Chrome on Windows 8.1

[D.Draker]

11 hours ago, D.Draker said:

the version made by Prybludovich

BTW, with Prybludovich's Opera, I noticed connections to Russia owned website 4PDSA,, 4PBA, smth.

Therefore, one more serious reason to stay away.

[D.Draker]

16 hours ago, mjd79 said:

I can't fit this function (too long name)

It can't be. You sure?

PrefetchVirtualMemory needs to be replaced with the function I wrote via PM. I just sent you an alternative, very short, check.

[mjd79]

5 hours ago, D.Draker said:

It can't be. You sure?

PrefetchVirtualMemory needs to be replaced with the function I wrote via PM. I just sent you an alternative, very short, check.

All along I thought that VirtualAlloc itself should be replaced. I'll check it out right away. Thanks

[mjd79]

6 hours ago, D.Draker said:

BTW, with Prybludovich's Opera, I noticed connections to Russia owned website 4PDSA,, 4PBA, smth.

Therefore, one more serious reason to stay away.

That's why under 8.1 and 8.0 I create my own alternative based on his browsers. It's already very difficult on 7, but with how many VxKex forks have been created, and it's not clear which one to trust, I'll look into that too. Aome versions of VxKex run Chromium up to 136 without modification BTW. If I can at least port Chrome 130 to Windows 7, it will also work on Vista with the extended kernel. But Vista without ext kernel will left with versions of “Chinese student” which isn't bad at all, on vanilla Vista SP2 its 136 x86 version seems to be very fast and stable.

Edited April 5 by mjd79

[mjd79]

6 hours ago, D.Draker said:

And this 111 version is most likely all those spring-offs like Supermium, Thorium are based on, whereas the version made by Prybludovich is real, but it has a heavy memory leak of which Prybludovich honestly writes at guthub, and Prybludovich agrees with me about the reason -  VirtualAllo "c.x64/x86. x64 still affected by VirtualAlloc (HUGE MEMORY) serious bug."

And people also write about the same in Supermium, plus CPU overload.

https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1307

Therefore, for Vista-8.1 I advise to use the Chinese student honest, true port.

Being honest, I never trusted Supermium, Thorium, Blaukovitch crack, etc. I preferred to use unsupported Chrome 109 rather than think about it. v109 will be 30 versions older than the latest in a few months, I noticed a few years ago that this is the upper limit for Chromium, where browsers start to have the first serious problems with javascript. Also some of the extensions in the latest versions don't work for me anymore, fortunately I have my archive of MV2 extensions, updated from time to time. That's why I'm looking for an alternative, and I think for the time being it will be my own modded Google Chrome version of at least 130, in which I will know 100% myself what I've changed (basically I've figured out what I've changed in the hex in chrome.dll via decompiled IDA code)

Edited April 5 by mjd79

[Saxon]

On 4/3/2025 at 7:19 AM, mjd79 said:

I finally got to what's messing up the Chromium 110-126 sandbox on Windows 8.1, and it's the UpdateProcThreadAttribute feature. When I redirected it in the original kernel32.dll to the pwrp_k32.dll included in Supermium 132 R2, the sandbox started working.

Just find a 100% sure solution to the RAM and virtual memory usage problems, and you will be able to use any Chromium-based browser (except Edge) up to version 126. I still don't know what is causing the problem with Chromium 127 and newer preventing the browser from running.

And fixing the sandbox in version 126 is just a milestone. It is 17 versions higher than 109, but it is also 9 versions older than the latest official Google Chrome.... If anyone knows how to debug, I would greatly appreciate your help. All I know is that the problem is definitely in chrome.dll.

126 also worked on 8.0, but the sandbox after the repair still does not work, the browser starts up, but with the error SBOX_FATAL_CLOSEHANDLES, and does not display any page, of course.

Now Supermium author can use your knowledge to finally fix his non-working sandbox. The question is, will he ever mention you?

[mjd79]

52 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Now Supermium author can use your knowledge to finally fix his non-working sandbox. The question is, will he ever mention you?

