NotHereToPlayGames

Nope, because whomever it was bragged about his 100th post. Then somebody pointed out that it only took THREE DAYS. My guess is that moderators stepped in, "warned him", and he voluntarily abandoned MSFN after the "warning". Who knows, as I wasn't here 20 years ago.

Whomever it was hit 99 posts in 7 days.

Too funny. A member from over 20 years ago that was only here for a week.

I propose a 4th (the category of which I fall within) - 4) Your topics are read by the majority herein but replying only perpetuates the stigma of MSFN's transformation from what people claim it used to be, a claimed existence which predates my membership herein and I have never witnessed any strict adherence towards in any "topical" forum I've ever been a member thereof. Tangents and off-topics are always always always present on all all all "topical" forums. Something like that...

While I feel your pain, so to speak, we have to abide by the moderator's consensus and trust that if the random posts violated MSFN rules, written or otherwise, then the every one would be banned for doing so. Since the every one has not been banned, then we have to assume that the moderator's are "okay" with the random posts.

Is there a full list somewhere of just how many functions the experimental flag enables?

Ah, read as to "why" it's deleted. I say yeah, delete Firefox's also. Perhaps "delete" isn't the correct word - edit it for release dates but axe the "changelog". Changelogs should be a developer's website, not taking up space on a public resource. Just my two cents.

That doesn't make any sense, why delete it? Other than they both update so d@mn often (excessive IMO) that it's become a FULL TIME JOB just to keep Wikipedia updated!

"Not my problem", lol. Like I have to tell my brother each and every time he sends me a Twitter, Facebook, or Tik-Tok link - they are blocked on my system "without prejudice". But blocking "Google Trends" is like blocking MSN's "news feed", IMO. Point is, don't all search engines have a "trends" page?

Real "success" would be to make it to the top of Google Trends for your location (France) -- https://trends.google.com/trends/trendingsearches/daily?geo=FR&hl=en-US

Um, why even monitor search engine listing order? Certainly not my definition of success. Why? Because this thread (until I chimed in) was really only you talking to yourself and some of us (myself included) reading it but not commenting (this isn't new news, those of us that block fonts "know" this already). Success would be if 5, 10, 20 "new" members signed up and posted in this thread. All you really did is "time" your entry with some web crawlers that scour the 'net every few hours and found the precise and exact search query to isolate this thread. That's not really that difficult. Hint - multiple words in your search query always always always bring the right content to the top of the list. Just my two cents, lol.

ps - I can't guarantee that the overclocked AMD would pass the OptiPlex or the Pavilion, it *might* but wouldn't know without "bench testing".

The Dell OptiPlex i5-12500T wins in this ilst hands down. Followed by the HP Pavilion i7-10700F. Third "factory" is the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 - but if you are going to overclock, then this moves to the top of the list (I personally no longer overclock, "been there, done that").

Agreed! Firefox has never had a market share of 40% - it peaked at just under 32% and will likely never return to exceeding even 5% due to the MacOS/Safari rise. Here's a nice animated chart for browser market share -- https://www.visualcapitalist.com/internet-browser-market-share/ November 2020 -- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/StatCounter-browser-ww-monthly-202011-202011-bar.png

Agreed, same here. I also use the referenced "structuredClone()".

i'm not familiar Armand Gracious, but I read it as jaclaz being sarcastic due to the date on the Armand Gracious article.

I would suggest not "installing" but rather extract TWICE with 7-Zip. Extract the .exe to get to the .7z inside. Extract that .7z. Overwrite the "existing installation" with those files.

That's why none of my systems have a "default" web browser - NONE. So when an "installer" tries to connect to the internet, IT CAN NOT because there is no "default" web browser for it to "go through". You need a "parent-based" firewall - that will tell you EXACTLY what triggered your Firefox to make a connection. I used to use an OLDER version of Commodo Firewall that was PERFECT for just this. I'd have to dig though some archives to find it. With a PARENT-BASED firewall, your Firefox is allowed access to the internet when launched via a desktop shortcut or via the start menu, but it is DENIED access if an "updater" launches it. The firewall would also block a new tab from accessing the internet if you already have a properly launched Firefox open and that "updater" opens a new tab. Then you would have the "updater" IDENTIFIED because the parent-based firewall would tell you the exact PATH of what launched it. I suspect Nirsoft might have something to track the trigger also, unsure.

