Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version


Humming Owl
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/20/2021 at 9:34 PM, Dixel said:

1 - No emojis are due to the browser's blocking remote fonts (which is a nice thing) .

I don't know what's an issue here, but V13 didn't have a problem on later OS with same user profile data when I tested it last time. I've tested V9 - V12 from this thread and those are OK on XP (they're not set to block web fonts out-of-the-box neither).

On 7/20/2021 at 9:34 PM, Dixel said:

2- I use a very dated PC for the internet . CPU is from 2008 (quad) ! (soon to be 14 years old!) . And I do not see any lags , even though hardware acceleration is blocked completely due to disabled fingerprinting. Perhaps it has something to do with XP ? (I gather you're on XP , right ?)

Talking about only video playback aspect, from my testing in my environment, there are multiple factors. V13 appears a bit faster post XP, of course I made sure to disable HW acceleration on newer OS. Seems to have gotten slower in general with V12 (though affects XP the most, showing playback controls on YouTube make a hard performance hit). V11 appears most performant overall.

On 7/20/2021 at 9:34 PM, Dixel said:

3 - Problem with certificates can be solved with a cert. pack by @legacyfan

They're recent enough and if they were a problem (haven't gone researching how the one I have ties to CA certificates), it would show in Chrome 49 as well, not just V13. V9 - V12 all OK on XP.

Edited by UCyborg
Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Again, I wholly and fully support taking measures to make our own browsing experience free of telemetry!

I've got nothing to "hide" and there is a balance between returning to driving a horse-drawn buggy and just allowing telemetry to go unchecked

I agree 100%!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

I think it is a very nice browser :D. Chromium-based browsers were almost forgotten for WinXP (at least from what I could see). Firefox based ones got all the attention. I'm not sure why exactly (maybe how easy it is to deal with Firefox's source code relative to Chromium's) but it seems a bit strange to me that it wasn't that much considered and/or possible (at least from this part of the world) to make Chromium compatible for WinXP. With this I am not taking away merit from Firefox based browsers, those who have maintained them have done a great job that I am not even aware of, but, I like Chromium, in my opinion it is more efficient. 

Yes, I'm pleasantly surprised with this browser; as I'm one that avoided chromium for so long and only turned to Iron, UC, and, Vivaldi on rare occasion that FF didn't work ... my avoidance of chrome turned into phobia lol. But since I plan to stick with XP so long as this Old Clunker starts up when I crank it up, It'd be nice to actually come from out under the rock; seeing our limitations are becoming obvious each passing day with FF - not matter how hard we try to shine up an old...

Edited by XPerceniol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ArcticFoxie I think this could be a good information.

I modified every "googleapis" and "gstatic" entries on the "chrome.dll" file and the google connections that appeared on every launch of the browser do not appear anymore (v11). I am not sure which of all the entries are the ones involved in the connections and if this modification could brake something with the browser. Let me know what do you get with this.

Cheers.

Edited by Humming Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/20/2021 at 5:24 PM, Dixel said:

Wouldn't it easier to use "no first run" flag ? Perhaps it will help with your gstatic connections. Do not get mad at me , it's just a suggestion.

I think this could be a good option. Is there any way to add that flag directly into the "360chrome.exe" file?

The only way I know about is by creating a shortcut and from that shortcut you can add the flag.

Edited by Humming Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

3 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

I modified every "googleapis" and "gstatic" entries on the "chrome.dll" file and the google connections that appeared on every launch of the browser do not appear anymore (v11). I am not sure which of all the entries are the ones involved in the connections and if this modification could brake something with the browser. Let me know what do you get with this.

I can't test on my x86xp2, V9, V11 doesn't work on x86 xpsp2, V12 and V13 work very well on xpsp2.
Question: why 360chrome has gone backwards to ensure operation with version 12 and 13 for windows xp sp2...:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

@ArcticFoxie I think this could be a good information.

I modified every "googleapis" and "gstatic" entries on the "chrome.dll" file and the google connections that appeared on every launch of the browser do not appear anymore (v11). I am not sure which of all the entries are the ones involved in the connections and if this modification could brake something with the browser. Let me know what do you get with this.

Cheers.

Do you have additional details on the googleapis and gstatic modifications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IXOYE said:

Question: why 360chrome has gone backwards to ensure operation with version 12 and 13 for windows xp sp2...:whistle:

I have a very VERY strong hunch that this was simply an "accident" and that the developers of 360Chrome did not test in xp x86 sp2 and have zero interest in xp x86 sp2.

I have an equally strong hunch that the developers also did not test in win 2000, win 98, win 95, or win 3.1 and nor did they test on a Commodore 64 or VIC-20.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

I think this could be a good option. Is there any way to add that flag directly into the "360chrome.exe" file?

The only way I know about is by creating a shortcut and from that shortcut you can add the flag.

re: --no-first-run

From what I have read, I have very low expectations on this command line switch and would not chase the rabbit down this rabbit hole.

The "first run" that this command line switch entails is more along the lines of the "welcome" page which 360Chrome does not employ anyway (though it might "coincidentally" break that v11 first-run popup for selecting theme).

I'll be confirming later but again, this switch is all about that "welcome" page that orginal Chrome/Chromium will display on first run.

Not saying with full certainty that it will not fix that first-run gstatic, but I have very low expectations at this point.

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can hereby confirm that the --no-first-run switch does NOT prevent that first-run gstatic connection (only tested in v13 build 2206).

