ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.2022 rebuild 3

[XPerceniol]

Yeah, but don't forget about the loader :/

[NotHereToPlayGames]

re: zip versus portable versus standalone versus no-install versus permanent registry versus temporary registry...  ie, "stealth" entry at https://www.portablefreeware.com/ pertaining to registry and portable but app still referred to as "portable".

I'm not going to obsess over semantics.

We have less than a dozen people using 360Chrome and more than two dozen critiquing it.  Those numbers are kind of upside-down in my view.  What would "Start Is Back" say if I started posting in that thread despite never using "Start Is Back"?

Edited December 18, 2022 by NotHereToPlayGames

[XPerceniol]

17 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'm not going to obsess over semantics.

Lol ... far too many other things in life to obsess over ... such as, does the light go out the we close the refrigerator door? I have "first hand" knowledge that indeed the light goes out - was quite small and tight squeeze and a bit chilly.

Edited December 18, 2022 by XPerceniol

[UCyborg]

I recently setup this browser on my Vista SP2 installation. HW compositing only works via D3D9(Ex) (using chrome://flags/#ignore-gpu-blocklist), but WebGL does not, so I left it disabled , there are errors in D3D9 mode and D3D11 mode doesn't init at all (with --disable-gpu-driver-bug-workarounds since D3D11 is also blocked via that bug list), even OpenGL mode requires D3D11 (error DXGI_ERROR_INVALID_CALL during init), probably D3D11 Win7 got with updates is required.

Still, HTML5 videos at decent resolutions are watchable here despite non-functional GPU video decoding. Interestingly, the load on both CPU and GPU is less than on recent Serpent 52, same video codec (h.264) and resolution (1080p60). The GPU doesn't have to switch from the lowest frequency and there's a difference in temperature by 2 degrees celsius in favor of Chrome. It's very interesting because when I go from 1080p60 to 1440p60, it's not watchable on Chrome anymore, but remains watchable in Serpent (with hiccups).

Skia Renderer is reported as disabled by default, enabling it in chrome://flags prevents tons of errors from popping up on chrome://gpu page otherwise while browsing.

Some people use Skype or Teams in the browser, the latter seems popular in business environment (both WANT you to use Chrome, obviously one can forget official Electron based clients on legacy OS), this browser still loads both, I can only tell that microphone (or at least its port) exposed through Windows recording devices is detected (both on XP and Vista), though couldn't test if the sound goes through since don't have am actual mic at hand.

Also found an extension dealing with font contrast if anyone's interested - Chrome Font Super Enhancer, obviously can only mess with CSS properties, but uses some formula to determine the values.

Late edit: WebGL1 works partially.

Edited December 18, 2022 by UCyborg

[XPerceniol]

I know AF thinks it the end of the line, but I don't, I think 360 just hasn't appeared "sexy" enough to attract the new generation. How can we add bigger boobs to it?

Edited December 18, 2022 by XPerceniol

[NotHereToPlayGames]

The only "next Chrome for XP" that I am aware of is being forked/backported from Chromium v92.

I applaud more options but at the same time don't think v92 really gains us much over v86.

UXP died two years ago and as others have noted, it's hanging by a thread on "life support".

v86 is "living the golden years" in a retirement community, but there will be a day that it too will be on "life support".

 

I don't follow the "javascript chronology" or whatever it would be called - does anyone know what v92 would gain us over v86 as far as a Chromium-based backport?

Technically, my only "barometer" is my own list of bill-pay and checking/savings/retirement accounts.  it's anybody's guess on how much longer v86 is going to still work on my list of web sites.

But when the day comes that they stop working (and that day will come!), I don't foresee v92 being "new enough" to bridge the gap back to functional.  Only time will tell, it's all "speculation" until then.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

27 minutes ago, XPerceniol said:

How can we add bigger boobs to it?

Couldn't resist this little read on the off-topic, lol  --  https://stylecaster.com/butts-versus-boobs-which-do-guys-really-prefer/

[mina7601]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Couldn't resist this little read on the off-topic, lol  --  https://stylecaster.com/butts-versus-boobs-which-do-guys-really-prefer/

The last part of the post from that link seems interesting: "And there you have it, butt guys and boob guys were really not created equally after all."

[D.Draker]

8 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

The only "next Chrome for XP" that I am aware of is being forked/backported from Chromium v92.

I applaud more options but at the same time don't think v92 really gains us much over v86.

UXP died two years ago and as others have noted, it's hanging by a thread on "life support".

v86 is "living the golden years" in a retirement community, but there will be a day that it too will be on "life support".

