NotHereToPlayGames

Official UPSTREAM version v124 is faster than previous releases. So yeah, anything "forked" from that UPSTREAM BASE should also be "faster". I use Speedometer 2.1. My computer will not score the same as your computer. But the computer is not the variable being changed, the official upstream base version is the variable being changed. I have utmost confidence that if you run the same exact benchmark on your computer, the order will not change. v114 will be your best score. Followed by v124. Give or take a small margin of error, of course. Point is, upstream v124 is indeed faster than upstream v122 and v123 (marginally equivalent). Which are both faster than v120 and v121 (marginally equivalent). Upstream Chrome Version == Speedometer 2.1 Score 94 == 133 114 == 163 120 == 110 121 == 112 122 == 148 123 == 147 124 == 154

The last several posts are very VERY confusing. Seems we have people accusing other folks of saying things that I am not seeing them as saying. 1) Somebody made a claim about performance that was wholly and completely, in my opinion, NOT FACT-BASED but "gut feeling". 2) Somebody else basically said no performance gains were done "here", if any performance improvements were done at all, it was by upstream only. 3) A third person interjected that upstream is borrowing from downstream, something I have never witnessed downstream accuse upstream of ever doing. Sorry, this entire thread has become confusing.

Um... Isn't that 99% of the entire MSFN membership? I don't have anything "against" uBO Lite. But just like my preferred uMatrix + Proxomitron isn't for everyone, nobody can really claim uBO Lite is "for everyone" either. I have always always ALWAYS maintained that browser (and extension) preference is wholly and completely PERSONAL PREFERENCE - there will NEVER be "one size fits all".

Probably not what you meant, but around here, one guy really pushes it. https://msfn.org/board/topic/183974-ublock-origin-lite-mv3-vs-adguard-mv3-chromium-extensions/ https://msfn.org/board/topic/184322-narrowing-down-my-default-browser-for-my-win10-setups/?do=findComment&comment=1236267 https://msfn.org/board/topic/184046-future-of-chrome-on-windows-7/?do=findComment&comment=1228761 https://msfn.org/board/topic/186133-thorium/?do=findComment&comment=1265817

Nope. 110 was very much an experimental release. You'd have to read the "whatsnew" blogs beginning with the disappointment with 109 for everything that was delayed to be included as a first with 110. It's like buying a remodeled model of a car - never buy that "first year" because it will spend a lot of time in the repair shop (under warranty but still a nuisance to your day).

Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v114 + uBO 1.26.2 == 150 !!! v114 is by far the fastest browser that I have benchmarked !!! But ironically it includes "features" that I either need to upgrade to gain access to my credit card statement and USPS Mail Hold or DOWNGRADE to v94 thru v101 (v102 is the first to force these two web sites to require "latest and greatest"). v102 is also the "oldest" version that I can use for a YouTube Enhancer extension I used to use, turns out I'm liking "ImprovedYouTube" extension better anyway and it runs on v94 (my current default until "they" break it in their ongoing "quest"). I'm thankful that at least for now, I was able to DOWNGRADE browser version instead of the direction "they" want us to go, LOL.

I'm big into squeezing the turnip for performance gains. Some of us use XP because we can tune it to be faster than everything else. Some of us use 10 because we can tune it to be faster than everything else. et cetera... If we go by Speedomter 2.1, in order of slowest to fastest with identical lists and no other extension other then uBO -- Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO 1.58.0 MV2 == 98.9 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO 1.26.2 == 99.3 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v118 + uBO Lite 2024.6.26.1308 MV3 == 106 Win10 + Ungoogled Chromium v94 + uBO 1.26.2 == 117

I really don't think that is true. Maybe for the latest-and-greatest of each. But I use uBO v1.26.2 (intentionally!). I'll try to "vet" uBO Lite again. But the last time I tried it, it was not faster than v1.26.2. I'm open for suggestions of quantifiable benchmarking between the two - that web site doesn't even indicate what VERSION was tested and I find that to be a tad misleading.

