Jump to content

Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion

Recommended Posts

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqusfcjrbox9akz/360Chrome (unran).zip?dl=0

this version has the bold font on xp and the distorted bookmarks at 16 px as can be seen in the screenshots below.
thought the skin folder was the issue but using the skin folder from the above version in v13 - 4 does not change anything.
so it must be something deeper in the application and i don't have the skills for that.
if you don't see what i see in the screenshots then it is my setup that is the cause.
have not changed the dpi settings.
i agree my setup is somewhat specific so i would not want to waste your time for a win2k skin.
am very happy with the latest v13 - 4 as it is.
was looking for an alternative xp browser as more and more pages don't seem to work in new moon 28.
did not have a need until recent when i had to setup an account and with nm28 i could not.
the fonts used in the ui don't bother me much.
just posted when i saw they went from bold to not bold with the latest v13 - 4 version.

am also preparing if things go completely sideways with new moon 28 also as they seem to with mypal.




Edited by rereser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

changed the MS Shell Dlg and MS Shell Dlg 2 to arial black in regedit.

also replaced the ariblk.ttf file with the one from win 10.

to many modifications on my end.

never mind , i'm happy with the latest v13-4.

it's amazingly fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another comment on v13-4 version. (xp sp3 x86)

had two instances where DEP (data execution prevention) forced me to close the browser.
below the DEP window was some error similar to a random crash that i still do not get.
happened on some simple valid pages with only a few tabs open.
cannot repeat the behaviour even if i open 30 tabs at once.
have changed the DEP settings to exclude 360chrome.
made a full system backup with acronis before , so will see how this goes.
maybe it is because i am running from an ssd without a pagefile ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /NoExecute=OptOut
it's what i have here with the earlier DEP modification.(360chrome exclusion only)
you say you run with DEP disabled.
any security risks involved with that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rereser said:

any security risks involved with that ?

To ME, no!

To "most people", yeah.  Or "probably" at the very least.

The same can be said for not running any anti-virus program - I hate anti-virus programs with a passion!

I've never in my entire life been hit with a virus despite NEVER RUNNING anti-virus programs.

It's about knowing HOW to use your computer, what you can click, what you can't click, what you can open, what you can't open, et cetera - you either do this by habit or you don't.

If you don't do this by habit, then your computer needs to protect you from you - so don't disable DEP, run an anti-virus, get hit with three different programs asking "are you sure" every time you want to DO something.

But if you ARE click-savvy by nature, then NO, you do not need DEP, you do not need anti-virus, you do not need User Account nags, you'll be just fine without having to jump through three different "are you sure" popups.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Positive  :w00t:


I view DEP against this logic  --  if DEP worked then there would be no "Geek Squad" at the local Best Buy, there would be no computer-repair at the local Staples, there would be no Malwarebytes, there would be no Emsisoft, there would be no Spybot Search and Destroy, et cetera.  Or at least a tiny fraction of the "need" for such things.


Things like DEP (enabled by default) and User Account Control (enabled by default) only create a User Base that just clicks "Accept" every time a so-called "Warning Box" pops up because the User Base doesn't know how to look out for themselves, they need their computer to protect themself from themself.  User Account Control was by far the worst "idea" ever concocted.  How many people do you know that see that so often that they don't even read it?  They just click "Accept" and move on.  Anti-virus is the same way, constant nag screens and a User Base that just clicks "Accept" because they get tired of all of the false positives.


Which, I'll submit, is not the average MSFN Member, especially not the XP Crowd!


Think about it this way, I'm one of the geekiest guys on this street, when SEVERAL neighbors need help "fixing" their computer, I'm the one they call.  No biggie, it's easy and it's a hobby.

But it never ceases to amaze me how often I have to "fix" OTHER PEOPLE'S computers and rid them of viruses WHEN THEY WERE RUNNING AN ANTI-VIRUS PROGRAM that should have "protected them"!

The only REAL protection is to know how to protect yourself and stop relying on OS "features" to do that 'for you'.


But I digress...

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks ArcticFoxie for the explanation.
i agree , most risk comes from the user and not xp or another os.
have 4 pc's running xp (and one mce) without antivirus or firewall.
no user account nags ever so i must have disabled uac in the past sometime.
never seen a problem but i do take measures , for example regular full system backups.
so i'll take your word on the DEP "risk".
others would say your pc with xp will explode the minute you go online ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

testing your release v13.2206 against Humming Owl v13.2250 at the moment.

some comments on the difference:

1: only way to "upgrade" from 2206 to 2250 is to copy only the files in the 13.0.2250.0 folder from the chrome-bin.
simply replacing the 13.0.2250.0 folder with your 2206 folder version results in an error from the loader.
this also happens if you replace the 360chrome.exe in the Chrome\Application folder.
also need to remember to keep the 2206 skin folder or else everything goes from blue skin tho white.
so upgrading would be more involved when you ever come up with a 13.2206 rebuild v5 ...

2: swiftshader folder is present in 2250 and with "--disable-webgl" removed from the ini webgl works.
tested here: https://webglsamples.org/
this also removes this error and some others in chrome://gpu
GPU process was unable to boot: GPU process crashed too many times with SwiftShader.
note : i don't use webgl but would like the option without the above error.

3: when someting goes wrong with a connection there is a custom error page in 2250.
you can test here: https://subscene.com/
search for a title , click on a result and then click the "back arrow" to return to the previous page.

4: some minor differences in the user interface setting , for example "search passwords" in personal data.
viewing passwords in chrome is still absent.
stored passwords can be seen with this small freeware: https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/chromepass.html

other then the above i do not notice any advantage over using 2250 over 2206.

any comments would be appreciated.
almost at the point to setting 360chrome as the default browser.
it has been a blast tinkering with this!

one last question: why did you not release a version v13.2250 as Humming Owl did ?
would resolve the issues with webgl , chrome://gpu errors , skin folder , the somewhat updated user interface , the error page and the loader errors.

Edited by rereser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skin files cannot be copied between my v13 build 2206 and Humming Owl's v13 build 2250 - I keep the original file structure and Humming Owl merges a few of the skin files into one.


Humming Owl's v13 build 2250 error page should be able to be copied over to my v13 build 2206 - I have not verified but I see no reason this should not work.

Error pages are "useless", in my opinion, I'm okay with the error code provided in the URL when an error is encountered, that's all I ever need, have never been a fan of browsers having an "oops", "puke face", or "Aw, Snap!" page.

I just don't see the benefit/gain of turning an "error" into a "cartoon".


I don't get an error for the "back arrow" example (only tested in v12 build 1247).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Basemark Web 3.0 benchmark is really the only "test" I've ever used webgl on.

I have never seen webgl used by "real world" web sites (news, banking, music, videos, research, how-to guides, online shopping, you name it), it's only ever used by "here's what webgl can do" sites.

Maybe it's used by games but games are for teenagers  :thumbdown

I have a copy of MAME lying around and a Commodore 64 emulator for "games", never really use them, but they're there if I ever really get bored from "real world" web sites  :whistle:

Plus it always pegs the CPU at 90+ percent - why would I want to "enable" a website to peg my CPU?


At least that's my POV...

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...