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

[XPerceniol]

To be frank ... the only reason I've used proxy servers was to hide from a site so they wouldn't know it was me, and then, I had to just simply reconsider whether or not I should even be looking at those sites and now I just don't. Just here and the XP forum. Besides, who knows what the proxies do with our IP Addresses and perhaps our history. Not worth it unless you are in repressed country and can't watch movie and I think the "great firewall" still prevents them, but I can't be certain.

[mina7601]

7 minutes ago, XPerceniol said:

To be frank ... the only reason I've used proxy servers was to hide from a site so they wouldn't know it was me, and then, I had to just simply reconsider whether or not I should even be looking at those sites and now I just don't. Just here and the XP forum. Besides, who knows what the proxies do with our IP Addresses and perhaps our history. Not worth it unless you are in repressed country and can't watch movie and I think the "great firewall" still prevents them, but I can't be certain.

Well, this looks like worth reading: https://www.upguard.com/blog/proxy-server

[NotHereToPlayGames]

On 12/20/2022 at 5:47 PM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 

Q6700 does NOT support Intel Hyper-Threading.

 

Neither does my T7500.

My T7500 has 360Chrome at:

[UCyborg]

Did you guys just make a bunch of assumptions about me using proxy? I use Proxomitron, mostly for modding the web application I use at work. Would have to ditch Pale Moon there completely if it wasn't for Proxomitron replacing one bad JS file developers introduced for their own convenience / consistency with other code, nothing but syntactic sugar for having definitions for some objects on the client-side (JavaScript) close to the definitions on the server-side (C#).

That thing still has few glitches, like one dialog opens with 1,5-2s delay if certain option is set in it and another draggable dialog made with jQuery, since certain version, has a funny glitch, the dialog has few drop-down menus, one with a lot of entries has the scrollbar and if I try to drag the scrollbar, thw whole dialog is dragged instead...

I also have to unset a bunch of redundant CSS properties on the menu bar, because at least one of them is causing another bizarre glitch, when something changes on the page, it causes menu bar's height to change. It's funny to watch when you open the hardware page where you can open the status of any working connected controller, which refreshes once per second and then every second menu bar's height increases, so it would eventually expand down over the entire screen. And other pages may open with the wrong bar height.

Of course, nobody notices because system requirement is "latest and greatest" Firefox / Chrome.

Edit:

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

7 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Your system supports and uses the feature Hyper-Threading with which one physical microprocessor behaves like two logical, virtual cores. Maybe, the 360Chrome browser runs differently on such systems similar to real multi-core processors, resulting in lower RAM consumption. Just a theory! 

Maybe, there are other members here who can confirm or refute my theory. I would be very interested! 

I've got AMD with only 4 real cores, no difference in RAM consumption between running Chrome on all cores or just a single one, except responsiveness takes a noticeable hit running on one core (affinity setting).

Edit2: Right, reading again, I don't qualify for the test.

Edited December 22, 2022 by UCyborg

[NotHereToPlayGames]

2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Maybe, there are other members here who can confirm or refute my theory. I would be very interested!

If we cannot isolate this to Hyper-Threading, I also wonder if XP's list of enabled/disabled "services" could be the difference between 360Chrome using less than 300 MB on some systems and over 800 MB on other systems.

Would certainly be awesome if we could track down the ONE VARIABLE in this equation.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

18 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Edit2: Right, reading again, I don't qualify for the test.

You "kind of" do.  AMD does NOT support Hyper-Threading and 360Chrome on your non-Hyper-Threading Vista x64 is under 200 MB, if I remember correctly without scrolling back a few pages.

So does this elliminate Hyper-Threading as a variable ???

[gerwin]

I tested Chrome360 v13.5 on three systems with Windows XP x86 prof (PosReady), just the single empty startup tab:

1) Clean Chrome360 on an eee-PC 1000HE with intel Atom N280 single real core + HyperThreading core, 2GB RAM. 360chrome.exe shown 4x around 125MB allocated + 1x a smaller entry. See image.

2) Clean Chrome360 on a AMD E-350 APU nettop with 2 cores and no HT, 4GB RAM. 360chrome.exe shown 5x each around 125MB allocated.

3a) Clean Chrome360 on my main i5-3550 with 4 cores and no HT, 4GB RAM: 360chrome.exe shown 5x each around 125MB allocated.

3b) Slightly customized Chrome360 on my main i5-3550 with 4 cores and no HT, 4GB RAM: 360chrome.exe shown 5x around 125MB allocated + 1x a smaller entry.

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by gerwin

[NotHereToPlayGames]

My Win10 x64 with no hyper-threading i5-6300U:

 

Of course that's Win10 and not XP.  Could be several MONTHS before I could spend the time to put XP on my i5-6300U laptop.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

Did you guys just make a bunch of assumptions about me using proxy? I use Proxomitron

Same here.  It's always kind of funny that whenever somebody says "proxy", they pretty much always assume "shady surfing" or trying to "hide" or log into websites that they are otherwise blocked or banned.

[gerwin]

Oh look!

