Jump to content

Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I strip out swiftshader and disable WebGL so unless you added them back and enabled yourself, then you weren't really comparing apples-to-apples when comparing to Firefox-based browsers.

I was going off the Russian repack initially, but the performance without hardware acceleration is comparable to recent versions of other better known browsers based off Chromium (Chrome, Vivaldi, Edge) on later Windows versions as well as Linux. I haven't exactly dug deep into the history, I know it's not supported with Chrome 49 neither, but don't know whether it was supported on XP earlier.

I remember stumbling upon a WineD3D build in the past that's supposed to make Chrome 49's HW accel work on XP, but it hasn't worked correctly on my end.

17 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Over-clocking a 2.8 GHz to 3 GHz could be causing some instability in-and-of-itself.

The CPU itself can take it as the other 940 model with the same core and everything (+ unlocked multiplier) is clocked at that frequency. Of course, I tested it that it's actually stable. The only way to overclock it if it has a locked multiplier is to do it along with the neighboring components.

17 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I do seem to recall reading that most hardware acceleration pertains to Intel and not AMD, but my reading on that is a bit dated.

Who knows what you've read. The term is a bit vague when you take it apart, but in these circles, it tends to be interpreted as acceleration provided by graphics hardware.

16 hours ago, XPerceniol said:

I'm willing to be patient with this new project and see what happens going forward as I realize this is a 'work in progress' (especially for me personally re chrome) as I've been unwilling to move away from Firefox only up until recently - and I don't like change all very much Lol.

I check some Chromium browsers out of curiosity, though I don't depend on any site that wants Chromium to be functional. Someone told me once it's stupid to limit yourself to one browser. I still prefer to keep my life simple and that includes one browser at the time.

6 hours ago, Dixel said:

I was under the impression that video hardware acceleration is just not possible due to XP lacking DXVA 2.0

I don't know any browser that does hardware video decoding on XP, but some do canvas acceleration (misc 2D stuff comprising webpages) and WebGL using GPU. PotPlayer (dedicated media player) can use DXVA 1.0 on XP, though depending on how you configure the player, it may not be the most compatible.

Specifically, I've had problems combining DXVA with madVR video renderer, so opted to use CUDA (Nvidia specific API, also useful for things other than video decoding) instead of DXVA.

I think the problem with Chromium's software fallback codepaths is that putting already decoded video frame on the screen is very slow.

Edited by UCyborg
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here's my findings running three "flavors" of Chromium in a Win7 x86 VM.

I opted for v88 because that was the last version to not require SSE3.

I expect 360Chrome to take longer to launch, it is afterall a Win7 Chrome that has been "degraded" to run on WinXP.

spacer.png

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

So based on this, "ungoogled" KEEPS the Feedback and CryptoToken embedded extensions 100% fully intact, only modifies security policy for the PDF Viewer, and "breaks" Cloud Print, Web Store, and Identity API by doing nothing but changing URLs.

Since my rebuild uses the --js-flags=--noexpose_wasm command line switch, we are not affected by the security policy for the PDF Viewer.

So from this, I'm content with "breaking" Cloud Print, Web Store, and Identity API  --  ungoogled-chromium has a LARGE following and they kept Feedback and CryptoToken 100% fully intact so I see no reason to not follow their lead.

So I "broke" Cloud Print, Web Store, and Identity API but I can't really say if it was "worth it" or not.

There is a gstatic connection made on FIRST RUN and first run ONLY (frow what I have been able to witness), but this FIRST RUN connection is still made if I "break" those three embedded extensions.

That FIRST RUN gstatic connection seems to occur with EVERY chromium/chrome browser I have tried, so I'm not really sure if it is worth tracking down and preventing.

I seem to recall that Mozilla-based browser have a FIRST RUN connection also, but I recall it being harder to spot because Mozilla-based browsers have an odd "loopback" test on every start (those with firewalls that block ports are familiar with the difficulty in creating trusted port-blocks for Mozilla-based browsers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Project Update:

My next release is going to be Build 1106 and not Build 1006 as previously planned.

