NotHereToPlayGames

If you "hoard tabs" or do what is called "page parking", then you are better off with v11 or v12. Depends on how many tabs you "hoard" or "park" on. I personally do not hoard or park tabs but it is common for me to have a bare minimum of THIRTY tabs open without any issues. But I do not close the browser with all THIRTY still open and expect the browser to "continue where I left off" and spawn a thirty-tab browser session the next time I open the browser.

My v11, v12, and v13 all use roughly the same amount of memory as other public releases for v11, v12, and v13. I've never had any issue with any of the three versions and one of my computers only has 2GB of RAM -- but I admittedly don't use that computer for anything like YouTube.

360Chrome is based off of Chrome/Chromium and they are owned by Google. There is an option to Delete Cookies on every exit and people that delete cookies every exit do so for privacy and security reasons. But Google doesn't want you deleting the Google cookie so they built in a "feature" that when the user wants to delete ALL cookies, the Google cookie WILL NOT DELETE. This allows Google to track the living crap out of you via a cookie that you thought was deleting when you set the setting to delete on every exit but in fact is not being deleted. It is there FOREVER unless you yourself MANUALLY delete it - which you thought you were doing when you set the setting to delete all cookies on exit. This is a blatant embedded "workaround" by Google to keep THEIR cookie but delete everybody elses. The "ungoogled" version breaks this "shenanigan" and when the user sets the setting to delete ALL cookies on exit, the browser will now do exactly what the user told the browser to do - delete ALL cookies on exit.

v11 requires a "hack" in order for the browser to execute on XP x86 SP2. Not an issue with XP x64 SP2 or XP x86 SP3 and higher. v12 and v13 don't require the "hack" as the original Chinese authors created v12 and v13 to already execute on XP x86 SP2.

I did a TON of benchmarks, to be honest. A TON! There are others, but my primary tests are BrowserAudit, Speedometer 1.0, Speedometer 2.0, Basemark Web 3.0, Kraken 1.1, SunSpider 1.0.2, and PassMark AppTimer. If you truly monitor browser performance (including Basilisk, Serpent, Pale Moon, New Moon, Mypal, Sleipnir, Maxthon, you name it), you will find that browser performance PEAKED in 2018 and have yet to return to those performance levels. It's been downhill ever since. So it becomes a balancing act of performance, functionality, and stability. I actually prefer v13 builds 1006, 1032, 1054, 1088, and 1106 all over build 2206 but I had to satisfy both YouTube users and XP x86 SP2 users and build 2206 was the best balance at the time. I don't actually use the "latest and greatest" for v12 either - I base my build on build 1247 despite there being "newer" builds 1322, 1412, 1458, 1476, 1478, 1502, 1567, and 1592 (at my last count). Nor do I use the "latest and greatest" for my v11 - I base my build on build 2031 despite there being "newer" builds 2052, 2140, and 2251 (at my last count).

I personally prefer v11 but I can't use two of my web sites (which have no alternatives as they are work-related) on it and I want an all-or-nothing web browser so I use v12 for everything. I used to have three or four browser (at least!) and I always had to remember which one was better for this, which one one was better for that, et cetera. That got old very fast!

Agreed! Blocking javascript is an absolute MUST. BLOCK by default, only allow on an as-need basis. While this may be "more true" for XP, this equally applies to newer Operating Systems. Blocking javascript is perhaps the BIGGEST security enhancement an end-user can do to lockdown their web browser, old and new.

Oh, and one of the funnest parts of driving a MANUAL? You know those types of people that TAILGATE folks - what does the person in FRONT do to tell them to back off? They tap the brake pedal. In a MANUAL you downshift and the TAILGATER nearly craps their pants, "Holy S#!t, that car is slowing down without a brake light!" As far as rolling backward on a hill, my '61 has this technology -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill-holder It existed in the LATE THIRTIES.

I once had to drive home from University without a clutch cable! So not only did I have to get the car MOVING but I had to drive FOUR HOURS never once coming to a complete stop.

Unless you speek Chinese, I see zero reason anybody would use 360Chrome based on Chromium 95 that requries Windows 7 when Chrome/Chromium 95 in and of itself still supports Windows 7 (at least until January 2022).

