Thorium

[AstroSkipper]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 

I once went to upgrade to v124 but the download's own README cited it as for LINUX.

I don't recall seeing a v124 XP version, but I could be mistaken.

You seem to be using the older release Thorium_122.0.6261.168_WINXP_x32. But I am usimg the most recent release Thorium_SSE2_122.0.6261.171_WINXP_x32. Did you try this one on your computer where is installed Windows XP 32-bit without POSReady updates? 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Upgraded to Thorium_SSE2_122.0.6261.171_WINXP_x32 and have been running non-stop for over 15 minutes without any issues.  No "gain" in going from .168 to .171.  But no "loss" either.  Right out of the box.  No extensions, no settings changes, all defaults.

Browsing works just fine.  YouTube will stutter, but YouTube always stutters for me until I add my extensions then YouTube is generally flawless for me also.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Also remember that my era-correct XP single-core Intel Atom N450 is slower performance-wise than your CPU but is SSE3 [I ran SSE2 as requestested for this test] (which I cannot recall offhand, but distinctly recall comparing in the past).

SSE3 also works fine for me.  Did not notice any gain or loss between the two.

[Dave-H]

OK, back again, but no good news to report I'm afraid.

I cleaned the registry of all the Thorium references, and then made Google Chrome 49 my default browser.
It worked perfectly, opening HTM(L) files from Windows Explorer, and also opening links in documents correctly (apart from the intrinsic problems caused by its age of course).
I then changed the path in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\https\shell\open\command to point to ThoriumLoader.exe instead of Chrome.exe (I have changed the name of the file again to match AstroSkipper's chosen name).
No joy, Thorium still opened incorrectly.

I then wondered if perhaps, as I hadn't installed Thorium in its default folder, maybe it didn't like that for some reason.
So, I completely removed Thorium except for its User Data folder (I'm not setting all that up again if I can help it!) and re-installed it using its installation CMD file.
This worked fine, I changed the paths in the loader INI file, and all was well, except that it still wouldn't open links correctly.
I am going to leave its location as it is now.

I then tried the same thing with Supermium, and I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that it has exactly the same problem!
I tried removing Supermium (again apart from the User Data folder) and re-installed it using its installation file, which I'd not actually used before.
Again, it's working fine, but will not load links correctly.

My finger of suspicion then moved to Malwarebytes Premium, as that has caused strange effects with some programs in the past due to its 'hardening' functions.
Not guilty this time, the problem is still there with it not running.

So, what now, this is a complete mystery to me.
I guess I could ask the developers of Thorium and Supermium if they know what's happening here.
Could someone else try this, putting a command line to run Thorium in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\https\shell\open\command and see if it works for you, on XP of course?


 

[AstroSkipper]

To avoid messing up my main partition, I actually wanted to test Thorium in my second partition. But there, as already reported, the browser does not work stable. It crashes all the time. But in one of its bright moments, I was at least able to open a link from a PDF file in Thorium by directly clicking onto it. The REG files from Thorium were not the solution. They contain syntax errors. I made Thorium the default browser with the help of the Default Browser 1.8 tool that @dmiranda had already recommended here. For me, this tool worked as it should.

Edited August 12, 2024 by AstroSkipper

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Have you parsed "all of" the POSReady updates for what they "do"?

ie, maybe "one" of those updates is a sort of "extended kernel" that provides your SSE2 CPU with an SSE3 "workaround"?

Edited August 12, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

8 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Have you parsed "all of" the POSReady updates for what they "do"?

ie, maybe "one" of those updates is a sort of "extended kernel" that provides your SSE2 CPU with an SSE3 "workaround"?

Thanks for your idea! That's why I originally assumed POSReady updates were mandatory for running Thorium. Maybe, there is really an POSReady update which is urgently needed to run Thorium on my hardware. But I should mention that there are 365 updates in my archive applied after the POSReady hack. And without this hack, you can't install those updates, either. So, it does not make sense to investigate them. And I already have a perfectly working Windows XP Professional installation with all POSReady updates. All my very deep investigations lead me to modify my null hypothesis:

On 8/11/2024 at 12:46 PM, AstroSkipper said:

Let H0 be the null hypothesis "Thorium crashes due to lack of POSReady updates".
H0 must be rejected due to @NotHereToPlayGames's and @Saxon's report that Thorium runs fine in their Windows XP installations without POSReady updates.  Unfortunately, the probability of error for this decision cannot be determined due to the too small sample size. 

