360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

[NotHereToPlayGames]

27 minutes ago, Milkinis said:

but did you notice any lag or latency while browsing the same web sites ?

Heck Yeah!

We use MS Teams spanning multiple continents here at work.

I do not use the desktop app but opt to use the web interface for MS Teams.

It's also noticeable beyond any shadow of doubt when listening to music on YouTube or watching sitcoms on Pluto TV or watching live news on Xfinity Stream (but note that I also have "dozens" of other work-related apps all open also).

That said, there is no observable lag or latency for MSFN-type web sites or my bank account web sites.

Edited August 5, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Mathwiz]

On 8/2/2023 at 5:16 AM, Milkinis said:

No thanks. FF52 with the multi processes mode enabled is significantly better than Serpent and Newmoon.

Oh, come on. You cannot even enable e10s in New Moon.

But you can enable it in Serpent (both 52 and 55). Did you try that?

If not, you did an "apples to oranges" comparison: FF with e10s is faster than Serpent without e10s. Well, duh; FF with e10s is faster than FF without e10s too - that's why we have a whole thread on enabling it!

(To be fair, FF/Serpent with e10s is quite the memory hog - and still slow - compared to Chrome 86/87 ports. So I wouldn't recommend it unless you've beefed up the RAM in your PC, preferably with 64-bit XP or later so you can get more than 4GB, or at least with an SSD for the swap file.)

On 8/3/2023 at 2:39 PM, UCyborg said:

Sorry, nobody will convince me I need this multi-process nonsense to display a bunch of images, text, dynamic elements, voice-chat etc.

Technically, you're right about that. Multiprocessing is mostly a convenience for developers. But that said, it does have its advantages for us end users.

Beyond the obvious (letting a 32-bit app use more RAM), if your tab crashes in FF/Serpent, and you're running in the default single-process mode, your whole browser crashes! But if that happens in multiprocess mode, you just reload the tab.

On 8/3/2023 at 6:34 PM, UCyborg said:

My hunch is that typical MSFNer is just angry that he can't run today's browsers/web pages well on his old 2001 (or worse!) computer.

<rant>

And why shouldn't she be? The original idea behind HTML was supposed to be that any browser, no matter how primitive, would render a "usable" Web page, merely ignoring the tags it didn't understand. If you use a browser from 2001, it may look like a Web site from 2001, but you're still supposed to be able to use it, at least.

But that's long gone, thanks largely to Google (but also others including Mozilla). Nowadays, if your browser doesn't understand the latest bullish snarkifying operator added to JavaScript in the latest Chromium release, you're likely to just get a totally blank page (or if you're "lucky," a curt message telling you to "upgrade" your browser, even if that means "upgrading" your OS to the latest monstrosity from Micro$oft, and in turn buying a new PC capable of running that monstrosity) because the Web designer used JavaScript with that bullish snarkifying operator to build the entire Web page from scratch! HTML? Who needs it?

(With the side effect being you can't disable JavaScript any more, and have to rely on other, more complex means to block the spyware embedded within.)

So yeah, we're angry. Not (for the most part) because we intend to use a PC that old, but because we shouldn't have to keep buying newer, more expensive PCs every few years just to keep doing the same exact things we've always done, just because some Web framework developer couldn't resist using that shiny new bullish snarkifying operator (for "security")!

</rant>

[NotHereToPlayGames]

4 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Technically, you're right about that. Multiprocessing is mostly a convenience for developers. But that said, it does have its advantages for us end users.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

4 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

So yeah, we're angry. Not (for the most part) because we intend to use a PC that old, but because we shouldn't have to keep buying newer, more expensive PCs every few years

I do think that is where most of us here at MSFN over-exaggerate.

Every few years?  That is an exaggeration.

My newest PC is a Dell XPS 8700 from 2013.  Ten years old and still very impressive for a WEB BROWSER.  Only the "gamer crowd" would find it unappealing.

And again, that is my newest PC.

The problem, here at MSFN at least, is the unrealistic view that something TWENTY years old should perform "identically" to something TEN or even FIVE years old.  Unrealistic.

It would be one thing if the MSFNer that puplicly cries (for lack of a better word) about that 20yr old computer being slow was from a Third World Country - but most are not.

Most of it, to me at least, just sounds like the cries of somebody needing to be heard but has nothing to say.

 

It's a gray area, I get it.  I disprove of the "throw-away society" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw-away_society (my DAILY DRIVER car is THIRTY TWO YEARS OLD without a single spot of rust!).

Perform a search for "average life of computer" and you will find article after article after article citing three to five years.  THAT IS RIDICULOUS!  All of mine are two to three times that!

But we simply are unrealistic to think a four to five times that should perform identically to a two to three times that.

 

We only have ourselves to blame on how we "react".

