NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 (edited) The page load timer extension has a fixed "rule" that triggers when the stopwatch's "stop" is clicked. The dynamic loading process has to have a defined "stop" - for IMDB it appears to be just at the moment that the preview video starts playing. It offers at least SOME form of quantitative measurement. Repeatable measurement. I just have a very big Pet Peeve against "gut feeling" types of claims. I'm an Engineer. Show me actual DATA. Numbers never lie. Unless you're in the field of Statistics and know how to "rig" your 'data', lol. Edited July 30, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: The page load timer extension has a fixed "rule" that triggers when the stopwatch's "stop" is clicked. The dynamic loading process has to have a defined "stop" - for IMDB it appears to be just at the moment that the preview video starts playing. It offers at least SOME form of quantitative measurement. Repeatable measurement. I just have a very big Pet Peeve against "gut feeling" types of claims. I'm an Engineer. Show me actual DATA. Numbers never lie. Unless you're in the field of Statistics and know how to "rig" your 'data', lol. It all depends on the place where you live and your ISP speed, for me it's instant, which is no wonder, since Holland has one of the fastest ISP providers, I'm sure the same is for @Dave-H. Try to test with uBlock ON! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 I have non-uBO ad-blocks and IMDB loads within 4 seconds when they're enabled. The only way for me to perform a true apples-to-apples comparison for Kafan is to compare out-of-the-box Kafan with out-of-the-box 360Chrome. No extensions (except Page Load Timer) that would tilt either one in their favor. Wouldn't have been "fair" for me to report that IMDB took 40 seconds in Kafan but only 4 seconds in my non-uBO ad-block'd 360Chrome. I also "refuse" to run any browser other than the ones that I personally tweak on my host OS. So the above comparison is Kafan and 360Chrome ran within a 2MB RAM XP VM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 And what a nightmare IMDB is when you allow advertisements! Holy Crap, I was having flashbacks of the days when you opened a web page and 5 pop-ups and 20 pop-unders hit the screen! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterw Posted August 1, 2023 Share Posted August 1, 2023 (edited) I can confirm imgur.com won't render, many pages won't, a few will in v12 editions. Why are 13.0.2250.0 and 13.0.2310.0 being maintained separately? What is the difference? On 5/15/2023 at 3:19 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said: I think this is an XP versus non-XP issue. 360Chrome v13.5 (which should behave the same as the referenced 360EE_13.0.2310.0) does NOT disable the screensaver be it full-screen mode or not when on XP. But the same EXACT profile of 360Chrome v13.5 ran on Win10 does disable the screensaver. Can you run Official Chrome v49 (last official for XP) and see if it disables the screensaver or not? I will later this evening if nobody else beats me to it. Daft. That feature was introduced in the stone age; people weren't having YouTube-screensaver conflicts in 2005 because of it. I think it worked in IE6, it worked in Firefox (at least after a patch) and I can't recall ever having that happen in Chrome - really I don't remember this issue outside of 360EE. I just checked in Chrome, screensaver is covering it. I have no recollection of this... Edited August 1, 2023 by Hunterw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted August 1, 2023 Share Posted August 1, 2023 1 hour ago, Hunterw said: Why are 13.0.2250.0 and 13.0.2310.0 being maintained separately? Technically, none of the 360Chrome versions are being "maintained". They have all hit FINAL release stage. Humming Owl no longer updates his versions and is much less of an active member as he once was, but he still does visit on occasion: On 5/2/2022 at 11:45 AM, Humming Owl said: - Updated v9, v11, v12 and v13.0.2250.0 EN and CN versions with lastest minor edits I mentioned before. If I don't find anything else to edit, this will be the final update for all those versions (including v13.0.2310.0 EN and CN). Cheers. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted August 1, 2023 Share Posted August 1, 2023 2 hours ago, Hunterw said: Daft. That feature was introduced in the stone age; people weren't having YouTube-screensaver conflicts in 2005 because of it. I think it worked in IE6, it worked in Firefox (at least after a patch) and I can't recall ever having that happen in Chrome - really I don't remember this issue outside of 360EE. I just checked in Chrome, screensaver is covering it. I have no recollection of this... Because those browsers and the OS they were developed for, they all matched perfectly. Modern Chrome was never meant to run on XP and shitload of compromises are made for them to run on it. That's what all these backports really are, a bunch of compromises, inefficiencies and half-baked or non-working features. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted August 1, 2023 Share Posted August 1, 2023 1 hour ago, UCyborg said: That's what all these backports really are, a bunch of compromises, inefficiencies and half-baked or non-working features. Agreed! Though I wouldn't call it all "inefficiencies". Not everyone here is a fan of Speedometer, but one must use some metric that is quantifiable and repeatable - for me, that's Speedometer. As a disclaimer, I am new to using St52 and I picked an older version for my own reasons, newer versions may score higher (but my experience is that they all fall within 5 to 10 points of each other). While 360Chrome v13.5 is a "backport" v86, it scores higher than "real" v86 (on my system, for other systems "mileage may vary"). Ungoogled v113 scores 320! "Real" v86 scores 149. "Backport" v86 scores 166. Serpent 52 scores an abysmal 62.