NotHereToPlayGames

"It's complicated." I could illustrate some Ghidra flowcharts to answer this if you truly want a complex answer to a complex question. It's something even Opera used to do, I think it was called Opera Mini but I'd have to revisit. The web browser world calls them "loaders" - Opera, PortableApps, winPenPack, X-Chromium, Portable PaleMoon... MAME would call them "front ends". Other similar apps would be called "wrappers" or "sandboxes". 360Chrome's "loader" is more of a "loader plus wrapper" utility. You don't need the "loader" to launch 360Chrome (ie, HummingOwl versions do not contain the "loader"). I use the "loader" because it doubles as a "wrapper". Which is just a generic term that was shortened from what it does - "registry wrapper". I limit the number of programs that are allowed to KEEP data in my Windows Registry. The 360Chrome "loader" stores/redirects registry read/writes to a local .reg. 1000 people will have 500 definitions of what is meant by a browser being "portable", this loader-controlled .reg carried from one computer to the next is "part of" being "portable".

Now we're on to something. Google has often discussed that the pros and cons of reducing the icudtl.dat file size tilts heavily towards the "we will not reduce it" side of the argument. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aC64nJZ4nKeah-KwsGuAAf2vDApYhkPPhdz2km3zlrg/edit# I've seen some Chromium Forks where this file size is only 2 MB and I've seen other Chromium Forks where this file size is 20 MB. Between 10 MB and 12 MB seems to be most common. I use the 2044 file even in my 1030 version because of file size AND because it "works" for en-US. You can't use just "any" icudtl.dat file HOWEVER the files between 1030, 2022, 2036, and 2044 are interchangeable (limited testing, 360Chrome won't launch if incompatible). So you can use the larger file from 2044 and replace the smaller file in 1030 and your de-DE may be what you are wanting.

You've reported time issues several times, even with v11. Each and every time, they seem to be you and only you. I really think this is something to do with your operating system settings and nothing to do with 360Chrome. Times display correctly for me, as I've pointed out several times.

I get the identical date (the "correct" date) in Mypal 68, 360Chrome, Serpent 52, and Ungoogled Chromium v114.

I've never had any issues with just using the Russian Repack loader for 360Chrome (accompanied by a heavily customized .ini). I only use the winPenPack loader for Ungoogled Chromium v114. It technically has only ever been people that don't even use this browser that "cast aspersions" upon the loader. That type of "assistance" should always be taken with a grain of salt.

You do realize that this is NOT A GOOD THING. Another way to say this is that they know EXACTLY who you are, that 190,855 people have visited and they know *EXACTLY* which one of those 190,855 people is YOU.

Patience. Scroll to the bottom and you'll see some very promising tidbits.

I guess I see these "browser uniqueness" tests along these lines -- I visit a restaurant that I've never been to and none of the staff know me. My uniqueness score is the best it is ever going to be because NOBODY KNOWS ME, I'm literally just another person, BLENDING IN WITH THE CROWD. I like the food so I visit again a couple weeks later. One person in the staff of 20 employees remembers seeing me from a couple weeks ago. My uniqueness score starts to drop. I start to visit more regularly and before you know it, the entire staff of 20 sees my car pull into the parking lot and before I'm even out of the car, they have my table ready, my favorite drink ready, and when I walk in they ask, "Will it be Entree A or Entree B today?" ie, the MORE I VISIT to "test my uniqueness", the MORE these tests "get to know me".

Worldwide? My guess would be TWO. If even that high.

LOL - so this ad violates MSFN Forum Rules?

The topic clearly asks for each of our OPINIONS. If you want to be truly HONEST, then those OPINIONS have clearly concluded that the FEARS are EXAGGERATED. Being of the opposite OPINION than most have stated in this thread but "shouting the loudest" is not going to sway OTHER folks' OPINIONS. In my OPINION, these WebP "fears" are like being afraid of being struck by lightning so we "never go outside" because of our "paranoia" of being hit by lightning.. Despite - the odds of being struck by lightning is less than one in a million 90% of all lightning strike victims SURVIVE about one third of lightning injuries occur INDOORS MALES are four times more likely than FEMALES to be struck by lightning source: https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html

ie - consider the STRAIN it puts not on OUR end when visiting MSFN, but on the end of the SERVER that has to SEND that GIGANTIC image to however many members happen to be online at the same time. I didn't check the header rules or whatnot for that banner. Most advertisement banners are re-sent each and every visit regardless of whether the banner resides in our cache or not.

Not technically true. I have a screaming-fast download speed. BUT that download speed is "divided" intentionally across two wi-fi routers. The *FAST* wi-fi router is for my streaming devices scattered throughout the house. The *SLOW* wi-fi router (web browsing and even YouTube) is set up that way INTENTIONALLY. Reminder that I do *NOT* view "hi-res" videos on YouTube. That activity is reserved for my streaming devices. Let's face it it, 1.1mb banners is NOT "normal" and why would I want my streaming devices throughout the house "pixelating" when a web page is hit with a GIGANTUOUS banner? Though no, ONE 1.1mb banner will not eat up my streaming device's "buffer". Regardless, serving a 1.1mb banner is, I'm quite sure, a *mistake* and was not done that way on purpose.

The size of that blobfish

To me, it's not about "liking" the ad or not. It's also not about the "real estate" it consumes. I have to block (visually) the ads here at MSFN if I want to visit while at work - because advertisements for women's lingerie have been known to be among them and I have no interest in explaining why they are on my screen if a colleague walks into the office. This current ad is taking OVER EIGHT SECONDS to download - not exactly a pleasant viewing experience to watch an ad that is 5 inches tall and it rolls in 1/4" at at time, time delays, rolls in another 1/4", time delays, rolls in another 1/4"... The cool part about using a simple Stylus sheet to HIDE THE AD FROM VIEW is that MSFN still gets the "revenue" for 'serving me' the ad, I just don't have to LOOK AT IT for that to happen. I can also do tricks such as set up Proxomitron to allow the "connection" to be made but then "disconnect" after a few tiny bytes are transferred and not even download the entire banner. Because "like or not", this particular ad is GIGANTIC. I fully support the owners seeking any ad revenue they can! I don't think any of us are discrediting that. "Just talking out loud", lol.

Stylus style sheets are your friend.

No disrespect intended. We were informed to get updates at Twitter. I don't have a Twitter account so I really didn't mind just sitting back patiently and just checking every several hours or so. "Life goes on." Agreed.

It was demonstrated somewhere in this thread that some (though I suspect not all) web servers flat out IGNORE the Accept Header and send WebP anyway. I suppose web servers just have their own list of "priorities". ie, "You can't tell me you are on Chrome W or Firefox X or Edge Y or Opera Z but then 'lie to me' and tell me you don't support WebP, so I'm sending you WebP because I know what I am doing and you do not."

I totally forgot about that alternative. I'll have to rummage through the desk to even find my login credentials.

Nope. Those market share stats having very little to do with user agents.

I've witnessed malware scanners over the years flag something like this KEYGEN as malware but CHANGE THE FILE NAME and it's no longer flagged as malware. I doubt that's the case here, but yes, I have witnessed that over the years. Also once witnessed a malware scanner know that notepad.exe is safe but rename it to svchost.exe and now it's a trojan virus. (ps - I thought the mere mention of an XP KEYGEN was strictly forbidden here at MSFN?)

My Task Manager does not have a GPU section. As far as that goes, I have to use OLDER versions of System Informer else its GPU section never shows any activity. I suppose it is possible that if I drop down to three monitors and unplug the two that are USB-based WDDM 1.3 then maybe things might react differently.