Advertisements are getting heavy-handed: unfreezehuge

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Fairly decent Speedometer 2.1 score for an XP browser.

But a very VERY slow 270!  A ton of pauses and resumes.  Kind of feels more like a 27 then a 270.

 

Official Firefox v52.9.0 scores 63 but only takes 1 minute 42 seconds to run the test.

Supermium Linked v150 scored 255, 270, and 264 when running three different times.  I only timed the 264 and it took FOUR minutes FORTY seconds because of all of the pause-resumes.

Edited May 18 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Dave-H]

  

13 minutes ago, EliraFriesnan said:

It's NOT Supermium. It's ANOTHER browser made by e3kskoy7wqk  and @mjd79!

Yes, there is no Supermium above 144.
I think it's been an amazing achievement for the Supermium developer to get a Chromium 144 browser to work on XP, including things like keeping support for pre-Manifest V2 extensions.
A few years ago this was considered by most people to be an impossibility.

BTW, I have never believed the conspiracy theory that Supermium is actually based on a much earlier version of Chromium than it's claiming to be.
It passes every version test site I've ever tried it with, sometimes, in fact, reporting (by design) a higher version of Chromium.
Those who were claiming fraud here were just mischief-making in my opinion.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

3 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

Yes, there is no Supermium above 144.

Noted, ooops.  Correct, that is the e3k-weird-name fork and not Supermium.

Regardless, it *DOES* work in XP and does *not* require 7.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

5 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

Those who were claiming fraud here were just mischief-making in my opinion.

[EliraFriesnan]

2 hours ago, Dave-H said:

I have never believed the conspiracy theory that Supermium is actually based on a much earlier version of Chromium than it's claiming to be.

Then why it can't load the pages with British Gas, can't log in to Twich, can't even load this poor animal site at all? Whereas other browsers of the same, or even much, much lower versions can?

[Dave-H]

I have no idea, but whatever the issues are, and I'm not sure it's even still the case that there's a problem with those sites (I can't immediately check) I'm pretty sure it's nothing to do with the underlying Chromium version.
🙂

[Dave-H]

I've tried just now, and the British Gas site seems to work fine, the Twitch login page works fine (although I don't have a Twitch account, so I couldn't test that it actually works to log in!) and the a-z-animals.com site works fine if I disable uBlock, as expected.
So, as far as I'm concerned, there is nothing to see here!

[NotHereToPlayGames]

48 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

and the a-z-animals.com site works fine if I disable uBlock

Why did you have to disable uBlock?  I did not have to disable and the site works for me no matter how long I stay on the site, no time bombs or anti-adblock or anything.

I'm using uBO v1.52.2 with all 5 of 5 uBO filters, the EasyList listed in Ads, the EasyPrivacy listed in Privacy, and both 2 of 2 EasyList/uBO Cookie Notices listed in Annoyances.

People using Supermium do not (and I submit SHOULD NOT) be using any of the Manifest v3 versions of uBO.

But they can go newer than my preferred v1.52.2.  (As can I, but I've made too many mod's to it that I would have to do all over again if I upgrade.)

[mjd79]

9 hours ago, EliraFriesnan said:

It's NOT Supermium. It's ANOTHER browser made by e3kskoy7wqk  and @mjd79!

I ask everyone to read the release notes carefully. I only help solve certain problems, and I created wrappers for DWrite to get it working on XP. All this hard work is thanks to e3k.

Personally, I think his browser is better than Supermium in every way. Especially after restoring WebGL acceleration support for D3D9 on XP and porting DWriteCore from the Win Apps SDK for XP (though users have reported that the browser doesn't work with it under certain conditions - I need to look into that). I also think it’s simply much faster - both on relatively good hardware and on low-end hardware, and it works with processors that only support SSE2.

https://github.com/e3kskoy7wqk/Chromium-for-windows-7-REWORK/issues/65#issuecomment-4357771559

I won't repeat myself, because e3k's post on this issue covers everything there is to know about the differences between Supermium and Chromium for Windows 7.

The x64 version still has a problem with excessive virtual memory usage on XP x64, but fixing it would be pointless, it would take weeks or months of work to restore the behavior of the disabled GigaCage to the code, which was removed between versions 91 and 92, and in the meantime, Chromium has undergone two major changes to its memory allocator.

Supermium, on the other hand, is clearly very low on the author’s list of priorities, after all, he also develops an extended kernel available behind a paywall, so it’s clear which option is more profitable.

Edited May 18 by mjd79

[Dave-H]

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Why did you have to disable uBlock?  I did not have to disable and the site works for me no matter how long I stay on the site, no time bombs or anti-adblock or anything.

I'm using uBO v1.52.2 with all 5 of 5 uBO filters, the EasyList listed in Ads, the EasyPrivacy listed in Privacy, and both 2 of 2 EasyList/uBO Cookie Notices listed in Annoyances.

People using Supermium do not (and I submit SHOULD NOT) be using any of the Manifest v3 versions of uBO.

But they can go newer than my preferred v1.52.2.  (As can I, but I've made too many mod's to it that I would have to do all over again if I upgrade.)

I disabled uBlock because the site told me I had to, as it wouldn't work with an ad blocker running.
When I disabled uBlock for the site, it worked fine immediately.
Why you didn't see that warning, I don't know, but the behaviour for me was exactly as expected.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

9 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

Why you didn't see that warning, I don't know, but the behaviour for me was exactly as expected.

What uBO version and what lists are you running?

I'd kind of like to replicate your behavior (yeah, that's how we spell it over here, lol).

While I *LOVE* that my setup did NOT behave that way, I'd still like to know WHY.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Found it.

You are *NOT* using EasyList in uBO's Ads section.

Blocking scripts from "adthrive.com" is why I'm not getting any anti-adblock banner junk.

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Which may or may not require this filter to be working in conjunction with.

At any rate, my combination of filters "work" (for that site) and yours "do not".  

ie, you need a better combination of filters.  

 

[EliraFriesnan]

In the cool browser made by e3kskoy7wqk  and @mjd79 it's not needed! I don't get errors and demands,

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Correction.  It's not "EasyList".  It's uBlock filters - Ads that prevents the anti-adblock banner junk.