AstroSkipper
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by AstroSkipper
-
Probably every Windows XP user has it installed. Look here: https://archive.org/details/WMEncoder9Series The same applies to DirectX 9.0c. It's essential and needed for testing graphics. Since you don't really use your computer anymore anyway, it's probably no problem to install these things briefly. https://benchmarks.ul.com/en/legacy-benchmarks https://www.chip.de/downloads/PCMark05-Vollversion_13003873.html
-
@NotHereToPlayGames Here we are: Define the parameters of such a test and I will engage in this battle. Quantifiable measurements where neither one of us can "cheat". Then we'll let the rest of MSFN members "decide for themselves". Since the word offtopic is apparently not in your vocabulary, I hereby move our conversation to this thread created specifically for the purpose of computer performance comparisons in order to finally be ontopic again. Your proposed test procedure is far too fiddly and time-consuming. I am more in favour of using a well-known, locally installed test tool (i.e. offline tool) that tests all components and generates an overall performance index for the purpose of comparison. My suggestion: PCMark05 which still supports Windows XP.
-
This topic is designed to compare the overall performance of different computers with each other under Windows XP.
-
I am not always right. But a pure comparison of CPUs is not sufficient. Read here, for example, about the difference between SD-RAM and DDR2-RAM: https://www.transcend-info.com/support/faq-296#:~:text=DDR2 SDRAM(Double Data Rate,(double of DDR SDRAM). Maybe now you'll realise what I'm talking about. And apart from that, an Intel Pentium 4 is not the same as an Intel Pentium 4. There were different series like Willamette, Northwood, and Prescott. And within these series different FSB clock rates. So, forget about these comparison sites! The only way to compare our computers is doing the same test regarding all hardware components. P.S.: Due to my motherboard layout, there are several bottlenecks. Firstly, the extremely slow SD-RAM memory, then the very low bus clock rate and finally the AGP 4x interface, although my graphics card actually is an AGP 8x one.
-
Please, don't come up with your "gut feelings"! I have presented all the essential facts that you have not commented on. My presentation has nothing to do with subjectivity and hypotheses. But as I said, it's offtopic here anyway and actually totally irrelevant. Your cucumber is old and mine is many years older.
-
Thanks for linking! Unfortunately, such comparisons are not particularly useful. It also depends considerably on other components such as the RAM memory, north and south bridge, the bus clock, the graphics adapter, processor features, hyper-threading and so on.
-
Not quite true. I use both my old Windows XP computer and my Android tablet for what you call "real work". And in some special cases, a notebook with Windows 7 and Windows 10. But that was not the point here. Anyway! This thread is actually about Mypal 68, and I am happy to confirm that this browser works well on my old hardware. And much better when optimised.
-
Ok. As far as I can see, my Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8GHz 32-bit has a higher operating frequency than your Intel Atom 1.6GHz. In all other categories, your CPU is better than mine. L1/L2 cache, thermal values, instruction sets and so on. And you use DDR2-RAM which is much faster than the old, slow SD-RAM I use. Furthermore, I assume your Intel Atom CPU supports Hyper-Threading technology, my CPU does not. Even your Intel GMA 950 graphics is more efficient than my NVIDIA GeForce 6200 AGP 4x (8x is not supported on my motherboard). And as we all know, the operation frequenzy is difficult to compare regarding completely different processors, i.e., a higher frequenzy value does not necessarily mean a higher performance. BTW, which Intel Atom CPU is it? N270? All in all, I think your old Acer is faster than my old computer.
-
That's a general problem here on MSFN. If members/users have problems, they are very communicative and willing to provide information. But when it comes to selflessly contributing something to the cause, a certain listlessness prevails. Very regrettable. In principle, the same people always make a contribution here to move the cause forward.
-
Good comparison! This clearly shows the positive effect of rebasing I stated in previous posts. 66.6% less RAM consumption. That's a lot. BTW, maybe your CPU is weaker (I can't remember what kind of CPU you have) but your system is equipped with 4 GB RAM, mine with only 1.5 GB RAM (slow SD-RAM, i.e., no DDR-RAM).
-
In my system with 1.5 GB RAM, every single megabyte counts. 350 to 450 MB is then a huge amount of RAM.
-
Didn't you just contradicted yourself? This flag only has an effect if you are TAB HOARDING !!! No. If you open two or three tabs of the same domain to really work with them, then this has nothing to do with tab hoarding as they are closed immediately when all is done.
