Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion

[NotHereToPlayGames]

57 minutes ago, XPerceniol said:

~Off-topic~

Do you have any evidence that Roytam1 builds are in fact guilty of this?

I synchronize my profile to a USB file once a month or so and I've *WITNESSED* a file with "telemetry" in the name exist!

I'll screen-cap the next time I witness this behavior.

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Thanks for the screen-cap.

I block ALL of these via HOSTS file so I've not seen any suspicious DNS activity.

0.0.0.0 browser.360.cn
0.0.0.0 cloud.browser.360.cn
0.0.0.0 dd.browser.360.cn
0.0.0.0 qurl.f.360.cn
0.0.0.0 chrome.360.cn
0.0.0.0 ext.chrome.360.cn
0.0.0.0 u.qurl.f.360.cn
0.0.0.0 puv.tt.browser.360.cn
0.0.0.0 p.ssl.qhimg.com
0.0.0.0 p0.ssl.qhimg.com
0.0.0.0 p1.ssl.qhimg.com
0.0.0.0 p2.ssl.qhimg.com
0.0.0.0 p3.ssl.qhimg.com
0.0.0.0 p4.ssl.qhimg.com
0.0.0.0 p5.ssl.qhimg.com
0.0.0.0 p.ssl.qhmsg.com
0.0.0.0 p0.ssl.qhmsg.com
0.0.0.0 p1.ssl.qhmsg.com
0.0.0.0 p2.ssl.qhmsg.com
0.0.0.0 p3.ssl.qhmsg.com
0.0.0.0 p4.ssl.qhmsg.com
0.0.0.0 p5.ssl.qhmsg.com
 

I use this to monitor DNS activity -

DNSQuerySniffer v1.81
Copyright (c) 2013 - 2020 Nir Sofer
Web site: http://www.nirsoft.net
 

 

All that said, and while I do have high hopes for 360Chrome, I have not used it beyond the scope of "curiosity" because I cannot PRINT from v11, v12, or v13!

A browser that cannot PRINT does not fit my needs but I do continue to have high hopes - it is nice for Google Voice to work 100% under Win XP and 360Chrome is the ONLY browser that can do that, to the best of my knowledge.

It's very strange to hear about privacy concerns from a man who uses google voice (please do not take any offence) , I'm just wondering.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

lol, yeah, I'm aware of the irony.

I "cripple" my Google Voice and do track DNS queries.

My only excuse is that I *KNOW* when Google Voice is loaded and what traffic to Google occurs.

And I *KNOW* when Google Voice is NOT loaded and what traffic to Google is blocked.

 

I can use this very forum as why I have a "curiosity" in 360Chrome - I know others have posted and there's probably a "fix", but I have not gotten that far yet.

But I do know the ONLY way I can now POST on this forum is by using CHROME/CHROMIUM.

Again, there may be a "fix", it's not that high up my priority list yet  :)

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

lol, yeah, I'm aware of the irony.

I "cripple" my Google Voice and do track DNS queries.

My only excuse is that I *KNOW* when Google Voice is loaded and what traffic to Google occurs.

And I *KNOW* when Google Voice is NOT loaded and what traffic to Google is blocked.

 

I can use this very forum as why I have a "curiosity" in 360Chrome - I know others have posted and there's probably a "fix", but I have not gotten that far yet.

But I do know the ONLY way I can now POST on this forum is by using CHROME/CHROMIUM.

Again, there may be a "fix", it's not that high up my priority list yet 

I'm glad I could make you laugh ))) . If you need that 360 browser , I strongly suggest you do the manual editing of the aforementioned files and cut out the telemetry yourself . You need to look for IPs and domains , esp. ".cn" , ."gov" , ".ru" . Most of them are written in plain text ! Just replace "http" with "zzzd" or smth like that. Replace IPs with non-existent ones . You may as well look the source code of chromium ungoogled and cut out google too.

And don't forget to like my posts . Best regards.

[VistaLover]

16 hours ago, Dixel said:

2 - Regarding RAM , just use this flag  --process-per-site   . It will reduce the usage of RAM and each site will run in one process.

360EEv11 (EOL build 2251) has the following flag: 

The default setting is "Disabled", but, per your suggestion, have flipped it to "Enabled" (and restarted, ofc  ), which is the state depicted in the screenshot...
I have been running the browser like that for more than 12hr and I have to say I haven't witnessed, sadly, any noticeable decrease in RAM consumption... 

My session now comprises 17 pinned tabs, of which 13 are internal "chrome://*" URLs; I have 2 additional normal web tabs, a total of 19 tabs open; 
with #enable-site-per-process in its default disabled stage, I can count 24 individual 360chrome.exe processes in Windows Task Manager (=number of tabs + 5); 
when the setting is enabled and the very same session of 19 tabs is reloaded, the number of 360chrome.exe processes in TM increases to 26 (=number of tabs + 7) and no appreciable RAM decrease is observed... 

