Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I reiterate - my period-correct XP with only 2 GB RAM crashes everything if I install any anti-virus bottleneck.

When we use older hardware, we must weigh all the "pros" and "cons".

That "silly Celeron", as I like to call it, which is by this new definition my only "period-correct" computer, is absolutely WORTHLESS from a functionality perspective if I put any anti-virus software on it.

If we truly want "period-correct" and shout from the rooftop that Bnav (which uses more RAM than 360Chrome) and 360Chrome cannot function adequately on "older hardware" due to RAM, then shouldn't we also limit ourselves to "period-correct" anti-virus?

For anti-virus, it's not really RAM consumption but how many "clock cycles" it takes for the anti-virus to perform its task.

This 2001 and earlier definition?  I'd call that "too strict" but sure, let's run with that definition.

But let's be a little more "fair".

How many people on XP were running anit-virus in "2001 and earlier"?

ZoneAlarm is the version that comes to mind as far as "period-correct" and the very first version of ZoneAlarm didn't hit the scene until May 2004 - https://www.zonealarm.com/software/antivirus-firewall/release-history

In the late 90s and 2001 or so, not many people on XP were running anti-virus - because they were all resource hogs that slowed the computer to a crawl.

Fast forward to 2022 and those of us, like myself, that still run XP, how many of us run anti-virus?  I don't.

To me it's a matter of weighing "pros" and "cons".  A web browser that accesses my water bill pay site and my savings account both, all in one browser, is a much bigger "pro" to me.

But that's the funny thing about computers.  We all have very different lists of "pros" and "cons".

And this 360Chrome project is still very much a "pro" for many XP-users own lists of "pros" and "cons".  It's kind of that simple.  Regardless of how "hostile" this thread has become - whether that hostility was intentional or not.

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 hours ago, D.Draker said:

I remember I observed similar behaviour with Opera (spinning up the disks), back in 2017 .

That's kind of my primary point.  If we truly want to be "fair", then we MUST use the same "magnifying glass" that we use during 360Chrome "criticism" and look at other browsers with the same "magnifying glass".

360Chrome did not "introduce" this newly-discovered HDD spin.  It was already a part of the underlying code.  "American" code.  Not Chinese code.  Not Russian code.  But American code!

It also still boils down to "pros" and "cons".

I personally do not trust Mozilla/UXP browsers because they all require a "loopback rule" for firewall software such as WiseVector StopX and Comodo Personal Firewall 2.4.18.184.

We literally "enable" Mozilla/UXP to do "anything and everything" because we cannot "monitor" what traffic is going through that "loopback".

But if we truly use the same "magnifying glass", we should ask ourselves why we "accept" that loopback rule for one browser but not for another.

Mozilla/UXP and Chrome/Chromium do things so much differently than each other that sometimes it is very difficult to decide which one to 'trust'.

If you are going to be "connected" to the internet, there are some risks that you simply have to accept.

Some of us will view Mozilla/UXP "loopback" a much larger privacy risk than an idle HDD waking up for no real reason but our DNS Traffic Logs showing no data being sent when that HDD spun up for no real reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

This 2001 and earlier definition?  I'd call that "too strict" but sure, let's run with that definition.

I have deliberately chosen the definition of "period correct" hardware so strictly to make clear that no newer Windows-based operating system than Windows XP can be installed on these underperforming computers. My Windows XP computer is equipped with an old Pentium 4 single core CPU 2.8GHz and only 1.5GB of RAM, produced in 2000. Therefore, this computer fulfils my strict definition of "period correct" hardware. The motherboard is fully compatible with Windows XP.

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

In the late 90s and 2001 or so, not many people on XP were running anti-virus - because they were all resource hogs that slowed the computer to a crawl.

Fast forward to 2022 and those of us, like myself, that still run XP, how many of us run anti-virus?  I don't.

I started using anti-virus and firewall programs in the 90s. And I do not surf the internet or connecting to other servers without them. Some weeks ago, I switched completely from Avast to WiseVector StopX. On my old computer, it works perfectly. It is leightweight and uses only few system resources. But unfortunately, serious problems with all 360Chrome versions, and with 360Chrome v13.5 build 2022, too. I had to add all 360Chrome versions to both exclusion lists of WiseVector StopX. They can be found in the main program window under Exclusions and additionally in the Settings under Advanced Protection Settings. If I don't exclude them completely from scanning, then the starting of these browsers will cause BSODs. For me, a rather bad sign, unfortunately. No other browsers or programs generate BSODs in my system. Some of them have to be excluded from scanning to get them work. But if not, they can still be started without any BSODs. I conclude from my observations that all 360Chrome browsers do things in the background that are very unusual (to put it in a completely non-judgemental way), even crashing an AV program that ends in a BSOD.