-
Personally, I consider opening 15 MSFN tabs and probably many more tabs from other websites to be tab hoarding. IMHO, this kind of surfing behaviour might require professional treatment. BTW, I used to be afflicted with this disease for a while, but fortunately, as an autodidact, I was able to free myself from it. As for the chrome flag --process-per-site, I use it from the beginning and it really saves RAM. I consider this flag useful.
-
And now, all in a minimal, quite fresh profile of Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode, only one empty tab open, 3 extensions installed with 1 enabled, no themes installed, 1 UC.JS script enabled, no CSS stylesheets enabled, xul.dll file rebased and memory minimisation performed. The RAM usage is then round about 120 MB a few minutes after starting the browser: I am generally interested in RAM usage values of other users to see how Mypal 68.14.4b behaves on different computers. And of course, I am particularly interested in comparative values under Windows XP 32-bit on old, weak computers such as mine.
-
Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode, only one empty tab open, 25 extensions installed with 17 enabled, 2 additional themes installed with one of them enabled, 13 UC.JS scripts enabled, 13 CSS stylesheets enabled, xul.dll file rebased and memory minimisation performed. The RAM usage is then round about 250 MB a few minutes after starting the browser: What is yours?
-
I see it like this. If websites can't be loaded properly on my old computer under Windows XP, it's a sign that this website has disqualified itself for my system and now has the pleasure of making the acquaintance of my Android tablet. BTW, websites that take up hundreds of megabytes of RAM are simply rubbish in my world. Especially if they waste my precious RAM to show ads, offer meaningless things and collect user data.
-
Contrary to my original statement, I have tried to open the Facebook website in Thorium. Even there I am rewarded with a 100% CPU load, and my free RAM memory is being eaten up. The only thing that allows the page to load is using a mobile user agent. Unfortunately, many elements are then not displayed correctly. So, it remains the same. The FB page is just rubbish.
-
Facebook as well as all these social media sites have become overbloated more and more day by day and year by year. I've just logged in an old FB account in Mypal 68, and the RAM eating started. Only my FB front page open, and Mypal 68 consumes 750 MB. I won't test this crappy service in Thorium as there is not enough RAM for such bad sites. I think such social media sites are more made for mobile devices the last years. On Android, there are corresponding apps for each of these services. Personally, I do not use these services. And I hate them all.
-
It should be mentioned at this point that I do not use uBO Legacy 1.16.4.35 at factory defaults. I use a different set of filter lists than the default one. Furthermore, I use additional lists, own rules and scripts. The initial, default setting is only a basic one and is not YouTube related. And I didn't get a video ad on the second video.
-
But now that various theories have been put forward about YouTube and overlay pop-ups with warnings to the user, I am happy to put forward my theory, which I will not verify or prove in any way. Google, and therefore YouTube, wants to make money. If users use the service over a long period of time without being a premium customer and yet without getting and watching any adverts, then this will certainly be registered by YouTube and therefore by Google in whatever way. These users must then have been using an adblocker the whole time and will eventually receive this overlay pop-up warning.
-
You didn't say that in this post. You only talked about a certain number of videos. Now suddenly, it's the duration. Somehow I get the feeling that these are just unsubstantiated theories and nothing more. But YouTube is a crappy interface and no option for browsers on my system. I use YouTube itself only on my Android tablet. Anyway! Opening videos via the legacy extension uTube is much, much, much better than the original YouTube interface. So, I am not interested in investigating the YouTube interface in UXP browsers.
-
I tried your first playlist in the most recent version of New Moon 28 using the legacy extension uTube and my mod uBlock Origin Legacy with several filter lists enabled. No such overlay popup after playing 8 and more music videos.
-
Yep! And they still work with my mod uBlock Origin Legacy. Why do you post an ad blocker for Chrome in a thread about legacy extensions for UXP browsers? Same applies to this extension. Not compatible with UXP browsers. Such recommendations should be done in corresponding threads. Otherwise it would be misleading. TBH, I have never seen such a message. I tried to reproduce your issue but I failed,. It doesn't seem directly related to the video in your screenshot. Here is my screenshot with your video in New Moon 28: No problem to play this video apart from the unfortunate fact that the music is terrible, which is of course always a question of taste.
-
You're welcome.
-
@Tomcat76 A JavaScript solution for your problem with hiding the tab bar, if only one tab is open, can be found here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183657-mypal-68-in-windows-xp-custom-buttons-and-extensions/?do=findComment&comment=1271917