I personally LAUGH MY BUTT OFF when I take off from a red light and have to take the foot off the gas to hit the clutch, manually move transmission from 1st gear to 2nd gear, and the person behind me has to HIT THEIR BRAKES to keep from rear-ending me!

We only have ourselves to blame if we CHUCKLE about our old PC or if we cry and whine and act like a "have not" thinking it 'unfair' that the "have's" have a better computer.

Because let's face it, we could all have a better computer if we wanted one.  None of these shouts are coming from a Third World Country.  Or maybe they are, I don't follow that closely - because I don't want to rear-end anybody.

[Dave-H]

8 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Technically, you're right about that. Multiprocessing is mostly a convenience for developers. But that said, it does have its advantages for us end users.

Isn't increased stability the main advantage of multiprocessing in browsers?
If each tab and add-on is running in a separate process, wouldn't that likely prevent a crash in one tab bringing the whole browser down?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Depends on your perspective.  Here's a good read - https://www.webperf.tips/tip/browser-process-model/

As the perfect example cited by someone else here at MSFN (unable to locate at the moment), single-process FF is slower than multi-process FF, but both are "stable".

[hidao]

23 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I do think that is where most of us here at MSFN over-exaggerate.

Every few years?  That is an exaggeration.

My newest PC is a Dell XPS 8700 from 2013.  Ten years old and still very impressive for a WEB BROWSER.  Only the "gamer crowd" would find it unappealing.

And again, that is my newest PC.

The problem, here at MSFN at least, is the unrealistic view that something TWENTY years old should perform "identically" to something TEN or even FIVE years old.  Unrealistic.

It would be one thing if the MSFNer that puplicly cries (for lack of a better word) about that 20yr old computer being slow was from a Third World Country - but most are not.

Most of it, to me at least, just sounds like the cries of somebody needing to be heard but has nothing to say.

 

It's a gray area, I get it.  I disprove of the "throw-away society" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throw-away_society (my DAILY DRIVER car is THIRTY TWO YEARS OLD without a single spot of rust!).

Perform a search for "average life of computer" and you will find article after article after article citing three to five years.  THAT IS RIDICULOUS!  All of mine are two to three times that!

But we simply are unrealistic to think a four to five times that should perform identically to a two to three times that.

 

We only have ourselves to blame on how we "react".

I personally LAUGH MY BUTT OFF when I take off from a red light and have to take the foot off the gas to hit the clutch, manually move transmission from 1st gear to 2nd gear, and the person behind me has to HIT THEIR BRAKES to keep from rear-ending me!

We only have ourselves to blame if we CHUCKLE about our old PC or if we cry and whine and act like a "have not" thinking it 'unfair' that the "have's" have a better computer.

Because let's face it, we could all have a better computer if we wanted one.  None of these shouts are coming from a Third World Country.  Or maybe they are, I don't follow that closely - because I don't want to rear-end anybody.

My newest computer:

[NotHereToPlayGames]

That one basically hit store shelves in January 2012.  Many around here wouldn't label it as "era correct" for XP.

I myself don't really look at it as "era correct" or not.  Anything without 16 GB RAM in this day and age isn't "capable" of running Win10 or Win11 and I'd put the cutoff at 8 GB RAM for Win7.

At least not for the "average consumer".  My "nosed, decked, chopped, shaved, and sectioned" (a car term) Win7 doesn't break a sweat with only 2 GB RAM and my Win10 doesn't break a sweat at 3 GB RAM.

Of course, it should also be obvious that I don't try to run 30 tabs in a web browser on either - a "habit" I don't condone for anyone with less that 16 GB or even 32 GB RAM.  (ie, sometimes our "pain and misery" is brought on by ourselves)

 

[UCyborg]

Ha, my PC's from 2009 with a GPU from 2014. Web browsing isn't a big deal, Chromium Edge still flies on this computer, more modern gaming though, that's really pushing it, still, I recently made it through Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. With a bit of patience, it's possible, it takes cca. over 5 minutes to load a map (game world) and unlike Call of Duty 2 on a 256 MB RAM PC, where only map loading times are of concern, which was actually sold with the 256 MB RAM min requirement with the note in the documentation that map loading needs more RAM and is therefore slower on min-specced PC, CoD: MW Remastered was sold with 8 GB requirement as a minimum and consequently, there'll be slowdowns when reaching new areas. They put a warning before you start it:

Yup, the indicator in the upper right corner of Task Manager is correct, that's 4 GB of DDR2 RAM straight from 2009, 3 HDDs spinning at 7200 RPM, also not visible a quad-core AMD Phenom II X4 920, not as speedy, more on the slower side, but I felt like supporting AMD back then, Intel's rich anyway. And that's pretty much it, my daily driver running Win10, I must be an oddball among Win10 users, at least from what I'm reading, but getting the very most out of this hardware and not complaining much, but I don't push it to the limit with period-incorrect games most of the time that fill almost entire RAM and video RAM and when conditions are right, put 100% or near 100% load on both CPU and GPU and obviously also giving good exercise to two hard disks (games are always run from a separate HDD here).