Opening 360EE's Task Manager reveals that the additional 360chrome.exe processes are due to iframes/subframes, which is consistent with the flag's description in the pic... So, using the suggested flag ends up generating more browser processes, thus I fail to see (and verify, at least in my setup) how that would, in turn, result in a drop in used RAM  ... From just reading the flag's description, this is more of a "security/privacy" related flag, than a RAM reducing one... 

[Dixel]

5 hours ago, VistaLover said:

360EEv11 (EOL build 2251) has the following flag: 

The default setting is "Disabled", but, per your suggestion, have flipped it to "Enabled" (and restarted, ofc  ), which is the state depicted in the screenshot...
I have been running the browser like that for more than 12hr and I have to say I haven't witnessed, sadly, any noticeable decrease in RAM consumption... 

My session now comprises 17 pinned tabs, of which 13 are internal "chrome://*" URLs; I have 2 additional normal web tabs, a total of 19 tabs open; 
with #enable-site-per-process in its default disabled stage, I can count 24 individual 360chrome.exe processes in Windows Task Manager (=number of tabs + 5); 
when the setting is enabled and the very same session of 19 tabs is reloaded, the number of 360chrome.exe processes in TM increases to 26 (=number of tabs + 7) and no appreciable RAM decrease is observed... 

Opening 360EE's Task Manager reveals that the additional 360chrome.exe processes are due to iframes/subframes, which is consistent with the flag's description in the pic... So, using the suggested flag ends up generating more browser processes, thus I fail to see (and verify, at least in my setup) how that would, in turn, result in a drop in used RAM  ... From just reading the flag's description, this is more of a "security/privacy" related flag, than a RAM reducing one... 

It's NOT the flag I advised ! I don't know what (don't read) google writes to the ordinary users , but according to their own documentation it does what it says, besides you may wanna read more carefully what I write , you have mixed up the two different flags :

" --process-per-site - Enable the "Process Per Site" process model for all domains. This mode consolidates same-site pages so that they share a single process. More details here: - https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models - The class comment in site_instance.h, listing the supported process models. IMPORTANT: This isn't to be confused with --site-per-process (which is about isolation, not consolidation). You probably want the other one."

 

[VistaLover]

@Dixel : 

Having been from the very start a Mozilla Firefox person, I only recently (last 2-3 years) had to turn to Chromium-based browsers still supporting Vista (Maxthon, UCBrowser, Slimjet, YandexBrowser, 360EE), after Mozilla EOL'ed Firefox in Vista SP2 and there were Chromium-only sites not properly rendered in the UXP forks (which is, sadly, a very frequent occurrence lately) ...  As such, I'm not ashamed to admit  I still have serious knowledge gaps where it comes to manipulating/custom-configuring Chromium browsers... 

In my Firefox-trained mind, I equated about:config to chrome://flags/, thinking that every possible "flag" is to be found inside that pre-defined list... And because every "flag" there is translated at runtime into a command-line switch (as can be seen in 360EE's chrome://version/ internal page), I mistakenly thought that for setting "--process-per-site" "flag", I had to search for a similar entry (e.g. containing the process | site strings) within chrome://flags/, thus I ended up enabling the devilishly similar "#enable-site-per-process" => "--site-per-process" one... Many thanks for putting me back in order...   FWIW, "#enable-site-per-process" is only available in the Chromium 69 based 360EEv11, not available in 360EEv12/13... 

So, your suggested "flag" is in fact a commandline switch, as explained more verbosely (for Chromium ignorants like myself) in: 

https://www.ghacks.net/2015/02/08/save-memory-in-chrome-by-using-one-process-per-site/

Because I'm using a "portabilised" edition of 360EE, I added the switch inside the portable launcher's .ini config file, in the Parameters section: 

Parameters=--user-data-dir="%Profile%" --disable-logging --no-default-browser-check --disable-component-update --disable-background-networking --allow-outdated-plugins --ssl-version-min=tls1.2 --process-per-site

and after relaunching I verified that all tabs loading URIs from the same domain share a single process ; however, overall browser RAM consumption was not reduced to an impressive extent, perhaps that's because I tend not to use more than 15-20 tabs in a session (TBH, I've never been a tab hoarder, in any browser, I prefer to use Bookmarks to store URLs, not tab-sessions - but to each his own...). 

I'll keep that switch enabled, despite, thanks again for suggesting it... 
Best wishes 

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by VistaLover

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I've finally tracked down my printing issues in 360EE v11, v12, and v13.

While I can't speak for WHY this was happening, I found a fix for it nonetheless (only tested in v12 and v13).

Whenever I would attempt to print to my wireless printer via 360EE, the browser would LOCK UP requiring a process-kill via Task Manager and a reboot of my wireless router to get the printer back!

360EE would "scan" for printers and find one of my Roku Express HD Streaming Media Players instead!

