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

[XPerceniol]

23 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

And these values tell me that on old, underpowered computers with a 32-bit processor and Windows XP, the 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022 browser is not an option.  This browser needs a 64-bit processor which old, "period correct" computers don't have. 

Sadly, though, on the best version V11, youtube won't search and a lot of other sites won't work anymore,and DC Browser is also becoming a dead horse. I can run it, but have to chop off everything else to do so with 13.5, 13.0.2170.0 works pretty well overall and I prefer it now and I did have a few questions but I'm struggling tonight to put thoughts into text so maybe in the AM I"ll have better luck asking. 

sorry guys ... I'll try again ;(

Edited December 20, 2022 by XPerceniol

[AstroSkipper]

18 minutes ago, mina7601 said:

Yeah, I didn't use Sigma at all. I just did a normal calculation.

Sigma is just the symbol for a sum. Actually, you should have learnt that at school. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by AstroSkipper

[mina7601]

14 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

Sigma is just the symbol for a sum. Actually, you should have learnt that at school. 

Yeah, I already know that Sigma is the symbol for sum, but what I meant to say is, I don't use it on my calculator, I mainly do all normal calculations without it, lol.

Edited December 21, 2022 by mina7601

[AstroSkipper]

6 minutes ago, mina7601 said:

Yeah, I already know that Sigma is the symbol for sum, but what I meant to say is, I don't use it on my calculator, I mainly do all normal calculations without it, lol.

Off-topic: For adding single values, you can't use the sigma on your calculator. This function is meant to calculate a sum value in the sigma notation. For that, you need a start value, an index, an end value and a term which usually depends on the index. For example, the Gauss sum:

[XPerceniol]

30 minutes ago, XPerceniol said:

Sadly, though, on the best version V11, youtube won't search and a lot of other sites won't work anymore,and DC Browser is also becoming a dead horse. I can run it, but have to chop off everything else to do so with 13.5, 13.0.2170.0 works pretty well overall and I prefer it now and I did have a few questions but I'm struggling tonight to put thoughts into text so maybe in the AM I"ll have better luck asking. 

sorry guys ... I'll try again ;(

I use V13.217

<OT>

The File from the new 13.5 (accept for chrome.dll) work as updated to the application and overall videos are better.
resources.pak = 5.26 MB (5,520,924 bytes)

Again, hope I make sense, my thoughts are all over the place tonight. Will turn off everything tonight. 

<OT>

[mina7601]

28 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

Off-topic: For adding single values, you can't use the sigma on your calculator. This function is meant to calculate a sum value in the sigma notation. For that, you need a start value, an index, an end value and a term which usually depends on the index. For example, the Gauss sum:

Thanks for your information!

[NotHereToPlayGames]

7 hours ago, XPerceniol said:

I can run it, but have to chop off everything else to do so with 13.5, 13.0.2170.0 works pretty well overall and I prefer it now

True, I may revert to v13.2170 opposed to v13.5.2022.

I know they are all RAM HOGS.  But I don't care!  They WORK for websites I *need* to access!  And NOTHING ELSE DOES (on XP!

100+ MB difference could just be "margin of error".  This isn't exactly a true scientific measurement.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

8 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

And these values tell me that on old, underpowered computers with a 32-bit processor and Windows XP, the 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022 browser is not an option.  This browser needs a 64-bit processor which old, "period correct" computers don't have. 

Your "period-correct" is BETA STAGE.  Or a "first gen" car where everybody knows you wait for the third-gen so that all the bugs are worked out.  "First Gen" spends way too much time in "warranty repair" HASSLES.

Most of the rest of us, our computers may not be as OLD as yours (most are "younger" by a mere few years!), but they came with XP installed on them, that "qualifies" them as 'period-correct'.

Mine is actually a retired office computer and it did come with XP x64.  Though I do agree, most users running XP are not running x64.

Hades, even just a short MONTH ago, my brother who works for a mom-and-pop "PC Repair" shop, didn't even know an x64 version of XP existed!

I make fun of him all the time for being the LEAST TECH-SAVVY of all of us brothers/sisters, yet HE is the one working in a "PC Repair" shop.

His primary role seems to ALWAYS be to talk people into upgrading to the "latest-and-greatest" instead of actually REPAIRING their PC, but I digress.

 

In statistics, and not to sound "mean" (waka waka waka) - your computer would be the outlier, not the mean.

 

edit - adhering too strictly to self-imposed definitions of "period-correct" reminds me of a scene in "Shawshank Redemption" and being 'obtuse'  

Edited December 21, 2022 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

15 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Your "period-correct" is BETA STAGE.  Or a "first gen" car where everybody knows you wait for the third-gen so that all the bugs are worked out.  "First Gen" spends way too much time in "warranty repair" HASSLES.

Most of the rest of us, our computers may not be as OLD as yours (most are "younger" by a mere few years!), but they came with XP installed on them, that "qualifies" them as 'period-correct'.

Mine is actually a retired office computer and it did come with XP x64.  Though I do agree, most users running XP are not running x64.

Hades, even just a short MONTH ago, my brother who works for a mom-and-pop "PC Repair" shop, didn't even know an x64 version of XP existed!