Edited by AstroSkipper
Update of content
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been getting too derailed lately. Please stick to the thread topic and remember to stay respectful of everyone, even if you don't agree with their opinions. Let's refer to:

7.b This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.

This is the last warning that will be posted on the matter. Do not make us start taking further actions. Stay on topic and be nice! Please and thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

That's kind of my primary point.  If we truly want to be "fair", then we MUST use the same "magnifying glass" that we use during 360Chrome "criticism" and look at other browsers with the same "magnifying glass".

360Chrome did not "introduce" this newly-discovered HDD spin.  It was already a part of the underlying code.  "American" code.  Not Chinese code.  Not Russian code.  But American code!

It also still boils down to "pros" and "cons".

I personally do not trust Mozilla/UXP browsers because they all require a "loopback rule" for firewall software such as WiseVector StopX and Comodo Personal Firewall 2.4.18.184.

We literally "enable" Mozilla/UXP to do "anything and everything" because we cannot "monitor" what traffic is going through that "loopback".

But if we truly use the same "magnifying glass", we should ask ourselves why we "accept" that loopback rule for one browser but not for another.

Mozilla/UXP and Chrome/Chromium do things so much differently than each other that sometimes it is very difficult to decide which one to 'trust'.

If you are going to be "connected" to the internet, there are some risks that you simply have to accept.

Some of us will view Mozilla/UXP "loopback" a much larger privacy risk than an idle HDD waking up for no real reason but our DNS Traffic Logs showing no data being sent when that HDD spun up for no real reason.

I said what I said, and I said I observed this kind of behaviour with Chinese owned browsers. Opera ran its own code for many-many years and it was Norwegian, with zero of Americans.

Later the Chinese bought it and the "fun" began . Also they switched from the original Opera engine. As of now, I think it's even russian, or maybe the "famous" ChinoRussian combo again !

Why I think so ? First - they have lots of russian devs, second - they registred in Asia, third, and very important - it has a hardcoded Yandex user ID (profiling).

I never wrote I observed spinning disks with purely American browsres.

It's purely sticking to the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

How is browser talking to itself "privacy risk"?

It is my understanding that the loopback is tied to "search suggestions" - which I prefer to DISABLE.  Unsure what else it is tied to.  But it is a common "question of concern" on firewall forums.  It doesn't concern "me", per se.  I just know it comes up often.

I'm too much of a "control freak" (surprise, surprise, lol).  I "dislike" any firewall that "recognizes" the name of something and creates its own "rules" just because it knows that "name".

I never let my firewalls do those "default" rules.  I define what IP Addresses and what Ports.  I don't "trust" any firewall that sets up any set of rules as an "email client" or a "web browser" then just makes assumptions for port traffic.

So as it pertains to 360Chrome, I kind of have to suspect that most firewalls don't "recognize" 360Chrome so therefor have no "ruleset" to apply to it.

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'm too much of a "control freak" (surprise, surprise, lol).  I "dislike" any firewall that "recognizes" the name of something and creates its own "rules" just because it knows that "name".

I never let my firewalls do those "default" rules.  I define what IP Addresses and what Ports.  I don't "trust" any firewall that sets up any set of rules as an "email client" or a "web browser" then just makes assumptions for port traffic.

Then how come you didn't notice the firewall screams "incoming, inbound traffic" with 360 browser ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

If you don't use the "default ruleset" for Mozilla-based browsers, I get that "scream" for them also.

I don't use Mozilla-based browsers

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

This thread was never intended to be "Mozilla versus Chrome".

 

sure ! I don't even know why you talk about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

If you don't use the "default ruleset" for Mozilla-based browsers, I get that "scream" for them also.

This confirms the security concerns , thanks. What happens with firefox based , I don't know and don't care and ,like you said yourself, is off-topic, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

What I would claim as being "relevant" would be more along these lines - from what I can gather, "official" Chrome/Chromium do the same firewall screams for "incoming, inbound traffic" and also the same HDD spin (that my Seagate seems too old to be vulnerable to), so why are we thinking it is "nefarious" that 360Chrome behaves identically?

I myself can only speak for XP and my hardware.  But I would find it very interesting to know if "official" Chrome/Chromium is causing the HDD spin for those with hardware/OS setups where 360Chrome is causing the HDD spin.  Without being able to witness it here, I can only ask questions for others to test.  Is this HDD spin something that "official" Chrome/Chromium did do at v86 but stopped doing at a later version?

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...