NotHereToPlayGames

<excerpt> For years, since 2012 at least, Chrome has sent a header called X-client-data, formerly known as X-chrome-variations, to keep track of the field trials of in-development features active in a given browser. Google activates these randomly when the browser is first installed. Active trials are visible if you type chrome://version/ into Chrome's address bar. Under the label Variations, you're likely to see a long list of hexadecimal numbers similar to 202c099d-377be55a. </excerpt> Since these are HEADERS, then I can block/disable/modify via PROXOMITRON. I can't claim to really be "concerned". But sure, I'll experiment over the weekend. The Overly Paranoid keeps wanting to overlook that "n/a" is just as much of a UNIQUE IDENTIFIER as just leaving the real hexadecimal number in place. N/A stands out like a SORE THUMB on any "log".

I'll check tomorrow when at work. Though as far as Chrome-based browsers are concerned, if one seeks some form of privacy awareness (which I myself claim that MANY GO OVERBOARD with PARANOIA!), then one has to ask themself if a Google DNS Server should be "connected to" each and every time one launches ones Chrome-based browser. Granted, I also base this on reports from 2018 (here). I've just always disabled IPv6 and avoided "phoning home to the mothership" every time I launch my browser.

Agreed! Not sure I follow. Nor would I classify myself as so overly-paranoid to "lose sleep over it". I've always went by this -- Enabled = No, Recording = No, Reporting = No

Agreed. But for two or three tabs, we're only talking 350 to 450 MB of RAM. Just a guess, I did not take measurements. At any rate, it's all about weighing pros and cons. It's extremely rare (if ever) that my normal browsing habits have three or more tabs. Two is common. The real irony here is that about the only time I stray from "normal browsing habits" is to test scenarios presented here at MSFN that I would otherwise never "do".

AGREED! I've even said that same thing here before (June 2024). I may have even posted medical web sites (nope, didn't post a link). Side note - you and I discussed "tab hoarding" while discussing vertical/horizontal tabs (May 2023). Back when folks were complaining about restoring a session with THIRTY-SOME TABS and thinking they shouldn't get CRASHES under this scenario. These "types of surfers" often claim it to be "multi-tasking" - IT ISN'T. According to psychologists, it's a sign of faking productivity and deteriorated cognitive abilities (ie, you "can't" remember, so you keep the tab open so that you don't have to "remember"). Didn't you just contradicted yourself? This flag only has an effect if you are TAB HOARDING !!!

Correction - For the sake of 0.96875% at work and 1.9375% at home. It's not 400 MB. It's "only" 310 MB. If that crashes your system, then, um, you have other problems, lol.

Although, I guess I also have to admit that I have NEVER had a tab crash when using Win10 + Ungoogled. It used to happen "often enough" in WinXP that I guess now I'm just being "hypersensitive" in safeguarding against losing something in one-of-five or ten or 15 tabs when ONE other tab from the same web site crashes for whatever reason. And that is what this switch will do - open 15 tabs here at MSFN and if one of the 15 crashes, for whatever reason, then you just lost the other 14. Again, has never happened for me in Win10 + Ungoogled. But as everyone here knows, WinXP is an entirely different eXPerience.

I have 16 GB RAM on my primary home computer and 32 GB RAM here on my work computer. Saving 400 MB is INSIGNIFICANT to me. It is 400 MB on my computer with 16 GB RAM. That doesn't mean it will be the same for someone running 4 GB or 8 GB RAM. I rarely have MULTIPLE tabs from the SAME WEB SITE but when I do, I don't want the risk of ONE of them crashing ALL of them all for the sake of saving LITERALLY 1.25% (work computer) or 2.5% (home computer) of RAM. The Risk Reward just isn't there. Not to me. But to each their own. Regarding IPV6 - I have no clue if we have it here at work. But I don't have it at home and I just use the same EXACT "portable profile" at both locations.

Granted this is still in Win10, but I can conclude that --process-per-site does make an "improvement" when five MSFN tabs are open (with the switch at the VERY END of my LOADER parameters line). With switch: - 15 child processes, 0.99 GB RAM for all chrome processes. Without switch - 19 child processes, 1.3 GB RAM for all chrome processes. However, that said, I have no plans of adding this switch for my everyday needs. I do not want the RISK associated with one DigiKey or Mouser or McMaster-Carr tab crashing all other tabs of the same web site. Multiple tabs of the SAME web site is the ONLY situation where this switch will "do" anything. And that's jut not my "norm" (except for rare times at work, where I do not want the RISK).

