Future of Chrome on Windows 7

[msquidpl]

.

Edited February 26, 2023 by msquidpl

[Cocodile]

On 2/13/2023 at 11:59 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I can say that I hereby have no plans to undertake any Catsxp-based project.

I am extremely thankful that a "new" Chrome/Chromium Fork has risen to the challenge of maintaining functionality with Win7 that does not require an Extended Kernel and will keep an eye on it as a possible future project.

But when it comes right down to it, there are better performing options available to the Vanilla Win7 crowd.

Yet I also say this not knowing any web site examples that "work" in Chrome v110 but do not work in Chrome v96 - I'd rather run a "slightly older" variant and have improved performance than use "cutting edge" but take the performance hit.

 

Win7 Enterprise SP1 -
360Chrome v13.5 build 1030  ==  56.5
Ungoogled Chromium v86  ==  67.3
Catsxp v3.2.4  ==  68.7
GDIChromium v96  ==  96.3

I can't see any difference on my hardware, all ot these open up so fast so I can't say which is which. I'm sorry, I don't have LGA775 to test them on.

If you ask me, CatsXP 111 seems to be an alternative to 360EE for the usage in the dying Windows 7/8.1. And I'd start with 110/111 (or even wait for 112 to see if they made it work on 7), because by the time you finish, it would still be fine. But if you start with 96 ... well. It would be 3 years old or so.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, Cocodile said:

But if you start with 96 ... well. It would be 3 years old or so.

Doesn't concern me too much, to be honest.

I think people over-estimate just how "fast" 'web standards' migrate through the internet.

We are "forced" to use MS Edge at work (us in Engineering are exempt, thankfully!) - MS Edge has been updated THIRTEEN times this year alone!  And we're only 46 days into the year.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/microsoft-edge-relnote-stable-channel

I'm sorry, that's just STUPID in my "not so humble" opinion.

Edited February 15, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, Cocodile said:

I can't see any difference on my hardware, all ot these open up so fast so I can't say which is which. I'm sorry, I don't have LGA775 to test them on.

Same here.

But given one browser that scores 290 on a popular benchmark versus 330 on a different browser, I'll use that 330 despite not being able to "see any difference".

Kind of like back when AMD over-clocking was much more popular than it seems to be nowadays, we'd squeeze that turnip to the point of just-below-instability but never really "see any difference".

[msquidpl]

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/memoryapi/nf-memoryapi-discardvirtualmemory

Minimum supported client: Windows 8.1 Update [desktop apps | UWP apps]

Update required to work version 112 on Windows 8.1?

[win32]

1 hour ago, msquidpl said:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/memoryapi/nf-memoryapi-discardvirtualmemory

Minimum supported client: Windows 8.1 Update [desktop apps | UWP apps]

Update required to work version 112 on Windows 8.1?

This function was actually introduced in Windows 10.

And WinHTTP functions are also needed for 112. I think most if not all of those were added in Windows 8.

[mina7601]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:58 PM, msquidpl said:

but I should replace/patch/add a lot of API-MS DLL files.

Have you now got Chrome working after doing this?

[yoltboy01]

5 hours ago, msquidpl said:

Chromium 111.0.5500.0 working on Windows 7!!!

Edit: Chrome 110.0.5481.104 works

 

Congrats, very nice work dude!

I think v111 - up to 5520 was working on 8.1 with the —no-sandbox hack as well. You think we could port pack newer builds or even v112 to 7/8.1 ? It has that weird DiscardVirtualMemory dependence that is missing on older versions

[mina7601]

22 minutes ago, msquidpl said:

I tried to backport newer builds - no succes. 

But seriously though, that's still great work and I'm grateful for that. Last version is 109, and you got 2 higher versions working. Great work!

Edited February 18, 2023 by mina7601

[win32]

With the Vista extended kernel, I have managed to get up to 111.0.5520 working with sandbox, and up to about 111.0.5550 without sandbox. However there is some problem with shared memory brokering that has broken it in both cases. Couldn't map an API change to it yet, as this code is well abstracted from the win32 API.

[yoltboy01]

10 hours ago, msquidpl said:

It's working when I used DWrite.dll from Windows 10, but crashes after while. Older builds of Chromium like 5550 working good with this dll.

 

How do you use DWrite from 10? Did you replace kernel32.dll ?

[Cocodile]

19 hours ago, msquidpl said:

resource.pak

There's an editor for that file available. The name's chrome-pak unpacker.

[mina7601]

6 hours ago, Cocodile said:

There's an editor for that file available. The name's chrome-pak unpacker.

Github link is: chrome-pak-customizer

[Cocodile]

On 2/15/2023 at 3:26 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Same here.

But given one browser that scores 290 on a popular benchmark versus 330 on a different browser, I'll use that 330 despite not being able to "see any difference".

Kind of like back when AMD over-clocking was much more popular than it seems to be nowadays, we'd squeeze that turnip to the point of just-below-instability but never really "see any difference".

For those on Windows 7, their choice is limited, any new working engine will do fine.

Can't share the memories, sorry. I never bothered myself with AMD, I didn't want my room to become a boiler room.

[mina7601]

22 hours ago, msquidpl said:

It's working when I used DWrite.dll from Windows 10, but crashes after while. Older builds of Chromium like 5550 working good with this dll.

 

Update me. Have you got this build working on Windows 7 too?

Edited February 19, 2023 by mina7601