Jump to content

Extreme Explorer 360 Chromium 78-86 General Discussion


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, VistaLover said:

Unfortunately, I don't use NoScript (is this the one you're using?), nor am I inclined to install it for the sake of just this site...
However, your input has been much appreciated :wub:; I think I've achieved a similar effect
by denying "scripting" on "docs.github.com" via uBO

and, e.g., https://docs.github.com/en/rest/overview/api-previews loads now in 360EEv12 just fine :) !
uBO's logger shows that a total of 12 scripts are being blocked,

so my understanding is that one (or more) of them are incompatible with the JS engines of 360EEv11/v12 :( (but compatible with 360EEv13) ...

I don't use the "latest and greatest" NoScript, I intentionally use an older version - v11.2.3.
No need to add it if you can already block scripts via uBO.
As a rule of thumb, I don't allow scripts and when I visit a site that has twelve of them, I narrow it down to the one or two or three that are "required" then continue to block the remainder.
I seldom let a web site run willy-nilly and pretty much never let a web site load as many scripts as its authors thought were necessary.

I wouldn't necessarily call it an "incompatibility" issue.
I tend to think of those as more along the lines of "clever cloaking" then "incompatibility".
The web site is trying to "force" you to use a newer web browser by employing tricks that I bet they are well aware of that prevent the site from functioning on 'older' web browsers.

I say that because I have witnessed it.
One of my vendor's accounts-payable site has a .css overlay that prevents me from seeing what's "under" the overlay and the .js that loads the .css has "incompatible_browser" right in the title of the .js file!
It's a pop-up overlay telling me to use a newer web browser and then a link to log out.
Little do they know that I've accessed that accounts-payable site from XP for the last two years where they think they were clever enough to prevent their customers from doing so.
I just block the .js that loads the .css and whoala, In Like Flynn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks for the additional feedback... :)

If I were to follow fully @ArcticFoxie 's way-of-doing-things,
and let it be documented I have ZERO OBJECTION against,
I should feel elated that I can load 

https://docs.github.com/en/rest/*


URIs in both 360EEv11/v12 via blocking (in uBO) ALL scripts 
originating from "docs.github.com", without any perceivable
dent(s) in the pages' expected performance :thumbup ... 

However, the little sleuth in me wants my previous query answered: 

6 hours ago, VistaLover said:

uBO's logger shows that a total of 12 scripts are being blocked,
(screengrab redacted for brevity)
so my understanding is that one (or more) of them is incompatible with the JS engines of 360EEv11/v12  

After some trial-and-error, it turns out the sole script responsible for the final page blank-out in said browsers is 

https://docs.github.com/_next/static/chunks/webpack-af28476a2e7790fd48db.js

Blocking just the above script is sufficient for GitHub Docs pages to render fully in 360EEv11 (Ch69-based) and 360EEv12 (Ch78-based); 
in uB0, I just created the following static filter

! https://docs.github.com
||docs.github.com/_next/static/chunks/webpack-af28476a2e7790fd48db.js$script,domain=docs.github.com

"and whoala" :P :

 6iDXT7o.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it pertains here or not, but you may find that file names with such random strings such as webpack-af28476a2e7790fd48db.js will have their file name changed quite frequently.

I seem to bump into these random strings quite a bit and it seems to always be a tell-tale that it is this script that is trying to evade ad-blockers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the 13th branch of the 360EE browser is being discussed, they are constantly talking about version 2206.
Tell me, why is this version 13.0.2206 better than version 13.0.2256? Is there something important?

In the latest versions of the 13th branch of the browser, critical vulnerabilities were closed.

 

P.S. I use this browser not because I have Windows XP, it's just convenient and highly customizable. I have Windows 7 64-bit.

Edited by main user
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, main user said:

If the 13th branch of the 360EE browser is being discussed, they are constantly talking about version 2206.
Tell me, why is this version 13.0.2206 better than version 13.0.2256? Is there something important?

In the latest versions of the 13th branch of the browser, critical vulnerabilities were closed.

People often tend to think that "newer" is "safer" or more "secure" - not always true, if I may be so bold.  :whistle:

These are the folks that will run an anti-virus program and set it to update "definitions" every 30 minutes because they think their "identity" will be stolen at Minute #29 if they do not update those "definitions".

