NotHereToPlayGames

I have not looked into uncompressing it. Do we know if we can uncompress it? I personally DO use the loader because I do not want the registry entries "left behind" when I exit. I run too many different versions here and there and want the registry free of "left behind" entries when I switch between versions. I do run my own "loader" but it runs the "original" loader and then does certain items after the "original" loader is no longer running.

I have zero plans to do anything with the loader. I personally use it and see no issues with it, but I also have my own loader for experimentation (which I do not foresee going public with). If we screencap'd DNS entries or network traffic being conducted by the loader, that would be one thing. But to label it "suspicious" for NO DOCUMENTED REASON WHATSOEVER is not really worth "losing sleep over".

Agreed. I cannot investigate for a few days due to Holiday travels but my hopes is that a rebase of other .dll's will resolve first-run crashes on multi-monitor systems. I don't recall offhand, but I don't think the libglesv2.dll is "required", nor is the "swiftshader" folder - but again, some multi-monitor systems crash without these.

Yep, sure will. This truly is an AWESOME find!

This rebasing is VERY exciting news! Can't thank the "team" enough! I can't test until back home, but I'm starting to think that the rebase is why my multi-monitor setup at home crashes first launch and first launch only if I remove the Vulkan .dll's. Would also prove interesting to compare rebased 1030 with rebased 2022.

For my own compare/contrast learning curve, what was the original .dll that you rebased?

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.

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.

Agreed. Interesting! Yes, very likely. Unsure how to track that down.

I'm still starting to think it's not Hyper-Threading. Maybe graphics-related? ???

I'm starting to think that it is not Hyper-Threading and it is also not x64. ???

Neither do I.

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.

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.

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 ???

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.

Q6700 does NOT support Intel Hyper-Threading. Neither does my T7500. My T7500 has 360Chrome at:

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'

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.

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.

v11 on the same computer. Still a sizeable chunk of RAM, but much more manageable.

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.

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.

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.