NotHereToPlayGames Posted October 15, 2023 Author Share Posted October 15, 2023 Perhaps use the entire path instead of using %UserProfile% ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted October 15, 2023 Author Share Posted October 15, 2023 Search-engine search for "winpenpack chrome". Perhaps the "loader" used for X-Chromium will work for you? I actually use that "loader" for my Ungoogled Chromium at work so I could test tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outbreaker Posted October 15, 2023 Share Posted October 15, 2023 (edited) 46 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Search-engine search for "winpenpack chrome". Perhaps the "loader" used for X-Chromium will work for you? I actually use that "loader" for my Ungoogled Chromium at work so I could test tomorrow. Same problem with this X-Chromium Loader. Edited October 15, 2023 by Outbreaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted October 15, 2023 Share Posted October 15, 2023 21 hours ago, Skorpios said: --disable-infobars Should be removed since v68. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rereser Posted October 17, 2023 Share Posted October 17, 2023 (edited) regarding "bold fonts" in v13.5.2036 and 2044 in the GUI. v13.5.2036 follows the settings in display properties / advanced / message box. so this has nothing to do with other font tweaks i have made on my xp system. when set to tahoma 8 , "bold fonts" are no more in 2036. setting back to arial black ( 8 regular ) and they are "bold" again. hope this helps tracking it down in 2044. Edited October 17, 2023 by rereser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted October 17, 2023 Author Share Posted October 17, 2023 That sounds to me like an error/bug in 2036 (and perhaps even older versions) and that 2044 is doing what it is supposed to do. ie, setting the system font to arial black regular creating a BOLD font in 2036 instead of a REGULAR font as "requested" by they system font == error/bug. Looks like it basically took upstream all the way up to 2044 to finally FIX that error/bug. Why import an error/bug from an older version into a newer version? More importantly, why can you not have the system setting on bold if that is the GUI outcome you are wanting? Tahoma 8 regular: Tahoma 8 bold: Arial Black 8 regular: Arial Black 8 bold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rereser Posted October 17, 2023 Share Posted October 17, 2023 you are correct. arial black regular and bold have the same effect on my system in 2036. v2044 does not follow message box font settings here. your screenshots prove that 2044 does what it should do. something else on my system must be the cause then. i think this will be impossible to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted October 17, 2023 Author Share Posted October 17, 2023 I thought somebody here posted an English Translation of some of the version "fixes". Can't find them at the moment. For the most part, there's not really anything to "gain" between one version and the next. I'd still be on 13.0 build 2206 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I briefly reverted to 13.0 build 2170 and would still be on it if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I'd still be on 13.5 build 1030 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I'd still be on 13.5 build 2022 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I'd still be on 13.5 build 2036 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I personally feel that every one of those "upgrades" never really gained me anything, never once have I ever witnessed a web site that one could "do" than another could "not". They're all v86. Nothing more. Nothing less. v86 technically still performs EVERYTHING that I throw at it. And I really do mean EVERYTHING. It remains my DEFAULT even on my Win10 computers. Sure, there has been a few .css oddities here and there - always fixable through built-in Dev Tools. But I myself do not subscribe to the notion of a "permanent fix" for a once-in-a-lifetime web site I find myself on that I will never ever be on again in four lifetimes let alone one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted October 17, 2023 Share Posted October 17, 2023 On 10/14/2023 at 7:52 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said: 2044 is technically the only version that didn't have a "Russian Repack" base. 2044 went straight from Chinese to English whereas other versions technically went from Chinese to Russian and then to English. The coincidence is strange, agree? 2044 doesn't run with the aforementioned Trojan scan suggestion, others that are based - do run. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted October 17, 2023 Share Posted October 17, 2023 3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: I'd still be on 13.0 build 2206 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. I'd still be on 13.5 build 1030 if it weren't for MSFN Members requesting something newer. 13.5 1030 is much more stable than any of the 13.0 series, I think Dave would agree. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted October 17, 2023 Author Share Posted October 17, 2023 Not to "sound like a broken record" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/like%20a%20broken%20record ), I need the name of the real-time "protection" that reports the CLAIMED trojan scan. Only the Vista Group is making this claim, I have installed Vista x86 and I get no trojan scan suggestion. NONE. ZIP. And that "zip" as in ZERO, not "zip" as in file compression. I even provided a screencap. Until whatever is giving that "scan suggestion" is revealed in its entirety, how in Hades is anyone expected to replicate? If I cannot replicate, I cannot fix, it's kind of that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted October 17, 2023 Author Share Posted October 17, 2023 9 minutes ago, Dixel said: 13.5 1030 is much more stable than any of the 13.0 series, I think Dave would agree. I preferred 1030 over everything else. While working on 2036, I accidentally corrupted my 1030 when I was byte-comparing the two builds. I'd have to redo my 1030 from scratch and haven't revisted as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted October 17, 2023 Share Posted October 17, 2023 2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: I need the name of the real-time "protection" that reports the CLAIMED trojan scan. The error message in broken English comes from the browser itself! No protection installed on that PC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_English 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted October 17, 2023 Author Share Posted October 17, 2023 Regardless, I cannot replicate and I cannot fix what I cannot replicate. Moving on... No need to hijack over something we've already discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rereser Posted October 17, 2023 Share Posted October 17, 2023 have tested the font issue on an old unmodified xp laptop. forgot about that one. v13.5.2044 and 2036 respond there on changing message box settings. 2036 goes all bold font when setting to arial black ( regular or bold has no change ) 2044 responds to arial black regular , bold and italic except for the new tab. on my system 2044 does not respond to any message box change , whatever font chosen. so there is nothing for you to solve. it is something on my system that will be impossible to find though i will try. if i can't find it i will stay on 2036. 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