NotHereToPlayGames

"Scary Movie" is not classified as horror but as comedy.

Agreed. Internal connections do not concern me. Mozilla does them. Chromium does them. I don't know how to "thwart" the exaggerations often posted regarding 360Chrome without some sort of "redirection" for a more "fair" comparison/analysis. We are not all going to agree and we are all going to have a little bit of bias towards what "works for us" on our own computers. I just seek a more "level playing field" then what has happened in this thread of late. And, admittedly, I don't know HOW to get that "level playing field". I felt like a "dead horse" being beaten over the head with a baseball bat the way this thread derailed so abruptly. My head is still spinning! I kind of have to narrow it down to this - I can pay my water bill and transfer between cheking and savings on my XP computers with and only with 360Chrome v13/v13.5 (for how much longer is anybody's guess). Other users migrate to this thread for very similar reasons and this project has a "need". It is not going to be for everyone. Having "options" is supposed to be a good thing.

Mainly because this forum is "dominant-Mozilla". Or so that is always the impression I have had herein. I seem to recall being asked what operating system I use when I registered here, but I don't think I was asked if I used Mozilla versus Chrome. Just a perception I guess. Though to say it out loud, i guess it's more of an "assumption" then a "perception". Maybe because roytam1's threads have a very large following.

Agreed. What I would claim as being "relevant" would be more along these lines - from what I can gather, "official" Chrome/Chromium do the same firewall screams for "incoming, inbound traffic" and also the same HDD spin (that my Seagate seems too old to be vulnerable to), so why are we thinking it is "nefarious" that 360Chrome behaves identically? I myself can only speak for XP and my hardware. But I would find it very interesting to know if "official" Chrome/Chromium is causing the HDD spin for those with hardware/OS setups where 360Chrome is causing the HDD spin. Without being able to witness it here, I can only ask questions for others to test. Is this HDD spin something that "official" Chrome/Chromium did do at v86 but stopped doing at a later version?

This thread was never intended to be "Mozilla versus Chrome". They do things very different from each other.

If you don't use the "default ruleset" for Mozilla-based browsers, I get that "scream" for them also.

It is my understanding that the loopback is tied to "search suggestions" - which I prefer to DISABLE. Unsure what else it is tied to. But it is a common "question of concern" on firewall forums. It doesn't concern "me", per se. I just know it comes up often. I'm too much of a "control freak" (surprise, surprise, lol). I "dislike" any firewall that "recognizes" the name of something and creates its own "rules" just because it knows that "name". I never let my firewalls do those "default" rules. I define what IP Addresses and what Ports. I don't "trust" any firewall that sets up any set of rules as an "email client" or a "web browser" then just makes assumptions for port traffic. So as it pertains to 360Chrome, I kind of have to suspect that most firewalls don't "recognize" 360Chrome so therefor have no "ruleset" to apply to it.

That's kind of my primary point. If we truly want to be "fair", then we MUST use the same "magnifying glass" that we use during 360Chrome "criticism" and look at other browsers with the same "magnifying glass". 360Chrome did not "introduce" this newly-discovered HDD spin. It was already a part of the underlying code. "American" code. Not Chinese code. Not Russian code. But American code! It also still boils down to "pros" and "cons". I personally do not trust Mozilla/UXP browsers because they all require a "loopback rule" for firewall software such as WiseVector StopX and Comodo Personal Firewall 2.4.18.184. We literally "enable" Mozilla/UXP to do "anything and everything" because we cannot "monitor" what traffic is going through that "loopback". But if we truly use the same "magnifying glass", we should ask ourselves why we "accept" that loopback rule for one browser but not for another. Mozilla/UXP and Chrome/Chromium do things so much differently than each other that sometimes it is very difficult to decide which one to 'trust'. If you are going to be "connected" to the internet, there are some risks that you simply have to accept. Some of us will view Mozilla/UXP "loopback" a much larger privacy risk than an idle HDD waking up for no real reason but our DNS Traffic Logs showing no data being sent when that HDD spun up for no real reason.

I reiterate - my period-correct XP with only 2 GB RAM crashes everything if I install any anti-virus bottleneck. When we use older hardware, we must weigh all the "pros" and "cons". That "silly Celeron", as I like to call it, which is by this new definition my only "period-correct" computer, is absolutely WORTHLESS from a functionality perspective if I put any anti-virus software on it. If we truly want "period-correct" and shout from the rooftop that Bnav (which uses more RAM than 360Chrome) and 360Chrome cannot function adequately on "older hardware" due to RAM, then shouldn't we also limit ourselves to "period-correct" anti-virus? For anti-virus, it's not really RAM consumption but how many "clock cycles" it takes for the anti-virus to perform its task. This 2001 and earlier definition? I'd call that "too strict" but sure, let's run with that definition. But let's be a little more "fair". How many people on XP were running anit-virus in "2001 and earlier"? ZoneAlarm is the version that comes to mind as far as "period-correct" and the very first version of ZoneAlarm didn't hit the scene until May 2004 - https://www.zonealarm.com/software/antivirus-firewall/release-history In the late 90s and 2001 or so, not many people on XP were running anti-virus - because they were all resource hogs that slowed the computer to a crawl. Fast forward to 2022 and those of us, like myself, that still run XP, how many of us run anti-virus? I don't. To me it's a matter of weighing "pros" and "cons". A web browser that accesses my water bill pay site and my savings account both, all in one browser, is a much bigger "pro" to me. But that's the funny thing about computers. We all have very different lists of "pros" and "cons". And this 360Chrome project is still very much a "pro" for many XP-users own lists of "pros" and "cons". It's kind of that simple. Regardless of how "hostile" this thread has become - whether that hostility was intentional or not.