 

I don't follow the "javascript chronology" or whatever it would be called - does anyone know what v92 would gain us over v86 as far as a Chromium-based backport?

Technically, my only "barometer" is my own list of bill-pay and checking/savings/retirement accounts.  it's anybody's guess on how much longer v86 is going to still work on my list of web sites.

But when the day comes that they stop working (and that day will come!), I don't foresee v92 being "new enough" to bridge the gap back to functional.  Only time will tell, it's all "speculation" until then.

92 ?! What good would it be ? It's outdated by ages now, and isn't even finished ! I also have my doubts , will it ever be ?

I read about 102, but it's also more than 7-8 months old. Don't forget, the current us Chrome 111.

https://www.reddit.com/r/windowsxp/comments/vgwnaw/chrome_102_now_works_on_windows_xp/

 

[D.Draker]

14 hours ago, UCyborg said:

I recently setup this browser on my Vista SP2 installation. HW compositing only works via D3D9(Ex) (using chrome://flags/#ignore-gpu-blocklist), but WebGL does not, so I left it disabled , there are errors in D3D9 mode and D3D11 mode doesn't init at all (with --disable-gpu-driver-bug-workarounds since D3D11 is also blocked via that bug list), even OpenGL mode requires D3D11 (error DXGI_ERROR_INVALID_CALL during init), probably D3D11 Win7 got with updates is required.

Still, HTML5 videos at decent resolutions are watchable here despite non-functional GPU video decoding. Interestingly, the load on both CPU and GPU is less than on recent Serpent 52, same video codec (h.264) and resolution (1080p60). The GPU doesn't have to switch from the lowest frequency and there's a difference in temperature by 2 degrees celsius in favor of Chrome. It's very interesting because when I go from 1080p60 to 1440p60, it's not watchable on Chrome anymore, but remains watchable in Serpent (with hiccups).

Skia Renderer is reported as disabled by default, enabling it in chrome://flags prevents tons of errors from popping up on chrome://gpu page otherwise while browsing.

Some people use Skype or Teams in the browser, the latter seems popular in business environment (both WANT you to use Chrome, obviously one can forget official Electron based clients on legacy OS), this browser still loads both, I can only tell that microphone (or at least its port) exposed through Windows recording devices is detected (both on XP and Vista), though couldn't test if the sound goes through since don't have am actual mic at hand.

Also found an extension dealing with font contrast if anyone's interested - Chrome Font Super Enhancer, obviously can only mess with CSS properties, but uses some formula to determine the values.

Late edit: WebGL1 works partially.

What about RAM ? Also amost 1GB with an emply page too ?

PS. You need this update for DX11 (Windows6.0-KB971512) on Vista for all these to work, it's achievable. I just turn it off intentionally.

I only use hardware Skia. Also, you would need to force gpu usage via flags, but the ones you already used is a good start.

Check if your chrome runs an additional GPU process.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

3 hours ago, D.Draker said:

What about RAM ?

You are OBSESSED.  We all know about RAM.  This is 2022.  Not 1992.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

4 hours ago, D.Draker said:

It's outdated by ages now

Another OBSESSION.  We all know.  The horse is dead.  You can put down the baseball bat.

This is an Older NT-Family OSes discussion.  As such, there will always be a LAG with "cutting edge".

Basically, "we don't care" about the LAG being YEARS.  We have our JUSTIFIABLE reasons for using Older NT-Family OSes.

Edited December 19, 2022 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Dave-H]

Until the time comes when it no longer actually works on many websites, I couldn't care less how old the Chromium version is!

[D.Draker]

14 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

10 hours ago, Dave-H said:

Until the time comes when it no longer actually works on many websites, I couldn't care less how old the Chromium version is!

This is an Older NT-Family OSes discussion.  As such, there will always be a LAG with "cutting edge".

Basically, "we don't care" about the LAG being YEARS.  We have our JUSTIFIABLE reasons for using Older NT-Family OSes.

I'd still be using Opera 10, if it worked ! And I did - 'till the end.

BTW, I don't know how modern Chrome looks on XP, but it still looks the same on Vista (with aero), and it all that matters. 

So why not use it ? I don't want to get into arguments, but obviously we use a different set of websites.

You of all know, I loved this browser when it made sense for me.

[D.Draker]

14 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 We all know about RAM.  This is 2022.  Not 1992.

I was just curious because he didn't say was it x64 or x86 Vista. (The behaviour might differ!)

I ask any type of on-topic questions I want, and you don't have to comment on everything, lol.

I obviously don't have to explain anything to you,

I do this only because I consider myself to be polite and of good manners.