All this aside, I agree web should be more accessible. Facebook has shown (among others) they can make it so convoluted that you can't even tell what's missing with a slightly older browser. So even the idea of polyfills falls apart because what do you even need to polyfill?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

52 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

my PC's from 2009 with a GPU from 2014

Just on the home front, I have 8 computers.  3 of them are used each and every day!

My "newest" is the workhorse Dell XPS 8700 from 2013, originally with 8 GB RAM, upgraded to 16 GB RAM.
Came with Win7 Home, intentionally "downgraded" to XP x64.

My "finances" computer is an emachines T3656 from 2008.
Technically it was given to me by a neighbor in January 2009 - they basically gave away a Christmas gift that their own family had given to them!
It came with Vista Home Basic and only 1 GB DDR2.
The neighbor downright HATED IT and offered me a TRADE for an even OLDER computer that I had lying around with XP on it.  AMD Athlon 64 with 2 GB RAM.
I've never upgraded any GPU's, I don't do games and never needed anything more than cheap OEM onboard graphics.
I intentionally "downgraded" to XP x86 and increased to 4 GB RAM (still only DDR2, 3.24 GB available, more than enough for what I use it for).
It came with a Celeron 440 @ 2.0 GHz.
I upgraded it to an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66 GHz (best I could get with current motherboard, more than enough for what I use it for).
"This thing is so old" that it has three 4:3 17" monitors, doesn't even have widescreen, lol.
It's been very good to me (after the upgrades), especially for a FREEBIE.

[Milkinis]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:56 AM, Mathwiz said:

<rant>

Oh, come on. You cannot even enable e10s in New Moon.

But you can enable it in Serpent (both 52 and 55). Did you try that?

If not, you did an "apples to oranges" comparison:

FF with e10s is faster than Serpent without e10s.

Well, duh; FF with e10s is faster than FF without e10s too - that's why we have a whole thread on enabling it!

</rant>

F52 is slightly faster than S52 

F52 with multiprocesses is significantly faster than S52 with multiprocesses

I am manually transfering my bookmarks one by one from chrome v11 over to v13.5

I can confirm what @NotHereToPlayGames stated back in the day, the v11 is somewhat more responsive

many sites don't load correctly anymore even the google main page is displayed differently 

I will miss them both.... 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Milkinis

[NotHereToPlayGames]

29 minutes ago, Milkinis said:

F52 with multiprocesses is significantly faster than F52 with multiprocesses

? ? ?

[hidao]

2 hours ago, Milkinis said:

F52 is slightly faster than S52 

F52 with multiprocesses is significantly faster than F52 with multiprocesses

I am manually transfering my bookmarks one by one from chrome v11 over to v13.5

I can confirm what @NotHereToPlayGames stated back in the day, the v11 is somewhat more responsive

many sites don't load correctly anymore even the google main page is displayed differently 

I will miss them both.... 

Why didn't you used the option of ImportExportBookmarks?

[Milkinis]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

? ? ?

fixed. 

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

On 8/3/2023 at 3:39 PM, UCyborg said:

Multi-process is a hoax IMO, another bad Googleism. Sorry, nobody will convince me I need this multi-process nonsense to display a bunch of images, text, dynamic elements, voice-chat etc. while a competent (single-process!) game engine will proces inputs of dozens of players, render the world in player's sight while animating all natural occurrences (river flowing, trees rustling), dynamic shadow casting, sun flares...while players are shooting each other on foot, in tanks, jeeps, airplanes, explosions going off, buildings being torn apart...

I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture.  It's all about FLOPS.  Or Giga Flops (GFLOPS).

Remember that most of us here are using computers 10 to 20+ years old, most of us don't see the need to run top-of-the-line brand-new gaming PCs.

Xbox 360 is 18 years old.  The Xbox 360 was rated at 240 GFLOPS.
PlayStation 3 is 17 years old.  The PlayStation 3 was rated at 230 GFLOPS.
PlayStation 4 is 10 years old and is rated at 1843 GFLOPS.
Xbox One X is 6000 GFLOPS.
PlayStation 5 is 10,280 GFLOPS.
Xbox Series X is 12,000 GFLOPS.

 

On average, a mid-range Intel Core i7 processor can perform around 100-200 GFLOPS (billion floating-point operations per second).
An i3 is only 110-120 GFLOPS.

Yes, an 18yr old Xbox 360 can beat the living tar out of any "modern" i3, i5, or i7 !!!