i running r3dfox 126and I did notice the contextual menu is irresponsive even in a blank page

If someone is interested in Supermium as a fully portable application, then have a look here: https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/supermium-portable
It was already mentioned here in this thread and has just been updated. In any case, extracting the Supermium executable from GitHub (win32) and using the starter script to call up the main programme does not lead to a real, portable installation, especially when it comes to extensions whose entries have to be written into the registry. And Thorium isn't fully portable, either.

Edited May 16, 20242 yr by AstroSkipper
Update of content

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

If someone is interested in Supermium as a fully portable application, then have a look here: https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/supermium-portable
It already was mentioned here in this thread and has just been updated. In any case, extracting the Supermium executable from GitHub (win32) and using the starter script to call up the main programme does not lead to a real, portable installation, especially when it comes to extensions whose entries have to be written into the registry. And Thorium isn't fully portable, either.

I used it of 122.0.6261.152 R4 for a few days, it looks work well

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

especially when it comes to extensions whose entries have to be written into the registry

Can you name such an extension?

I use the "X-Chromium" WinPenPack loader and I've never witnessed any extensions writing to the registry.

From here:  https://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=2169

Then replace the "bin" folder with any Chrome-based browser you want to make portable.

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Can you name such an extension?

It doesn't matter which one. When the Supermium installer is used from GitHub, it writes for each extension which is installed an entry under HKLM and HKCU -> Software -> Supermium. In the portable PAF version from PortableApps, these entries are only temporarily written into the registry and are stored locally in the programme folder when Supermium is closed as it is usual in PAF versions from PortableApps.

Edited May 16, 20242 yr by AstroSkipper
Update of content

On 5/14/2024 at 7:54 PM, VistaLover said:

"Out-of-Band" new Supermium (122) release, to patch publicly disclosed Chromium vulnerabilities: 

https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/releases/tag/v122-r5

(in response to https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/570 ) ;

@nicolaasjan : 

This patch is missing:

 

https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/570

 

 

On 5/16/2024 at 9:28 AM, AstroSkipper said:

When the Supermium installer is used from GitHub

We're TALKING IN CIRCLES.

I've already mentioned that I do NOT use "installers".

35 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

We're TALKING IN CIRCLES.

I've already mentioned that I do NOT use "installers".

No, I don't. You wanted to know for which extensions would be written entries to the registry. And I answered that all Supermium (Chrome) browsers do that, when installing extensions, either permanently when installed by installer or temporarily when fully portable. So, it doesn't matter whether you use or prefer installers or not. 

Edited May 17, 20242 yr by AstroSkipper
Update of content

You'll just have to witness it yourself.

The WinPenPack prevents (ie, "redirects") those registry entries.

But you do have to be "smart enough" to edit the .INI file (and "smart enough" to delete any registry entries already present).

I trust that you (smart enough, that is).

Edited May 17, 20242 yr by NotHereToPlayGames

29 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You'll just have to witness it yourself.

The WinPenPack prevents (ie, "redirects") those registry entries.

But you do have to be "smart enough" to edit the .INI file (and "smart enough" to delete any registry entries already present).

I trust that you (smart enough, that is).

Do you talk about their X-Launcher?  In the case of the paf version from PortableApps, these entries are only written temporarily to the registry. After closing the browser, they are written back to a local reg file and then removed from the registry. So, nothing to be worried about. Unfortunately, Supermium does not run fluently on my old hardware.

Edited May 17, 20242 yr by AstroSkipper
Update of content

9 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Do you talk about their X-Launcher?  In the case of the paf version from PortableApps, these entries are only written temporarily to the registry. After closing the browser, they are written back to a local reg file and then removed from the registry. So, nothing to be worried about. Unfortunately, Supermium does not run fluently on my old hardware.

What's your hardware?

35 minutes ago, hidao said:

What's your hardware?

For the last time, he uses Pentium 4 based on Northwood architecture clocked at 2,80 GHz. I had Northwood based Celeron clocked at 2 GHz back in the day. All rather boring, in contrast, the final Pentiums 4 were 64-bit.

 

I tried booting XP with just one core (set it in advanced options in msconfig on BOO.INI tab). At first, it almost seemed Supermium may be usable with easier sites. At the end, I barely managed to close the browser as it made everything unresponsive. Nope, this is totally unusable.

2 hours ago, UCyborg said:

For the last time, he uses Pentium 4 based on Northwood architecture clocked at 2,80 GHz. I had Northwood based Celeron clocked at 2 GHz back in the day. All rather boring, in contrast, the final Pentiums 4 were 64-bit.

Most people probably find this rather boring. But the mainboard of this computer is from 2000 and the CPU from 2004, and I assembled almost all the components of this old computer myself. I rebuilt the case, repaired the mainboard and due to air cooling improvements, no hard drive has died since then. I have a very personal relationship with this computer, so to speak. It runs super stable and just won't stop working. And to be ontopic again, Thorium runs amazingly well on this computer in contrast to Supermium, where the page load behaviour is much worse. Very often the loading process simply hangs with 100% CPU utilisation.

3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

For the last time, he uses Pentium 4 based on Northwood architecture clocked at 2,80 GHz. I had Northwood based Celeron clocked at 2 GHz back in the day. All rather boring, in contrast, the final Pentiums 4 were 64-bit.

 

I tried booting XP with just one core (set it in advanced options in msconfig on BOO.INI tab). At first, it almost seemed Supermium may be usable with easier sites. At the end, I barely managed to close the browser as it made everything unresponsive. Nope, this is totally unusable.

Why did you want to use one core ?

Your hardware is such too old, so you'd better to use the old software, because we all know the new software need more hardware resources, you can try to use 360EE, perhaps it can be work well

24 minutes ago, hidao said:

Why did you want to use one core ?

Because MSFN would cease to exist if it weren't for -

1) People with very old hardware trying to run modern web browsers
2) People with very new hardware trying run or "look like" very old operating systems