I make fun of him all the time for being the LEAST TECH-SAVVY of all of us brothers/sisters, yet HE is the one working in a "PC Repair" shop.

His primary role seems to ALWAYS be to talk people into upgrading to the "latest-and-greatest" instead of actually REPAIRING their PC, but I digress.

 

In statistics, and not to sound "mean" (waka waka waka) - your computer would be the outlier, not the mean.

 

edit - adhering too strictly to self-imposed definitions of "period-correct" reminds me of a scene in "Shawshank Redemption" and being 'obtuse'  

Sorry, my friend! You're talking your head off here. I have rarely read so much nonsense from you and you really don't need to. And, one of your strengths is to dwell on trivialities. Calling my old, beloved computer, which has served faithfully for 22 years and has no visible bugs, "beta stage", "first gen" or whatever, should really be beneath you. It sounds more like an act of desperation and a lack of arguments. Unfortunately, you have lost objectivity and dispassion in your comment.
But I'll try to help you a little. 

Windows XP Professional 32-Bit was released in 2001 and took years to develop. Thus, my 32-Bit computer from 2000/2002 is an example of hardware for which this operating system was developed.
Once again, my specs: My Windows XP computer is equipped with an old Pentium 4 Northwood single core 32-Bit CPU 2.8GHz and only 1.5GB of RAM (SDRAM). The motherboard is from 2000, but the CPU from 2002 (retrofitted).
64-Bit processors did not enter the mainstream desktop computer market until around 2004. Windows XP Professional 32-Bit was therefore developed for computers with a 32-Bit processor. Windows XP Professional 64-Bit was not released until 2005. And it doesn't matter at all if a sign is plastered on a computer certifying that it is compatible with whatever. 

Conclusion: These RAM consumption values we have determined in the previous posts tell me and hopefully us that on old, underpowered computers with a 32-Bit processor and Windows XP, the 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022 browser is not an option.  This browser needs a 64-Bit processor which old, 32-Bit computers low on RAM logically don't have.  Therefore, you should provide correct system requirements for the browser 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022, in order not to disappoint potential, real Windows XP users with low-power 32-Bit computers. 

PS: I have deliberately removed the term "period correct" from my contribution so that you can concentrate on the essential content and not be distracted again. 

Hope, I could help you a bit!

Greetings, AstroSkipper   and Merry Christmas! 

Edited December 21, 2022 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[we3fan]

13 hours ago, XPerceniol said:

Sadly, though, on the best version V11, youtube won't search

Good news!

YouTube Search on 360Chrome v11 works again, I guess it was just a temporary thing that got fixed after few days.

[IXOYE]

Hi

22 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Just for clarification! Unfortunately, there is no "no-tab-open" browser mode. I'm afraid browsers such as 360Chrome 13.5 or bnavigator without tabs are either not yet open or already closed .  I think you mean a browser started with one empty tab only. Anyway! The RAM consumption in Windows XP with only one empty tab opened and only one extension (uBlock Origin) installed are:


360Chrome 13.5 build 2022: 750 MB

Strange as memory consumption on your machines, on my XP x86 sp2 at the launch of chrome 13.5.2022 with an open tab.

~ 120 Mb

[AstroSkipper]

58 minutes ago, IXOYE said:

Hi

Strange as memory consumption on your machines, on my XP x86 sp2 at the launch of chrome 13.5.2022 with an open tab.

~ 120 Mb

That's really strange. I would really like to have such values, but unfortunately I don't have them, and @NotHereToPlayGames either. On my Windows XP Professional system, the service pack SP3 is installed, fully updated including all POSReady updates. You have SP2 only. I find it hard to believe that this matters.  What are your hardware specs? Without these specs, the values determined cannot really be assessed. 

Edited December 21, 2022 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[msfntor]

49 minutes ago, IXOYE said:

~ 120 Mb

Here:

360Chrome 13.5.2022r3reg

In Process Hacker:

360Loader.exe:5.32 MB

360chrome.exe:17.46 MB

+16.3

+31.4

+52.2

+31.46

--------------------

154.14 MB

-but Core Temp v1.11 says: 102 MB only.

So I've one loader process, and five 360chrome processes, but you have 6 chrome processes? Why? And ArcticFoxie has 7 360chrome processes???

Windows XP 32-Bit SP2 here. Thank you.

Edited December 21, 2022 by msfntor

[AstroSkipper]

16 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Wow!  But in all honesty, I never use v13.5 on this computer.  v11 is much more friendlier, comparatively speaking.

But this also could explain why "upstream" no longer releases an x86 version.

 

16 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

4.39 + 144 +123.93 + 123.95 + 111.2 + 121.83 + 151.26 = 780.56

You're right! The values speak for themselves!

That's are the determined values of @NotHereToPlayGames and me on a 32-Bit computer with Windows XP Professional 32-Bit SP3 installed. 

[AstroSkipper]

Is here anyone else who uses Windows XP Professional 32-Bit SP2 (only SP2) on an old 32-Bit computer? If so, please test the RAM consumption by 360Chrome v13.5 build 2022 with only one empty tab open and only uBlock Origin installed, and post screenshots of your process consumption values (for example by Process Hacker) together with your hardware specs! Thanks in advance!

Edited December 21, 2022 by AstroSkipper