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

[UCyborg]

8 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Since I was the one who discovered and documented the abnormal RAM consumption of the 360Chrome browser in Windows XP

I did notice it months ago, just thought it was funny compared to 64-bit Edge on my Win10 install, brushed it off to ancient OS + Made in China browser combo and didn't think about it further.

8 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Anyway! If I were you, I would leave all 360Chrome editions for users of Windows Vista and higher as they were. For Windows XP users, however, I would offer a separate version in which the chrome.dll file has been rebased in any case. The reason for such a procedure is the ASLR feature, which all Windows versions from Vista onwards have, but unfortunately Windows XP lacks.

I'm not sure there's a good reason to have two versions, I don't think rebased version would offer any disadvantages on NT 6.0+ compared to non-rebased.

And for those opposed to using software that caters to the lowest common denominator on the API level on newer OS, especially NT 6.1+, I suppose this browser wouldn't do anyway if they find something else that suits their needs.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

29 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

I did notice it months ago

Same here.

But a thousand times more important is that I can access all of my bank account and bill pay web sites with it on XP.

NOTHING else exists (yet?) for me to continue to do that on XP.

Edited December 29, 2022 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

47 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

I'm not sure there's a good reason to have two versions, I don't think rebased version would offer any disadvantages on NT 6.0+ compared to non-rebased.

That's the direction I am leaning also.  One version that should work well for x86 users and for x64 users.

I'm pretty sure that ASLR overrides anyway for Vista+.

[Anbima]

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I am undecided as to whether I will upload download links for my newest 13.5 build 1030 here at MSFN.

If you have a good build, it would be great if you would make it ready for us to download.

[AstroSkipper]

13 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Anyway! If I were you, I would leave all 360Chrome editions for users of Windows Vista and higher as they were. For Windows XP users, however, I would offer a separate version in which the chrome.dll file has been rebased in any case. The reason for such a procedure is the ASLR feature, which all Windows versions from Vista onwards have, but unfortunately Windows XP lacks. On the subject of rebasing, you can certainly test which address is best suited for this procedure. Personally, I have done it automatically with libase. And that seems to be sufficient, at least for me. However, I hardly think that this will improve the loading behaviour of websites on old, low-powered hardware. In any case, I couldn't notice any improvements in the loading behaviour of websites on my system. This is probably more of a browser-specific problem which presumably can't be solved without further measures as for example recoding, code changes or code optimizations.  And I doubt that 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022 is the best suited version for Windows XP. For example, 360Chrome 13.5 build 1030 seems to be better suited as far as I can observe in my case, according to the 360Chrome rule: the newer, the worse. 

4 hours ago, UCyborg said:

I'm not sure there's a good reason to have two versions, I don't think rebased version would offer any disadvantages on NT 6.0+ compared to non-rebased.

My suggestion to offer a special rebased version for Windows XP users is due to the fact that this thread only targets the version 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022. This version is rather a poor choice for Windows XP users on old, low-powered hardware. Therefore, a rebased version of, say, 360Chrome 13.5 build 1030 would be more suitable for these users. So only one additional version would have to be provided. All Vista users do not need a rebased version, they have the ASLR feature. And all users of Windows 7 and higher do not need this browser anyway.  Anyway! Ultimately, it is solely your decision. I personally switched to the version 360Chrome 13.5 build 1030 which I already rebased. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[NotHereToPlayGames]

47 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

I personally switched to the version 360Chrome 13.5 build 1030

Same here.  I plan to upload on a different forum.

IF I provide it here at MSFN, it will be under its own build 1030 thread.

[UCyborg]

Off-topic, but you can actually use Dropbox to share these things (rhetoric question)? I used to share something using it, but after some time, my link errored that the account's public links are generating too much traffic. I wonder if the limits these days are the same than they were few years back.

On-topic, is there a changelog for official builds? What's the difference between 1030 and 2022 and why would one be slower than the other, both being Chrome 86?

[Anbima]

41 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Same here.  I plan to upload on a different forum.

IF I provide it here at MSFN, it will be under its own build 1030 thread.

Very good.
Please post the link.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

[msfntor]

Just now, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

9 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

What's the difference between 1030 and 2022 and why would one be slower than the other

From the underlying code, the proxy and "mediamanagement" were reindexed somewhere between 1030 and 2022.

So were the translation .pak file indexes.

That doesn't really answer "why", but it is the differences I see between the two after telemetry was stripped out.

I'd probably have to restrip the two in order to spot more differences.

[mina7601]

15 minutes ago, msfntor said:

 

What was this reply supposed to be?

[msfntor]

1 minute ago, mina7601 said:

What was this reply supposed to be?

joke little joke

[AstroSkipper]

@NotHereToPlayGames! As I reported weeks ago, I observed BSODs on my Windows XP system when starting one of the 360Chrome versions, caused by WiseVector StopX. Now, I checked the used memory addresses in my system and found out that WiseVector StopX loads the file WiseVectorHelperOne_X86.dll at the default address 0x10000000 of chrome.dll. I think that was the reason for the BSODs. Therefore, a rebasing of chrome.dll is mandatory for those Windows XP users who use WiseVector StopX.

Edited December 29, 2022 by AstroSkipper
correction

[XPerceniol]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Sorry, but I don't get the joke ??

Edited December 29, 2022 by XPerceniol