Then my testing is hereby over. I do not, and cannot, run Thorium or Supermium until they become fully UNGOOGLED. We all have our own "lines in the sand", that one is mine. My non-Win10 machines run Serpent 52 - d@mnedest SLOWEST browser I have ever come across! But it "works" for my old XP x86 for what I need it for.

No. That's how the X-Chromium LOADER does the switches and then chrome://version displays them. Some of those switches are via chrome://flags and some are via startup shortcut. the "end" is the dividing line between the two. I have never witnessed the X-Chromium LOADER switch order matter. My order is -

I will compare one of these days at work. It's not uncommon for me to have four or five DigiKey tabs, four or five Mouser tabs, and three or four McMaster-Carr tabs. That should be a much better test.

Their reference was with FIVE GHacks web pages. My reference was with only two YouTube tabs. Maybe (but I kind of doub it) I will try again with five YouTube tabs. But, um, my ears can only listen to one, I have never in my entire life had five YouTube tabs open. One for listening, a second for searching. I've never needed more. Sometimes we bring upon our own pain. Anybody running FIVE tabs at YouTube falls within that category.

Here is without - 1.38 instead of 1.31, that falls within margin of error and STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. 18 child processes. But 18 versus 17 is also insignificant. I bet if I waited 30 seconds, I would have seen 15. Or maybe 21, lol. Point is, if this is supposed to be a godsave on RAM, wouldn't it drop it down to below 1 GB for running two YouTube tabs ???

Here's with that switch. crap! one sec... I need to go into profile and make room for attachments... Here is with that switch. Two YouTube tabs. 1.31 GB RAM. 17 child processes.

I've never actually used Brave. I only stumbled upon their forum when searching for my bank login issues with the MOST-RECENT version of Ungoogled. It was then that I figured out that there is a "hole". v122 thru v124 works fine. For now. And for some reason, the same thing is happening with Brave. To be honest, I kind of hope that Supermium or Thorium get to the stage of development that one of them will be my next. Time will tell...

Agreed! I only updgrade AFTER one of my online banking or payment sites stop working. If that can be limited to only once every 1.5 years, I'll be happy. But it seems like it's closer to every 9 months or so and that's just INSANE.

Sure. But I will only spend that time if you can show screencaps of where you see a benefit. I know what I saw and I'm not the one claiming this switch to be useful. I'll call that "fair game" and the ball is in your court.

But as far as that goes, I never could isolate WHY my bank works for v122 thru v124. ONLY. I cannot use v121 or OLDER. And, more importantly, I cannot use anything NEWER than v124. The users of BRAVE also cite the same issue. I follow their forum just for this one issue. "Real" Chrome (ie, not the Ungoogled or the Brave) works fine for every version from v109 all the way through v128. It's something with Ungoogled and with Brave but v122 thru v124 is fine. It's a mystery that I shall leave for the BRAVE folks to isolate further.

My hunch, can't prove or disprove, would be that my bank WOULD ALLOW a login if v114 was an ESR as it would contain the "security fixes" they deem 'required'.

I just tried this one and saw no difference. I'd be interested in additional feedback. For me, I compared (as most will guess) Speedometer 2.1 scores. No difference. And two YouTube tabs, one playing music, the second just for searching. No RAM difference for sum of all chrome processes (I didn't count actual number of processes). If I remember correctly, this one breaks Cloudflare.

I agree. That's why I continue to monitor them closely. I will need for either or to be FULLY UNGOOGLED before I switch to it full-time. I don't use "plain Google Chrome" either. For me, as already noted, I use UNGOOGLED. v122 is my default at the moment. Only because my bank won't let me log in with v114. It's unfortunate, IMO, that we don't have a v114 ESR!

This is AWESOME NEWS! Finally we have a path forward where we can REMAIN on v126 when "upstream" may be at v147 or v167 at their ridiculously insane pace! I am much more in favor of an ESR approach then the constant dog-chasing-tail new "major" release every 2 to 3 weeks.

Just because it "says" it is supported, I wouldn't believe it until tested/verified. I can show you SEVERAL web sites that list web browsers "supporting XP" that will not even launch in XP.

I suppose that is one way to look at it. But doesn't it kind of assume that they were "trying" to fix it? Nobody but us here at MSFN really even use 32-bit these days. So I kind of look at it as an issue so rare that it isn't WORTH "fixing". Basically, force that 1 out of 500,000 web pages to redesign their "index". If that index even pertains to 32-bit audiences? I mean, if this has been around since 110, that was February 2023. So it only took TWENTY MONTHS (19?) for any of us here at MSFN to catch wind of it. That sort of index page is kind of "dumb". But that's just my opinion, lol.