NotHereToPlayGames

But that version "phones home" (ie, TELEMETRY) at least once a week (that's the only time period I checked). You can witness this by setting your clock forward eight days then watching DNS traffic when you launch Process Hacker. I personally try to avoid any-and-all of these "hidden" types of network traffic.

<OT Rant> So here I am, minding my own business, doing my own thing, experimenting with chrome.dll, and BAM, I'm hit in the face with a d@mn "update available" POS nag screen! So now I'm diverted from the project-at-hand (chrome.dll) and have to experiment with Process Hacker instead, which was NOT my plans for the day! edit - and no "do not check for updates" preference setting anywhere to be found! in other words, built-in automatic PHONE-HOME TELEMETRY! Preferring to be working on chrome.dll, I did not experiment with Process Hacker for too long. But the d@mn POS nag screen INFURIATES ME BEYOND NO END! So, without further adieu, I present to you a Process Hacker version without the d@mn "update available" POS nag screen. There may be others, or even "newer", but this was my FIRST guess and it does NOT have the d@mn POS nag screen -- v2.19. Available here -- https://sourceforge.net/projects/processhacker/files/processhacker2/ </OT Rant>

AGREED! Well stated! I have often stated that 360Chrome is "intended" for the XP audience and there are far more alternatives available to the the non-XP crowd. I "sometimes" still use 360Chrome on my Win10 installs, but only for the sake of a shared "profile" and not because 360Chrome is the best "choice" for Win10.

Got it, thanks.

I'd have to jump through the hoops all over a second time, but I don't seem to recall LiBase even "working" on my system. I had to use ReBase and experiment with the actual start address. Whereas LiBase had no option for start address (that I recall).

Did you also try "ReBase.exe"? Or did you only try "libase.exe"?

Correct, I've seen it for a few months. But the problem is there is never really a "final" v13.5. I kinda don't plan on updating build 2036 only for upstream to release another build weeks later. Not a fan of dog chasing its own tail with all of these "updates". It would be one thing if we could isolate actual WEB SITES that work in build 2036 but that do not work in build 2022 or build 1030.

UN-REBASED first-launch-after-hibernate on my oldest XP x86 -- 13.5 build 1030 versus 13.5 build 2022 -

Agreed. And I just double-checked, I have been running site isolation for the last couple of weeks. "Spectre" mitigation is ZERO priority as far as my browsing needs. But now with Cloudflare not liking it, I did switch it back to default on my setup. It is a "balance", I'd rather consume more RAM but be 100% functional. Not "everything" boils down to RAM in my book. edit - I also switch to UN-REBASED build 1030 as my default. But it seems a splitting-of-hairs between it and 2022.

Yeah, my bad, I was experimenting with some flags and didn't intend to upload with that flag set. That flag does decrease the number of processes and thereby cuts down on RAM but I don't run that flag with my default config.

Yeah, I was kind of afraid of that. Rebase address will be heavily dependent on the end-user's system.

I actually prefer the NON-REBASED build 2022. Fast-as-possible launch coming out of hibernate trumps the extra RAM for my preference.

lol. You preferred 1030 over 2022 so that was one of the driving factors to release a 1030.

Yeah, build 2022 is "newer" than build 1030. Build 1030 was more for the @AstroSkipper types.

13.5.1030 does not pass. But 13.5.2022 does pass.

Correct, "normal" in-browser means will not delete the Google cookie. I for one cannot blindly trust a Google cookie on a Google web browser that has a "delete cookies" user-preference but ignores the user-preference and applies its own hidden rules toward that Google cookie. I use Google for search and for translate (but not the built-in context menu translate). Everything web-based Google works without allowing the telemetry from the Chrome Web Store setting a Google cookie. Having to install extensions through other methods is a small price to pay.

No.

There is no answer to that! Browser choice has always always ALWAYS been about "personal perference". What works for me, will not work for you. What works for you, will not work for me.

I stopped upgrading mine at v4.17.4808.

I would not use either on Vista. I would use (and do use) v94 forks for anything I run with Vista or higher. I have no need for anything higher than v94. And there is no such thing as "future proof" - we can only find what works for us "today" and we have to decide for ourselves if we want to be a dog chasing its tail with constant updates that gain us nothing or if we are content with running "old" and not having to deal with the hassle and nuisance of constantly upgrading.

Correct. The downloads from the first post already contain rebased chrome.dll.

That seems to be pretty common when you have .css/.js coming in from SEVERAL web sites and "one" of those SEVERAL gets blocked.

Tutorial posted in Post #2 -- https://msfn.org/board/topic/184266-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v135-build-1030/?do=findComment&comment=1233828

Absolutely. I'll post a small tutorial in Post #2 of this thread and will report back once I've created it.