narrowing down my default browser for my Win10 setups

[cmccaff1]

Of course, when it comes to browsers, everything is going to be a matter of preference.
After a lot of trial and error I've decided to make the leap to Windows 10 (I was testing LTSC 2019 for a while, but as I'm using an old HP S5-1020 I want to see if I will get better performance with LTSB 2015).
I have found Chromium, and its related forks, to be absolutely perfect for my needs.

Recently I was testing a bleeding-edge version (110) and the last 'official' for Win 7/8.x (109). They seem to run well enough on my PC, but I felt like I could get better performance.
With the latest version as of now being 110, I've decided to go back to 90, and my new personal rule (which should also apply just fine for users of other browsers) is to keep track of whatever the current stable version is and, if possible, stay 20 versions behind it.
This should strike a good balance between performance on older hardware and compatibility with the modern Web.

I learned a long time ago that you don't need the most bleeding-edge version of any browser to be able to get by on the Internet, but if a browsing engine is too old you will run into problems sooner or later. For the longest time I used XP, but had to make the switch when I found that some 'essential' sites would no longer work properly in 360 v13.5, Mypal68 or the latest Serpent. Originally the plan was to switch to 7, which I have tested with good results, but it seems almost anything that can run 7 will run 10 and in all its releases is much more future-proof.
Right now my plan is to slowly work through the LTSB/C releases all the way to IoT LTSC 2021, but if LTSB 2015 is still performing well enough on my PC when extended support ends, I'll probably stick with that for as long as I can, until/unless it starts to run into any major problems.

Edited February 23, 2023 by cmccaff1
20 versions behind latest makes the most sense; I'll stick with LTSC 2019. It has a few quirks but no major bugs, and extended support until 2029 is a pretty sweet deal. Supports all the drivers on my mobo too, including the WiFi card (updated some w/SDI)

[NotHereToPlayGames]

My Win10-preferred is GDIChromium v96.  I run LTSB 2016 at home and the work computer says "Windows 10 OSD combined 2102" in Device spec's and "Windows 10 Enterprise 20H2" in Windows spec's.  OS Build here at work says "19042.2486".

I also PREFER to be SEVERAL versions below "bleeding-edge".

I run GDIChromium v96 both here at work and at home.

Partly due to Ungoogled Chromium will not stream one of my Live TV web sites at work and I prefer to use the same profile on all computers, be it work or home or garage.

[cmccaff1]

I'll have to try that version out...it's amazing how many Chromium forks there are. Being on Windows 10 makes it possible to run just about everything, and staying behind the latest version works out in multiple ways (better performance and the knowledge that what you're using will run well in an earlier OS too, at least until we get to version 130 and 20 versions behind that is now 110).
I'm glad GDIChromium works well for you--if it gets your stamp of approval then I have no doubt it'll be more than enough for me!

Ungoogled Chromium does work well, and I can see myself tinkering with it and other forks, but I've actually decided to switch to Hibbiki's Chromium x64 builds...and to amend what I mentioned earlier, I think the best rule is actually to stay, as much as possible without fail, 20 versions behind the newest stable release. (This reply was sent from Chromium 95, which works great on my PC, as does 90!)
If you find a site is having issues, then you can jump up 5 versions and see if that fixes it. If it's still not fixed, jump up 5 more versions. This rule tends to work well not only with browsers but with most software, though not everything is updated on the same time table.

Edited February 22, 2023 by cmccaff1
Better to stay 20 versions behind a stable than a beta release, as you afford yourself about 2-3 versions' worth of better performance over what 20 from the newest beta would give you. Chromium 90 should run slightly better than 92 on the same hardware.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I'm not 100% tied to GDIChromium at this stage (for Win7 it's a must but GDI vs DirectWrite isn't as big of a concern for me on Win10).

Hibbiki is a new one I've not heard of.

I balance across four different Win10 machines and primarily use https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.1/ and run with the browser that all four computers score the highest average.

So it's not always the "fastest" for one of the four, but that's the balancing act.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I seem to recall that either 92, 94, 96, or 97 was my "fastest", but cannot recall offhand.

[cmccaff1]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I seem to recall that either 92, 94, 96, or 97 was my "fastest", but cannot recall offhand.

That seems to be a very good range for performance, especially on older PCs. Just to have everything perfectly 'round' I decided to go back and try Chromium 90 (Hibbiki has a build for that one), and it works GREAT. Actually, I'm writing this from Chromium 90.
Now that I think about it, I think you can even go back 20 versions and still get good results.

Remembering old experiences with Firefox before I started to focus more on Chromium-based browsers, I remember that back when 30 & 31ESR were still current most sites still worked in 10ESR. When 52ESR was current most sites still worked in 31ESR & 32.
It seems that going back 20 versions may actually be the ultimate performance/compatibility compromise: you are now at a point where many 'fancy' websites will start to run into problems, but your version is still recent enough that over 95% of sites will still work as things now stand.
And you can use the 'jump up five versions' trick if any 'critical' sites are not working properly, and keep jumping up until they do.

