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

[UCyborg]

13 hours ago, D.Draker said:

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

140 MB without extensions and 220 MB with extensions.  Vista x64, BTW.

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

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

Back in 2012, you could fit 40 tabs in 620 MB of RAM or less! Well, at least according to the test the good guys at Tom's Hardware did. And 620 MB figure was in Opera, the worst in that aspect at the time.

13 hours ago, D.Draker said:

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

Yup, all updated.

I figured I can't use --disable-gpu-driver-bug-workarounds because then I don't get actual webpage compositing acceleration despite the green status on chrome://gpu, so videos lag. --use-angle=gl gives me slow (not SwiftShader slow, but slow nonetheless), but fully functional WebGL and no webpage compositing acceleration (so laggy videos again).

It just occured to me that there are two distinct flags specifying how graphics / WebGL is handled (didn't do enough reading), until recently, I thought --use-angle=gl is just the new --use-gl=desktop and that the latter is not relevant anymore, but that is not the case, works differently internally. --use-gl=desktop gives me an error about missing wglCreatePbufferARB on chrome://gpu page...dang it, another dead end, so again no HW accelerated compositing and WebGL through very slow SwiftShader. Though wglCreatePbufferARB is very old function and seems doubful that the driver would lack it.

22 hours ago, XPerceniol said:

I think 360 just hasn't appeared "sexy" enough to attract the new generation. How can we add bigger boobs to it?

I'd rather bet on the nice personality. 

[D.Draker]

3 hours ago, UCyborg said:

140 MB without extensions and 220 MB with extensions.  Vista x64, BTW.

Back in 2012, you could fit 40 tabs in 620 MB of RAM or less! Well, at least according to the test the good guys at Tom's Hardware did. And 620 MB figure was in Opera, the worst in that aspect at the time.

Yup, all updated.

I figured I can't use --disable-gpu-driver-bug-workarounds because then I don't get actual webpage compositing acceleration despite the green status on chrome://gpu, so videos lag. --use-angle=gl gives me slow (not SwiftShader slow, but slow nonetheless), but fully functional WebGL and no webpage compositing acceleration (so laggy videos again).

It just occured to me that there are two distinct flags specifying how graphics / WebGL is handled (didn't do enough reading), until recently, I thought --use-angle=gl is just the new --use-gl=desktop and that the latter is not relevant anymore, but that is not the case, works differently internally. --use-gl=desktop gives me an error about missing wglCreatePbufferARB on chrome://gpu page...dang it, another dead end, so again no HW accelerated compositing and WebGL through very slow SwiftShader. Though wglCreatePbufferARB is very old function and seems doubful that the driver would lack it.

Thanks for the good tests ! So looks like the memory "bug" is XP related.

Well, from what I remember, it may be due to the fact of your GPU being gen-7 and/or a poor combination with the old drivers,

I was able to get the GPU process to boot through the commandline switch --enable-gpu ,

without it you won't get any Hardware video decode at all !

But then again, my GPU is from the 9th gen. and I use the newer drivers I modded myself.

https://msfn.org/board/topic/184056-breakthrough-p2-new-pascal-special-microsoft-nvidia-driver-port-for-vista-x64/page/

There is also my P1 tutorial (more complex) on how to cook new Nvidia drivers for Vista without the extended kernel.

Also, VP9 , HEVC, VP8, H265 are still not accelerated because you would need at least GTX1080 or smth like that.

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

42 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Back in 2012, you could fit 40 tabs in 620 MB of RAM or less!

Those were the days.  Alas, poor Yorick!  I remember them well.  To paraphrase, lol.

Back then a "web site" consisted of 90% text and 10% images, and maybe 6 javascript files 1/10th the size of today's javascript files, and 2 css style sheets also 1/10th the size of today's css style sheets.

[mina7601]

19 hours ago, D.Draker said:

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

Uh, that's my post on my Reddit account, lol.

And my post is about: running latest official Chrome on XP with an extended kernel, in this case, One-Core-API. Chrome 102 is the latest version that runs at the moment, any version higher than 102 immediately crashes upon launch.

What we're talking about is: having backports/forks of Chromium 92 working on XP, without any extended kernels!

Edited December 19, 2022 by mina7601

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I dipped my toe in Win7 and Vista "extended kernels".  All it did for me was result in very iffy application stability and an OS that would BSOD when I wasn't even moving the mouse or touching the keyboard.

Kinda reminded me of back in my AMD days when I was big into overclocking.  There was always a fine line not to cross before rendering your own computer untrustworthy for sensitive use because you never knew when the next BSOD was gonna pop out of nowhere.

Speaking solely for myself, I have no plans on ever trying any XP "extended kernel".  At least not in the early stages.  I'll let others be the guinnea pigs.

[XPerceniol]

4 hours ago, D.Draker said:

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.

I'd still be using Opera 12 

[XPerceniol]

19 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I dipped my toe in Win7 and Vista "extended kernels".  All it did for me was result in very iffy application stability and an OS that would BSOD when I wasn't even moving the mouse or touching the keyboard.

