360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

[Milkinis]

19 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Ungoogled v113 scores 320!
"Real" v86 scores 149.
"Backport" v86 scores 166.
Serpent 52 scores an abysmal 62.6.

if you have performed the speed test on W10 that doesn't make much sense here

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Of course it does!  "It's all relative."

And you can not compare REAL v86 to backport v86 in XP, now can you?

Backport v86 is "faster" than REAL v86 in Win10 and in Win7 - my point was that you cannot blanket-statement backports as "inefficient".  Inefficient is another way of saying "slower".

One of the laptops is triple-boot - XP, 7, and 10.  Backport v86 on same hardware and on same network is FASTER than real v86.  But no, you cannot test real v86 in XP, we all already know that.

Feel free to test on your hardware, backported v86 is FASTER than real v86 - and I'm quite confident that it is for everyone, "not just me"..

 

On XP x64 -

Backport v86 scores 75.04.

Serpent 52 scores 36.5.

New Moon 28 scores 37.7.

 

Next I suppose you'll probably want to see "real" Firefox 52 and "real" Firefox 28 - but I don't have them and I leave that to those that are interested in the results.

Edited August 2, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Milkinis]

17 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Backport v86 is "faster" than REAL v86 in Win10 and in Win7 - my point was that you cannot blanket-statement backports as "inefficient".

I have no faith on these artificial bench marks

just pick a high traffic heavy load site such as twitter or facebook and then start surfing with both browsers.

I really doubt this ''backport 86'' will ever outperform the original 86 one, at least not in my use case

 

[Milkinis]

24 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Next I suppose you'll probably want to see "real" Firefox 52 and "real" Firefox 28 - but I don't have them and I leave that to those that are interested in the results.

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

 

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

14 minutes ago, Milkinis said:

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

 

I definitely don't doubt that.

Technically, I have ZERO use for St52 outside of one and only one tab (text messages throughout the day).

NONE of Roytam's offerings outperform 360Chrome - be it my real use cases or be it artificial benchmarks, they both walk hand in hand here, I've never witnessed real use cases indicate anything different than artificial benchmarks.

[Milkinis]

17 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I've never witnessed real use cases indicate anything different than artificial benchmarks.

10 days ago...

W7 = chrome 109 = 106
W7 = supermium 117 = 143

----------

right now...

W7 = chrome 13.5.1030 =  41
W7 = librewolf 115 = 49
W7 = chrome 109 = 62
W7 = supermium 117 = 69 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Milkinis

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Speedometer is a "snapshot" based on CURRENT network conditions.

I wouldn't expect them to score identically week after week.

HOWEVER, I have always always always had it place slowest to fastest in the IDENTICAL ORDER week after week when they are tested within minutes of each other - THAT order is VERY important to me, I like to "squeeze the turnip".

My LAN at work is the ONLY network I've ever had any browser score over 300.

My brother has had a Mac score over 400 (but I have no use for Mac "computers").

Edited August 2, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[VistaLover]

On 7/13/2021 at 3:58 AM, Humming Owl said:

Kafan Mini-Browser

Official Page --> https://browser.kfsafe.cn/

Forum --> https://bbs.kafan.cn/forum-298-1.html

(removed for brevity)

Original download link (you can unzip the EXE file with 7zip):

http://browser-download.kfsafe.cn/MiniBrowserSetup.exe

... FWIW, that "Original download link" now produces a "Server not found" error ...

[mina7601]

It's archived in the Wayback Machine though:

http://web.archive.org/web/20221201234530/http://browser-download.kfsafe.cn/MiniBrowserSetup.exe

[Milkinis]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Speedometer is a "snapshot" based on CURRENT network conditions.

My LAN at work is the ONLY network I've ever had any browser score over 300.

if so it's totally useless. 

 

[UCyborg]

I don't benchmark browsers, I benchmark websites and the benchmark tool is Pale Moon. If it works horrible there (hanging, long delays between actions etc.), then the site is considered crap. And even those a bit less than totally crappy still need a gaming PC for the experience on them to be a bit less than totally horrible.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

So how do you guys compare one browser to the next as far as performance?

I do not like "gut feelings", I want a "number".

Yes, I agree, step one is open up your most used web sites and check a "yes" or "no" for that browser on if those web sites even "work" or not.

But what about step two?  Without it being "gut feeling".  I've always maintained that browser selection is always boiled down to PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

But how would you guys propose something for a quantifiable MEASUREMENT on PERFORMANCE?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Many around here use HTML5 but it also places browsers pretty much in the EXACT SAME ORDER as Speedometer.

360Chrome scoring HIGHER than Serpent 52.  Serpent 52 scoring HIGHER than New Moon 28.

Again, I want a "number".  Not some Placebo Effect "gut feeling".

[Milkinis]

9 hours ago, UCyborg said:

I don't benchmark browsers, I benchmark websites and the benchmark tool is Pale Moon.

If it works horrible there (hanging, long delays between actions etc.), then the site is considered crap.

if the website was developed for multi processes capable browsers then the Pale Moon crap will struggle with these kind of sites

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Web sites are not "developed for multi process" browsers or not.

There is no header that the client-end tells the server-end how many processors the client has.

There is no "serve this version" for single-process, "serve that version" for multi-process.

The closest would probably be mobile layout versus desktop/laptop layout.

But that's more of a horizontal resolution issue than a processor-count issue (mobile phones are all single-processor, to the best of my knowledge).