13 hours ago, Skorpios said:

UPDATE

Supermium 122, Thorium 122 AND even MP68...

Thank you for the screens! Looks like Supermium/Thorium's real engine is maybe somewhere between the old 106 and 87, so @mjd79 was close enough. @D.Draker, I'm able to log in with Brave 107, but I don't have 360Chrome, so sorry.

this is to much getting compared with a nt6.x engine

i once told dibya that i dont have interests in creating a vista version, still he pushed it up 

so dibya came up to make a redfox to "vista" one

but it was over 150 internal functions to be changed for xp, and like 10 changes from win7 to vista

from what i remember dibya then made some code and the vista version was already working 

vista has a problem vs 7, 7 is just a upgraded vista so 7 is in advantage - sure you can make it backwards to vista 

 

the method dibya used was to change the code itself but, not the redirections in a project with 150-300 functions thats a lot 

a better method would be to overrule some redirection or different linking in the c-runtime or a different c-runtime, in llvm and maybe others what is easier then in vs2019

vs2019 has a hidden c-runtime.obj file - you can make some changes but hmm i dont know ... 

 

 

it almost sounds like a chinese student made a better version

but no - you cant compare nt6.x with xp , in our comparison a compare would be 15 times as much to have a "vista vs xp" version, what the chinese guy dont have he might have a 7 version - that certainly can be changed to vista somehow, there are already codes that can can that 

 

the sandbox is also a such example it dont have a real use, the sandbox is rather a mitigation question and mitigations are OS based - also they not function based - the code is going fine without it (and no bugs) 

reality is that the sandbox in win10 have a lot more then vista and 7 actually have - so having some flags popping up that you have a sandbox wont do much either 

 

when the chinese want to challenge supermium he has to challenge it on nt5.1 (aka xp) not 7 vs xp 

1 reason more i dont want to make a vista/7 version is exactly this discussion - once done they say they got a better solution - what is not true 

a other reason you dont make vista/7 stuff is that you lose focus for your normal common OS - dont get me wrong i have nothing against people who like vista or 7 

but they have it simplier then we have 

 

 

if not the chinese guy has to come up with a XP version and proof us wrong

i would not be unhappen to proofen wrong in this case

 

 

what i also have to say when i added that redfox code (that also works for vista) i saw redfox works with vista - so the code gone there 

im glad that he has the code ... but then you get something like this "the chinese guy made a better vista version" - sounds weird to me

So what you're saying is that Supermium is older than it claims to be? But all in all, is still the most "modern" we got out of all options, right?

I have the last working Opera (Opium), which shows warning banner on sites like Discourse, but Supermium doesn't show it.

11 hours ago, j7n said:

I have the last working Opera (Opium), which shows warning banner on sites like Discourse, but Supermium doesn't show it.

Supermium simply lies about the real version, UA (User Agent) and Client Hints (extended info about the Client) both pretend to be a higher version, which is not true.

@VistaLover wrote about it here. But from the reality, as we see with Twitch, for example, it's NOT even at version 126! Why? Because the 3 year old Chrome 107 works fine with Twitch,

and Supermium needs EXPERIMENTAL features to be turned on in the flags section, otherwise it fails!

https://msfn.org/board/topic/185045-supermium/?do=findComment&comment=1279237

20 hours ago, user57 said:

when the chinese want to challenge supermium he has to challenge it on nt5.1 (aka xp) not 7 vs xp 

We're already far beyond that point, the new Chinese browser based on v.136 works absolutely perfect with Vista.

Been testing it for weeks now. No memory leaks, all is good. No buffer overflow like in Supermium.

23 minutes ago, Klemper said:

as we see with Twitch, for example, it's NOT even at version 126!

This is not true!  Something in Supermium is indeed breaking Twitch.  But "do" the same exact thing (once we find out the "exacts") in OFFICIAL CHROME v132 and Twitch *WILL* break also!

If Supermium was "not even v126", a hundred or even a thousand web sites would be broken, NOT ONLY TWITCH.

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

This is not true!  Something in Supermium is indeed breaking Twitch.  But "do" the same exact thing (once we find out the "exacts") in OFFICIAL CHROME v132 and Twitch *WILL* break also!

If Supermium was "not even v126", a hundred or even a thousand web sites would be broken, NOT ONLY TWITCH.

This is not true!  Nvidia gaming website had terrible problems with Supermium, NOT ONLY TWITCH. 

Please closely follow the issues on github, and only then accuse people. 

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But "do" the same exact thing (once we find out the "exacts") in OFFICIAL CHROME v132 and Twitch *WILL* break also!

It's been checked already, no issues with any Chrome based (Brave, CatsXP, "normal" Chromium), all as low as 107, no issues with either nVidia or Twitch.

We haven't tried lower, but someone tried 360EE, and the login window won't show up, probably, just like Supermium, v.86 also needs EXPERIMENTAL features to be turned on in the flags section to not fail!

FWIW, I've just tried it, and the British Gas site breaks in exactly the same way on the latest and greatest version of Microsoft Edge if the experimental features are enabled, so this at least is not a problem peculiar to Supermium!

14 minutes ago, Klemper said:

It's been checked already, no issues with any Chrome based (Brave, CatsXP, "normal" Chromium), all as low as 107, no issues with either nVidia or Twitch.

We haven't tried lower, but someone tried 360EE, and the login window won't show up, probably, just like Supermium, v.86 also needs EXPERIMENTAL features to be turned on in the flags section to not fail!

With respect, that's not what @NotHereToPlayGames was saying.
What he was saying was that if exactly the same modifications were made to other Chromium browsers as have been made to Supermium, for whatever reasons, then the Twitch login would almost certainly break there too.
I'm sure that win32ss is investigating the reason why this is happening.

6 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

With respect, that's not what @NotHereToPlayGames was saying.

Bingo!

7 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

I'm sure that win32ss is investigating the reason why this is happening.

I certainly hope so!  So that we can nail this d#mn coffin, faking a user agent or client hint is WAY different than "claiming" to be several versions newer on an older engine.

THE SUPERMIUM ENGINE IS WHAT IT IS CLAIMING TO BE !!!  Plain and simple.

TO H#LL WITH TWITCH!  Twitch by itself proves NOTHING.  It only proves bad coding at TWITCH!

IT WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY IF WE HAD A HUNDRED OR A THOUSAND WEB SITES THAT DO NOT WORK IN SUPERMIUM!

 

Let's face it, PERSONAL BIAS is leading this discussion.  Not logic and reasoning.

Which experimental features would you recommend switching for maximum compatibility?

11 hours ago, j7n said:

Which experimental features would you recommend switching for maximum compatibility?

None! They experimental for a reason, Otherwise sites like British Gas will fail to load.

On 3/30/2025 at 8:43 AM, mjd79 said:

In any case, the disabled sandbox, without any information on github or in the browser itself (other than chrome://version or chrome://sandbox, which 99% of users will never look into), is simply a scandal!

https://no-sandbox.io/

Win32ss finally confessed. But no apologies for not telling the public before.

"... the most important of the sandboxes, so there will be further work to be done there."

https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1292#issuecomment-2770908088