Build 1106 is the last release in the 13.0.1xxx branch and is the first release to not contain gamebox.dll (have not tested but I assume it can just be deleted from earlier beta releases).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2021 at 2:22 PM, ArcticFoxie said:

--  ungoogled-chromium has a LARGE following and they kept Feedback and CryptoToken 100% fully intact so I see no reason to not follow their lead.

Why ? Because they just called themselves "ungoogled" ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I am SHARING my rebuilds PUBLICLY and how trusting would my builds be if I just took "your word for it"?

And in the spirit of that trust, I have posted each-and-every modification that I have made so that users can read-and-see for themselves what modifications were made.

I have attempted to provide every detail required for users to even build the rebuild themselves if they so desire.

You are aware that you kind of have a "reputation that precedes you"?  (No worries!  I probably do also!)

I welcome you to offer up your rebuilds for PUBLIC USE and we can all learn from each other's modifications.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

... and how trusting would my builds be if I just took "your word for it"?

I supplied you with the offsets and locations of master keys for all of those extensions for your "build" ,  what other "proof" is needed that they are there ? I have posted this publicly.

BTW , you couldn't find them yourself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dixel said:

I supplied you with the offsets and locations of master keys for all of those extensions for your "build" ,  what other "proof" is needed that they are there ? I have posted this publicly.

BTW , you couldn't find them yourself.  

I appreciate your assistance.

We have different goals and I continue to encourage you to provide a public release of your version.

Again, we can all learn from each other.

 

Your goal is to break portions that Chrome itself contains - I have no problem with that.  In fact, I see great benefits to that approach!

My goal, so far, is to keep the Chrome stuff intact and only break Russian and Chinese "additions" that they added on-top-of Chrome.

There's really only SIX of us (?) here that even use 360Chrome.

If you want total and complete honesty, and personality clash aside, I feel like you want that SIX to drop down to ZERO and I'm hoping for that SIX to become SIXTY.

 

Onward and upward...  From 6 to 60...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that are having problems with YouTube, can you please try this version and report your findings?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0eunski5jxc0i2/360Chrome%2013.0.1106.0.zip

 

Please note that this is a Russian Repack (with the bundled extensions removed) and is still in Russian as far as the menus and settings.

I would like to know how stable this is for those of you having issues on YouTube (as I cannot replicate these issues here but at the same time I am hunting for a version with more mass-appeal).

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi

52 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I would like to know how stable this is for those of you having issues on YouTube (as I cannot replicate these issues here but at the same time I am hunting for a version with more mass-appeal).

I test your version 360ChromePortable Build 2206 - v2 and I am quite happy with the result on xp 2 except for the reading of youtube videos which is catastrophic, I have another version of 360Chrome portable build 2212, but which is not as well finished.because I have problems with video playback with an error 1002 that I do not have with your version of 360Chrome v2

version 2212

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ArcticFoxie, I just tested this 1106 version on x86 SP2 and got BSOD 3 times in a row when I try to start it:

1.png.5ae1c645a64c432997984ccec85e903c.png

I didn't change any settings, just unpack and start X-360cse.exe .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@we3fan  --  On second thought, let's see if it is the "loader".  Instead of using X-360cse.exe, open the Chrome\Application folder and see if you can launch 360chrome.exe instead.

Alternatively, you could make a copy of the build 2206 then replace the Chrome folder in it with the Chrome folder from 1106, thereby using a newer loader that you know already works in x86 XP2.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

@IXOYE  --  Please try version 1106 a couple posts up.

"ArcticFoxie", I am also on Windows XP sp2 as stated in my previous post. And I don't want to run the Russian 1106 version on my Windows xp2 at all because I've already experienced it with the same consequences as "we3fan "

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...