Most of us that use 360Chrome are very secure-minded folks and have other security measures in place.

In fact, most of us that use 360Chrome are running Operating Systems no longer deemed "secure" (doesn't stop us!).

I'm not simply referring to us "die-hards" that refuse to let XP be buried, I'm also referring to Vista and Windows 7.

XP, Vista, and 7 are all "dead" Operating Systems.  But we have our reasons for continuing to use them.

Most of us that use 360Chrome don't even use the v13 branch.

Most of us prefer the v11 or v12 branch over the v13 branch (myself included, I prefer the v12 branch for my primary computers and use v11 exclusively in all VMs and secondary computers).

Make no mistake, some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that exists in v11 that was fixed in v12, we don't care, we have other security measures in place.

Some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that THEORETICALLY exists in v12 that was fixed in v13, we don't care, THEORETICAL and IN-THE-REAL-WORLD are two different things.

And we have other security measures in place.

Most of us that use 360Chrome, XP, Vista, and 7 are very much into efficiency - we want a web browser that can run effectively on a machine with 1GB of RAM.

Sure, 360Chrome is pushing the limits at that - but again, that's why most of us use v11 or v12 instead of v13.

Not trying to sound too blunt when I say this, but people that are truly concerned with "critical vulnerabilities" don't run XP, Vista, or 7 - they "bought in" long ago to the HYPE that the only way to be "secure" is to run the most recent OS.

I "care" about "security", don't get me wrong.

But lightweight and efficient will trump "security" every day in my little corner of the universe.

It can also be said that "hackers" simply don't write viruses targeting 25 million computers running XP when they can target 1.3 billion running Windows 10 instead.

 

But I digress...

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArcticFoxie, I agree with you.
Newer doesn't mean better. I have a lot of old programs. The kind that I need. Without unnecessary functionality.

A new version 360EE has been released - beta version 21.0 64-bit, on a new 95 chromo-core. Windows XP is no longer supported. Flash is no longer supported. The 13th series was the last one to have support for Windows XP. The Chinese also surrendered...

The browser still accepts crx extensions. There is also a change of encoding.

https://bbs.360.cn/thread-16005307-1-1.html

Edited by main user
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArcticFoxie said:

People often tend to think that "newer" is "safer" or more "secure" - not always true, if I may be so bold.  :whistle:

These are the folks that will run an anti-virus program and set it to update "definitions" every 30 minutes because they think their "identity" will be stolen at Minute #29 if they do not update those "definitions".

Most of us that use 360Chrome are very secure-minded folks and have other security measures in place.

In fact, most of us that use 360Chrome are running Operating Systems no longer deemed "secure" (doesn't stop us!).

I'm not simply referring to us "die-hards" that refuse to let XP be buried, I'm also referring to Vista and Windows 7.

XP, Vista, and 7 are all "dead" Operating Systems.  But we have our reasons for continuing to use them.

Most of us that use 360Chrome don't even use the v13 branch.

Most of us prefer the v11 or v12 branch over the v13 branch (myself included, I prefer the v12 branch for my primary computers and use v11 exclusively in all VMs and secondary computers).

Make no mistake, some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that exists in v11 that was fixed in v12, we don't care, we have other security measures in place.

Some "theorist" can always come along and find some "vulnerability" that THEORETICALLY exists in v12 that was fixed in v13, we don't care, THEORETICAL and IN-THE-REAL-WORLD are two different things.

And we have other security measures in place.

Most of us that use 360Chrome, XP, Vista, and 7 are very much into efficiency - we want a web browser that can run effectively on a machine with 1GB of RAM.

Sure, 360Chrome is pushing the limits at that - but again, that's why most of us use v11 or v12 instead of v13.

Not trying to sound too blunt when I say this, but people that are truly concerned with "critical vulnerabilities" don't run XP, Vista, or 7 - they "bought in" long ago to the HYPE that the only way to be "secure" is to run the most recent OS.

I "care" about "security", don't get me wrong.

But lightweight and efficient will trump "security" every day in my little corner of the universe.

It can also be said that "hackers" simply don't write viruses targeting 25 million computers running XP when they can target 1.3 billion running Windows 10 instead.

 

But I digress...