Nor does it effect startup time for the first launch after a reboot (which for me is generally right around 5.5sec versus 0.4sec for every launch thereafter).

[MyPal, NM, and Basilisk also have this first-launch-after-reboot lag, possibly a side-effect to running all as "portable".]

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A must-read for everybody following this "gstatic" connection in 360Chrome  --  https://brave.com/popular-browsers-first-run/

Firefox v86 made 2,799 network requests to 8 domains on its first-run, 9 telemetry requests were made, 3 telemetry requests were made 10 minutes after Firefox was closed, new requests were made on second-run.

The writeup also discusses Chrome v89 (cites 91 network requests) and reports no observed personal information or unique identifiers.

I'm finding the ONE solitary first-run-only gstatic connection to be HARMLESS and won't be spending time on my end to axe it.

I will port any findings to my rebuild but I'm seeing it as HARMLESS and "excessive paranoia" - time to put on our Archie McPhee Tin Foil Hat.

I don't deny that the article is a Brave "marketing" writeup, but at the same time they would be "tarred and feathered" for any false and misleading "propaganda".

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, IXOYE said:

Hi

I can't test on my x86xp2, V9, V11 doesn't work on x86 xpsp2, V12 and V13 work very well on xpsp2.
Question: why 360chrome has gone backwards to ensure operation with version 12 and 13 for windows xp sp2...:whistle:

Hello. Test it in v12 for now. The modifications between versions are almost exactly the same, the location is what varies.

Can you send a picture of the error you get when running v9 and v11? Maybe something can be done.

2 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Do you have additional details on the googleapis and gstatic modifications?

No, I just replaced those entries by dots.

1 hour ago, ArcticFoxie said:

i can hereby confirm that the --no-first-run switch does NOT prevent that first-run gstatic connection (only tested in v13 build 2206).

Ok. I wanted to try it to see if I could remove the popup window that shows up on the first run of the browser, but it didn't work.

9 minutes ago, ArcticFoxie said:

Firefox v86 made 2,799 network requests

Wow :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Humming Owl said:

Wow :crazy:

I wasn't surprised, to be honest.

I used to use Comodo Firewall and setting up rules for Firefox was always very tricky and time-consuming (unless you just wanted to tell Comodo to "trust" Firefox, which was never my route!).

Firefox has always done some very strange stuff on startup.

They conducted their test in a similar fashion to how I tend to - NO STARTUP PAGE (it's tricky to isolate first-run shenanigans if you throw a startup page into the frey), no profile, launch and let it sit there for TEN MINUTES without opening anything, don't go to any web site, don't open any settings page, don't click anywhere, just let it SIT THERE.  Then click around in the GUI while still monitoring net traffic.  Then close and relaunch and continue to monitor net traffic.

My 360Chrome v13 build 2206 only has the ONE gstatic connection and it has no unique identifiers that I can find (I welcome anybody to screencap evidence to the contrary because that would shift priorities).

But just citing its presence is kinda propaganda, smear tactics, undo paranoia, you can decide for yourselves how to "label" it.

I myself (until proven otherwise) find it not only HARMLESS, but it's been there for DECADES in all Chromium builds.

Again, I am of the persuasion that IF it was NOT harmless, then there would have been a hanging in the town square and the revolution would have been televised.  Or something like that...

Edited by ArcticFoxie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ArcticFoxie said:

But just citing its presence is kinda propaganda, smear tactics, undo paranoia, you can decide for yourselves how to "label" it.

I myself (until proven otherwise) find it not only HARMLESS, but it's been there for DECADES in all Chromium builds.

Again, I am of the persuasion that IF it was NOT harmless, then there would have been a hanging in the town square and the revolution would have been televised.  Or something like that...

Hello and good day @ArcticFoxie @Dixel @Humming Owl..

Just wanted to say, I'm going to do some testing of both your updated browser builds this weekend. Thank you for the offer to allow me to test your browser build @Dixel as I understand you'd rather not publish it openly and will consider it.

I wanted to put something on the record - few tings actually.

I'm not paranoid and I'm ok with (both) some telemetry and startup connections, and I'm also fine with using 360 without changing the UA. This browser appears to have to good rating on softpedia and other sites regarding security ... from what I read anyway. 

I feel bad that I dropped out of so quickly @ArcticFoxie after I said I'm all in with this, but as I said, I just don't know what I'm doing - I barely know if I"m coming or going most of the time anyway lol

Ok (taking a breath)

I feel bad that I didn't get a screen shot to you or report this to you before I just deleted and cleaned my computer, but has anybody else found 360 desktop on their computer after running the browser? I never used any installer and only your portable (unran) version. Of course, I will, surely (but please don't call me Shirley) let you know if I have any question going forward.

Anyway, very much looking forward to your updated build 2206 with what you said was on the 'chopping block' you intend to remove, as I've said; though I'm not afraid of google, I don't sign in or need their "services" for my rather benign web browsing.

 

Edited by XPerceniol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

4 hours ago, Humming Owl said:

Hello. Test it in v12 for now. The modifications between versions are almost exactly the same, the location is what varies.

Can you send a picture of the error you get when running v9 and v11? Maybe something can be done.

There is nothing to do it's a kernel32.dll error at startup of 360Chrome V9 and V11 under x86 xp sp2.This error does not occur under xp sp3. That's why I was asking why the Chinese made 360Chrome V12 and V13 compatible with xp sp2 kernel32.dll, while the older V9 and V11 were not compatible with x86 xp sp2 kernel32.dll.

erreursxp2.jpg

 

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...