NotHereToPlayGames
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames
-
That's great wireless, I drop to right around 28-31 d/l on average when on wireless. My wired is 231 Mbps d/l and 24 Mbps u/l. Here is my wired results for my v13 build 2206 v3 on Win10 x64 LTSB with 8 GB RAM and i5 @ 2.4GHz -- results Still 12 warnings which does match my XP x64 on wireless.
-
@UCyborg - what is your internet connection d/l speed?
-
Thanks. I'm going to reinstall XP x86 SP2 just for the sake of curiosity - I'd like to rule out @IXOYE's "prehistoric modem" Is that "prehistoric modem" why you won't upgrade to SP3? I do know that I compared SP2 and SP3 "performance" way WAY back when SP3 was released, I didn't see any benefit to staying with SP2. I do know that POS updates broke several of my apps, but I just reverted to SP3 with zero POS and haven't dug into it any further (likely won't, as far as that goes).
-
I already deleted my XP x86 SP2 VM and kinda see no point in reinstalling it. I've also noticed that the warning count will vary slightly from one run to the next even in the same operating system. It personally doesn't surprise me that XP gets better results than 7 and that 7 and 10 score pretty much the same. Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win XP x86 SP3 (no POS updates) VM with 2GB RAM - first run == 7 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped. (an update nag screen popped up midway through this test so will run it twice) Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win XP x86 SP3 (no POS updates) VM with 2GB RAM - second run == 5 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped. Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 7 x86 SP1 VM with 2GB RAM - first run == 9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped. (another d@mn nag screen so I'll run this test twice also) Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 7 x86 SP1 VM with 2GB RAM - second run == 9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped. (d@mn nag screen popped up again!) Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 7 x86 SP1 VM with 2GB RAM - third run (waited for d@mn nag screen then ran test) == 11 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped. Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 10 x86 LTSB VM with 2GB RAM - first run (waited for d@mn nag screen then ran test) == 9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped (d@mn nag screen popped up a SECOND TIME midway through the test) Firefox 52.9.1 ESR in Win 10 x86 LTSB VM with 2GB RAM - second run (I think that d@mn nag screen will stay away this time) == 9 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped. (yeah, no nag screen) Warning count will definitely deviate from one run to the next. Not sure why all of these showed 20 skipped when @Dave-H was able to get a 0 skipped.
-
Operating system makes a HUGE difference on that test. @IXOYE is on XP SP2. Warnings on XP can be 3 to 6 times higher on 7, haven't tested anything in 10. I know it is labeled as a "browser audit", but it says more about your operating system then it does about your browser.
-
Could not replicate here, stable and no crashes. I did have to allow ebay.com, ebaydesc.com, and ebaystatic.com in NoScript. But I did not have to change uMatrix settings to get eBay to "work" and it blocked 8 scripts from ir.ebaystatic.com and another from secureir.ebaystatic.com. Are you just letting any-and-all scripts load on any-and-all websites?
