AstroSkipper Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) 31 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: But then again... I used to get the feeling that a TON of people "use" roytam1's WEEKLY offerings - and that they even sit on the edge of their seat each and every week in anticipation of the next WEEKLY offering. I say "used to" because nowadays, I honestly see roytam1's offerings as very very VERY similar to the 360Chrome offerings here at MSFN - ie, a very very VERY "niche market" and a very very VERY "dying breed". As you probably already suspected, I can't really agree with you there, either. The 360Chrome versions here are no longer being actiively developed, the modifications are rather cosmetic, except for the innovative rebasing. All versions of @roytam1 are actively modified in their code, week by week, for which I am extremely grateful to him. Therefore, this comparison also stands on shaky ground. But however, I appreciate all your efforts here. Edited January 9, 2023 by AstroSkipper Update of content 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 9, 2023 Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 Perhaps... But I could list one by one "at least" a hundred web sites that WORK on this "no longer actively developed" 360Chrome but do NOT WORK on ANY of the roytam1 offerings. The last TWO PLUS YEARS of weekly updates have still YET to get any of the roytam1 offerings to "work" for any of those "hundred web sites". To each their own... I'm done for the night... I tap the mat and bow out... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) 50 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Perhaps... But I could list one by one "at least" a hundred web sites that WORK on this "no longer actively developed" 360Chrome but do NOT WORK on ANY of the roytam1 offerings. The last TWO PLUS YEARS of weekly updates have still YET to get any of the roytam1 offerings to "work" for any of those "hundred web sites". To each their own... I'm done for the night... I tap the mat and bow out... You're right if you refer to these Googlized websites! However, this is not @roytam1's problem, but due to the browser architecture he supports. Even he cannot work magic and Moonchild, either. I give all these Google-infested sites to 360Chrome v13.5 build 1030 or my Android tablet to eat. But, my mainly used browsers are New Moon and Serpent, and maybe, Mypal 68 in the future. That's how it will stay for now, and hopefully for a long time. Edited January 9, 2023 by AstroSkipper Update of content 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 9, 2023 Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) Agreed! However, I highly disagree with the term "Googlized" - that's just a fancy Mozilla Term in my book, some sort of "blame Google that we cannot render your web site". That "blame game" doesn't really work, in my opinion. ECMAScript 2015 is the "standard" to which javascript engines have to comply in order to render "modern" web sites. Available here -- https://www.ecma-international.org/wp-content/uploads/ECMA-262_6th_edition_june_2015.pdf There are newer standards, but for the sake of the term "Googlized" that gets thrown around here at MSFN, I'll refer to the 2015 standard. I do not know what the newer standards bring to the table, but I do know that import, optional chaining, and nullish coalescing has been around since 2015. 360Chrome v13/13.5 is a 2018 web browser and it complies with import, optional chaining, and nullish coalescing operators. The actual "base" for most of roytam1's is a bit muddy for me, but basically circa Firefox 52 (March 2017), 53 (April 2017), or 55 (August 2017) depending on your reference point. 2017 browsers should comply with 2015 standards. Will another two+ years of weekly updates on roytam1 offerings achieve better "compliance"? Your guess is as good as mine. Optional chaining and nullish coalescing operators were not in compliance two years ago and are today in some of the roytam1 offerings. So yes, "progress" is being made. But my main point here is that Google does not write the "standard", they just do a better job at complying to the "standard". I am quite positive that ECMA International did not set out to create a standard that Google could comply with but that Mozilla could not. Market share is determined by who can best comply with web standards more then by brand loyalty. Mozilla does have this for them, they're like "pirates" - the ship may be sinking, but they will go down with that ship and stand proud while gasping in that last breath. Edited January 9, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) Generally, I am not a fan of innovations and new standards which mean websites become more cumbersome, slow, and overloaded. And I don't like Chrome browsers due to their restrictions, and the new Firefox browsers, either. I could say a lot about all that but I'll leave it at that for now. Edited January 9, 2023 by AstroSkipper Update of content 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 9, 2023 Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 10 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: Generally, I am not a fan of innovations and new standards which mean websites become more cumbersome and heavy on loading. I don't think we can really make a blanket-statement such as that. These "new standards" are not 'always' more cumbersome and heavy on loading. Some javascript functions were created out of necessity for "efficiency". "New" ways of doing things are sometimes "better". If we "parse" the full list of javascript functions "introduced" in 2015 and compare directly with the "old way" of doing the same function, I bet we will find that "newer is better". And if they are not, then at least the non-lazy web developers would still be using the "old way". But unfortunately, in this cookie-cutter world, "non-lazy" web developers are few and far between. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: I don't think we can really make a blanket-statement such as that. These "new standards" are not 'always' more cumbersome and heavy on loading. Some javascript functions were created out of necessity for "efficiency". "New" ways of doing things are sometimes "better". If we "parse" the full list of javascript functions "introduced" in 2015 and compare directly with the "old way" of doing the same function, I bet we will find that "newer is better". And if they are not, then at least the non-lazy web developers would still be using the "old way". But unfortunately, in this cookie-cutter world, "non-lazy" web developers are few and far between. Nowadays, new stuff is "sold" as safer and better. But that is not always the case. I am generally not a member of the faith community with the motto "the newer, the better". But maybe I'm just a dinosaur on the brink of extinction. Edited January 9, 2023 by AstroSkipper Update of content 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 9, 2023 Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 No disagreement here. Just saying it's not exactly "black and white". This old dinosaur drives a '55 Dodge Coronet, a '61 Studebaker Hawk, a '90 Eagle Talon, and a '91 Dodge Stealth R/T. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 33 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: No disagreement here. Just saying it's not exactly "black and white". I'm glad that we agree a little for once. 37 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: This old dinosaur drives a '55 Dodge Coronet, a '61 Studebaker Hawk, a '90 Eagle Talon, and a '91 Dodge Stealth R/T. I'm guessing that these are all old cars. Unfortunately, I am not at all familiar with American car models. The initial numbers are probably the year of manufacture. Therefore, you are a fan of classic cars. I drive an '89 Golf I Cabriolet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-H Posted January 10, 2023 Share Posted January 10, 2023 I just had my first ever BSOD when using 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022. I was scrolling a web page, and suddenly there it was, stop 0x8E - (KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED), apparently in win32k.sys. No other foreground programs were running at the time. I've been using @UCyborg's first posted rebased chrome.dll for several weeks now, with no problems. I hope if this was the cause of the BSOD that it doesn't happen again! After rebooting, 360Chrome was badly messed up, not surprisingly, but restoring a backup soon fixed it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 10, 2023 Author Share Posted January 10, 2023 I've been using build 1030 as my default for about a week or so. I don't recall what base address was used by @UCyborg - I've been using 0x1001000 for both my x86 and x64. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 10, 2023 Share Posted January 10, 2023 13 hours ago, Dave-H said: I just had my first ever BSOD when using 360Chrome 13.5 build 2022. I was scrolling a web page, and suddenly there it was, stop 0x8E - (KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED), apparently in win32k.sys. No other foreground programs were running at the time. I've been using @UCyborg's first posted rebased chrome.dll for several weeks now, with no problems. I hope if this was the cause of the BSOD that it doesn't happen again! After rebooting, 360Chrome was badly messed up, not surprisingly, but restoring a backup soon fixed it. I think it has nothing to do with uCyborg and points out to the same ol' spinning disks "feauture". Why ? Scroll to the most interesting part: "Error: KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED file path: C:\Windows\system32\drivers\dc_fsf.sys product: DiskCryptor description: DiskCryptor FS filter" "This was probably caused by the following module: iastor.sys (iaStor+0x40514) Bugcheck code: 0x1000008E (0xFFFFFFFFC0000005, 0xFFFFFFFF8BE68514, 0xFFFFFFFFAC765720, 0x0) Error: KERNEL_MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED_M file path: C:\Windows\system32\drivers\iastor.sys" https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/iastor-system-error-stop-0x8e/4e9ae6b2-8b77-e011-8dfc-68b599b31bf5 Usually this BSOD indicates conflicts with Intel iastor.sys driver. Rarely (but also possible) - video drivers. In short, all points out to 360chrome accessing your HDDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted January 10, 2023 Author Share Posted January 10, 2023 23 minutes ago, D.Draker said: file path: C:\Windows\system32\drivers\dc_fsf.sys 24 minutes ago, D.Draker said: file path: C:\Windows\system32\drivers\iastor.sys" Just where did these come from? Plucked out of thin air? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Draker Posted January 10, 2023 Share Posted January 10, 2023 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/debugger/bug-check-0x8e--kernel-mode-exception-not-handled 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msfntor Posted January 10, 2023 Share Posted January 10, 2023 (edited) 16 hours ago, Dave-H said: BSOD it's like "nothing happened", me too have the BSOD (on various browsers) very rarely, reboot the computer, clear with CCleaner and forgot. I never accused a single browser. Edited January 10, 2023 by msfntor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now