Jump to content

360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version


Recommended Posts

 

11 hours ago, Chuck said:

I've started to think that this has to be expected and probably chromium >69 requires double the ram to run.

this issue was solved since the release of the rebuild 7 @NotHereToPlayGames

with Win7 x64 and original chrome I can have more than 100 active tabs (yes active, not only open) at a time and RAM consumption is just about 3GB...

I never understood the problem around chrome RAM usage because 99% of computers shipped with W7 already had 4GB of RAM or more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

How much RAM does v11 use with only 1 tab opened on your system (without extensions)?

V11 is perfectly usable, I was intending versions newer that it, with one tab (default) uses only 80 megabytes, opening google.com usage gets to 106 mb.

Launching DC browser instead (always all extensions disabled) with 1 default tab the ram used from it is 370 mb and just 15 mb of difference opening google.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Milkinis said:

 

this issue was solved since the release of the rebuild 7 @NotHereToPlayGames

with Win7 x64 and original chrome I can have more than 100 active tabs (yes active, not only open) at a time and RAM consumption is just about 3GB...

I never understood the problem around chrome RAM usage because 99% of computers shipped with W7 already had 4GB of RAM or more.

 

I have no idea, maybe it's windows XP fault. You can see into my previous comment the difference between 360ee 11 and DC browser, 5 times the ram opening 1 tab, which reduces to 2.5 times opening 5 tabs with some sites opened in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multi-processor web browser RAM usage is not "linear".  The browser decides how many processes to run based on number of open tabs and available RAM.

Run the same exact browser on a computer with 1 GB RAM, 2 GB RAM, and 4 GB RAM and you will get different RAM consumption.

Here is my 360Chrome v11 rebuild 8 on XP with 1 GB RAM, Humming Owl's DcBrowser on XP with 1 GB RAM, and Ungoogled Chromium v77 on Win7 with 1 GB RAM.

image.thumb.png.90c6f8758d4c06e324b6d941f290b339.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the same three browsers but with VM RAM increased from 1 GB to 2 GB.

Note that v11 stays at four processes while DcB and Ungoogled v77 both increased in the number of processes despite being the same four tabs.

Also note that a DcB process on a 1 GB VM is roughly 30 MB but a DcB process on a 2 GB VM is roughly 110 MB !!!
This seems to suggest that the rebase address has to be somehow based on the system's overall available RAM.

image.thumb.png.dd169ee52b6d7ebee1310072831eac07.png

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Restart XP and first launch only of DcB has RAM/process back up around 110 MB.

As I said ram usage from 360ee 11 is low enough to run on 2 gigs of ram, even with 2 extensions (ublock origin and bookmarks sidebar) doesn't need a lot of ram, does not use all ram as long as you do not open 10 tabs maybe? This is different using 360ee 12, 13, kafan and DC, which 6 tabs can fill the entire ram and doesn't look like to empty it very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Note that v11 stays at four processes while DcB and Ungoogled v77 both increased in the number of processes despite being the same four tabs.

I have been using the multi-process mode since it was introduced into the original FF52

you just can't imagine how sluggish and stressful firefox forks are with 1 single process but some users seems to be happy with it, maybe they don't open more than 2 tabs at a time.... :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2023 at 3:20 PM, Humming Owl said:

Updated 360EE v9, v11, v12, v13, DCB, and both MiniBrowser browser's files.

are you the only person who made up this modified DC browser ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Milkinis said:

I have been using the multi-process mode since it was introduced into the original FF52

you just can't imagine how sluggish and stressful firefox forks are with 1 single process but some users seems to be happy with it, maybe they don't open more than 2 tabs at a time.... :wacko:

I guess I'm more patient than most folks. Max number of tabs I usually open is 10 - 15. Single-process mode is guaranteed to work with all XUL extensions one may want to use. I'm mostly concerned about speed/performance when it comes to multimedia.

Edited by UCyborg
Word change
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2023 at 9:20 AM, Humming Owl said:

Updated 360EE v9, v11, v12, v13, DCB, and both MiniBrowser browser's files.

- Rebased chrome.dll (and chrome_child.dll where it applies) to address 0x10010000.

non-rebased DLLs are kept just in case.

https://archive.org/download/360EE_Modified_Version

Cheers.

Just wanted to say thank you for continuing to maintain these browsers to this day! I will have to try them now and see how they are doing on performance...it's amazing how much speed you can gain by rebasing the DLLs. 360v13.x used to run well, albeit a bit slow with a lot of tabs open...when NHTPG rebased his 360v13.5 build, the speed became competitive with old and fast 9.5/11/12!
The same principle applied to those older browsers, and to DCB and MiniBrowser, should mean significant performance gains for web browsing. It's truly fantastic because unlocking the extra speed is beneficial across the board, not just for those on Ivy Bridge and Haswell-era processors but those who are still using very old Pentium 4 or Athlon 64-based machines.

For my part, I still use my old HP S5-1020, which I've even run 2000 on years ago (with full driver support) and have gone up to 10 with. 10 actually doesn't run too bad if you strip away the bloat and tweak it sufficiently, but XP is much faster. The performance can give the latest PCs running 11 a run for their money, and that's with an old HDD! If I ever put an SSD in it, forget it...it's game over.
While it's possible to run newer OSes, having done a lot of testing recently (and over the years) I can say for sure that older PCs really thrive with XP and have their ups and downs with Vista and later. Being able to use modern web browsers in XP, and have a sense of assurance that they will not only run but run with good speed, is a truly amazing thing.

Thanks again for doing what you do, H.O.!

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...