Here is my modified null hypothesis H0: "Thorium crashes due to the lack of one or more POSReady updates under certain hardware conditions". Personally, I tend to accept H0 due to my experiences and deep investigations.  Unfortunately, the probability of type II error for this decision cannot be determined again due to the too small sample size, either. 

Edited August 12, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[NotHereToPlayGames]

We need an MSFN Member to step forward that also runs an SSE2 CPU.

My ThinkPad T42 is SSE2 but I have no interest in loading Thorium onto it.  At least not at the moment.

[Saxon]

12 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

We need an MSFN Member to step forward that also runs an SSE2 CPU.

Sorry, no such hardware here. The lowest I could find is Pentium E6600. SSE3 is supported,

[Skorpios]

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

We need an MSFN Member to step forward that also runs an SSE2 CPU.

My ThinkPad T42 is SSE2 but I have no interest in loading Thorium onto it.  At least not at the moment.

Well, my cr@ppy doorstop (Thinkpad A31 with SSE2) is cr@ppier than your T42 and is able to run Thorium and Supermium. They have never crashed but are really sloooow and freezes now and then for a while. Thorium runs better than Supermium on this hardware but they are both annoyingly sloooow. 360Redux, MP68 and NM28 (in that order) are running much better on this old dinosaur with 1.2 GB RAM.

BTW, I have never installed Thorium/Supermium or used the bat/cmd files provided with the download. Just unzipped and a shortcut starting with --disable-low-res-tiling --quick-intensive-throttling-after-loading --enable-low-end-device-mode --disable-background-networking --disable-encryption --disable-machine-id --user-data-dir=Portable

BTW2, "clean" XP Pro SP3, installed 2003, probably not fully updated to 2014 and no POSReady things.

BTW3, @AstroSkipper:  Thorium and Supermium runs from both my C and D partitions, currently I have 4 different versions, two on C and two on D.

BTW4, there are a few more settings to try and many of them are probably outdated...
https://gist.github.com/cassioKenji/3d9bf02e09f4542b7bfad7c0b83adbd0

 

[AstroSkipper]

13 hours ago, Skorpios said:

BTW, I have never installed Thorium/Supermium or used the bat/cmd files provided with the download. Just unzipped and a shortcut

Yep! Same here. I have never installed Thorium using the install batch file or the REG files provided in the downloaded archive file. BTW, these should have to be adjusted to the respective system if you want to use them. Furthermore, the REG files contain syntax errors. For me, Thorium have been running error-free on my Windows XP Pro SP3 + POSReady for months by only extracting the archive and using a batch file or loader with command line flags for starting. But on my Windows XP Pro SP3 without POSReady, it permanently crashes and behaves unstably. 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Did you try --enable-low-end-device-mode?

I have not tried this yet.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I can report that here at work, the --enable-low-end-device-mode flag reduces the below from 1.6 GB of RAM to 955 MB !!!

1  Google Voice tab
2 MS Teams tabs (chat + calendar)
1 YouTube tab playing 80s music
1 chrome: // flags tab
13 extensions

But this computer (12th Gen Intel Core i7-12850HX with 32 GB RAM running Win10 Enterprise 22H2 certainly does not qualify as "low-end").
The results of this flag most definitely seems to warrant consideration for my default once I am able to try at home.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Wow!  I am impressed with --enable-low-end-device-mode !!!

Here at work, it's not uncommon for any Chromium-based browser to exceed 4 GIGABYTES OF RAM after a few system hibernate/resume when the Chromium-based browser is running Google Voice + Gmail + Teams Chat + Teams Calendar + YouTube.

This will require additional testing, of course.  As these four gigabytes of RAM takes an UNKNOWN number of hibernates/resumes.  On a computer with 32 GB of RAM, it's never been an issue.

But from what I am seeing so far is that the amount of RAM being used by Chromium-based browser is now THE SAME before and after a hibernate/resume.

Will monitor.  Plans are to KEEP this --enable-low-end-device-mode flag until/if I end up seeing any possible negative side effects.

[Dixel]

On 8/12/2024 at 2:34 PM, Skorpios said:

--quick-intensive-throttling-after-loading

Outdated, experimental flag, removed long ago, you can check yourself.

chrome://flags/#quick-intensive-throttling-after-loading