NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
This is Serpent 52 (despite having a lower version number, it's actually "newer and more modern" then Serpent 55). Also has a very large MSFN Following. Does not perform regex unicode property escapes. Also uses a lot of RAM. Only one "process" but many users opt to enable multi-process.
-
This is Serpent 55. Has a very large MSFN Following. Does not perform regex unicode property escapes. You should record how much RAM this uses on your system. Only one "process" but many users opt to enable multi-process.
-
In-process - I was taking the time to screencap several first. Had to delete some other screencaps in profile attachments just so I could post more screencaps.
-
Here are two example browsers that "work" on XP and also can perform regex unicode property escapes. One is based on Chromium 86. One is based on Chromium 75. You should decide for yourself if you want 75 or 86. Open Task Manager and sort your columns by "Mem Usage". One will use more RAM then the other. You should decide for yourself if this is important to you.
-
You basically MUST take the TIME to try them YOURSELF, to be perfectly honest. Browser choice is, and always has been, a PERSONAL PREFERENCE. There are Firefox Folks that cannot be UNBIASED regarding Chromium Forks. And there are Chromium Folks that cannot be UNBIASED regarding Firefox Forks. It's been that way for twenty years (in my opinion, the very essence of that opinion alone can be debated by those standing in their respective "corners"). My only suggestion can actually be isolated to ONE web site as a "test". There are a lot of "modern" javascript 'functions' that older browsers simply can not "perform" - this is why the computer that you cite has its browser "holding him back". I can break these "modern" javasctipt functions into THREE categories but let's use only ONE of those three for starters. That "function" is called regex unicode property escapes. You only need ONE website to "test" if your brower can perform this function or not. It's a bank account website and you do not need an account to "test" - either the username/password fields "show up" or they do not. If you opt to use a browser where this web site does NOT work, then you only leave yourself open for OTHER unknown websites that you have NOT ENCOUNTERED YET to also NOT WORK! There are several Google web sites that require regex unicode property escapes and sure, you can "boycott" Google web sites - but Google "code" is used by non-Google web sites "all the time". My ONE "test" is this web site - https://secure.ally.com/ Go to that web site without any extensions installed. If you get an error on that web site, the browser cannot perform regex unicode property escapes - if you cannot perform regex unicode property escapes then you WILL encounter other websites that also do not work on that browser.
-
Same laptop, same browser. But on work network versus home -
-
-
Agreed. I was 100% XP (some x86, some x64) just a few months ago on eight of all nine of my computers (with that one exception being Win7). The Win7 laptop is still on 7. But four of the eight that were on XP all now run a WinReducerEX'd and NTLite'd Win10 LTSB. I could get an LTSC from work but so far I prefer LTSB. I'm still "testing" Firefox versus Chrome/Chromium versions (I do not support "newer is better" and run older if they perform better). So far each and every time I test a Firefox version, it suffers miserably compared to Chrome/Chromium - I feel like I keep wasting my time even trying them. But agreed, we should not let one browser/engine take over the entire web.
-
If you read through this entire thread, Humming Owl posted that he will no longer be updating any of these and there's been at least a dozen, if not two dozen, of these types of comments since. None of them have been replied to by Humming Owl. So keep on hoping until you turn blue, but these have been abandoned. The instructions have been provided for somebody else to pick up the torch and carry it. But I'm with Humming Owl on this, there are way too FEW of people that use these browsers for us to spend such a large amount of time on them. I think also that too many folks around here don't really fully understand what me and Humming Owl did with these browsers - we did not recompile the "engine", so that needs done by the original developer which has also (seemingly) abandoned these browsers.
-
DCBrowser is "abandonware".
-
I can hit "infinity" if I keep my Proxomitron enabled. But I generally run tests like these wtihout Proxomitron and without NoScript or uMatrix.
-
My hunch is that you've only been able to trick the RESULT. But the amount of TIME that the test takes should still tell you something for one browser versus another.
-
Fair enough. Do find it odd that the same exact computer, same exact browser, scores 140 here at home but breaks 300 at work. At any rate, even the 140 is the HIGHEST that I've ever seen ANY browser score here at home.
-
The tests I've used in the past are Speedometer 1.0, Speedometer 2.0, Basemark Web 3.0, Kraken 1.1, and SunSpider 1.0.2. I know they all correlate to each other as far as scores go. A browser that "wins" in one will also "win" in another. A browser that "loses" in one will also "lose" in another.
-
I know there used to be (or still is?) something called a "Just In Time Debugger" that could be enabled/disabled.
-
Sweet! Please let us know if you can track down the browser settings.
-
My Win10 laptop scores 140 both on direct-connect and on wireless.
-
I max the needle at 140 with the same exact laptop here at home. But it does break 300 at work. Perhaps the scale is different on different types of networks?
-
I use Ungoogled Chromium v97 on my Win10 and it scores 300 plus. It's the only browser I've ever seen break 300! Newer Chrome/Chromium's score lower so I've stayed with v97. My spreadsheets reference Speedometer 2.0, I did not know there was a 2.1 until just this week.
-
lol, was given to me for free when a neighbor installed WIN10 on it and then complained how slow it was. Works fine for XP, relatively speaking.
-
I'm over 12 minutes in (separate computer) and the test is still running on NM28. Yikes!