfed here and there, including MSFN, where I was leaving my notes. Here and there, it was fast. In YT it crashed, and worked like snail in GM. That is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 3 hours ago, D.Draker said: No disrespect to win32, but I see the 121 version is much slower and buggy, comparing to the fast'n'good 117. Agreed! I see the same thing here. Granted, I have *barely* tested Supermium. That goes for 117 or for 121 or anything in-between. It is really "not for me" until it becomes "ungoogled". What I myself would have preferred to see is a v115 (first version for Supermium) being updated, vetted by beta testers, updated again, vetted again, improved, vetted again, optimized, vetted again all while remaining at v115. For v115 to have made it to maturity (stable on XP, UNGOOGLED, et cetera). Then, only only then, for a v121 to be released with the same set of patches that brought v115 to maturity. Granted, I am a self-admitted biased Chromium User. I do NOT use the latest-and-greatest if it shows itself to be SLOWER than PREVIOUS versions. And YES, not only by "gut feelings" but by quantifiable, repeatable, "speed test" metrics. The two DO go hand-in-hand much more than the "I don't support those types of tests" folks care to bring themselves to admit. My favorite still remains v114 which predates "all" of the Supermium releases. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
66cats Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 5 hours ago, D.Draker said: we'd like to see the documented measurements. No disrespect to win32, but I see the 121 version is much slower and buggy Not sure what you mean. If we're talking about XP, it's the only version of Supermium & is substantially faster than other XP-compatible browsers on decent HW, both subjectively & benched by Speedometer 2.0: Mypal 68 and Supermium, side-by-side on x99 (x64) On x58 (x64) On Haswell (x86) 1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: It is really "not for me" until it becomes "ungoogled". I use Google & like having sync. Different set of priorities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven4ever Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) I would see results with 2Gb of Ram (case for mostly Xp real machines) and comparing same browsers. (second picture had 24 Gb of Ram) Edited January 30 by seven4ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 37 minutes ago, 66cats said: Mypal 68 and Supermium, side-by-side on x99 (x64) On x58 (x64) On Haswell (x86) I am not a fan of Mypal 68. Side-by-side comparisons of Supermium (a Chrome Fork) with other Chrome Forks is more important than comparing an apple (Supermium) to an orange (anything Mozilla-based). Supermium is v121 and runs on XP. That by itself speaks volumes. But it crashed on my XP with only 2GB RAM when I didn't even have a network connection, all I was doing was navigating through all of the settings and RAM consumption kept climbing and climbing until it eventually forced a Task Manager Terminate Task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
66cats Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 29 minutes ago, seven4ever said: I would see results with 2Gb of Ram (case for mostly Xp real machines) x58 with 2.5GB available memory This is a bit misleading -- Supermium lags/freezes for up to several secs when launched, memory use spikes. Once running, the numbers seem representative. 13 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Side-by-side comparisons of Supermium (a Chrome Fork) with other Chrome Forks Mypal 68 benches similarly to Chrome backports. <-click 13 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: it crashed on my XP with only 2GB RAM See above. It's a memory hog, like most full-featured modern browsers. Edited January 30 by 66cats 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