Right, mine probably said 3 TB on the box but I don't have the box anymore. And nope, my Seagate in sleep mode does not spin up when starting 360Chrome. My Seagate is just over ten years old. It is capable of USB 3.0 but I only use it on a 2.0 port. Though I doubt that 3.0 versus 2.0 is at play here, unsure.

Same here. Cheap plastic box. But it sits on the floor behind the tower and never moves, so I didn't really need anything "rugged". My Seagate Expansion in sleep mode has zero effect on my 360Chrome launch/startup. I do use the below, I did not test without these in place. --disable-background-networking --kiosk-printing --disable-print-preview Reminder that very early in the beta testing stages, I added these not because of external storage in sleep mode but rather because 360Chrome (and Official Chrome/Chromium!) kept effecting my wireless printer's IP address because 360Chrome (and Official Chrome/Chromium!) would "see" the IP Address for 1 of 2 *ROKU DEVICES* and would try to link a "print-preview" API with my *ROKU*.

I am aware. Mine is a Seagate Expansion Desk USB Device 2.7 TB.

When it comes to XP, there is definitely no "one size fits all". I've been running WiseVector StopX just to see what all the fuss is about. (I still prefer Comodo Personal Firewall 2.4.18.184.) My "work horse" is XP x64 with 16 GB RAM - not "period correct" but I can not run WiseVector StopX on my true-period-correct XP x86 with 2 GB RAM - I can't run ANY anti-virus "bottleneck" on it because EVERYTHING crashes when I do. My laptops now run Win 10 but all of my desktop PCs run XP. WiseVector StopX crashes St52 and NM28! And yes, it also crashes 360Chrome v13.5. But never any BSODs here, just application crashes. I have to create "rules" in order for St52 and NM28 to not crash. I did not go as far as to seeing what "rules" need created to prevent 360Chrome v13.5 from crashing. I guess the main thing there is that "rules" were required for St52 and NM28 - so it's no surprise that a "rule" would be required for 360Chrome v13.5 also. I personally dislike anti-virus "bottlenecks", so I did not investigate further as to what "rule(s)" would be required for 360Chrome v13.5 (that, and I'm convinced "everyone's mind is already made up" anyway). On XP, it was my water bill website that was the first I could no longer access using any roytam1 release! 360Chrome v13 (then v13.5) was the ONLY browser I could use to pay my water bill. As time went on (close to TWO YEARS), roytam1 releases FINALLY started working for my water bill. BUT none of the roytam1 releases work for my savings account now despite they used to work two years ago. 360Chrome v13 and v13.5 do work for my savings account. But we also have "chromefill" and "polyfill" extensions that did not exist two years ago, so MAYBE my water bill and savings accounts will now work on "less hungry" browsers. Maybe in another TWO YEARS, the roytam1 releases will finally work for my savings account. But until then, I kind of have to use 360Chrome. I cannot (yet) bring myself to accessing my savings account on Win10, lol. So XP remains my true "get things done" OS.

I can do some digging. Don't have any offhand. But do note, removing the bloat isn't the entire issue. Mobile YouTube sends a different codec so that the streaming data is friendlier to your mobile data plan. But that mobile codec is harder on your CPU. Extensions that play 30FPS videos instead of 60FPS videos has seemed to be more effective in my experience as far as YouTube "bloat".

Then your presence in this thread is "trolling" and in no way improves this browser for those that actually require this browser. That goes for XP users in particular, which I have always stated is technically the only users that truly need this browser, other options exist for other OSes. Those of us that DO use this browser have a vested interest to IMPROVE it. WHICH CANNOT BE DONE IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THIS THREAD HAS BEFALLEN! This should be a fair question - what is the "agenda" with this current environment towards 360Chrome - To improve it? Or to wipe it (including Humming Owl's releases) off the face of the Earth?

This version of newtab.zip forces 360Chrome to follow XP's window color settings. I'm still trying to find how to force about:blank background color. Also plan on having address/search bar backgrounds follow XP's window color settings. https://www.dropbox.com/s/j80nbeu5t7c2q6j/newtab.zip?dl=1

They are. Thanks.

all 4 of these are 404s

For some seasonal fun -- https://www.dropbox.com/s/tuaz0t1i48ac77l/newtab.zip?dl=1 Place in same directory as "chrome.dll", "options.zip", "resources.pak", et cetera. Now a random Christmas Scene will load for all New Tab pages (assuming you use chrome://newtab/ for new tabs or on startup). 16 images (all from wallpapers.com) are stored within the .zip, no images are fetched externally.

360Chrome DOES SAVE TABS ON CRASH.

Not possible. A new loader could be compiled that parses the Local State file and clears session-restore tabs in the event of a crash flag. But I save that project for somebody else to pick up.

Already in the settings. But make sure you are not clearing cache and cookies on exit. Which means also to not use the loader .ini file to delete session content either.

I am seeing a method to perform this. But it isn't exactly for the "average" user. There is a file called "Local State" in the User Data folder. A "normal exit" is on the left. A "browser crash" is on the right. Note also that there are "system crash" variables also in this file but I did not "force" a SYSTEM crash to witness these variables, I only forced a BROWSER crash.

So you want to SAVE TABS with a normal exit but NOT save tabs on a system crash?

With a quick search, I could not find the useragent string that many folks use to force Mobile YouTube. Would be interesting to see if that useragent is retrieving VP9 or AV1.