This system is quite similar to the main i5-3550 above, also a GigaByte 6-series motherboard. Except it has an i3-3220 with 2 real cores and 2 HT. It has nVidia GT 710 graphics instead of AMD Radeon 7750.

Now I just went into the BIOS and disabled the two HyperThreading cores. Run the test again: Taskmanager shows now 2 threads instead of 4, and the 360chrome memory allocation is quite the same (=low) so I did not bother to make a screen shot again.

[UCyborg]

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You "kind of" do.  AMD does NOT support Hyper-Threading and 360Chrome on your non-Hyper-Threading Vista x64 is under 200 MB, if I remember correctly without scrolling back a few pages.

Yes, but it's almost 800 MB on the same machine on XP x64 SP2.

[mixit]

FWIW, this 360 memory usage issue doesn't seem to depend (much) on hardware or 32/64-bit XP.

This is how it behaves on two of my systems (deliberately not giving their specs).
The columns are Private bytes/Peak private bytes/Virtual size/Peak virtual size per Process Hacker

#1 XP x64 safe mode:
 40.78 MB,  43.53 MB, 298.88 MB, 320.48 MB
 22.66 MB,  22.73 MB, 237.16 MB, 240.91 MB
 12    MB,   12.9 MB, 212.93 MB, 215.56 MB
 14.72 MB,  15.12 MB, 219.1  MB, 220.35 MB
 18.53 MB,  20.85 MB, 233.04 MB, 233.04 MB
 27.84 MB,  35.43 MB, 243.05 MB, 252.11 MB
-----------------------------------------
136.53 MB            1444.16 MB

#1 XP x64 normal:
144.02 MB, 149.41 MB, 337.77 MB, 359.34 MB
124.61 MB, 124.71 MB, 247.54 MB, 255.79 MB
118.21 MB, 120.66 MB, 240.08 MB, 243.83 MB
116.56 MB, 119.95 MB, 222.2  MB, 223.45 MB
121.02 MB, 123.12 MB, 233.58 MB, 234.83 MB
130.8  MB, 140.68 MB, 248.53 MB, 255.81 MB
-----------------------------------------
755.22 MB            1529.7  MB

#1 XP x64 fresh install:
(saved partition, NO drivers/software that aren't from the official CD)
 38.84 MB,  43.11 MB, 305.51 MB, 325.8  MB
 22.96 MB,  23.04 MB, 233.99 MB, 237.77 MB
 12.43 MB,  13.38 MB, 212.94 MB, 215.88 MB
 15.06 MB,  15.47 MB, 217.15 MB, 218.4  MB
 19    MB,  21.1  MB, 229.52 MB, 229.52 MB
 28.12 MB,  34.22 MB, 252.29 MB, 261.35 MB
-----------------------------------------
136.41 MB            1451.4  MB



#2 XP x86 safe mode:
 33.31 MB,  35.57 MB, 279.27 MB, 291.3  MB
 19.54 MB,  19.58 MB, 207.03 MB, 210.56 MB
  9.03 MB,  10.02 MB, 190.2  MB, 191.7  MB
 12.9  MB,  14.09 MB, 716.5  MB, 717.5  MB
 16.59 MB,  20.57 MB, 723.69 MB, 726.38 MB
 25.76 MB,  34.08 MB, 741.77 MB, 744.52 MB
-----------------------------------------
117.13 MB            2858.46 MB

#2 XP x86 normal:
137.5  MB, 140.19 MB, 290.51 MB, 310.59 MB
121.35 MB, 121.39 MB, 211.94 MB, 217.47 MB
113.72 MB, 118.63 MB, 207.76 MB, 209.26 MB
115.16 MB, 118.66 MB, 708.92 MB, 709.92 MB
119.27 MB, 122.78 MB, 729.05 MB, 731.98 MB
127.8  MB, 135.48 MB, 741.06 MB, 745.31 MB
-----------------------------------------
734.8  MB            2889.24 MB

It's interesting that virtual sizes are quite close (per OS/HW) even when RAM usage differs greatly between safe mode and "normal" boot. But clearly something has happened between the fresh install and my current configuration to cause this difference.

Edit: The 360 profile used was exactly the same, copied from one system to the other.

Edited December 22, 2022 by mixit

[msfntor]

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

My Win10 x64 with no hyper-threading i5-6300U:

 

Of course that's Win10 and not XP.  Could be several MONTHS before I could spend the time to put XP on my i5-6300U laptop.

Why you wrote: "of course"?

In any case, you beat me with your Windows 10, it's true, but not too advanced compared to me in XP... (84.2 en W.10 versus 154.14 or 102 on my W.XP, look on page 28 at the bottom).

I've strongly tweaked my Windows XP, having like 13 processes running (including Core Temp, Process Hacker, Net Stalker, System Idle Process, DPCs, Interrupts). So very tweaked Services. And I can always stop Windows Time service again...

[msfntor]

@gerwin, but why you run alg.exe, ctfmon.exe...I don't run them.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

3 minutes ago, msfntor said:

why you run alg.exe, ctfmon.exe...I don't run them.

Neither do I.