Most are actually innocuous within the chrome.dll because so many files are removed. But it's still better safe than sorry and to remove them from the .dll. 360Chrome in its original Chinese form is the most BLOATED of software programs I've ever come across. A "download" sub-directory with 10 .dll files and 2 .exe files for adding zip decompression, download manager, peer-to-peer, and "bug reporting" - all USELESS in order for a web browser to do what it is supposed to do -- which is to browse web sites. Then there are 7 .dll files in the original plugins sub-directory - just added BLOAT and not needed. The original Chinese "application" directory has FORTY NINE files in it (not including sub-directories). For comparison, Beta_1 "application" directory has TWELVE files in it. It really is unreal how much BLOATWARE CRAP is piled in with 360Chrome. Very reliable and stable and very capable browser when axed down to the essentials! All of the BLOAT is especially fun to watch when you've been around this browser for close to a year now. There is something to be said for using v11 over v12 or v12 over v13. Each newer version just gets more and more BLOAT piled in. There is something to be said for using earlier builds for each branch as opposed to the latest-and-greatest for each branch. It really is the added BLOAT that mostly changes from one build to the next. Newer is not always better. Granted, v13.5 seems to be an improvement over v13.0 -- fingers crossed.

My '55 is a "three-on-the-tree" -- manual 3-speed where the shifter is on the steering column. My '61 is a "four-on-the-floor" -- manual 4-speed with the shifter on the floor and that was what they called them in the 60s. My '90 is a 5-speed manual turbo. My '91 is a 5-speed manual. My '07 is a 4-speed manual.

People often tend to think that "newer" is "safer" or more "secure" - not always true, if I may be so bold. These are the folks that will run an anti-virus program and set it to update "definitions" every 30 minutes because they think their "identity" will be stolen at Minute #29 if they do not update those "definitions". Most of us that use 360Chrome are very secure-minded folks and have other security measures in place. In fact, most of us that use 360Chrome are running Operating Systems no longer deemed "secure" (doesn't stop us!). I'm not simply referring to us "die-hards" that refuse to let XP be buried, I'm also referring to Vista and Windows 7. XP, Vista, and 7 are all "dead" Operating Systems. But we have our reasons for continuing to use them. Most of us that use 360Chrome don't even use the v13 branch. Most of us prefer the v11 or v12 branch over the v13 branch (myself included, I prefer the v12 branch for my primary computers and use v11 exclusively in all VMs and secondary computers). Make no mistake, some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that exists in v11 that was fixed in v12, we don't care, we have other security measures in place. Some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that THEORETICALLY exists in v12 that was fixed in v13, we don't care, THEORETICAL and IN-THE-REAL-WORLD are two different things. And we have other security measures in place. Most of us that use 360Chrome, XP, Vista, and 7 are very much into efficiency - we want a web browser that can run effectively on a machine with 1GB of RAM. Sure, 360Chrome is pushing the limits at that - but again, that's why most of us use v11 or v12 instead of v13. Not trying to sound too blunt when I say this, but people that are truly concerned with "critical vulnerabilities" don't run XP, Vista, or 7 - they "bought in" long ago to the HYPE that the only way to be "secure" is to run the most recent OS. I "care" about "security", don't get me wrong. But lightweight and efficient will trump "security" every day in my little corner of the universe. It can also be said that "hackers" simply don't write viruses targeting 25 million computers running XP when they can target 1.3 billion running Windows 10 instead. But I digress...

Too funny! I'm not an "anti-vax'er" or against masks per se, but I like to give public servants (gas stations, fast food, retail, grocery) employees a hard time, "How well does that mask work when it looks so dirty that it looks like you picked it up off the floor?" Or, "How well does that mask work when you wear it on your chin like that and not even covering your nose (sometimes not even their mouths!)?"

Not sure if it pertains here or not, but you may find that file names with such random strings such as webpack-af28476a2e7790fd48db.js will have their file name changed quite frequently. I seem to bump into these random strings quite a bit and it seems to always be a tell-tale that it is this script that is trying to evade ad-blockers.

