NotHereToPlayGames

Couldn't resist this little read on the off-topic, lol -- https://stylecaster.com/butts-versus-boobs-which-do-guys-really-prefer/

The only "next Chrome for XP" that I am aware of is being forked/backported from Chromium v92. I applaud more options but at the same time don't think v92 really gains us much over v86. UXP died two years ago and as others have noted, it's hanging by a thread on "life support". v86 is "living the golden years" in a retirement community, but there will be a day that it too will be on "life support". I don't follow the "javascript chronology" or whatever it would be called - does anyone know what v92 would gain us over v86 as far as a Chromium-based backport? Technically, my only "barometer" is my own list of bill-pay and checking/savings/retirement accounts. it's anybody's guess on how much longer v86 is going to still work on my list of web sites. But when the day comes that they stop working (and that day will come!), I don't foresee v92 being "new enough" to bridge the gap back to functional. Only time will tell, it's all "speculation" until then.

re: zip versus portable versus standalone versus no-install versus permanent registry versus temporary registry... ie, "stealth" entry at https://www.portablefreeware.com/ pertaining to registry and portable but app still referred to as "portable". I'm not going to obsess over semantics. We have less than a dozen people using 360Chrome and more than two dozen critiquing it. Those numbers are kind of upside-down in my view. What would "Start Is Back" say if I started posting in that thread despite never using "Start Is Back"?

lol BIG fan of .paf! We are all biased, whether we care to admit it or not.

Very true. And also very common. Roytam's BNav with no tabs in 10 x64 consumes 66.2 MB RAM versus XP x64 consumes 122.6 MB RAM -

"Portable" does not have a univeral definition. I cite CCleaner as an example. A much larger following than any MSFN-hosted web browser. CCleaner "Portable" does write permanent entries to the registry. https://www.ccleaner.com/ccleaner/builds The CCleaner developer uses the same defintion that 360Chrome basically uses - ie, "no installer, just extract and run". All a matter of "semantics". 360Chrome registry (as far as entries left behind) is different in Win10 vs XP, those are the only two OSes that I test/verify. Win10 does leave entries behind even if using the "loader" (I actually use my own AutoIt-compiled "loader").

This will result in "permanent" registry entries.

Amazon shows that to be an Intel Core Duo @ 1.86 GHz wth 4 GB DDR2 and came with Win 10 Home. NO WONDER YOU'RE ON XP, I'd hate to see how SLUGGISH that is on Win10.

I was using Sleipnir and GreenBrowser back then. It also revealed to me just how non-tech savvy "IT" people are! They didn't even know what "tabs" were until circa 2004 or so!

Agreed. My Celeron is also coupled with the MX 440. I guess we also have to remember that "period-correct" browsers were single-process and didn't do "tabs".

That's kind of the "rub" ( https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-the3.htm ). Most of us using 360Chrome are on "medium-spec" computers, we aren't running "top-of-the-line" gamer computers and don't have hardware acceleration available (in XP). And some of us are so "low-end" on the computer spectrum that "real-time" anti-virus throws random BSODs. For us low and medium computer spec users, that blip of white when running dark mode is like a strobe light at the discoteque. I'll revisit the older 13.5 versions, I don't recall looking for FOUC when I was running them.

You want the "regular" version and not the "ungoogled" version. Third link in Post #1 -- https://msfn.org/board/topic/184135-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v135-build-2022/

Regarding "dark mode" - there has been progress made towards releasing a "dark version". BUT there is no solution as of yet for what is referred to as "FOUC" and the default white "about:blank" page that displays for a split second before the dark mode .css is applied. Regarding imdb - please detail what is not working on imdb as I just visited several imdb pages and everything seems to be working. Is it WebRTC? DRM? WebGL? JS WASM? 3 of 4 are disabled intentionally, I've never looked into DRM. But yes, it is true, this is based on a 2020 rendering engine and there will be 2022 "bleeding edge of technology" javascript functions that will not work on a 2020 rendering engine. All of us on XP must decide for ourselves if the 2022 javascript functions on the "bleeding edge of technology" are really important enough to warrant migrating from XP.

"Scary Movie" is not classified as horror but as comedy.

Agreed. Internal connections do not concern me. Mozilla does them. Chromium does them. I don't know how to "thwart" the exaggerations often posted regarding 360Chrome without some sort of "redirection" for a more "fair" comparison/analysis. We are not all going to agree and we are all going to have a little bit of bias towards what "works for us" on our own computers. I just seek a more "level playing field" then what has happened in this thread of late. And, admittedly, I don't know HOW to get that "level playing field". I felt like a "dead horse" being beaten over the head with a baseball bat the way this thread derailed so abruptly. My head is still spinning! I kind of have to narrow it down to this - I can pay my water bill and transfer between cheking and savings on my XP computers with and only with 360Chrome v13/v13.5 (for how much longer is anybody's guess). Other users migrate to this thread for very similar reasons and this project has a "need". It is not going to be for everyone. Having "options" is supposed to be a good thing.

Mainly because this forum is "dominant-Mozilla". Or so that is always the impression I have had herein. I seem to recall being asked what operating system I use when I registered here, but I don't think I was asked if I used Mozilla versus Chrome. Just a perception I guess. Though to say it out loud, i guess it's more of an "assumption" then a "perception". Maybe because roytam1's threads have a very large following.

