seven4ever Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Thanks 66cats for screenshots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergiaws Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 I also prefer Ungoogled versions of Chromium, I even enabled some of these flags. But, I still have a question, how much faster is Supermium compared to Brave and Microsoft Edge (in theory the fastest Chromium versions in Windows environments). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven4ever Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Seems an ungoogled version is in progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 8 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: RAM consumption kept climbing and climbing until it eventually forced a Task Manager Terminate Task. I think I was one of the first ones to discover it, I had hopes for this browser. The heavy leak was there some versions ago already, probably from the beginning. That said, I have enough RAM, but it won't just stop. https://msfn.org/board/topic/175262-last-versions-of-software-for-windows-vista-and-windows-server-2008/?do=findComment&comment=1258182 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 5 hours ago, Sergiaws said: I also prefer Ungoogled versions of Chromium, I even enabled some of these flags. But, I still have a question, how much faster is Supermium compared to Brave and Microsoft Edge (in theory the fastest Chromium versions in Windows environments). I can't tell about Brave 121, but I compared Brave 110 vs this one, and Brave at least has no leaks, no crashes. But it's on Vista. I'm sorry, I didn't document comparison charts, but Brave was faster, and the UI in Brave is much better to my personal taste. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 On 1/29/2024 at 7:26 AM, dmiranda said: The second option doesn't seem to work. It works well. But these fonts aren't any better than others reported. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 13 hours ago, dmiranda said: Well, you do comprehend English, right? Your perfectly know - I do, even though it's my eighth language, no wait, eleventh. The way you talk is extremely rude. Yes, "I do comprehend". What I don't, why the hell you're allowed to behave like that. 13 hours ago, dmiranda said: 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. MSFN, really? It works even on Chrome 60 (from a decade ago), MSFN isn't the best testing grounds otu there, while almost everyone these days uses youtube and/or gmail. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 4 hours ago, Saxon said: I think I was one of the first ones to discover it, I had hopes for this browser. The heavy leak was there some versions ago already, probably from the beginning. That said, I have enough RAM, but it won't just stop. https://msfn.org/board/topic/175262-last-versions-of-software-for-windows-vista-and-windows-server-2008/?do=findComment&comment=1258182 Everyone, don't worry! @win32will fix the leak! I trust it will happen, I already wrote a new launcher for Supermium. What I don't know, will the overbright/blurry fonts issue be addressed. I got a heavy eye fatigue due to this fact, hence I can't use Supermium, 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 OK I might revisit this again once some of the kinks are worked out then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, D.Draker said: MSFN, really? It works even on Chrome 60 (from a decade ago), MSFN isn't the best testing grounds otu there, while almost everyone these days uses youtube and/or gmail. I said I tested here and there, including MSFN (italics added for emphasis). That means MSFN was one of many tabs I worked with, while testing. Comprende? As per testing YT or GM first: folly. If you read back, you'll see it took a while for me to get supernium not to crash on start. When I achieved that, I started disabling things I know cause loading issues. When I manage to make it load, seeing it was still heavy, I disabled a bunch of chrome//flags. All the while reporting and surfing around, to see what happened, including hog FB. Once I couldn't think of more things to disable/turn off, only then I tried YT (in many ways) with no success (always crashing the tab or the browser, and then GM, which resulted unusable, for slow. And with that, my testing of this version of Supernium ended. Edited January 30 by dmiranda 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 2 hours ago, Saxon said: But these fonts aren't any better than others reported. What, don't you like me fonts? ;P Those are the browser's fonts, criticized by all but 66cats in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 20 minutes ago, dmiranda said: When I achieved that, I started disabling things I know cause loading issues. When I manage to make it load, seeing it was still heavy, I disabled a bunch of chrome//flags. All the while reporting and surfing around I did almost the same thing and disabled just about every and any flag I thought was slowing it down or that which was not needed for my basic browsing needs but it made no difference sad to say - perhaps it will improve over time. The only switches I tried were: --no-first-run --disable-file-system --disable-gpu --disable-logging --disable-webg --disable-component-update --disable-background-networking --ssl-version-min=tls1.2 --enable-strict-mixed-content-checking --no-pings I figured --disable-file-system --disable-gpu should improve it, but no - keeping in mind my hardware is so old better to not try to enable acceleration that would be pointless. Interesting to test this new browser anyway regardless of the outcome. Edited January 30 by XPerceniol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkinis Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 7 hours ago, 66cats said: If we're talking about XP, it's the only version of Supermium & is substantially faster than other XP-compatible browsers on decent HW bench scores aside, I personally don't feel it that faster but it performs better on heavy load web sites for sure W7 = Supermium 117 = 80 XP = Supermium 121 = 66 XP = chrome M115 = 58 360 chrome 13.5 = won't work https://www.principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkinis Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 SPEEDOMETER 2.0 SCORES W7 = Supermium 117 = 88 XP = Supermium 121 = 91 XP = chrome M115 = 63 XP = 360 chrome 13.5 = 45 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 4 hours ago, dmiranda said: What, don't you like me fonts? ;P Those are the browser's fonts, criticised by all but 66cats in this thread. Yes, exactly! By all, I even remember there was a comparison of fonts in Brave vs Supermium, with photos. 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