Firefox and Chromium running on Windows 7 by e3kskoy7wqk.

[ED_Sln]

9 hours ago, D.Draker said:

the new 135 is 400mb in size, is this normal?

It looks like e3kskskskoy7wqk just unpacked chrome.7z from the installer, and there it is packed without compression. If I compress in 7zip (with ultra compression) the unpacked Chrome-bin folder, I got an archive size of only 101 MB for the 64 bit version of the browser.

Edited April 8 by ED_Sln

[D.Draker]

22 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

A compressed DLL would also make the program unusable on systems with disabled page files (not uncommon),

Wait, whaaaaat? How so? Elaborate pls.

[D.Draker]

16 hours ago, ED_Sln said:

It looks like e3kskskskoy7wqk just unpacked chrome.7z from the installer, and there it is packed without compression. If I compress in 7zip (with ultra compression) the unpacked Chrome-bin folder, I got an archive size of only 101 MB for the 64 bit version of the browser.

He just used "Copy" method for the compression, it's of course bigger than "Ultra", the compression in this method is almost none. Why use 7z then? Makes no sense. Windows Zip would be a better and more logical choice in this case.

[ED_Sln]

The 7z archive is also used in the official Chrome installer. And e3kskoy7wqk just extracted it from the installer, you can check, download ungoogled-chromium_135.0.7049.41.1_installer_x64.exe and extract chrome.7z from it, the hash should match. Properly you should have extracted and re-archived, but with normal compression, format is not important in principle, everyone has some archiver to open any format.

[mjd79]

I have just managed to start compiling for now a clean Chromium 137.0.7116.0 without any patches, just to be sure that no problems will occur.

If successful, my intention is to apply all the patches from https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7/tree/main/137.0.7116.0 and restore Vista and 7 SP0 compatibility, and 32 and 64 bit versions using https://github.com/Chuyu-Team/YY-Thunks/ - what the author of Chromium for Windows 7 does not intend to continue for some reason, despite the fact that it is the simplest and very well working solution.

Edited April 10 by mjd79

[Saxon]

On 4/10/2025 at 2:02 PM, mjd79 said:

I have just managed to start compiling for now a clean Chromium 137.0.7116.0 without any patches, just to be sure that no problems will occur.

If successful, my intention is to apply all the patches from https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7/tree/main/137.0.7116.0 and restore Vista and 7 SP0 compatibility, and 32 and 64 bit versions using https://github.com/Chuyu-Team/YY-Thunks/ - what the author of Chromium for Windows 7 does not intend to continue for some reason, despite the fact that it is the simplest and very well working solution.

We are looking forward to it! Will the Ungoogled patches be also applied?

[Saxon]

On 4/8/2025 at 10:33 AM, ED_Sln said:

The 7z archive is also used in the official Chrome installer. And e3kskoy7wqk just extracted it from the installer, you can check, download ungoogled-chromium_135.0.7049.41.1_installer_x64.exe and extract chrome.7z from it, the hash should match. Properly you should have extracted and re-archived, but with normal compression, format is not important in principle, everyone has some archiver to open any format.

Could there be strings attached?

[mjd79]

It's now a question for users whether ungoogled or Vista support is more of a priority. My computer can take more than 24 hours for one compilation. Unfortunately, in the previous system installation and previous software setup, I made such a mess of things with the trial-and-error method (and doing some things at my own discretion, not how the tutorials dictate) that something went wrong during compilation. This time I found much better tutorials and have experience from the previous tries. Compiling Chromium in theory is very simple, but very many things can go wrong. Now I downloading the entire repository with every possible version from the main branch. You can also fetch with the command -gclient sync --revision src@137.0.7116.0.

Edited April 14 by mjd79

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I think MSFN could benefit from a Compile Chromium thread/tutorial.

I myself have "successfully" compiled Chromium but I've had to take bits and pieces from four (or more, don't recall now) different "tutorials" found online.

I ended up with something that would "launch" and "browse", but in the end I didn't really "trust" my own work and sent it all to the Recycle Bin.

[ED_Sln]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

Could there be strings attached?

I think he just didn't repackage, internet is fast, wired internet usually doesn't have traffic limits, so it doesn't matter what the file size is.

[Karla Sleutel]

On 4/11/2025 at 3:22 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I think MSFN could benefit from a Compile Chromium thread/tutorial.

 

You're very welcome to make one, like @mjd79 did.

[Karla Sleutel]

23 hours ago, ED_Sln said:

I think he just didn't repackage, internet is fast, wired internet usually doesn't have traffic limits, so it doesn't matter what the file size is.

Usually, if someone has 7z or similar on their PC, they already got it configured with the settings of their preferred choosing, I find it strange why all of a sudden that person would just use a fully uncompressed method, all after a year with Ultra as its default.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

My focus has basically been solely with Brave of late.

I am *NOT* a fan of integrated/embedded "ad blockers" but it seems that most Chromium Forks are taking that route.    At least until all the MV2 vs MV3 dust settles.

One of the strangest telemetry connections that took some time in isolating is Brave's Enable CNAME uncloaking flag!  DISABLING that cut down on a ton of telemetry connections!

Sure, the "uncloaking" sounds like a nifty tool, but not at the expense of sending *ALL* of my browsing history to godknowswhere!  No history to hide, per se, but browsers should just browse and nothing more.

[mjd79]

After 10 hours of compilation, I received errors. Then I would face another 10 hours, and in the meantime more errors would appear. Not for my patience, I pity the money for more powerful hardware, as long as I can't compile without errors, and I'm not able to do that at the moment at this compilation rate. I apologize to the users I disappointed, apparently I'm not smart enough after all and despite following the instructions I keep doing something wrong all the time

Edited April 14 by mjd79

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Bummer.  Thanks for trying.

Chrome was in the 50's version numbering when I last tried to compile.