NotHereToPlayGames

@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.

The next planned v13.5.x rebuild is to update from 13.5.1030 to 13.5.1060. But it's a gigantic undertaking to have to do all of these changes every time the Chinese updates their build. v13.5 locks up on my computer the first launch every morning so it hasn't been a huge priority because I don't use it because of those lockups. Will .1060 resolve that? Unknown as I have a gigantic preference towards v11. With v12 riding its coattails.

Talk about irony that this hit the Unread Content list of links for this morning. I resurrected an ancient AMD Sempron 3100+ from the grave a couple months back in order to test 360Chrome on XP x86 SP2. Ran a few tests and concluded ZERO benefit to keeping x86 SP2 around. Tried (in vain) to get four different forks of Chromium OS running on this ancient beast - CloudReady, FydeOS, ArnoldTheBats, and NayuOS. Every single one will boot up to their logo screen then ends up in an infinite loop of reboot cycles only getting as far as the logo screen. I can still probably figure it out but opted to save that project for a later day. Literally ~40 minutes before stumbling into your post, I have Windows 2000 installing on that AMD Sempron 3100+

I could find ways to "patch" but then I would be accused of spreading viruses because those patching mechanisms would throw flags in "anti-virus" programs. And it's not really worth the time, effort, and hassle for such a tiny user-base.

That will not increase our numbers. We know that because Humming Owl does "advertise" outside of MSFN. Our "breed" isn't 'dying', it's already "dead". "Older NT-Family OSes" is simply NOT something where we have X number of folks today but X+1 tomorrow. We are not "dying", we are "dead". We are using these "Older NT-Family OSes" from the grave, not from some new underground waive of the future bringing in new recruits with each new generation of computer user. The "general populous" has ZERO interest. LESS than ZERO. Doesn't bother me, I like being "unique", "the same as everyone else".

Truth be told, I think 360Chrome has already reached its PEAK. Even with official Pale Moon axing Mypal, NM28, and BNavigator, there hasn't exactly been any newcomers to the NT-Family Browsers sub-forums. Just the same ol' same ol' "holdouts" that pledge an allegiance to Mozilla and cross their fingers that Roytam can get Basilisk/Serpent to do what 360Chrome has already demonstrated that it can already do. We're at the point where even if the next 360Chrome rebuild printed bitcoins, we still couldn't add to the number of people that use it. Though the same goes for Roytam's builds from what I can see - we haven't added new users, we just keep rolling along with the same exact user-base we basically had two years ago.

That is what is called a "Placebo Effect". I timed with and without skin and the skin does not affect load time or render time. Pure Placebo.

Because it would require the standard and the ungoogled resources.pak which is just over 5 MB for v13.5. The way that I "was" doing my dark theme would have require another resources.pak. Still digging into that and should be able to remove that resources.pak but there is no way around not having a standard and an ungoogled. And you wouldn't catch me using standard if my life depended on it. While other users would say that same thing about ungoogled because it forces you to manually install extensions as opposed to visiting the Chrome Web Store.