NotHereToPlayGames

This is kind of cool. A web site that you give it the URL and it analyzes for bloat -- https://www.ranknibbler.com/

I didn't have to "do" anything special to access that site. My uBO defaults let me in with no "It initially displayed, and then a moment later changed to a message about adblock being active" happening here. Perhaps the bloated problem here is NOT the normal Google Analytics and Cloudflare "insights", but that this site is, if left alone to do its crap, using FACEBOOK CRAP in the background. (can't post screen cap, going to submit reply, delete profile attachments, and then post screencap)

Not here either. But I also may be a version or two behind.

lol on roytam's bandwidth, I was thinking the same when I downloaded three files that I won't actually even use. Agreed on proper forum images. I "hate" folks that use hosting sites just to attach a TEMPORARY image (because I will delete from my profile at some point). Others prefer the hosting sites because we all have such a very tiny amount of storage that we end up with "broken" discussions when we delete for future attachment. The 20 MB is the value of the peak. When something results in a higher reading, the 20 disappears and the newer peak is displayed instead. 20 MB/s = 160 Mbps. But that PEAK is really nothing more than the same useless datapoint as your PEAK. Files this (relatively) SMALL can't really be measured accurately, the download is TOO FAST. Not all three files dowloaded at that speed for the duration of the download. And it seems that for both of us, the download is so tiny that it completes in LESS THAN one second, so a "per second" measurement is skewed by measurement precision. ie, if that speed is only measured ever 500 milliseconds and the download only took 400 milliseconds, then the graph method can only show 500. Exaggerating for illustrative purposes, but anywhoo...

I guess it (NetMeter) is really just as useless as System Informer's network graph. Sure, you can see (even in System Informer) the SPIKE when I downloaded THREE files from roytam's site. But it really says NOTHING about the actual download speed of those three files. Only that they were downloaded SO FREAKISHLY FAST that they are nothing but a "blip on the radar". And I couldn't even click three downloads in a row fast enough to try to bottleneck the download speed.

Agreed. All I knew was that it was SO DANG *FAST* that I had no way of visually catching the speed. I'll have to check out the referenced Netmeter 1.1.4.

Not to brag, lol, and this is the SLOWEST plan that my fiber optic ISP provides, and it is CHEAPER than the cable plan I used to be on. Fiber optic is less than a year old in my town, cable company was a MONOPOLY that I'm glad to no longer be a customer of. 500 Mbps and that's with my standard four video streams playing in the background.

You guys must have *VERY* slow internet connections! The download is *SO FAST* here that it is *done downloading* in a split second, I delete the download to try to catch it again, and I simply cannot catch the speed, the download is *done* before I can even move my eyes to the display of download speed.

I would have to assume (but it is strictly an assumption) that it is due to the INFERIOR memory management of 32-bit OSs and the "cheap workarounds" that 32-bit software have to employ. Even on 64-bit OSs, there is a very VERY drastic difference in memory management in 2016 OSs versus 2021 OSs. I cite specifically the FIRST RUN after a reboot or hibernate of all Chrome variations. EXTREME lags on that FIRST RUN on certain hardware in 2016 OSs but NO LAG on 2021 OSs on the same exact hardware.

I would add that OFTEN TIMES, those placebo-effect changes also make the browser LESS compatible than it already was. ie, we know that SOME TIMES the reason a captcha can't be passed is BECAUSE OF these types of placebo-effect changes. I know I should LINK to one of those discussions where one of these had to be REVERTED in order to pass a captcha, I just don't have the energy to hunt one down at the moment.

AGREED !!!

Agreed, same here. Nobody "should" have any of those entries. They would have had to manually add them.

You're still kind of missing the point. You are claiming the installer is only such-and-such a size and that size DOES NOT MATCH another installer for the same version ??? ??? ??? Okay, let's take a step back - I have a TEST for you to run. Uninstall whatever you installed. DELETE any TEMPORARY files that it may have downloaded without you knowing it downloaded. Run that "installer" again BUT WITH YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION DISABLED. Does it still install? Or does it throw a message that you have to connect to the internet before it can proceed? I have a hunch that you will have to connect to the internet, that your file is fetching files during the installation. I've never ran CIS. I can TOMORROW if all of this is really THAT important to you. I can't tell at this point how much of this is just you wanting to get the "last word" or not. Sorry, that's kind of what it looks like, that you have to have the "last word". "To each their own."

