NotHereToPlayGames

The bigger point is that it doesn't matter. No need to over-analyze.

Works for me. You're blocking fonts or something.

Still not liking UBO even in this so-called "hard mode". In uMatrix, I can allow the IMAGE to come in from ibb.co (your Times screencap) without enabling javascript on the same domain that hosted the image. In UBO, once I allow the IMAGE, I also have to enable javascript and iframes from the same domain that hosted the image, it's "all or nothing". I do not trust a site to serve me javascript just because I decide to trust the cite to send me a screencap. Not really an issue for the MSFN example, but a GIGANTIC issue "out in the wild".

I'll be testing with UBO when I get home. When I last used UBO, I was thoroughly UNIMPRESSED relative to uMatrix. That MAY have changed.

Can you right-click a YouTube video in both v11 and in v13.5 and show us the "stats for nerds" screen? Your crackles and choppiness could be due to video format and have nothing to do with v11 versus v13.5.

Yep, I'm aware. But I seem to recall Gorhill also stating that this was "unfortunate". UBO is taylored for the folks that don't want to be bothered with granular control. I'll take the granular "nuisance" and the peace of mind that comes with it. I do not like "trusting" OTHER PEOPLE'S "lists", which is the whole paradigm behind UBO.

I guess I'm not overly worried, to be honest. I'm only "just now" starting to use Win10 and with no "time bombs" with 'older' Chrome and no "time bombs" with 'older' extensions (which I already have locally archived), I'm confident I can get SEVERAL years out of my existing setup. Something similar to uMatrix will surely be available by the time I "need" to worry about MV3. UBO does not meet my needs! Surely I'm not the only one to see UBO as "inferior"? Though "less granular" is probably a better word.

I also have a hunch that by the time I do need to concern myself with MV3, that there will already be several methods to "convert" our archived MV2's to MV3.

Agreed. But there is no "time bomb" built into older versions of Chrome. So I can use "older" versions of Chrome for a very VERY long time before concerning myself with MV3.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm kind of not a fan of resorting to "hundreds" of flags (no, I didn't count how MASSIVE that list is, but it is GIGANTIC, and I will check via that list eventually). My general philosophy is to find the "best performing" in a 'default state'. Generally speaking, the fastest in "default" will also be the fastest in other configurations, provided the same configurations are being compared to each other. I applaud the user-base and we all have our own preferences, but I myself prefer my Proxomitron and uMatrix setup and will "never" resort to anything UBO. So far, my preference is leaning towards GDIChromium v96 x86 (even on x64 OS). There are "newer" versions of GDIChromium, but I do not subscribe to always using the "newest" possible (I think we only shoot ourselves in our own foot when we fall prey to always wanting "newer"). I also like X-Chromium v105 x86 but it removes the ability to disable the "side bar" which I am NOT a fan of that added "clutter" in the toolbar. I may be able to disable/remove that "clutter" once I start modding X-Chromium. So far, I have opted to use GDIChromium but use it inside X-Chromium's "loader" (which may also be usable for 360Chrome, as far as that goes, the two loaders are very similar [360Chrome's is "smaller"]). The GDI is not that big of a deal-maker/deal-breaker for me on Win10 - but GDI is a MUST for me on Win7 (which I rarely ever use nowadays anyway). Either way, my next step is to "ungoogle" GDIChromium v96 and X-Chromium v105. Odds are very high at this point that v96 will serve me well for the next couple of years before web sites start telling me to start using something "newer". Technically, NONE of my web sites require anything "newer" than v86 - but there are much "faster" alternatives for Win10 without resorting to "cutting edge new".

Higher results indicate faster performance. The results are not "seconds".

That tells me everything I need to know.

Depends on your definition of an "ad". Because to me, that entire 12:30 video is an "ad".

With the gigantic RAM improvement in a rebased v13.5, why even keep v11 around?

No, not really. I uploaded 13.5.2022 with the swiftshader .dll's. I uploaded 13.5.1030 without the swiftshader .dll's. The swiftshader .dll's SHOULD BE INCLUDED !!! There was a FALSEHOOD spread about the forum that swiftshader is not supported by XP and only applies to Vulkan graphics cards or something like that. But this is NOT 100% TRUE. The BACKPORTING by the 360Chrome developers REQUIRE the swiftshader .dll's otherwise certain GPU processes WILL CRASH. This "requirement" will plague some systems more than others (ie, very first launch after a system restart). It is true that Vulkan is "disabled", but the swiftshader .dll's do "more" than that, they are required in order for 360Chrome to function 100%. You can witness a GPU crash error on the chrome://gpu page, at the very bottom. Not all GPU crashes will result in 360Chrome crashing, but I do suggest KEEPING the swiftshader .dll's. On my system, I only keep the sub-folder .dll's and not the root folder .dll's. But there may be some systems that work the other way around. At any rate, for a apples-to-apples comparison, you have to put the swiftshader folder back into your 13.5.1030 version.

I have been investigating that very thing. My thread on that investigation is here -- https://msfn.org/board/topic/184322-narrowing-down-my-default-browser-for-my-win10-setups/

I have a "SmartWhois" entry in my click-to-access Proxomitron Menu that gives me that info. But I only access it "on demand" as opposed to performing "real-time". I personally avoid any extension that has to fetch "updates" and I'm not fond of "real-time" data lookups that make their own internet connections whenever they feel like it. I like the idea of a LOCAL database that I myself would have to update in the event that an "unknown" icon shows up instead of an actual flag.

True. I was given faulty intel. I should have known better and resorted to "trust but verify".

Thanks, I suspected that would fix it for you. Even though "swiftshader" isn't 'supported' by XP and is 'supposed' to only apply to Vulkan API, the REALITY is that the upstream developers are using these .dll's for OTHER purposes and KEEPING them makes 360Chrome MUCH more STABLE for certain setups. Those that don't need them, fine, they can delete them. But some of us DO need them.

True. Regarding the chrome://gpu page, take note of the "Diagnostics" section. Compare/contrast that section when your 360Chrome includes the SwiftShader .dll's versus excludes the SwiftShader .dll's (excluding causes crashes on first launch each and every system restart for me).