-
Interesting! What did you test in? I'm showing the same exact browser can score vastly different in XP x64 versus 7 x86 (RAM does not seem to make a difference). Some of the test result warnings indicate that internet connection speed could result in a warning. None of my computers are wired "direct" and all are "wireless" with d/l at 28-34 Mbps and u/l at 21-26 Mbps -- that should be fast enough but I would be curious if warnings differ on "direct" versus "wireless". The only critical I could find (without spending the entire day running tests) was ungoogled-chromium-88.0.4324.190-1_Win32 (ran it twice and got same numbers both times). I'm showing the following as reference [listed in increasing order of warnings] -- BNavigator v0.9.7846a1 (20210730) [XP x64 main PC] == 4 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Humming Owl's Modified v11.0.2251.0 (dated July 26) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 7 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped New Moon v28.10.4a1 (2021-07-30) [XP x64 main PC] == 8 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Serpent v52.9.0 (2021-07-30) [XP x64 main PC] == 8 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Humming Owl's Modified v9.5.0.138 (dated July 26) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 8 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Humming Owl's Modified v12.0.1592.0 (dated July 26) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 10 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Humming Owl's Modified v13.0.2250.0 (dated July 29) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 10 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Firefox v90.0.2 x86 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 10 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped my v13 build 2206 v3 [XP x64 main PC] == 12 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped my v13 build 2206 v3 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 14 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped my v13 build 1054 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 16 warnings, 0 critical, 35 skipped BNavigator v0.9.7846a1 (20210730) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 23 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped New Moon v28.10.4a1 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 27 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Serpent v52.9.0 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 27 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Mypal v27.9.4 [XP x64 main PC] == 28 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped Mypal v27.9.4 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 31 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped New Moon v27.10.0 (2021-07-30) [XP x64 main PC] == 32 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped New Moon v27.10.0 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 35 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped New Moon v27.10.0 (2021-07-30) [7 x86 VM 4GB RAM] == 35 warnings, 0 critical, 20 skipped I got critical warnings on the following -- ungoogled-chromium-88.0.4324.190-1_Win32 [7 x86 VM 1GB RAM] == 18 warnings, 1 critical, 20 skipped
-
I am not comfortable axing esent.dll just because we see it listed in a Regshot for 360Chrome but not for ungoogled-chromium. Chromium does include esent.dll in several of its source files, I found three without digging very deep -- https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/6cef2c845972448fac96269c0eebf109c65249fd/chrome/utility/BUILD.gn https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/build/+/refs/heads/main/config/win/BUILD.gn https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/4be2698e4784b68198d1062a54942ae232c57c24/chrome/BUILD.gn On top of that, ungoogled-chromium's chrome.dll has esent.dll listed in the same EXACT "relative" position as 360Chrome - not by offset, but esent.dll is listed immediately following wininet.dll. I suggest keeping esent.dll and don't think we should axe things just for the sake of "warm fuzzies". My two cents...
-
Further down in that link is this -- browser.has_seen_welcome_page = true I wonder if that command line will prevent the theme popup in whichever version has that theme popup?
-
ungoogled-chromium-88.0.4324.190-1_Win32 connects to a Cloudfare server in Chicago on every launch, has four DNS connections on every launch, and no NBNS connections. The Cloudfare IP Address was listed FIFTY SEVEN TIMES when I cleared the Wireshark log and launched ungoogled-chromium a second time.
-
Regshot for ungoogled-chromium-88.0.4324.190-1_Win32 in Win7 --
-
Agreed! I have come to the conclusion that people only look for this stuff in 360Chrome and that the same people don't care about "telemetry" when it comes to anything Mozilla-based -- "it is what it is". No biggie, should create a much larger user-base once people realize the "shenanigans" that their Mozilla-based browsers are doing. Here is one I find interesting -- MyPal 27.9.4 + NoScript 5.1.9. MyPal (I suspect the same for New Moon also, but have not verified) is awesome with no connections and no registry entries as a plain-jane browser. Add NoScript 5.1.9 and Joe's Datacenter LLC in Kansas City, MO is notified each and every time you launch MyPal - and not just once but ELEVEN times if I counted correctly. Why? Chromium-based browsers running NoScript aren't reaching out to Kansas City, MO on ever launch.
-
Eureka! Found it! The portable loader launches 360Chrome with this command line switch ==>> --disable-background-networking Launch 360Chrome without this command line switch and those DNS's and NBNS's will appear with every launch. Launch 360Chrome with this command line switch and you never get those DNS's and NBNS's. Maybe I shouldn't say "never", since it has to do with background networking, maybe these will show up if you use 360Chrome to ftp:\\ across your LAN or something of that sort.
