Jump to content

NotHereToPlayGames

Member
  • Posts

    5,007
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by NotHereToPlayGames

  1. Awesome! I'm on the road traveling for Holiday. I'll do some experimenting with all this new info. Many thanks for this thread finally returning to a high degree of USEFULLNESS.
  2. I discredited this in the past because I saw no gain in x64, but there is a RAM-savings in x86 of roughly 115MB to 120MB if you disable "site isolation" via chrome://flags. edit - with site isolation disabled, my build 2022 at launch but only the empty tab sits at roughly 514MB. but my build 1030 sits only at 382MB. disregard, almost forgot - 1030 crashes on my multi-monitor x64 if i remove vulkan .dll's so i added them back in with 2022. even though i don't even have a vulkan graphics card.
  3. Same here. It's always kind of funny that whenever somebody says "proxy", they pretty much always assume "shady surfing" or trying to "hide" or log into websites that they are otherwise blocked or banned.
  4. My Win10 x64 with no hyper-threading i5-6300U: Of course that's Win10 and not XP. Could be several MONTHS before I could spend the time to put XP on my i5-6300U laptop.
  5. You "kind of" do. AMD does NOT support Hyper-Threading and 360Chrome on your non-Hyper-Threading Vista x64 is under 200 MB, if I remember correctly without scrolling back a few pages. So does this elliminate Hyper-Threading as a variable ???
  6. If we cannot isolate this to Hyper-Threading, I also wonder if XP's list of enabled/disabled "services" could be the difference between 360Chrome using less than 300 MB on some systems and over 800 MB on other systems. Would certainly be awesome if we could track down the ONE VARIABLE in this equation.
  7. Q6700 does NOT support Intel Hyper-Threading. Neither does my T7500. My T7500 has 360Chrome at:
  8. Your "period-correct" is BETA STAGE. Or a "first gen" car where everybody knows you wait for the third-gen so that all the bugs are worked out. "First Gen" spends way too much time in "warranty repair" HASSLES. Most of the rest of us, our computers may not be as OLD as yours (most are "younger" by a mere few years!), but they came with XP installed on them, that "qualifies" them as 'period-correct'. Mine is actually a retired office computer and it did come with XP x64. Though I do agree, most users running XP are not running x64. Hades, even just a short MONTH ago, my brother who works for a mom-and-pop "PC Repair" shop, didn't even know an x64 version of XP existed! I make fun of him all the time for being the LEAST TECH-SAVVY of all of us brothers/sisters, yet HE is the one working in a "PC Repair" shop. His primary role seems to ALWAYS be to talk people into upgrading to the "latest-and-greatest" instead of actually REPAIRING their PC, but I digress. In statistics, and not to sound "mean" (waka waka waka) - your computer would be the outlier, not the mean. edit - adhering too strictly to self-imposed definitions of "period-correct" reminds me of a scene in "Shawshank Redemption" and being 'obtuse'
  9. True, I may revert to v13.2170 opposed to v13.5.2022. I know they are all RAM HOGS. But I don't care! They WORK for websites I *need* to access! And NOTHING ELSE DOES (on XP! 100+ MB difference could just be "margin of error". This isn't exactly a true scientific measurement.
  10. I can pay all of my utility bills and access my bank accounts in XP. I can NOT do that with anything else out there, so "my hands are tied", so to speak, I have to use 360Chrome. I'm not the only one in this boat, so it kinda doesn't matter how much water is splashed around it. edit - but it does tell me I need to get that low-end computer running x64 and ditch the x86.
  11. Wow! But in all honesty, I never use v13.5 on this computer. v11 is much more friendlier, comparatively speaking. But this also could explain why "upstream" no longer releases an x86 version.
  12. AMAZING! I don't know how you do it, but congratulations on such an accolade. I'll screencap the low-end computer shortly. My Celeron motherboard isn't in it at the moment, so I can't do my "worst" at the moment.
  13. Now that I think about it (but no time at the moment), "e10s" should prove to be the perfect gauge. I don't recall which of NM27, NM28, St52, St55, or BNav have the ability to enable and disable "e10s". But those that do, there is our perfect gauge. How much RAM does a no-tab-open single-process (e10s disabled) <browser> consume? Now how much RAM does the same EXACT <browser> consume with no-tab-open but multi-process (e10s enabled)? I highly doubt that the two numbers are identical yet I feel the general "perception" is that they are.
  14. Very normal. And a giganctic advantage compared to the "simpler days" of single-process. This question can very easily turn into a "flaming browser war" and that's not really the intent of MSFN. There are biases on all sides! And it's not a two-sided war. I've used everything from Firefox to Pale Moon to New Moon to Brave to Vivaldi to Lunascape to Opera to Maxthon to Sleipnir, I've used HUNDREDS of browsers over the years. That might sound like an exaggeration, but not as much as it sounds (though I do not have an actual "count"). I've used Opera when it was Presto. I've used Opera when it was WebKit. I've used Opera when it was Blink. The human mind is very "linear" in thinking. It likes to compare/contrast from A to B to C to D. "Technological advancement" is not "linear". https://www.interceptinghorizons.com/post/technology-is-exponential-but-humans-are-linear https://medium.com/@sarmisthataraf/we-think-in-linear-progression-technological-proliferation-happens-in-exponential-excess-bab28ce1e0e5 The human mind wants to "simplify" everything into nice-and-easy "black and white" - stop right there, it can't be done! I miss the days of "single-process" web browsers - performance and efficiency were much easier to quantify. You looked at CPU percentage and RAM consumption and you could gauge everything just from that. As much as the human mind wants it to be that simple, it is not! I wish it were. Life was so much simpler "back in the day". I cite "e10s". This is the multi-processor framework that Firefox introduced with version 54 and disabled the ability to disable in version 68. If you are familiar with "roytam1" browsers, you know that these are single-process by default and now most users enable multi-process - because there are advantages that come with it! But there are disadvantages as well. But counting the number of processes in the Task Manager is too simplistic of a way to look at it. All I can really suggest is to Google / Bing / DuckDuckGo for "single-process versus multi-process browser" and spend the time to read at least SIX articles on the topic. And make sure you do the same that you should with "political news" - get BOTH sides. Make sure to read "pro-Firefox" acticles and make sure to read "pro-Chrome" articles. Then form your own opinion from there. Happy reading.
  15. I dipped my toe in Win7 and Vista "extended kernels". All it did for me was result in very iffy application stability and an OS that would BSOD when I wasn't even moving the mouse or touching the keyboard. Kinda reminded me of back in my AMD days when I was big into overclocking. There was always a fine line not to cross before rendering your own computer untrustworthy for sensitive use because you never knew when the next BSOD was gonna pop out of nowhere. Speaking solely for myself, I have no plans on ever trying any XP "extended kernel". At least not in the early stages. I'll let others be the guinnea pigs.
  16. Those were the days. Alas, poor Yorick! I remember them well. To paraphrase, lol. Back then a "web site" consisted of 90% text and 10% images, and maybe 6 javascript files 1/10th the size of today's javascript files, and 2 css style sheets also 1/10th the size of today's css style sheets.
  17. Another OBSESSION. We all know. The horse is dead. You can put down the baseball bat. This is an Older NT-Family OSes discussion. As such, there will always be a LAG with "cutting edge". Basically, "we don't care" about the LAG being YEARS. We have our JUSTIFIABLE reasons for using Older NT-Family OSes.
×
×
  • Create New...