The then-idle Roku would then steal the IP Address for the then-idle wireless printer and 360EE would try to print to the Roku which would just ignore the "data" being sent to it.

 

The "fix" is to disable 360EE's "stupid" print preview 'feature'.

In v12, add " --kiosk-printing --disable-print-preview" to the Parameters line in 360Loader.ini and go to chrome://flags and DISABLE "Enable Cloud Printer Handler".

In v13, add " --kiosk-printing --disable-print-preview" to the Parameters line in 360Loader.ini, no chrome://flags needed changed in v13.

 

Shew!  What a Relief!  That was kind of a nightmare, lol.

[CIACIACIACIACIACIA]

Dixel I want to ask a question. I have a 360 EXTREME EXPLORER and after launching exits immediately.

(System Pentium4 2GiB of RAM core cedar mill).

 

 

[Dixel]

On 1/19/2021 at 12:47 PM, CIACIACIACIACIACIA said:

Dixel I want to ask a question. I have a 360 EXTREME EXPLORER and after launching exits immediately.

(System Pentium4 2GiB of RAM core cedar mill).

 

 

Hi , you should have mentioned me with a tag , like this @Dixel . To answer your question , I think it's just not enough RAM (I'm guessing because you didn't tell me the exact version you use). Version 13 is more RAM huhgry . Try 12 or even 11. Also , I think you know that you have to use a repack version , and not the original chinese version. And block all inbound connections with your firewall. Things you may wanna try - increase your page file size , add  more RAM , try using a dedicated GPU . Under advanced settings in 360 choose "Always use webkit kernel" and UNcheck "Use hardware acceleration when available".

[CIACIACIACIACIACIA]

I want to ask a question.

I have the latest 12 version of 360 Extreme Explorer i will search for the repack version but in the past i used the Russian repack version.

What do you mean by saying all inbound connections with the firewall?

What is the program's requirement for RAM? (DDR,GPU)

For GPU i have NVIDIA FX5200 Advanced.

 

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I do not agree that v13 is "more RAM hungry".

I believe that v13 utilizes RAM better than v12.

And in turn v12 utiilzes RAM better than v11.

RAM utilization is not a "linear" process and it's not as simple as just comparing "magnitude", so to speak.

 

[Dixel]

It's a well known Axiom that with every newer version chrome consumes more and more RAM. But if you think otherwise , you're very welcome to help that poor guy yourself . In real life scenario people with low-end hardware solved their problems downgrading to 11 or 12 , but yet again , I do not use the browser myself , I'm not even sure why I was asked in the first place . My post here was related to the telemetry that was left by the russians (on purpose or not , I can't say) and some piece of advice (hints) on how to remove it. So it supposed to serve as word of warning to the fellow members.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

No disagreement.

Just pointing out that RAM utilization isn't "linear" and I don't think the userbase should "water it down" as such (not "you", per se, just speaking in generalities).

We have to consider a "balance" - what good is a browser with a TINY "footprint" but it CRASHES because of excessive RAM with only 10 tabs loaded?

I'm just pointing out that if you want a TINY "footprint" then use a browser that does NOT have "tabs".

But since this isn't 1996 and we all use "tabs", then we have to find that "balance"  

 

Here's another chart.

This time with 5 "real-life scenario" tabs - one with 720p streaming audio/video, one with a big Flash loop, one with a Sudoku game, one with a Google Search, and one with a top-rated news headline site.

Yes, by "magnitude" newer Chrome versions use more RAM then older (no duh, lol) - BUT if a difference of a few hundred MB is "make or break" or crashes your system, then my advice is to use a browser from 1996  

 

"mileage may vary"

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

No disagreement.

Just pointing out that RAM utilization isn't "linear" and I don't think the userbase should "water it down" as such (not "you", per se, just speaking in generalities).

We have to consider a "balance" - what good is a browser with a TINY "footprint" but it CRASHES because of excessive RAM with only 10 tabs loaded?

I'm just pointing out that if you want a TINY "footprint" then use a browser that does NOT have "tabs".

But since this isn't 1996 and we all use "tabs", then we have to find that "balance"  

 

Here's another chart.

This time with 5 "real-life scenario" tabs - one with 720p streaming audio/video, one with a big Flash loop, one with a Sudoku game, one with a Google Search, and one with a top-rated news headline site.

Yes, by "magnitude" newer Chrome versions use more RAM then older (no duh, lol) - BUT if a difference of a few hundred MB is "make or break" or crashes your system, then my advice is to use a browser from 1996  

 

"mileage may vary"

So you just proved my words again , with 5 tabs opened 726mb versus 957mb with 13 version. I think it's a big difference for his system with only 2GB of RAM, and if he needs a fairly modern browser (obviously not from 1996) , downgrading from 13 would be a good choice . Also, he can search for flags that can be disabled to reduce RAM usage . I'd suggest these , they are very good for low-end systems , hence the name , obviously :

--enable-low-end-device-mode

--enable-low-res-tiling