"Children, behave! That's what they say when we're together." (80s reference) The images are blurred in 360Chrome AND in cutting-edge Edge until you click on the image to enlarge it. Then the image is perfectly fine - but again, you have to click on it first in order to enlarge it. Not uncommon for image hosting web sites. Perhaps msfntor is blocking "too much" with his beloved uBlock and therefore he inadvertently disabled the click-to-enlarge?

Beyond that, don't just look at Task Manager "Processes" but also look at the "Services" tab. I forget if this is in Win7, but there is a "Open Services" link at the bottom of the Task Manager when you are in the "Services" tab. You probably have an "updater" running as a SERVICE that just needs disabled.

True.

lol But the main thing is this, you can NOT compare DCBrowser to 360Chrome, plain and simple. Because you are comparing Chrome 75 to Chrome 86. We have all known this for years, that OLDER versions of Chrome are "faster" then NEWER versions of Chrome. It is WHY so many people prefer to use 360Chrome v11. But it becomes a balanceing act of FUNCTIONALITY. Sure, 360Chromve v11 is "faster" than 360Chrome v13.5, but it's also "faster" than DCBrowser (theoretically, I did not take the 123,456,789 milliseconds to test this theory). But v11 will not load any web site using what MSFN Members refer to as "Googleisms".

Oops, I meant 186 miles per millisecond (0.001 seconds).

I feel this topic is a dog chasing its own tail. Why are you so "worried" (or so it comes across that way) on Page Load Time differences of nine HUNDREDTHS of a second - FROM CACHE? Different browsers manage "cache headers" differently. This doesn't mean that a browser is clearing data, it means that the browser handles "time stamps" differently. The browser doesn't pull from cache FIRST, it first contacts the web site then compares "time stamps" with what the browser knows is in cache, then determines which of the two locations to pull from. Different browser configurations will handle preload/prefetch differently. You're also working (I think) on a single-core CPU and using web browsers optimized for use on multi-core CPUs. How far do you want to take this? Are you familiar with "Decentraleyes"? I have Proxomitron filters that can load EVERY page across the entire World Wide Web in a tenth of a second - but they are "preview" filters and not for "everyday use". I have Proxomitron filters that handle cache-handling for images differently than .css and .js then handle a handful of CDNs from a "local archive" versus fetching them when a web page requests them. I'm failing to see what the "objective" here is - to demonstrate how "awesome" you find DCBrowser? Why? You are comparing Chrome v75 with Chrome v86 and expect identical results - never gonna happen. A "fairer" comparison would be DCBrowser to 360Chrome v11 or v12 - basesed solely on the number of javascript advancements between v75 and v86. NINE HUNDREDTHS OF A SECOND. Electricity does not travel the speed of light in a vacuum, it is SLOWER, but let's use light in a vacuum for a frame of reference. Light (in a vacuum) travels at 186 miles per millisecond (0.100 seconds). You're talking about 0.090 seconds and make it sound like the sky is falling. Light travels 18.6 miles per hundredth of a second. That's 1,674 miles in nine hundredths of a second. Twice that for this hypothetical lightning fast fiber optic cable between your computer and the server hosting the web page you are "page load timing". So if you want to achieve nine hundredths of a second between you and the server, you have to move the server to the halfway point so that 4.5 hundredths of a second is to get there and the other 4.5 hundredths of a second is the return trip. That's 837 miles. But of course we didn't account for a "very fast" DNS Resolve of 20 milliseconds. Since 20 milliseconds is 20% of 100 milliseconds, let's move the hosting server 20% closer to your house. That puts the server at 670 miles from your house. At 70mph, you could drive to the server in 9hrs 34minutes. That would be a much more effective use of time than debating nine hundreths of a second "page load time" differences for three days. All sarcastic, of course, lol. But in all seriousness, why are you so concerned with nine hundredths of a second? What is the "agenda" here?