Plus, I did SCREENCAP the FILE SIZES of the two downloads! One was 8 MB, the other was 221 MB. For the FIREWALL package. That said, I have seen where installer file sizes are GIGANTIC only because they support a HUNDRED different languages instead of just one. Regardless, I'm kind of done here. It's just a bunch of "talking in circles" at this point.

I have zero history with the CIS package. For all I know, the only reason it is that "small" is because it DOWNLOADS the rest when you install it. Regardless, I was not talking about CIS and any future comments regarding CIS will have to be IGNORED on my end. I don't like talking to "walls", lol.

I can agree to that screencap. I did not recognize the first one. Regardless, it's still the *CIS Premium* and that is NOT what we were looking at, we were looking at Comodo FIREWALL. *NOT* CIS. Why do you keep overlooking that? We were looking at FIREWALL and NOT the "internet security" program, it's an entirely different BEAST.

I can visit an XP VM tomorrow if nobody else stops by to add anything. A lot of Supermium users (on XP) probably never bother to look at the event viewer because everything is working so there's nothing to "debug". Technically, I always kept the event viewer DISABLED unless I was debugging something. I never kept it running and using processor power when I didn't really "need" it running.

I kind of have to suspect that *any* extension causes this on your setup. That it has nothing to do with what extension. Install *any* extension, even just as a temporary test, and you still have this error. I'm not getting it on my test Supermium, but it's also in a Win10 VM and not in XP. Hopefully another XP users stops by and looks at their event viewer logs, maybe they have this issue too but just never noticed it yet.

Great one! I use that too! Does the below file exist in your profile? Can you open it in something like Notepad++?

I'm going by the dates listed here - https://www.afterdawn.com/software/security/firewalls/comodo_personal_firewall.cfm#all_versions Your screencap appears to me to only tell you the date that you downloaded it. It's also "cispremium", I wasn't talking about "cis" (internet security), I was only talking about the FIREWALL download. I myself never download a "bundle" (antivirus PLUS firewall) if I'm only looking for a FIREWALL, regardless if there is an "option" to only install firewall. I don't want the antivirus INCLUDED in the installer if I'm not going to install it. "To each there own", topic has reached it's CONCLUSION. "Over and out." edit: note to self, this is the LAST d.draker reference I am "allowing", it's to the IGNORE LIST the next time that OBSESSION / INFATUATION surfaces (ie, "rears its ugly head", zero value-add at this stage, zero... "to each their own"...)

Maybe I should add, I only use MANUAL firewall rules. (edit: and PARENT-PROCESS based rules! never trusted anything dumbed-down for the grandma and grandpa user) I would *NEVER* trust *ANY* firewall that only allows "this is a web browser, allow all traffic typical of a web browser" type of simplistic and dumbed-down "rules".

Although, to be fully honest, I'm only taking your word for it on account of NOT CARING one way or the other. I run OLD software ALL THE TIME. Generally speaking, folks that tout "wouldn't advise to the worst enemy" is on account of it being OLD. Not saying that is you, per se. But I send this right back atcha - C'MON, one is from 2007, the other is from 2014. Ain't a whole lot of "improvement" going on those years! All just "marketing" tactics and a SH#TLOAD of BLOAT !!! An installer size that went from 8 MB to a gigantic massive 221 MB !!! Sure, don't go for the v2.4 and it's 8 MB installer. But C'MON, something in the middle has to be beter than an installer that GIGANTIC !!! That is HUGE ENORMOUS GIGANTIC !!! A firewall does not need to be that HUGE.

I'll go ahead and take your word on it. I used to use it in XP to *prevent* "illegal" software from sending out telemetry. So it did work for what I used it for (details of which is not for the MSFN audience, lol). It worked GREAT for my use. But that was nearly TWO DECADES ago, I kind of forget "exactly" when. I no longer do that kind of "work" and so I technically NO LONGER USE any software firewall (I do use hardware firewall solutions).