NotHereToPlayGames

Too hillarious. Nice to start the day off with a good chuckle.

Bingo!

AGREED !!! HEAVILY AGREED !!! My "workhorse" is an i7-4770 at 3.4 GHz with 16 GB RAM. Purchased late 2014 with 8 GB RAM for just shy of $700. I've since upgraded to 16 GB RAM. It came pre-loaded with Win 7 x64 but "updated itself" within 6 months or so to Win 10 x64. I was pretty much immediately "enraged" with Win 10 and how dare my computer "upgrade itself" !!! I should have known better, I disabled all of that auto-update crap in XP but forgot to (or just never got around to) disabling in 7 and here I was in 10 and hated it! I was going back to 7 no matter what but took time to contrast real-world same-hardware performance metrics between XP and 7 and the winner, bar none, was XP. This "workhorse" has been on XP every since (we can all "agree to disagree" on why MILLIONS of us worldwide have come to the same conclusions and REMAIN on XP). Though I should add here that I have since tweaked my 7's and 10's but haven't repeated the contrast-and-compare same-hardware performance metrics to XP. My main point is this - me buying the i7-4770 did not make my Core 2 Duo's and my Core 2 Quad's "useless" -- why would I throw them away when they are EXTREMELY usefull as-is? But that also doesn't mean they are "worth" throwing money at (and I do take issue with forum members 'telling me' to go buy RAM for my Core 2 Duo's and my Core 2 Quad's!). I own four "classic" cars. A '55, a '61, a '90, and a '91. Cars and computers are "hobbies". I will "throw money" at a '55 or '61 without hesitation, there will be hesitation at how much money is thrown at a '90 or '91. But if my "daily driver" starts to require "money thrown at it', you have to wheigh the pros and cons very heavily -- if that "daily driver" requires money thrown at it "left and right", then HELLO, trade it in for something more reliable! Again, I take very serious issue with forum members 'telling me' to go buy RAM for my Core 2 Duo's and my Core 2 Quad's -- not going to happen! They are VERY useful to me as-is and I will cut bait with them as soon as they are no longer useful to me. But I will not "throw money at them"!

Even without the first-launch-after-reboot lockup issue, I cannot even "force" myself to use v13.5. It's an outrageously gigantic RAM hog and I don't use any of my computers to "just browse". They'll all have several programs open and have several browser windows each with several tabs. I'm reminded of several weeks/months ago where it seems like the ONLY "endurance test" that ANYBODY cared about for these browser was "How many YouTube tabs can I open before it crashes?" You may recall that it made ZERO sense to me at the time, why would ANYBODY want to have twenty YouTube tabs open? I can only watch ONE. I can only listen to ONE. Point is, we all use our computers for different things and we all have different needs. v13.5 is not the wave of the future for 360Chrome, it just isn't. We will just have to "agree to disagree". My focus remains on "low-end" "older" hardware. We simply should not need 3 GB RAM or more just to launch a web browser. Apologies if I came across as in a "bad mood" earlier. But I'll have to take this stand that v13.5 is not the wave of the future for 360Chrome. I do firmly believe that. I am interested in keeping all of these as up-to-date as is reasonable. But I see no advantage to dropping v11 or v12 just because v13.5 is "newest". In other news, I know that Humming Owl likes to keep his releases at the "latest" (whereas I try to benchmark different builds and cherry-pick among them) -- v13 build 2250 has been updated to build 2256 as far as the original Chinese goes.

Cool !!! My v13.5 seems to only have that first-launch-after-reboot lockup nuance on MULTI-MONITOR computers. Not sure why that would cause any issues but that's the best I got so far. Any computer with only ONE monitor is totally and absolutely USELESS to me

The irony in the post by NoelC -- he observed 8.1 as being SLOWER than 8 which in turn was observed as SLOWER than 7. But what did he do with those observations? He upgraded from 7, skipped 8, and went straight to 8.1 -- despite his observations with it being the slowest of the three. So I think the bigger question is this -- why did he upgrade, why didn't he just stay on 7? Especially considering the post was December 2013 and Win7 still had extended supported all the way through January 2020 (and I've heard rumors that some have found support channels through 2024, I've not research that as of yet).

Feel free, if you think it will add to the user-base. (I am doubtful!) Personally, I had a vested interest in getting the "new web" to work and I have achieved that goal - "my work here is done", so to speak. "interested" in progress is one thing, telling my to update my computers for your own personal gain is another altogether. ALL of the info that you need to CREATE YOUR OWN version exists here at MSFN. "Teach a fellow to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime" - I'd encourage you to start creating your own v13.5 and no question is too small, ask away when you need help with the next step - "my work here is done", so to speak.

@XPerceniol - Same here @msfntor - Um, are you kidding me? I hope that you understand that these builds take a very large amount of my time and there really is only five or six of us that use 360Chrome and that is mine plus Humming Owl's. I do not mean to offend, you have been extremely helpful with testing these rebuilds along the way. But that aside, you sound a bit "ticked off" that I have no interest in v13.5 and that since it seems to be YOUR favorite, all of a sudden you seem to be "taking it out on me" for me not being as interested in v13.5 as you are. By all means, Christmas is just around the corner. One computer only has two DDR2 slots so one of those 1GB sticks is now junk when you buy me a 2GB DDR2 that I can add to that machine in order to get it to 3GB. Add four 2GB DDR3 sticks and I'll have MY computers where YOU want them to be.

Only an issue on 2GB RAM machines. Not an issue with 3GB RAM or higher. Your post strikes me as somewhat "high maintenance", but maybe I just ate too much turkey.

Disregard! I have no plans to upgrade v13.5.1030 to v13.5.1060 becaue it still has the same first-launch-after-reboot issue and if it does this on all SIX of my computers then it really does not warrant my time when the user-base for these rebuilds is so tiny.