Download link for v13.5.1030 Beta_1 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_10 is chrome.dll. All telemetry should be removed at this point and will now call this a Beta instead of an Alpha. Chromecast removals have been reserved for a Beta_2 release after verifying stability of Beta_1. Only specific and precise location modifications, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements. Telemetry removals of following items - xianpei.360.cn qhimg.com www.qihoo.com warn.mse.360.cn passport.360.cn login.360.cn test.login.360.cn hao.360.cn siteinfo.browser.360.cn tt.browser.360.cn browser.360.cn elephant.browser.360.cn warn.se.360.cn (unicode) warn.mse.360.cn (unicode)

I've always thought that this would make the perfect project car. I owned one of these during my High School years - first engine I ever rebuilt. It's an '84 Plymouth Horizon and I owned one between '88 and '91. 4 cylinder 2.2L manual 5-speed. Brand new these things exceeded 30+ mpg highway (low to today's econo-cars, but this was great efficiency in the late 80s - and it was a CARBURETOR, no fuel injection!). I had this thing running at FORTY TWO MPG HIGHWAY as my first engine rebuild/modification !!! I think it would make a fun project as a conversion to COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS - fill up right from the natural gas line running to my furnace and water heater.

I have to chuckle at the issue of battery life. I own SIX vehicles. A '55, a '61, a '90, a '91, an '07, and an '08. The '90 and '91 can only sit for about a week and a half between starts. The '07 is a motorcycle and can sit about a month between starts. The '55 and '61 can sit for THREE MONTHS between starts - but I generally start them at least once a month to circulate oil.

I don't use the "latest and greatest" NoScript, I intentionally use an older version - v11.2.3. No need to add it if you can already block scripts via uBO. As a rule of thumb, I don't allow scripts and when I visit a site that has twelve of them, I narrow it down to the one or two or three that are "required" then continue to block the remainder. I seldom let a web site run willy-nilly and pretty much never let a web site load as many scripts as its authors thought were necessary. I wouldn't necessarily call it an "incompatibility" issue. I tend to think of those as more along the lines of "clever cloaking" then "incompatibility". The web site is trying to "force" you to use a newer web browser by employing tricks that I bet they are well aware of that prevent the site from functioning on 'older' web browsers. I say that because I have witnessed it. One of my vendor's accounts-payable site has a .css overlay that prevents me from seeing what's "under" the overlay and the .js that loads the .css has "incompatible_browser" right in the title of the .js file! It's a pop-up overlay telling me to use a newer web browser and then a link to log out. Little do they know that I've accessed that accounts-payable site from XP for the last two years where they think they were clever enough to prevent their customers from doing so. I just block the .js that loads the .css and whoala, In Like Flynn.

Noted, thanks. Not yet updated in either of today's updates.

Download link for v13.5.1030 Alpha_10 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_9 is chrome.dll. Only specific and precise location modifications, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements. Telemetry removals of following items - upext.se.360.cn ext.se.360.cn se.360.cn a.tbcdn.cn dmp.360.cn i.360.cn dd.browser.360.cn (unicode) cloud.browser.360.cn (unicode) ext.chrome.360.cn (unicode) down.360safe.com (unicode) se.360.cn (unicode) i.360.cn (unicode)

Yeah, more of an illustration on how you can use the .ini to delete extension logs for extensions that don't need those logs from one session to the next. Those folder entries would be one or two of the extension I was using at the time.

Download link for v13.5.1030 Alpha_9 added to first post. Only file change since Alpha_8 is chrome.dll and minor addition to loader .ini. Only specific and precise location modifications, no throwing of a wide net and "replace all" generic types of replacements. Telemetry removals of following items - upext.chrome.360.cn ext.chrome.360.cn skin.chrome.360.cn api.chrome.360.cn yun.chrome.360.cn chrome.360.cn upext.chrome.360 dd.browser.360.cn sug.so.360.cn so.360.cn cloud.browser.360.cn site.browser.360.cn cdata.browser.360.cn extsign.browser.360.cn google-translate.browser.360.cn