Kinda reminded me of back in my AMD days when I was big into overclocking.  There was always a fine line not to cross before rendering your own computer untrustworthy for sensitive use because you never knew when the next BSOD was gonna pop out of nowhere.

Speaking solely for myself, I have no plans on ever trying any XP "extended kernel".  At least not in the early stages.  I'll let others be the guinnea pigs.

I won't either. 

[gerwin]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:20 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You want the "regular" version and not the "ungoogled" version.

Third link in Post #1  --  https://msfn.org/board/topic/184135-arcticfoxienotheretoplaygames-360chrome-v135-build-2022/

Thanks, indeed I initially used the "ungoogled" version. Thinking less google equals better? Now with the normal edition, I could easily add extensions and also added Draker's two parameters. Good te see all three extensions work. That is Dark Reader / change all UI fonts / uBlock origin. The program UI is still ugly luna/white, but that is just 10% of what I am looking at. MSFN forum looks very nice now, in my taste.  Posting this from Chrome too.

I notice in the task manager, 360chrome.exe is spawned six times, for a single tab. Then additional single entries spawn for each tab? 

 

 

[Dave-H]

10 minutes ago, XPerceniol said:

I'd still be using Opera 12 

Me too.
Best browser ever.

[mina7601]

I would use 12.18 instead of 12.02, if I were to use Opera 12.

[D.Draker]

6 hours ago, gerwin said:

1 - Thanks, indeed I initially used the "ungoogled" version. Thinking less google equals better? Now with the normal edition, I could easily add extensions and also added Draker's two parameters. Good te see all three extensions work. That is Dark Reader / change all UI fonts / uBlock origin. The program UI is still ugly luna/white, but that is just 10% of what I am looking at. MSFN forum looks very nice now, in my taste.  Posting this from Chrome too.

2 - I notice in the task manager, 360chrome.exe is spawned six times, for a single tab. Then additional single entries spawn for each tab? 

1 - You're welcome, the acid blue UI is absolutely ugly, I agree ! Try to use the dark theme from another release . 

2 - This is normal for chrome.

[D.Draker]

6 hours ago, XPerceniol said:

I'd still be using Opera 12 

Nah, the 10's UI was the best one, and it was waaay faster on myu notebook ! But hey, you yongsters don't remember, lol.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

6 hours ago, gerwin said:

I notice in the task manager, 360chrome.exe is spawned six times, for a single tab. Then additional single entries spawn for each tab? 

Very normal.  And a giganctic advantage compared to the "simpler days" of single-process.

This question can very easily turn into a "flaming browser war" and that's not really the intent of MSFN.

There are biases on all sides!  And it's not a two-sided war.  I've used everything from Firefox to Pale Moon to New Moon to Brave to Vivaldi to Lunascape to Opera to Maxthon to Sleipnir, I've used HUNDREDS of browsers over the years.

That might sound like an exaggeration, but not as much as it sounds (though I do not have an actual "count").

I've used Opera when it was Presto.  I've used Opera when it was WebKit.  I've used Opera when it was Blink.

 

The human mind is very "linear" in thinking.  It likes to compare/contrast from A to B to C to D.

"Technological advancement" is not "linear".

https://www.interceptinghorizons.com/post/technology-is-exponential-but-humans-are-linear

https://medium.com/@sarmisthataraf/we-think-in-linear-progression-technological-proliferation-happens-in-exponential-excess-bab28ce1e0e5

 

The human mind wants to "simplify" everything into nice-and-easy "black and white" - stop right there, it can't be done!

I miss the days of "single-process" web browsers - performance and efficiency were much easier to quantify.

You looked at CPU percentage and RAM consumption and you could gauge everything just from that.

As much as the human mind wants it to be that simple, it is not!  I wish it were.  Life was so much simpler "back in the day".

 

I cite "e10s".  This is the multi-processor framework that Firefox introduced with version 54 and disabled the ability to disable in version 68.

If you are familiar with "roytam1" browsers, you know that these are single-process by default and now most users enable multi-process - because there are advantages that come with it!

But there are disadvantages as well.  But counting the number of processes in the Task Manager is too simplistic of a way to look at it.

 

All I can really suggest is to Google / Bing / DuckDuckGo for "single-process versus multi-process browser" and spend the time to read at least SIX articles on the topic.

And make sure you do the same that you should with "political news" - get BOTH sides.  Make sure to read "pro-Firefox" acticles and make sure to read "pro-Chrome" articles.

Then form your own opinion from there.  Happy reading.  

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Now that I think about it (but no time at the moment), "e10s" should prove to be the perfect gauge.

I don't recall which of NM27, NM28, St52, St55, or BNav have the ability to enable and disable "e10s".

But those that do, there is our perfect gauge.

How much RAM does a no-tab-open single-process (e10s disabled) <browser> consume?

Now how much RAM does the same EXACT <browser> consume with no-tab-open but multi-process (e10s enabled)?

I highly doubt that the two numbers are identical yet I feel the general "perception" is that they are.

[AstroSkipper]

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:

bnavigator (single-process mode): 145 MB
360Chrome 13.5 build 2022: 750 MB

Cheers, AstroSkipper 

Edited December 20, 2022 by AstroSkipper