NotHereToPlayGames

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?

I'm finding it impossible to believe your results. Sorry, just utterly IMPOSSIBLE. I'm testing without uBlock. You have to CLEAR YOUR CACHE otherwise all you are doing is testing how fast your hard drive and web browser talk to each other and that line of communication has NOTHING to do with "page load time". My internet speed is FASTER than yours, not bragging, just stating a very important VARIABLE in this experiment. XP SP2 VirtualBox. The https://vancedapp.com/ site is a perfect example !!! WATCH IT LOAD! The "Page Load Time" extension is posting a time BEFORE the page "animates" into view - how is that an accurate page load time, you can NOT stop the stopwatch, IMO, until *after* the page "animates".

I still say you need a better test site. DcB and Mini don't even render the same page for me. One centers the Home menu at the bottom of the page, one has "star" numbers, the other does not, so one browser clearly had to do something different to get that "star" number. I get several png's that don't even load due to err_cert_invalid, so of course that is going to effect page load time. Page loads in under a second, but the browser's own Dev Tools Network tab reports "Finish" at closer to SIX SECONDS - the load time is being "tricked" to report LOW.

Being at 35% does't really mean that you have "power available". Have you ran Speedometer 2.1 in any other browsers, such as NM27 or NM28?

That explains it!

Regarding Page Load Time extension - at least now I can say I tried to duplicate your numbers. But the results are OPPOSITE for me - 360Chrome is faster than MiniBrowser. I did not test DcBrowser (I see it as a step backwards because it is a fork of Chromium v75 and too much of the web requires a MINIMUM of v86).

What CPU do you have?

How many processes does your Task Manager show running?

Seems to me you need a better "test page". An "all-text" test page does not reveal real-world scenarios. Until you were hunting for a speed test, have you ever, in your entire life, visited a web page that was "text-only"? Don't answer too quickly, a web site that "appears" to be text-only may still have a ton of .js and .css, text-only does not equate to "no images". I would also compare mutliple runs, clearing cache between every reload. But when it comes right down to it, my personal preference will "never" use DCBrowser or MiniBrowser, neither one of them fits "my needs".

That's at work. Here at home I only get 80 Mbps if I connect direct (which I never actually do, I prefer security layer of wireless). Wireless is only 28 to 35 Mbps. A newer router would provide faster wireless but I've never really needed faster than that.

Even better when 30 of us aren't on an MS Teams meeting with two other continents and that's just our department.

What is your result when you run a speed test at https://www.speedtest.net/

Wow! That is ssslllooowww! Your internet speed also effects your score, it's not just a benchmark on "rendering speed".

But are you CLEARING YOUR CACHE before reloading the page? Because it violates laws of physics to transmit data from major server farms in 80 milliseconds. But to just pull them from your own cache, well, then 80 milliseconds is extremely slow. Or testing on a very tiny text-only web site - and, um, I don't see the point in using that as an overall gauge.

You should at least be able to get two or three "load time" extensions to agree with each other. I personally will not spend time on testing extensions I have no use for. This is your obsession, not mine. It boils down to "when" the stop watch "starts" and "when" the stop watch "ends". I can run a six-minute mile - if you give me a five-minute head start before starting the stop watch.

Interesting. Is there a quantifiable means of elliminating "Placebo Effect" in determining if this really "does" something?

Cool find! I'm a bit paranoid to enable an "experimental" flag just for the sake of one web site that I do not foresee ever visiting again.

I'm sorry, but your numbers violate the laws of physics. A DNS lookup takes between 20 and 120 milliseconds and you're claiming page load times from 80 milliseconds to 110 milliseconds. Theoretically, yet, that is possible - if you are connecting to one and only one server, which is extremely rare in and of itself.

Looks like "snake oil" to me!

The "latest" St52 and St55 are not being sent the same HTML as being sent to other browswers (including older St52 and St55). The "latest" St52 and St55 are not being sent the visibility: hidden for the <body> tag. No clue "why", changing user agent did not get the "latest" St (forgot if I tested in 52 or 55) to be sent the visibility: hidden. Limited investigation, could not isolate "why", but this will give you a headstart into something to look for - why is that visibility: hidden being sent to older browser's <body> tags but not to "latest" St's ???

I have no idea what this is. St52's About screen says nothing about "Moebius". St55's About screen says nothing about "Moebius".

And so is St52, those are the only two browsers I checked in (just noticed that this is not the "latest", upgrading soon) -

Appears to me that Chrome-based is doing what it is told to do -