AstroSkipper

Hello @mixit! You are absolutely right! I also tried to rebase the chrome.dll of 360Chrome 13.5.1030 rebuild 6 and failed. Only after removing the file signature with your recommended tool delcert, I was able to rebase this chrome.dll, too. Thanks for your tip! Kind regards, AstroSkipper

Hello @UCyborg! You are great! I have chrome.dll rebased, and now 360Chrome 13.5.2022 consumes much less RAM than before, such as it is the case on many other systems. Here is a screenshot: The total of RAM usage is now 4.4 + 28.05 + 22.61 + 13.24 + 31.52 + 20.25 = 120.07 MB Thank you very much! Greetings from Germany and Merry Christmas! AstroSkipper

I already did that in 360Chrome v13.5 build 1030 months ago. This version is generally less RAM consuming than 360Chrome v13.5 build 2022. One 360Loader.exe and only four 360Chrome.exe processes with a total of round about 500 MB. That's the lowest value I ever had for 360Chrome 13.5. And I don't know why the version 360Chrome v13.5 build 2022 consumes much more.

360Chrome v13.5 build 2022 in safe mode Same consumption values in safe mode as in normal mode. But I have to mention that the same drivers for memory management were loaded in both modes. Therefore, no further conclusions can be made here, unfortunately.

Thanks! This is a 64-Bit computer. Your values are a bit high in two processes of 360Chrome but otherwise similar to the others using 64-Bit CPUs. But more interesting would be values from a 32-Bit computer if you have one.

And your hardware specs? The consumption values without information about the system used are not meaningful. Just add a screenshot of SIV32X with your hardware specs!

Use Process Hacker for checking RAM consumption! Look at my screenshots! And SIV32X or CPU-Z for hardware specs.

Agreed. Interesting! Yes, very likely. Unsure how to track that down. The drivers for memory management are usually part of the chipset drivers. We have to look at them if they are the causer.

Thanks a lot! This is a clear indication for disproving my theory that Hyper-Threading is responsible for lower memory consumption. Hyper-threading is not the culprit.

Very interesting is the difference between #2 XP x86 safe mode and #2 XP x86 normal with regard to the values of the Private bytes column. In normal mode, you have similar values such as @NotHereToPlayGames and me, but in safe mode, much lower values such as many others here. At the next opportunity, I will also test 360Chrome in safe mode. And the difference between #1 XP x64 normal and #1 XP x64 fresh install (saved partition, NO drivers/software that aren't from the official CD) with regard to the values of the Private bytes column makes me suspect that certain drivers, e.g. for memory management, could be responsible.

Hello @IXOYE! Could you please be so kind to perform your test once again with Hyper-Threading disabled? If the values did not change significantly without activated Hyper-Threading, this would be a clear indication for disproving my theory that this feature is responsible for lower memory consumption. Thanks in advance!

Your system supports and uses the feature Hyper-Threading with which one physical microprocessor behaves like two logical, virtual cores. Maybe, the 360Chrome browser runs differently on such systems similar to real multi-core processors, resulting in lower RAM consumption. Just a theory! Maybe, there are other members here who can confirm or refute my theory. I would be very interested!

It's a very long time ago, I used IE6. When IE7 came out, I upgraded to that version and later to IE8. Anyway! As far as I can remember, it has something to do with the signing process of certificates (SHA-1 vs. SHA256), but I have to check that once again if more time is available. Try instead ProxHTTPSProxy 1.3a! You can find it in the section 11.1. Archived Downloads (obsolete) in the first post of this thread. The more recent proxies such as ProxHTTPSProxy 1.5 and up are too "modern" for the old IE6. But actually, you should upgrade to IE8 in any case, only if possible, of course.

Your system supports and uses the feature Hyper-Threading with which one physical microprocessor behaves like two logical, virtual cores. Maybe, the 360Chrome browser runs differently on such systems similar to real multi-core processors, resulting in lower RAM consumption. Just a theory!