 

 

A big hello to all MSFN members.:thumbup

In an OS that is no longer supported, theoretically, it is essential to have an up-to-date browser.
But it is possible to survive even with an outdated browser.:yes:

Those who don't use Noscript but use UBO could block javascripts at a general level and allow those per site.

It should be remembered that the advantages of the chrome-sandbox are partially cancelled in an OS such as Windows XP.

Especially if your FS is FAT32.

Using a limited account or starting the browser with limited-user privileges with PsExec may be more helpful.:hello:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sampei.Nihira said:

Those who don't use Noscript but use UBO could block javascripts at a general level and allow those per site.

Agreed!

Blocking javascript is an absolute MUST.

BLOCK by default, only allow on an as-need basis.

While this may be "more true" for XP, this equally applies to newer Operating Systems.

Blocking javascript is perhaps the BIGGEST security enhancement an end-user can do to lockdown their web browser, old and new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArcticFoxie, I will not use 360EE on the 95 core either. I will sit on the 86 core until the last, as far as possible. Although I have Windows 7 and 8GB of memory.
Simply, over time, Google is forcibly trying to squeeze everyone out of old browsers and old systems. Websites are getting big, clumsy with a lot of new unnecessary technologies and scripts.
Classic WEB died long ago. Unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArcticFoxie, if we come back to the question of versions... :-)

Did you compare 360EE 13.0.2206 and 13.0.2250/56? We're not talking about security updates at all right now. In terms of speed and memory consumption, they do not differ. Like all versions within the 13th branch. Why 2206? What is fundamentally better in it? Or did it just appear earlier? Yes, in later versions, "Developer Tools" is translated into Chinese. But there is an option to include English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a TON of benchmarks, to be honest.  A TON!

There are others, but my primary tests are BrowserAudit, Speedometer 1.0, Speedometer 2.0, Basemark Web 3.0, Kraken 1.1, SunSpider 1.0.2, and PassMark AppTimer.

If you truly monitor browser performance (including Basilisk, Serpent, Pale Moon, New Moon, Mypal, Sleipnir, Maxthon, you name it), you will find that browser performance PEAKED in 2018 and have yet to return to those performance levels.

It's been downhill ever since.

So it becomes a balancing act of performance, functionality, and stability.

I actually prefer v13 builds 1006, 1032, 1054, 1088, and 1106 all over build 2206 but I had to satisfy both YouTube users and XP x86 SP2 users and build 2206 was the best balance at the time.

I don't actually use the "latest and greatest" for v12 either - I base my build on build 1247 despite there being "newer" builds 1322, 1412, 1458, 1476, 1478, 1502, 1567, and 1592 (at my last count).

Nor do I use the "latest and greatest" for my v11 - I base my build on build 2031 despite there being "newer" builds 2052, 2140, and 2251 (at my last count).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

There are others, but my primary tests are BrowserAudit, Speedometer 1.0, Speedometer 2.0, Basemark Web 3.0, Kraken 1.1, SunSpider 1.0.2, and PassMark AppTimer.

If you truly monitor browser performance (including Basilisk, Serpent, Pale Moon, New Moon, Mypal, Sleipnir, Maxthon, you name it), you will find that browser performance PEAKED in 2018 and have yet to return to those performance levels.

It's been downhill ever since.

So it becomes a balancing act of performance, functionality, and stability.

ArcticFoxie, I fully support. This is true.

47 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

I actually prefer v13 builds 1006, 1032, 1054, 1088, and 1106 all over build 2206 but I had to satisfy both YouTube users and XP x86 SP2 users and build 2206 was the best balance at the time.

I don't actually use the "latest and greatest" for v12 either - I base my build on build 1247 despite there being "newer" builds 1322, 1412, 1458, 1476, 1478, 1502, 1567, and 1592 (at my last count).

Nor do I use the "latest and greatest" for my v11 - I base my build on build 2031 despite there being "newer" builds 2052, 2140, and 2251 (at my last count).

I also used versions of the 11th and 12th branches for a very long time. Yes, they are lighter and faster than the 13th branch, this is undeniable. This can be seen on my car too. From the 11th branch I liked 11.0.2216.0, from the 12th branch - 12.0.1053.0 and 12.0.1247.0. But the problems with opening different sites gradually increased. Therefore, I had to switch to the 13th branch.

Sorry for my english. :-)

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...