Jump to content

NotHereToPlayGames

Member
  • Posts

    5,195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames

  1. Seems to me you need a better "test page". An "all-text" test page does not reveal real-world scenarios. Until you were hunting for a speed test, have you ever, in your entire life, visited a web page that was "text-only"? Don't answer too quickly, a web site that "appears" to be text-only may still have a ton of .js and .css, text-only does not equate to "no images". I would also compare mutliple runs, clearing cache between every reload. But when it comes right down to it, my personal preference will "never" use DCBrowser or MiniBrowser, neither one of them fits "my needs".
  2. That's at work. Here at home I only get 80 Mbps if I connect direct (which I never actually do, I prefer security layer of wireless). Wireless is only 28 to 35 Mbps. A newer router would provide faster wireless but I've never really needed faster than that.
  3. Even better when 30 of us aren't on an MS Teams meeting with two other continents and that's just our department.
  4. Wow! That is ssslllooowww! Your internet speed also effects your score, it's not just a benchmark on "rendering speed".
  5. But are you CLEARING YOUR CACHE before reloading the page? Because it violates laws of physics to transmit data from major server farms in 80 milliseconds. But to just pull them from your own cache, well, then 80 milliseconds is extremely slow. Or testing on a very tiny text-only web site - and, um, I don't see the point in using that as an overall gauge.
  6. You should at least be able to get two or three "load time" extensions to agree with each other. I personally will not spend time on testing extensions I have no use for. This is your obsession, not mine. It boils down to "when" the stop watch "starts" and "when" the stop watch "ends". I can run a six-minute mile - if you give me a five-minute head start before starting the stop watch.
  7. Interesting. Is there a quantifiable means of elliminating "Placebo Effect" in determining if this really "does" something?
  8. Cool find! I'm a bit paranoid to enable an "experimental" flag just for the sake of one web site that I do not foresee ever visiting again.
  9. I'm sorry, but your numbers violate the laws of physics. A DNS lookup takes between 20 and 120 milliseconds and you're claiming page load times from 80 milliseconds to 110 milliseconds. Theoretically, yet, that is possible - if you are connecting to one and only one server, which is extremely rare in and of itself.
  10. The "latest" St52 and St55 are not being sent the same HTML as being sent to other browswers (including older St52 and St55). The "latest" St52 and St55 are not being sent the visibility: hidden for the <body> tag. No clue "why", changing user agent did not get the "latest" St (forgot if I tested in 52 or 55) to be sent the visibility: hidden. Limited investigation, could not isolate "why", but this will give you a headstart into something to look for - why is that visibility: hidden being sent to older browser's <body> tags but not to "latest" St's ???
  11. I have no idea what this is. St52's About screen says nothing about "Moebius". St55's About screen says nothing about "Moebius".
  12. And so is St52, those are the only two browsers I checked in (just noticed that this is not the "latest", upgrading soon) -
  13. Appears to me that Chrome-based is doing what it is told to do -
  14. Compare your "Page Load Time" extension to the "finish" and "load" indicated in Developer Tools. You may find that your "Page Load Time" does not properly count the way some pages load - ie, javascript can tell the browser that the page is fully loaded while images are still being downloaded. I don't recall the specifics, but I know it can be done, intentionally delay image-load so that the user can read the web site while images that you have not scrolled into view are still being downloaded.
  15. For reference, from an i7-12850HX @ 2.10 GHz with 32 GB RAM (the v96 is GDIChromium, ungoogled v97 scores over 300 from a different laptop that is inaccessible at the moment, have not ran Catsxp [requires 7+, unsure on Vista] on that laptop yet) -
  16. Have you tried this - https://github.com/JustOff/password-backup-tool
  17. I would suggest that it is your OPERA screencap that is "discolored". A true black should have RGB values equal to each other, which your Firefox screencap has but the Opera screencap has all of the Gs decreased. I've looked at the black RGB values in MyPal27, NM27, NM28, St52, St55, Official Firefox 112, 360Chrome v13.5, VLC Player v2.2.8, and Opera 95. Opera is the only RGB with unequal RGB values (G is always decreased) - I don't use Opera enough to know if this is "by design". The numbers for one app will not agree with another app, but the RGBs always equal each other - except in Opera.
  18. Ah. It will have to be someone else. I've seen enough in the code to see it's not my next project.
  19. Easily disabled. Before: After: It's also disabled in 360Chrome but this could also be v86 versus v112, I did not dig that deep. Though if it is of any consolation, SRWare Iron and Opera both do the "Not A Brand" thing also, just like Catsxp:
  20. I'm unable to duplicate, no washout effect on Firefox. Did you try with a clean profile, perhaps something in your profile is causing the washout?
×
×
  • Create New...