Is here anyone else who uses Windows XP Professional 32-Bit SP2 (only SP2) on an old 32-Bit computer? If so, please test the RAM consumption by 360Chrome v13.5 build 2022 with only one empty tab open and only uBlock Origin installed, and post screenshots of your process consumption values (for example by Process Hacker) together with your hardware specs! Thanks in advance!

That's are the determined values of @NotHereToPlayGames and me on a 32-Bit computer with Windows XP Professional 32-Bit SP3 installed.

That's really strange. I would really like to have such values, but unfortunately I don't have them, and @NotHereToPlayGames either. On my Windows XP Professional system, the service pack SP3 is installed, fully updated including all POSReady updates. You have SP2 only. I find it hard to believe that this matters. What are your hardware specs? Without these specs, the values determined cannot really be assessed.

Sorry, my friend! You're talking your head off here. I have rarely read so much nonsense from you and you really don't need to. And, one of your strengths is to dwell on trivialities. Calling my old, beloved computer, which has served faithfully for 22 years and has no visible bugs, "beta stage", "first gen" or whatever, should really be beneath you. It sounds more like an act of desperation and a lack of arguments. Unfortunately, you have lost objectivity and dispassion in your comment. But I'll try to help you a little. Windows XP Professional 32-Bit was released in 2001 and took years to develop. Thus, my 32-Bit computer from 2000/2002 is an example of hardware for which this operating system was developed. Once again, my specs: My Windows XP computer is equipped with an old Pentium 4 Northwood single core 32-Bit CPU 2.8GHz and only 1.5GB of RAM (SDRAM). The motherboard is from 2000, but the CPU from 2002 (retrofitted). 64-Bit processors did not enter the mainstream desktop computer market until around 2004. Windows XP Professional 32-Bit was therefore developed for computers with a 32-Bit processor. Windows XP Professional 64-Bit was not released until 2005. And it doesn't matter at all if a sign is plastered on a computer certifying that it is compatible with whatever. Conclusion: These RAM consumption values we have determined in the previous posts tell me and hopefully us that on old, underpowered computers with a 32-Bit processor and Windows XP, the 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022 browser is not an option. This browser needs a 64-Bit processor which old, 32-Bit computers low on RAM logically don't have. Therefore, you should provide correct system requirements for the browser 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022, in order not to disappoint potential, real Windows XP users with low-power 32-Bit computers. PS: I have deliberately removed the term "period correct" from my contribution so that you can concentrate on the essential content and not be distracted again. Hope, I could help you a bit! Greetings, AstroSkipper and Merry Christmas!

Off-topic: For adding single values, you can't use the sigma on your calculator. This function is meant to calculate a sum value in the sigma notation. For that, you need a start value, an index, an end value and a term which usually depends on the index. For example, the Gauss sum:

Sigma is just the symbol for a sum. Actually, you should have learnt that at school.

And these values tell me that on old, underpowered computers with a 32-bit processor and Windows XP, the 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022 browser is not an option. This browser needs a 64-bit processor which old, "period correct" computers don't have.

789.92 is incorrect. I had two number error when transcribing the values, but my sum value is correct. Maybe, you should calculate the sum once again. It's not that hard. ∑ = 780.56

4.39 + 144 +123.93 + 123.95 + 111.2 + 121.83 + 151.26 = 780.56 You're right! The values speak for themselves!

Just for clarification! Unfortunately, there is no "no-tab-open" browser mode. I'm afraid browsers such as 360Chrome 13.5 or bnavigator without tabs are either not yet open or already closed . I think you mean a browser started with one empty tab only. Anyway! The RAM consumption in Windows XP with only one empty tab opened and only one extension (uBlock Origin) installed are: bnavigator (single-process mode): 145 MB 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022: 750 MB Cheers, AstroSkipper

This has been the case for years and is an inevitable development. I can live with that as long as the life-support machines are not completely switched off.