Jump to content

Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion


Recommended Posts


59 minutes ago, Dixel said:

1 - mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai PDF Viewer OFFSET 13022

2 - fjajfjhkeibgmiggdfehjplbhmfkialk CryptoTokenExtension OFFSET 15624

3 - gfdkimpbcpahaombhbimeihdjnejgicl Feedback to Gurgle (!) OFFSET 13882

4 - Chrome Web Store Cloud Print OFFSET 11562

5 - ahjtciijnoiaklcomgnblndopackapon Identity API Scope Approval UI at OFFSET 326728

Preserving offset locations for reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't get my 360Chrome to launch if I removed the above manifest.json's embedded in resources.pak by way of hex editor.

Revisiting the route of unpacking, isolating pertinent files, then repacking.

156  ==  PDF Viewer

162  ==  CryptoToken

160  ==  Feedback

152  ==  Cloud Print

not found  ==  Identity API Scope Approval UI  -->  will attempt to kill again via hex editor

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I successfully removed PDF Viewer, CryptoToken, Feedback, and Cloud Print and everything seems to be working without them.

Load times BEFORE removing them  --  0.4871   0.4907   0.4938   0.5447

Load times AFTER removing them  --  0.5064   0.5096   0.5037   0.5163

Rebooting and timing a load of first run after a reboot  --  reference reboot first-start is 6.7134 and 6.1693

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Load times after reboot  --  6.3227   0.5036   0.5153   0.5105

Load times after reverting changes and keeping these inside resources.pak (no reboot)  --  0.4841   0.4948   0.4821   0.4841

 

According to PassMark AppTimer, my 360Chrome actually loads FASTER when I KEEP these embedded extensions.

With them being Chromium/Chrome upstream files and in no way tied to China or Russia, I'm kinda leaning towards the side of keeping them.

At least until I can find some proof that they are making connections behind my back (which I have not seen yet).

The "feedback" one is kinda the only one that bugs me - but I also only think it "does" anything if you yourself click on a Help - About - Feedback link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This last 2206 version is quite an improvement. Youtube crashes it now and then, but not as noticeably as previous versions, and mostly when opening more than one instance. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Okay, so I successfully removed PDF Viewer, CryptoToken, Feedback, and Cloud Print and everything seems to be working without them.

Load times BEFORE removing them  --  0.4871   0.4907   0.4938   0.5447

Load times AFTER removing them  --  0.5064   0.5096   0.5037   0.5163

Rebooting and timing a load of first run after a reboot  --  reference reboot first-start is 6.7134 and 6.1693

Of course it will work fine with or without them , it seems realy strange why you (quite often) think that I will suggest  something not working , lol. OK , good , I understand you trust nobody , right and quite fine by me ! This result is weird , though . Perhaps it has something to do with XP ? This may explain why the other XP users , like the previous one ,  have crashes with youtbue and I do NOT . What to do ? Try to replace manifest_version : 2 with something non-existent , like manifest_version : Y or manifest_version : 9 , try to just type in some rubbish into the key :"wvcwevr67ki67n=bk878ckwb" . The general idea would be NOT to remove them completely , but to let the browser think  they are still there but NOT valid (version mismatch , etc) and get back to me with the results . I'm sorry if I shall not reply fast . Like I said , I'm having rough sunny days , lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tested the modified 360 Chrome builds v9.5 vs v13 on one of my ancient laptops (Pentium M 1.5 GHz; 1.5 GB RAM) and v9.5 is definitely faster and also uses way less RAM. So for now I'm going to stick with v9.5, at least on old machines, as long as it can still load and display most websites properly.

Here is a comparison I made on the that laptop... Loading youtube (full desktop site) from pressing enter until everything is displayed and CPU load goes down. RAM usage is only for the browser, not the whole system. Ublock addon is installed in all browsers.

Chrome 360 9.5 - 22 seconds, 412 MB RAM used
Chrome 360 13 - 35 seconds, 750 MB RAM used
MyPal - 48 seconds, 379 MB RAM used

Of course youtube videos are unplayable on such an old system in the browser (works fine in an external player though) but I thought it would be a good site for comparison since it's a really bloated and heavy site nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, athlonxpuser said:

Of course youtube videos are unplayable on such an old system

Did you try to reduce the quality ? like 360p or 480p ? BTW , it's no wonder newer chrome will consume more RAM , besides yuotube will load much more bloat/scripts if it sees a newer browser useragent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

240p is barely playable but also with a lot of framedrops... since youtube stopped using Flash, such an old system can't really play videos in the browser anymore.

Regarding the RAM usage, it also doesn't really matter which site I try to load, v13 is always using more RAM by far. Even when I just open a blank page, v13 still uses more RAM.

Edited by athlonxpuser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Dixel said:

Of course it will work fine with or without them , it seems realy strange why you (quite often) think that I will suggest  something not working , lol. OK , good , I understand you trust nobody , right and quite fine by me !

It's honestly not that simple.

I am from the Ronald Reagan Era - Trust, but verify.

Which was not coined by Reagan, just popularized by Reagan.

The Russian Proverb is actually a bit cooler because it rhymes - Doveryai, no proveryai.

never trust any claims on performance without witnessing a quantitative and repeatable measurement that others can use on their system as well - which is why I tested the performance claim using PassMark AppTimer.

Without some form of quantitative and repeatable measurement, all we really have is some form of Placebo Effect or some form of "gut feeling".  :D

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I also compared RAM with and without those five embedded extensions - no noticable difference.

Also why I provided the resources.pak file numbers so again under the guide of "trust, but verify" so people who are following can see for themselves how TINY those embedded extensions are.

Don't misread, I applaud and appreciate learning something new (disabling embedded extensions) - but again, I saw ZERO performance gain.

Is that due to XP?  I suppose it is possible.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...