Agreed! I boycot Twitter and Facebook. Or Meta-Whatever they call themselves. So I don't really have a reference point regarding Twitter. I personally use v11 (based on Chromium 69) and have little-to-no intentions of ever using v13 or v13.5. I'm geeky enough that I'll find my own way around the "new web". I personally don't feel the need to use a browser from 2021 just because it shall soon be 2022. I was using Mypal and NM27, both intentionally locked at 2018 releases, for THREE YEARS before web sites that I "need" forced my hand to move to "Chromium 69". But even the "patched-weekly" releases of Mypal and NM27 (and NM28 and Basilisk/Serpent) did not do any better on the "new web" than the 2018 versions I was "finally" upgrading from - so I started tinkering with 360Chrome. I have no doubts that I might not get another THREE YEARS out of "Chromium 69" -- but I should be able get two or so, THEN migrate to "Chromium 78", get another TWO TO THREE YEARS, then migrate to "Chromium 86". And if not, I'll find something else to tinker with. In the meantime, I keep chugging along with a "tweaked and trusted" XP and tinker with customizing 7 and 10 "on the side" so that when I can no longer navigate the "new web" on my "tweaked and trusted" XP, then I should have 7 tweaked to a level where I now "trust" it. Then I'll have to move on from 7 and start using 10 when the rest of the world is on 15 or 22 or 36 or whatever Windows "number" we will be at when that time rolls around. And on and on it will go, "to infiniti and beyond", until the crusty years of life where I spend the entire day hunting for where I set my teeth and have no time for tinkering on the "new web".

I'm afraid I have no clue what you are asking about, your link takes me to "ignored" content.

Pretty much inline with my i7-4770.

v9.5 does not work with Google Voice. Which is very likely why I never did anything with v9.5 to begin with.

NOT going to happen! My Core 2 Duo's and my Core 2 Quad are terrible when it comes to 360Chrome and memory utilization. My i7 is much better but it is also x64 and that's comparing an apple to an orange. My Core 2 Quad (dated 4th quarter 2008 - right around only a year newer than your Intel Core 2 Duo 6300) only has 2 GB RAM (unsure if you've mentioned how much RAM you have). Three tabs loaded in v13.5 (build 1060) and my RAM useage is at 80%. Add Microsoft Excel 2003 for budget/finance spreadsheet and I'm over 90% and have to tread very lightly to prevent crashes. It takes nine tabs in v11 for RAM useage to hit 80%. If 360Chrome is kinda geared toward older hardware and low-end systems, why would we ever abandon v11 or v12 ??? Heck, I'm more inclined to go the opposite direction and see if v9.5 (Chromium 63) will work for Google Voice, YouTube, and Dropbox as those three tend to be my primary test sites.

You were the only one with your panties in a bunch

Skins have zero "perceptable" difference on GUI load time. The differences we are talking about are only 0.006 to 0.011 seconds. The human eye cannot process visual data faster than 60 frames per second. 0.006 seconds is basically 167 frames per second and 0.011 seconds is basically 91 frames per second. The GUI load time difference needs to exceed 0.017 seconds before the human eye can process the visual difference. And that would be the eyesight of a professional baseball player that can see the spin of a 90mph fastball. The rest of us are lucky to detect 40 frames per second and that puts the GUI load time difference way up at 0.024 seconds - more than TWICE our worst-case measurement. For reference, video data is generally 24 frames per second and while there has been Massachusetts Institute of Technology studies that the brain can subliminally respond to one frame of those 24 frames per second, the eyes do not "see" that frame. Our GUI load time difference has to hit 0.042 seconds to be equivalent to 24 frames per second -- 4 to 7 times higher than they are at! Skins have zero "perceptable" difference on GUI load time - it's all Placebo Effect. And no effect on performance overall.

It's not installed according to here -- https://www.math.uh.edu/mathonline/JavaTest/JavaTestPage.htm (this test in v11 where browserspy incorrectly claims java is installed, when I close v11 then I will test again in v13.5). edit: same thing in v13.5... browserspy claims it is installed, the JavaTestPage says it is not...

"Enabled" and "leaking/active" are two different things. Do we have a way to test if P2P connections are being made?

Here's a comparison of en_skin / iframe / skin (which I'm calling "skinless") to dark theme to xp theme. These are GUI Load Times as timed by PassMark AppTimer - timed twelve GUI load times per theme. The only thing I'd really conclude definitively is that a dark theme INCREASES your GUI load time. The XP Theme was the only skin that didn't have its slowest load times above 0.5 seconds. I suspect that if I ran 100 instead of just 12 that "skinless" and "XP" would basically diverge into a dead-heat tie but that "dark" would still come in dead last.

Where are you seeing this from?

v13 build 2206 (my v13), v13 build 2250 (Humming Owl's v13), and v13.5 build 1030 (and I assume build 1060) are all the same exact Chromium engine => Chromium 86.0.4240.198.

On ALL of my machines! From a single-core Sempron 3100+ running x86 SP2 (I currently have Win 2000 on it but still hunting for drivers) to two Core 2 Duo's both on x86 SP3 to one Core 2 Quad on Win10-LTSB/Win7/XP-SP3 triple-boot to one i7-4770 on XP x64. But it's not "every" morning - but 1 morning in 5 is waaaayy toooo much! Especially when v11 does everything I've ever asked it to do!

As far as "squeezing the turnip" goes, the next step towards axeing all remnants of unnecessary code and shrinking down to as small as possible would be to remove any-and-all code pertaining to "dark mode" and perhaps even intentionally crash if end-users attempt to restore it by putting puzzle pieces in from different puzzles.