AstroSkipper
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by AstroSkipper
-
Yep, Process Hacker has been my friend for many, many years. It is always running in the background automatically after system start. I also check the free spots with sufficient space by using the Memory tab.
-
Unfortunately, the idea is not to do what the system does, as without manually rebasing the RAM consumption of Mypal 68 is much higher. The system doesn't seem to automatically assign an optimal base address in terms of RAM usage. So, it is better to manually find a range where the RAM consumption is minimal and all is still working. And the range from 0x60000000 to 0x6f000000 really seems to be a suitable one for DLL files that do not belong to the system.
-
Counter question. Why does the libase tool automatically select the base address 0x6af00000 for xul.dll, which is exactly in the range from 0x60000000 to 0x6f000000? In any case, this recommendation did not originally come from me, but from an article I found after a research via Google. Here is the decisive section as a quote: This section can be found here: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/35829/Modify-the-Base-Addresses-for-a-DLL-Files-Series And as you see, @UCyborg also seems to prefer addresses inside this range for his DLL file series: And I have also had good experiences with this base address range for DLL files. Cheers, AstroSkipper
-
In fact, it was uCyborg who first suggested (in Dezember of 2022) rebasing the chrome.dll file in 360Chrome as a measure to curb this browser's hunger for memory and pointed to the tool libase: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184135-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v1352022-rebuild-3/?do=findComment&comment=1232976 On my hardware, rebasing the chrome.dll was a complete success and actually resulted in a significant reduction of 360Chrome's RAM consumption. Since then, I have been experimenting with rebasing browser DLL files. For Chrome/Chromium based browsers it was the chrome.dll, for UXP browsers and for Mypal 68 the xul.dll file. However, it was indeed me who casually remarked here first that rebasing the xul.dll file has a significant, positive effect on the RAM consumption of Mypal 68:
-
Since I was the one who brought the rebasing of the xul.dll file from Mypal 68 into play and have been doing this for a long time, I would like to know what criteria you used to select the base addresses of the other DLL files. I had suggested the following: The recommended and most suitable address range for DLL files is actually from 0x60000000 through 0x6f000000. Did you already test the additional rebasing of the other DLL files from Mypal 68? What kind of further positive effects did you observe then?
-
My Browser Builds (Part 5)
AstroSkipper replied to roytam1's topic in Browsers working on Older NT-Family OSes
In the most recent release of New Moon 28, I can't observe any difference when minimising the browser window via taskbar menu or title bar button. And that on my old, weak Windows XP computer! -
As you surely know, in the software requirements of PCMark04, you can find Windows Media Player listed in the version 9 only. The slightly worse performance with Windows Media Player 11 may well be due to the fact that PCMark04 has not been adapted to this newer WMP version. Apart from that, your measured performance difference is only marginal. I have carried out several tests, and the results were never the same.
-
Which hoops? TBH, there are none. Of course, only if you have chosen a well-functioning image hoster. In any case, I don't have to permanently delete pictures so that I have storage space for others. Life is too short for posting images via an image hoster, but life is not too short for posting permanently off-topic treatises. Of course! That really makes sense!
-
You can't do any meaningful hardware performance tests with PCMark inside a VM. You already did that, and as expected, it didn't turn out well. BTW, all your posted images are no longer available. Providing images in this way actually makes no sense at all.
-
<<< System Information >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ System Model MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD MS-6391 Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz Physical Memory 1.5 GB Graphic NVIDIA GeForce 6200 Video Memory 256 MB Operating System Microsoft Windows XP (5.1.2600) 32-bit Application PCMark05 <<< Result >>> The value 1.5 GB was edited by me. Due to my nature, I hate wrong values. I am like a rock in the surf (German saying). BTW, from a statistical point of view, the sample size is too small for any meaningful conclusions.
-
Not very trustworthy as the integrated version is very old. I believe it is version 3.21. This SystemInfo Explorer version was not able to indicate the correct memory size in my system. It says 2 GB instead of the correct value of 1.5 GB. BTW, the last Windows XP compatible version is 4.48.
-
At this point, I would like to quote a saying that someone here usually gives off:: To Each Their Own!
-
Just for clarification. There was nothing "bumped". My thread "General and specific solutions for problems regarding AU/WU/MU in Windows XP " gets updates and new information when necessary. I am kind enough to share my experience with people. And using MU/WU does not mean that all offered updates have to be applied. It's up to the user to decide which updates are wanted and which not. No need to install all updates. So, I don't understand your objection at all. However, my Windows XP always gets all necessary updates. And that's a good thing.
-
I basically only do stability tests and hardware tests to make sure that hardware components are OK and running well in the system. The last time, I did a burn-in test was when I modified the BIOS on my old Athlon XP machine as regular BIOS updates were abandoned many years ago. I replaced the SATA module integrated in the motherboard BIOS with a newer version and then flashed my modded BIOS back. After that, some tests were necessary to check the stability and functionality.
-
Yep, that's right. The main reason for it was that your computer is nearly 10 years younger than mine. My computer (and by that I mean its motherboard) is from 2000. And your DDR2-RAM is actually much faster than my very slow SD-RAM. However, the test results are a bit strange as a computer many years younger actually should be faster.
-
Oops! That was me? Ok. I can live with that. The good is I've found several problems which are now all fixed. BTW, this was my very first benchmark test. In general, I am not particularly interested in such tests.
-
A PCMark Score of 2089 vs 1412. The values are not particularly far apart which means my PC is only a bit faster than yours. Right?
-
Yep! I did the same but then I read the software requirements. As I am not interested in downgrading my Windows Media Player, I have uninstalled PCMark04 after one unsuccessful run.
-
Keep in mind that PCMark04 requires Windows Media Player 9 (and not higher) whereas PCMark05 requires Windows Media Player 10 or higher.
-
PCMark05 is a very sensitive software and also seems to have problems on certain computers if all tests are to be performed. Here are my test results so far: After various tests, changes and corrections in my system, I was able to run all the tests from System Test Suite successfully. Here is my missing PCMark Score: Although all tests from all categories can be run now successfully on my system, the software does not manage to run them all at once. This indicates a bug in the programme, which is probably only noticeable on certain systems.
-
A quite legitimate question, which I have also asked myself time and again, is why you should still use MU/WU under Windows XP at all. There are no longer any new updates anyway. The answer is very simple. If you make any changes or retrofit components from Microsoft, it can happen that updates are available for these, which logically could not be installed before. I installed the Windows Media Encoder 9 a few days ago. After a search via MU, an update was actually found. In addition, MU also found a further missing update that was previously installed but is no longer available for whatever reason. It is therefore worth running a search via MU/WU from time to time.
-
It was the security update KB2447961 for Windows Media Encoder 9 from December 2010. My Windows Media Player 11 is of the version 11.0.5721.5293. So, a bit more recent than yours. Check for updates via MU/WU!
-
No. Install it and check via MU/WU if there are updates available! On my Windows XP system, an update for the Windows Media Encoder 9 was offered.
-
I'm glad you think rebasing the xul.dll file makes sense. Mozilla doesn't care about less RAM usage. Like many other manufacturers, they assume that the users of their newer versions have enough RAM available in their computers. Otherwise they would not produce such rubbish.
-
Does anyone know why only this test failed? PCMark05 otherwise ran smoothly and had nothing to complain about.