NotHereToPlayGames

v11 on the same computer. Still a sizeable chunk of RAM, but much more manageable.

Wow! But in all honesty, I never use v13.5 on this computer. v11 is much more friendlier, comparatively speaking. But this also could explain why "upstream" no longer releases an x86 version.

AMAZING! I don't know how you do it, but congratulations on such an accolade. I'll screencap the low-end computer shortly. My Celeron motherboard isn't in it at the moment, so I can't do my "worst" at the moment.

Now that I think about it (but no time at the moment), "e10s" should prove to be the perfect gauge. I don't recall which of NM27, NM28, St52, St55, or BNav have the ability to enable and disable "e10s". But those that do, there is our perfect gauge. How much RAM does a no-tab-open single-process (e10s disabled) <browser> consume? Now how much RAM does the same EXACT <browser> consume with no-tab-open but multi-process (e10s enabled)? I highly doubt that the two numbers are identical yet I feel the general "perception" is that they are.

Very normal. And a giganctic advantage compared to the "simpler days" of single-process. This question can very easily turn into a "flaming browser war" and that's not really the intent of MSFN. There are biases on all sides! And it's not a two-sided war. I've used everything from Firefox to Pale Moon to New Moon to Brave to Vivaldi to Lunascape to Opera to Maxthon to Sleipnir, I've used HUNDREDS of browsers over the years. That might sound like an exaggeration, but not as much as it sounds (though I do not have an actual "count"). I've used Opera when it was Presto. I've used Opera when it was WebKit. I've used Opera when it was Blink. The human mind is very "linear" in thinking. It likes to compare/contrast from A to B to C to D. "Technological advancement" is not "linear". https://www.interceptinghorizons.com/post/technology-is-exponential-but-humans-are-linear https://medium.com/@sarmisthataraf/we-think-in-linear-progression-technological-proliferation-happens-in-exponential-excess-bab28ce1e0e5 The human mind wants to "simplify" everything into nice-and-easy "black and white" - stop right there, it can't be done! I miss the days of "single-process" web browsers - performance and efficiency were much easier to quantify. You looked at CPU percentage and RAM consumption and you could gauge everything just from that. As much as the human mind wants it to be that simple, it is not! I wish it were. Life was so much simpler "back in the day". I cite "e10s". This is the multi-processor framework that Firefox introduced with version 54 and disabled the ability to disable in version 68. If you are familiar with "roytam1" browsers, you know that these are single-process by default and now most users enable multi-process - because there are advantages that come with it! But there are disadvantages as well. But counting the number of processes in the Task Manager is too simplistic of a way to look at it. All I can really suggest is to Google / Bing / DuckDuckGo for "single-process versus multi-process browser" and spend the time to read at least SIX articles on the topic. And make sure you do the same that you should with "political news" - get BOTH sides. Make sure to read "pro-Firefox" acticles and make sure to read "pro-Chrome" articles. Then form your own opinion from there. Happy reading.

I dipped my toe in Win7 and Vista "extended kernels". All it did for me was result in very iffy application stability and an OS that would BSOD when I wasn't even moving the mouse or touching the keyboard. Kinda reminded me of back in my AMD days when I was big into overclocking. There was always a fine line not to cross before rendering your own computer untrustworthy for sensitive use because you never knew when the next BSOD was gonna pop out of nowhere. Speaking solely for myself, I have no plans on ever trying any XP "extended kernel". At least not in the early stages. I'll let others be the guinnea pigs.

Those were the days. Alas, poor Yorick! I remember them well. To paraphrase, lol. Back then a "web site" consisted of 90% text and 10% images, and maybe 6 javascript files 1/10th the size of today's javascript files, and 2 css style sheets also 1/10th the size of today's css style sheets.

Another OBSESSION. We all know. The horse is dead. You can put down the baseball bat. This is an Older NT-Family OSes discussion. As such, there will always be a LAG with "cutting edge". Basically, "we don't care" about the LAG being YEARS. We have our JUSTIFIABLE reasons for using Older NT-Family OSes.

You are OBSESSED. We all know about RAM. This is 2022. Not 1992.

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.