Only on the 8.1, so it won't help much him. Besides, Supermium 132 contains working with sandbox implementation of UpdateProcThreadAttribute, which I used (I didn't use the whole wrapper, but only one function) In general, I suspect that if you remove in Supermium 132 R2 --no-sandbox from the flags added during compilation, it would run on 8.1 without a problem

Edited April 6 by mjd79

[mjd79]

BTW the memory related functions that D.Draker recommended to me instead of VirtualAlloc make the memory usage of Chrome 130 on Windows 8.1 no different than the latest official v109 for 8.1. However, this is what I won't make public, unlike my previous findings, because this would 100% used by win32ss in Supermium or Blaukovitch in his backports without any credit.

Edited April 6 by mjd79

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Seems a bit selfish.  You either want browser alternatives to succeed or you want them to fail.  I don't think there really is any "middle ground".

Either we are "friends" of win32ss (extended kernel success) or we are "foes" of win32ss (almost a hidden agenda of wanting Supermium to fail).

Edited April 6 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

On 4/5/2025 at 7:13 AM, mjd79 said:

Being honest, I never trusted Supermium, Thorium, Blaukovitch crack, etc.

Though my previous post being said, I personally do not trust these either.  But I do want them to evolve into something that I do trust.

[mjd79]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Seems a bit selfish.  You either want browser alternatives to succeed or you want them to fail.  I don't think there really is any "middle ground".

Either we are "friends" of win32ss (extended kernel success) or we are "foes" of win32ss (almost a hidden agenda of wanting Supermium to fail).

It is up to D.Draker to whom he makes this method available. I received it in a private message for a reason, probably one that he doesn't want it available to the public.

Edited April 6 by mjd79

[D.Draker]

On 4/5/2025 at 6:59 AM, mjd79 said:

VirtualAlloc itself

By itself VirtualAlloc 's not that terrible when used in proper conditions, under certain circumstances, but not when they replace the rather newly developed PrefetchVirtualMemory with it.

Addtion:

Why do they use PrefetchVirtualMemory? They just try to get the most out of the new "memory compression" technique used only in Windows 10, so there can't be a fully matching replacement under 8.1, not to mention 8.0,

Edited April 6 by D.Draker
​​​​​​​Addtion:

[mjd79]

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Seems a bit selfish.  You either want browser alternatives to succeed or you want them to fail.  I don't think there really is any "middle ground".

Either we are "friends" of win32ss (extended kernel success) or we are "foes" of win32ss (almost a hidden agenda of wanting Supermium to fail).

After thinking about what you wrote, I have a conclusion - how is it that super-duper prominent authors of forks like Supermium or Thorium are not able to determine what causes such high memory usage/errors associated with it on some sites, and it was reached by an MSFN user, who, in addition, does not work with the source code, but already compiled browser?

Edited April 6 by mjd79

[D.Draker]

15 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Though my previous post being said, I personally do not trust these either.  But I do want them to evolve into something that I do trust.

Internet's competition already left those two (three?) too far behind. With the official Chrome and Firefox ported by @mjd79to Windows 8.1, including a bit of my help, and now we have the talented "Chinese student" already ported the cutting edge and UNCHANGED (as far as I can see from my brief usage) Ungoogled to Vista, those you talk about, they can't keep up, in France, they are called downshifters.

Edited April 6 by D.Draker
rough night consequential typo

[mjd79]

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Either we are "friends" of win32ss (extended kernel success) or we are "foes" of win32ss (almost a hidden agenda of wanting Supermium to fail).

I am not against this project, I would like to see it develop, and get to as good a level as the “Chinese student” fork, but since the man just mentioned solved the problems with memory usage and more, the more the author of Supermium can do it.

In my opinion, Supermium should be created completely from scratch, and in two versions. The first for Vista (without the extended kernel) all the way up to 11, and the second for XP, containing all the necessary features in system library wrappers, OCA-style, which runs successfully the same version of Chromium that Supermium supposedly is, only without the sandbox for now.

Edited April 6 by mjd79