Agreed. What I would claim as being "relevant" would be more along these lines - from what I can gather, "official" Chrome/Chromium do the same firewall screams for "incoming, inbound traffic" and also the same HDD spin (that my Seagate seems too old to be vulnerable to), so why are we thinking it is "nefarious" that 360Chrome behaves identically? I myself can only speak for XP and my hardware. But I would find it very interesting to know if "official" Chrome/Chromium is causing the HDD spin for those with hardware/OS setups where 360Chrome is causing the HDD spin. Without being able to witness it here, I can only ask questions for others to test. Is this HDD spin something that "official" Chrome/Chromium did do at v86 but stopped doing at a later version?

This thread was never intended to be "Mozilla versus Chrome". They do things very different from each other.

If you don't use the "default ruleset" for Mozilla-based browsers, I get that "scream" for them also.

It is my understanding that the loopback is tied to "search suggestions" - which I prefer to DISABLE. Unsure what else it is tied to. But it is a common "question of concern" on firewall forums. It doesn't concern "me", per se. I just know it comes up often. I'm too much of a "control freak" (surprise, surprise, lol). I "dislike" any firewall that "recognizes" the name of something and creates its own "rules" just because it knows that "name". I never let my firewalls do those "default" rules. I define what IP Addresses and what Ports. I don't "trust" any firewall that sets up any set of rules as an "email client" or a "web browser" then just makes assumptions for port traffic. So as it pertains to 360Chrome, I kind of have to suspect that most firewalls don't "recognize" 360Chrome so therefor have no "ruleset" to apply to it.

That's kind of my primary point. If we truly want to be "fair", then we MUST use the same "magnifying glass" that we use during 360Chrome "criticism" and look at other browsers with the same "magnifying glass". 360Chrome did not "introduce" this newly-discovered HDD spin. It was already a part of the underlying code. "American" code. Not Chinese code. Not Russian code. But American code! It also still boils down to "pros" and "cons". I personally do not trust Mozilla/UXP browsers because they all require a "loopback rule" for firewall software such as WiseVector StopX and Comodo Personal Firewall 2.4.18.184. We literally "enable" Mozilla/UXP to do "anything and everything" because we cannot "monitor" what traffic is going through that "loopback". But if we truly use the same "magnifying glass", we should ask ourselves why we "accept" that loopback rule for one browser but not for another. Mozilla/UXP and Chrome/Chromium do things so much differently than each other that sometimes it is very difficult to decide which one to 'trust'. If you are going to be "connected" to the internet, there are some risks that you simply have to accept. Some of us will view Mozilla/UXP "loopback" a much larger privacy risk than an idle HDD waking up for no real reason but our DNS Traffic Logs showing no data being sent when that HDD spun up for no real reason.

I reiterate - my period-correct XP with only 2 GB RAM crashes everything if I install any anti-virus bottleneck. When we use older hardware, we must weigh all the "pros" and "cons". That "silly Celeron", as I like to call it, which is by this new definition my only "period-correct" computer, is absolutely WORTHLESS from a functionality perspective if I put any anti-virus software on it. If we truly want "period-correct" and shout from the rooftop that Bnav (which uses more RAM than 360Chrome) and 360Chrome cannot function adequately on "older hardware" due to RAM, then shouldn't we also limit ourselves to "period-correct" anti-virus? For anti-virus, it's not really RAM consumption but how many "clock cycles" it takes for the anti-virus to perform its task. This 2001 and earlier definition? I'd call that "too strict" but sure, let's run with that definition. But let's be a little more "fair". How many people on XP were running anit-virus in "2001 and earlier"? ZoneAlarm is the version that comes to mind as far as "period-correct" and the very first version of ZoneAlarm didn't hit the scene until May 2004 - https://www.zonealarm.com/software/antivirus-firewall/release-history In the late 90s and 2001 or so, not many people on XP were running anti-virus - because they were all resource hogs that slowed the computer to a crawl. Fast forward to 2022 and those of us, like myself, that still run XP, how many of us run anti-virus? I don't. To me it's a matter of weighing "pros" and "cons". A web browser that accesses my water bill pay site and my savings account both, all in one browser, is a much bigger "pro" to me. But that's the funny thing about computers. We all have very different lists of "pros" and "cons". And this 360Chrome project is still very much a "pro" for many XP-users own lists of "pros" and "cons". It's kind of that simple. Regardless of how "hostile" this thread has become - whether that hostility was intentional or not.

Right, mine probably said 3 TB on the box but I don't have the box anymore. And nope, my Seagate in sleep mode does not spin up when starting 360Chrome. My Seagate is just over ten years old. It is capable of USB 3.0 but I only use it on a 2.0 port. Though I doubt that 3.0 versus 2.0 is at play here, unsure.

Same here. Cheap plastic box. But it sits on the floor behind the tower and never moves, so I didn't really need anything "rugged". My Seagate Expansion in sleep mode has zero effect on my 360Chrome launch/startup. I do use the below, I did not test without these in place. --disable-background-networking --kiosk-printing --disable-print-preview Reminder that very early in the beta testing stages, I added these not because of external storage in sleep mode but rather because 360Chrome (and Official Chrome/Chromium!) kept effecting my wireless printer's IP address because 360Chrome (and Official Chrome/Chromium!) would "see" the IP Address for 1 of 2 *ROKU DEVICES* and would try to link a "print-preview" API with my *ROKU*.