-
Holy Crap! Found 'em! Counted 12 DNS's and 9 NBNS's. I had to block msfn.org in my hosts file to isolate them - I really do have a great dislike for any web browser having any sort of "first launch" page -- maybe that's "just me" All 12 DNS's and all 9 NBNS's are not first run, they are every run if you run Modified v13 2250 "as-is". You do not get these if you run the files via the portable loader - ie, do not directly execute the 360chrome.exe in Humming Owl's "Chrome-bin" folder. That's all I've tracked down thus far, will investigate further as time permits.
-
Did find this -- https://wiki.wireshark.org/NetBIOS/NBNS
-
Could you please provide a screencap or a description of where you see this so we can attempt to isolate? Is this from Wireshark?
-
You're welcome. I don't actually use "screen savers". If you monitor CPU usage, you'll find they pretty much always increase CPU usage as opposed to just letting the screen go black via XP's "Power Schemes". I use Performance Monitor from http://www.hexagora.com/en_dw_davperf.asp to monitor CPU usage. I stopped running "screen savers" when it revealed the CPU has been running at 60% for hours on end instead of a normal <2% for "idle" -- kill the CPU but "save" the screen? Screen doesn't do me any good if the CPU dies I haven't had much luck with 360 v12 so I'm a bit limited in guiding you further. Googling isn't much help either, tons of finds and this issue has been around for quite some time. I did find some solutions for the OPPOSITE - for folks who are on fullscreen mode but WANT the screensaver to kick in when an HTML5 video is playing fullscreen. I did find ONE post that said the fix for them was to DISABLE HARDWARE ACCELERATION. Do you have Hardware Acceleration enabled by chance? If so, maybe disabling that will work?
-
Here is the Regshot for my v13 build 2206 rebuild 3 --
-
Here is the Regshot for your v13 build 2250 (again with bold highlights for items of concern) --
-
Here's a Regshot for your Modified v12 (bold highlights are the items that strike me as a concern ["tracing" and "ESENT" are OS but it concerns me because MyPal doesn't have these]) --
-
Here's a Regshot for MyPal 27.9.4 ran using the official Portable Pale Moon loader --
-
Thanks, I'll keep the post as-is and let a moderator condense it. I deleted the txt files and the temporary VMs already so I'd have to repeat the entire process if I try to condense the post and corrupt contents in the process. edit: I'll quote my own post and try to condense that way then delete the original post. I don't like when others make me scroll that much, I'd hate to be the one to make others scroll that much.
-
Moderator -- I didn't know how to post those four Regshot logs as something that requires click-to-expand. I know I've seen other folks do it so I know it can be done, I just didn't know how. Please make those click-to-expand if possible, kind of a lot to scroll through for a single post. edit: disregard, per @RainyShadow's tip below I was able to place each Regshot log into its own "spoiler".
-
Normally I just find these manually, I'm in-and-out of the registry often enough to spot differences. It should also be pointed out that ALL of the 360Chrome versions make registry changes - but when you run using the portable loader, those registry changes are deleted when you exit 360Chrome. The Pale Moon portable loader has always been better in this regard, it does not create temporary registry files when you run MyPal or Pale Moon as a portable with the Pale Moon portable loader. I'm referring strictly to the official Portable Pale Moon's loader - Roytam has a portable loader also but I have never used it nor compared it to the official Portable. Cloned my virgin XP x86 VM four times and all four of the below were ran in their own virgin XP x86 VM. I grabbed Regshot from here -- https://sourceforge.net/projects/regshot/ And posted logs in separate posts. edit: removed logs and moved to their own post.
-
I'll revisit the v12 registry strings and report back. Also, as an FYI, my first launch after a reboot for your Modified v13 has a tendency to lock up and not exit correctly then the next launch shows the click-to-restore banner. I was comparing first-launch-after-reboot using PassMark AppTimer and ran the test five times. Three of the five first-launch's would not exit/close properly so the second run would show the click-to-restore banner. So I rebooted and launched without AppTimer and that launch appeared to close properly but the second run showed the click-to-restore banner. Haven't really tracked down any culprits as my primary motive at the time was to benchmark the minor differences between build 2206 and 2250 and decide which will be my default (I will be remaining on 2206).