Not sure how much faith I'd place in those scores. Though the idea of a performance lookup is quite intriguing. It's also "curious" that ScriptBlock scores the same exact scores as UBO Lite.

May require more than just a VPN "test". If they have a way to know that two different users/installations requesting a definition update is in fact "two" users/installations, then that is a UNIQUE fingerprint. That to me says "spyware". Guess it depends on what the "definition of 'is' IS", as they say here in the US.

I guess my "litmus test" would be this - see if you can upgrade your "virus definitions" through a VPN. If you cannot, then "they know who you are". They may not know your "name", but they have you "fingerprinted".

True! But so is (almost) *ALL* antivirus programs - why turn a blind eye to this fact?

110 is where gradual/experimental sandbox "enhancements/improvements" set in. I personally consider 110 an "alpha release". Though with the high-paced rollout of new versions, one could easily argue that EVERYTHING is CONSTANT ALPHA.

110 works for me also (just confirmed, with Client Hints disabled). It is 114 that does not work. I dropped all the way down to 94 and it works, so I did not originally try 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, and 113. Only reason I started with 94 is because I was showing that as the last to not come pre-bundled with of-no-use-to-me Widevine.

In v94, Client Hints can be disabled. I can screencap if you need proof but it will need to wait until after work.

No.

No, that can't be it or I would not be able to log in with v94 with client hints disabled.

I "could". But I won't, lol. Ungoogled is a MUST for me. So far, I've been testing all of the websites that no longer work in 360Chrome v13.5 (v86) and the websites that no longer work in Ungoogled v114 and so far they all work in Ungoogled v94. I may be okay just running v94 as my default-catch-all. Technically, the "only" reason I jumped from v86 all the way up to v114 was based on "Speedometer 2.1" scores (I know, not everbody is a fan of "quantifiable measurements"). At the time, Official Ungoogled was way up in the 120s or so, forget and impossible to "keep up" with their d#mn upgrade pace! v114 simply scored the best and I've actually yet to see anything score higher on both my two computers running Win10 here at home and on my desk plus lab Win10s at work. But that "speed" seems to come with some features that USPS and Citi are both now starting to implement. I guess at least this time it wasn't the water bill. LOL

This whole dog-chasing-tail aspect of browsers updating five times per WEEK (slight exaggeration) is really getting OLD !!! In the span of just a few days, I now have two web sites that no longer work in v114. The USPS as cited above. And now, like @Mathwiz at Chase, my Citi no longer works. Haven't tracked it down yet, only that v123 does work and v114 does not. And not as simple as a user agent switch this time. But both USPS and Citi both continue to work in 360Chrome v13.5. Which is fine and dandy, but my list of sites that do NOT work in 360Chrome v13.5 was too large and that was what prompted the move to v114 in the first place.

Not in my opinion. I hate hate hate hate hate antivirus of ANY KIND. I've never compared our must-use-it corporate factory floor enterprise editions with non-enterprise 'cause you couldn't "pay me" to run antivirus on my computers. "To each their own", of course. I've tried several of Astro's suggestions and they're "okay", but not enough so for me to become a fan of running them in the background "all the time". Again, "to each their own".

I'm no fan of McAfee either. But we do use McAfee Enterprise on the production floor on Windows XP Embedded. I would have to travel to a factory floor but I myself don't doubt for a second that an Enterprise edition still receives updates on XP. But the company pays for them via licensing contracts.

I guess I should have started there, lol. All it took for a v114 successful login was to fake an older Chromium user agent or to fake a Firefox user agent. Seems they only have certain versions of Chromium-based user agents being served that attribution-reporting JUNK. I didn't spend time to track down exactly which ones, but I kind of have to suspect v100 and higher. At any rate, I can stick with my beloved v114 for longer, lol.

Interesting! Correct, I can log in using 360Chrome v13.5. Hmmm...

Haven't looket yet (liking Official Ungoogled v114 too much!), but this could be the nail in the coffin for my Ungoogled v114 I can (?) easily pull this API out of 360Chrome v22 (Chrome v119) and "ungoogle" it, but I'm not really sure all of the time and effort to release another 360Chrome version is where I want to be