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidao Posted August 1, 2023 Share Posted August 1, 2023 1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Agreed! Though I wouldn't call it all "inefficiencies". Not everyone here is a fan of Speedometer, but one must use some metric that is quantifiable and repeatable - for me, that's Speedometer. As a disclaimer, I am new to using St52 and I picked an older version for my own reasons, newer versions may score higher (but my experience is that they all fall within 5 to 10 points of each other). While 360Chrome v13.5 is a "backport" v86, it scores higher than "real" v86 (on my system, for other systems "mileage may vary"). Ungoogled v113 scores 320! "Real" v86 scores 149. "Backport" v86 scores 166. Serpent 52 scores an abysmal 62.6. Is this "St52" based on firefox52 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted August 1, 2023 Share Posted August 1, 2023 @NotHereToPlayGames Sure, it's never all linear. Things vary by hardware, different forks of browsers (and software in general) using different APIs for the same thing, one API being faster/slower under different circumstances. One thing improves, another regresses etc. Software gets more complex with time, humans make mistakes, there's never enough time to make everything perfect. And the hardware is cheap while human labor is not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted August 1, 2023 Share Posted August 1, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, hidao said: Is this "St52" based on firefox52 ? I technically don't define it as "based on" anything. It's more of a hodge-podge conglamerate. Theoretically, yeah, I suppose it "started" with Fx52. But... St52 can do nullish coalescing operator, something Firefox couldn't do until v72 - https://caniuse.com/?search=nullish St52 can do optional chaining, something Firefox couldn't do until v74 - https://caniuse.com/?search=chaining St52 partially supports BigInt, something Firefox couldn't do until v68 - https://caniuse.com/?search=bigint The list is kind of endless. BUT there are also things that Firefox can do that St52 cannot do. And even more things that a Chrome-based can do that a Firefox-based cannot do. And vice versa, of course. Edited August 1, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VistaLover Posted August 2, 2023 Share Posted August 2, 2023 13 hours ago, hidao said: Is this "St52" based on firefox52 Serpent 52 is a browser application built on (a fork of) the UXP platform, the same platform the official Pale Moon browser (by Moonchild Productions) is built on; more technically, Serpent 52 is a fork of the official Basilisk browser application, but these two forks have somewhat diverged from each other over time... While UXP was forked from Mozilla 52.6esr initially (and that was years ago), UXP-based browsers have been equipped with a plethora of recent web API technologies and the XP-compatible forks (New Moon 28/Serpent 52/a few other) have empowered "legacy" OS (XP/Vista) users to surf a very large chunk of the 2023 WWW ... Be that as it may, no UXP-based browser will be a perfect match, webcompatibility-wise, for recent versions of Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, especially on the many, JS-infested , "popular" sites of this era... The XP-compatible UXP-forks are being maintained by roytam1, more info can be found in the respective thread(s) ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSC4 Posted August 2, 2023 Share Posted August 2, 2023 From your first page: https://msfn.org/board/topic/182876-360-extreme-explorer-modified-version/ The modified version download links are missing. In the 7Z Archive, I downloaded 360 Extreme Explore Version 13.0.2310.0 and tried to get it to run. It would not open any web page and showed this error. One reason could be I am running XP Pro 64-bit. Does it work on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hidao Posted August 2, 2023 Share Posted August 2, 2023 4 hours ago, VistaLover said: Serpent 52 is a browser application built on (a fork of) the UXP platform, the same platform the official Pale Moon browser (by Moonchild Productions) is built on; more technically, Serpent 52 is a fork of the official Basilisk browser application, but these two forks have somewhat diverged from each other over time... While UXP was forked from Mozilla 52.6esr initially (and that was years ago), UXP-based browsers have been equipped with a plethora of recent web API technologies and the XP-compatible forks (New Moon 28/Serpent 52/a few other) have empowered "legacy" OS (XP/Vista) users to surf a very large chunk of the 2023 WWW ... Be that as it may, no UXP-based browser will be a perfect match, webcompatibility-wise, for recent versions of Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, especially on the many, JS-infested , "popular" sites of this era... The XP-compatible UXP-forks are being maintained by roytam1, more info can be found in the respective thread(s) ... Oh, thanks for explain, I don't have interesting now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted August 2, 2023 Share Posted August 2, 2023 3 hours ago, WSC4 said: One reason could be I am running XP Pro 64-bit. Does it work on that? YES. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now