Supermium

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, Dave-H said:

It will be interesting to see if the problem is still there in Supermium 132

For me, v132 FAILS that web site in XP and 10.

I don't recall, as I'm not at home at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that v126 R5 works in both and that the issue "half-started" (fails in XP, works in 10) in v126 R6 and became "full-blown" (fails in XP and fails in 10) in v132.

[Dave-H]

Interesting.
Maybe I should report this to the developer on GitHub, especially if the problem is still there in version 132.
I've just tried the 64 bit version on Windows 10 on another computer, and it's the same, although that's not surprising as that installation of Supermium is set up the same way.
I'm quite sure that if it mis-renders this site, it will inevitably do the same on others, although I've not come across any (yet).
Strange that some have said that it's working properly for them though, with the same version of Supermium on the same operating system.

[Guest]

It would be interesting to test this browser at the sandbox level.

namebrowser://sandbox

These days I am doing RIDL mitigation in Chromium-based browsers + Intel CPUs for a former colleague of mine.
But my PC is AMD.
Almost an (effective) excuse to go back to my old classroom and lab....

Edited March 7, 2025 by Sampei.Nihira

[D.Draker]

On 3/6/2025 at 3:22 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

The web site in question DOES NOT send Client Hints headers.  PERIOD!

ClimetHints are requested via javascript from you, not sent from that side, lol.

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

no sh#t...  they communicate through headers...  PERIOD...  done here, you just want to confuse issues instead of solve them...

 

 

[D.Draker]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

no sh#t...  they communicate through headers...  PERIOD...  done here, you just want to confuse issues instead of solve them...

 

 

Yes, but you only sent one, you gotta research the huge script British Gas has in .js.

Otherwise, how do you explain the site works for @VistaLover on the same version???

I know, VistaLover took steps to block them.

[D.Draker]

21 hours ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

namebrowser://sandbox

chrome://sandbox works, it's universal.

[Klemper]

On 3/6/2025 at 9:08 AM, D.Draker said:

 

Supermium is about what, 47 percent brighter than Ungoogled?

It gets brighter with each version, I don't know what could be the reason, Declining eyesight of the developer. maybe?

Normal chrome is of deep rich blue colour, supermium is washed out to just light blue.

[hidao]

On 3/6/2025 at 6:54 AM, Dave-H said:

Could someone who's using Supermium 126 check this site for me?

https://www.britishgas.co.uk

This is how it looks in Firefox 135 (and Edge) -

This is how it looks in Supermium -

As you can see, the elements above and immediately below the red bar are missing on Supermium, which apart from anything else means that you can't log in.
Also, some other pages on the site are just showing as white pages in Supermium, and the same pages look fine in Firefox and Edge.
Notice the big difference in the uBlock Origin count numbers on the two browsers.
This is probably relevant, but disabling uBlock does not solve the problem!
It's the same in an incognito window in Supermium too.

Same to you:

Edited March 7, 2025 by hidao

[Monolithik]

For British Gas try setting Disable Experimental Web Platform features to enabled.

[Dave-H]

3 hours ago, Monolithik said:

For British Gas try setting Disable Experimental Web Platform features to enabled.

Thank you, that has fixed it!

So, what does that mean?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Edited March 7, 2025 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Dave-H]

So, which is the culprit here?

I guess whichever it is, it's in version 132 as well.

As an aside, double negatives always annoy me because they can so easily cause confusion.
Having a flag which has to be enabled to disable something for instance!

[D.Draker]

On 3/5/2025 at 8:48 PM, VistaLover said:

So am I  ... To further tweak Sm-v126, you might want to enable some "experimental" flags, like: 

#enable-javascript-harmony
#enable-experimental-webassembly-features
#enable-future-v8-vm-features
#enable-experimental-web-platform-features

Hopefully, one of these will do the trick for you...

Cheers  ...

@Dave-H, it doesn't explain why it worked for VistaLover, btw VistaLover, even suggested to keep them ON, enable those flags.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Keyword is "suggested".  VistaLover would have to stop back in and tell us if he is or is not enabling/disabling.  Until then, we should not be "guessing" VistaLover's configuration.

 

As a test, we could revert the flag and add this polyfill.  At the very least rule out one of the flag features.  https://glitch.com/edit/#!/close-watcher-demo?path=polyfill.js