5 hours ago, Goodwin said:

Is the developer Supermium in this thread ? Is there any point in writing him about bugs here ?

He hasn't posted here since last summer, although he is still a member.
You could try sending a PM, but it would be much better to ask about your issue on the Supermium GitHub pages.

... In addition to what already posted by Dave  , the "official" contact channels are to be found at: 

https://www.win32subsystem.live/supermium/support/

Kindest regards.

11 hours ago, Dave-H said:

He hasn't posted here since last summer, although he is still a member.

He can still read without logging in. Lost the password. simply don't want to login, etc. The login details had been been changed since last summer (coincidence?), now need to know your email, he could've lost it.

- And some here created a drama around it.

Edited February 25, 20251 yr by Karla Sleutel
- added

Another Supermium release made it to the GitHub Releases Section:

https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v132-r0

Is it on the same level of brightness? Someone tried already?

DuckGo fails to find SM at MSFN.

5 hours ago, D.Draker said:

DuckGo fails to find SM at MSFN.

I think google is the best search for me ...

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.

46 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

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

https://www.britishgas.co.uk

I guess it renders OK here  ; but my Sm-v126-r7 "dirty" profile is heavily modified, with lots of custom cmdline switches and a lot of user-modified chrome://flags/, so I won't be able to tell off-the-top-of-my-head which thing it is that makes the site render properly (but, alas, not for you) ...

What puzzles me deeply (and, at the same time, depresses me, too) is why such sites insist on using the latest JS+CSS Google "shinies" , for crying out loud... But this is a rhetoric one, in an era when backwards compatibility isn't a consideration anymore  ...

Kind regards  .

Edited March 5, 20251 yr by VistaLover

Thanks, so it is something in my setup then!

My chrome://version page looks very different to yours.
For instance, how come yours says 'Supermium' at the top right and mine says 'Chromium'?
 

Is that perhaps because I'm on XP and not Vista as you are?
I don't see why that would make any difference.
You can see the flags and switches in the screen grab, do any of them stand out as possible culprits to the problem?
I am using a launcher program to run the browser, with some switches in its INI file, such as the profile location.

British Gas works fine with CatsXP, even on the oldish Chrome 114 from two years ago.

I'm blocked on imgur, and moi limit here's up, so no screens.

BTW, Dave you're being heavily fingerprinted.

Look at the active variations. It's a guinea pig test they run on you.

 

11 hours ago, Dave-H said:

You can see the flags and switches in the screen grab, do any of them stand out as possible culprits to the problem?

No, one can safely tell - your Supermium is out-f the box, no mods, runs default, and can't handle that site.

17 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

My chrome://version page looks very different to yours.

... So, you're using Sm-v126-r6 then (*.260) ...

18 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

how come yours says 'Supermium' at the top right and mine says 'Chromium'?

That's easy to answer  ; since 126-r7 is the last release of the 126esr branch, I modified locally several graphic aspects of the core Supermium files (chrome.dll, chrome_100_percent.pak, chrome_200_percent.pak, chrome.exe), to make it more aesthetically pleasing to me  (but beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder); the "Supermium" part you referenced is from a custom modification inside resource files "chrome_100_percent.pak" and "chrome_200_percent.pak"; the corresponding images were borrowed from this github issue...

31 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

do any of them stand out as possible culprits to the problem?

Not at first glance, but while we're here, why "/high-dpi-support=1 /force-device-scale-factor=1" and not "--high-dpi-support=1 --force-device-scale-factor=1" ?

36 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

I am using a launcher program to run the browser, with some switches in its INI file

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  ...

11 hours ago, Dave-H said:

Is that perhaps because I'm on XP and not Vista as you are?

Yes I am, and from what we all know, Supermium broadcasts ClientHints, in addition to UA. So, maybe.

https://browserleaks.com/javascript

Sorry, multiquote glitched out on me after the last site update,

 

11 hours ago, D.Draker said:

you're being heavily fingerprinted.

@VistaLover, show what you get at the "active variations".