Having 95% of today's Web working is a high enough percentage for me--to me, it's not worth having the latest, even if it does work, to get that 100% compatibility when you will lose so much in performance.
It's better to slowly work your way towards these newer versions...it can't be avoided that upgrading is inevitable, but giving yourself 20 versions' worth of leeway gives you more room to work with, and many more years of good and fast Web browsing.
For anyone using a pre-10 version of Windows, the '20 versions' rule will guarantee them at least two more years of excellent web browsing...they would not have to look at upgrading to 10 until version 130 is the current stable release.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

13 hours ago, cmccaff1 said:

I decided to go back and try Chromium 90 (Hibbiki has a build for that one), and it works GREAT. Actually, I'm writing this from Chromium 90.
Now that I think about it, I think you can even go back 20 versions and still get good results.

Having 95% of today's Web working is a high enough percentage for me--to me, it's not worth having the latest, even if it does work, to get that 100% compatibility when you will lose so much in performance.

Agreed.

I didn't go back as far as v90 with my tests yesterday.

Here's what I am showing on one of my low-end PCs with Hibbiki versions on Win10.

I have not yet compared his "nosync" versus an "ungoogled" as far as Google connections.

[cmccaff1]

Very interesting results! It seems the Chromium engine got some significant speed optimizations starting with version 96.
Performance seems to have stayed more or less consistent since then, with some versions being faster than others.

Of course Hibbiki's builds aren't the only game in town...I ended up finding out about them when I figured out how to download the 'stock' Chromium 95, only to discover it didn't come with a full set of codecs.
As it turns out, there are multiple maintainers who have been nice enough to work on and share Chromium builds that restore some of the better aspects of 'normal' Google Chrome (including proper codec support), and Hibbiki seems to be one of the trusted folks in that regard.
So far I haven't had any issues with Hibbiki's builds...Chromium 90 is working great. Smooth, speedy, and stable.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

A quick update (I noticed a few of my downloads last night were not the "latest" for each version [GitHub doesn't list releases in order apparently]).

Yes, I've always been happy with v96 builds.  They tend to be a nice sweet spot in performance and "newer" versions add a lot of "bloat" like side-bar "features" that just degrade performance.

What I actually find as a positive (for the future) is the good results for v104+.

While I do not "like" them for my tastes, what it suggests is that Chromium is getting "better" and perhaps dropping support for Win7 will only prove how much FASTER the browser can become on Win10!

Yet to be seen, of course, but it would be very positive (for the future of web browsers) if Chromium becomes FASTER FASTER FASTER after they abandon Win7.

Not to be misread though, I still use XP most of the time here at home (I've been transitioning to Win10 but only as a "hobby" for now).

Edited February 23, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[msfntor]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Agreed.

I didn't go back

Your picture is interesting, so would be nice to keep it here forever, please... like all your other pictures...

[NotHereToPlayGames]

44 minutes ago, msfntor said:

would be nice to keep it here forever

Takes too much time, to be perfectly honest.

I can copy-and-paste into a post in seconds.

Using some form of permanent image server takes far too much time for a "here-and-now" discussion.

[msfntor]

I see, but only you lose images with time - these images are of interest... also for the next generations...

[cmccaff1]

21 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Yes, I've always been happy with v96 builds.  They tend to be a nice sweet spot in performance and "newer" versions add a lot of "bloat" like side-bar "features" that just degrade performance.

Absolutely, completely agreed. Actually, I just upgraded to v96 and I find it to be a solid improvement over v90. You made a believer out of me on this one--I've decided to 'cheat' a little bit and stay with v96 for the time being.
I believe there is truth to the '20 versions' rule and I'm sticking with it, but I'm going to let it kick in when the stable version is up to v117 (at which time I'll move up to v97 and just keep going from there).
In general, that rule keeps you more or less 2 years behind the latest release, which seems to be as far back as you can go and still have that 95% compatibility with the modern Internet. That percentage drops if you keep a version that is too old, but I do think that older versions are still worth tinkering with (as they tend to have a lot of interesting/useful features that were taken out of later ones).

Hopefully the speed and performance will stay on the road it's on, but either way once v117 is out, I'm moving to v97 and staying 20 behind the latest from then on. It's going to be a long time before I will need to worry about it, presuming the speed drops in the future.

UPDATE: As of the time of writing, I have moved back to Windows 7 x64. I actually enjoyed getting a feel for what to expect with 10 in the future...but there is nothing that really seems to necessitate the jump to 10 right now. 7 seems to be the best 'bridge' between XP and 10, with a kernel that is closer to 10 but performance that is comparable with XP (and better compatibility with 'legacy' hardware & software). It runs a lot better than 10 on the same hardware, but 10 honestly wasn't performing that badly (so I do feel optimistic for the future).
Right now, the plan is to stay with Chromium 96, make the jump to 97 once 117 is the newest stable, keep going version by version until we get to the 109/129 milestone, and then maybe I'll switch over to Firefox once 130 is the newest stable Chromium (again, 20 versions rule...whatever Firefox version is the current, be 20 versions behind it). Hopefully Firefox is still going to be supported by Mozilla by then...if not, I'll keep going until I reach the inevitable dead end and then either stay with Firefox indefinitely or look at the other options that are available by then. I have a feeling Windows 7 should be usable for the rest of the decade, and then maybe in the 2030s I'll have to make the switch to 10.

Edited February 24, 2023 by cmccaff1

[UCyborg]

I jumped from Firefox 96.0.3 to 110 today, got about 6 extra points on Speedometer. I mostly use Pale Moon, but a bit of speedup is refreshing, though it also costs more memory and I lose some extensions (though also gain some other extensions - web altering ones really, not browser altering ones). Also needs more RAM, Pale Moon needs cca. 400 MB for 1x MSFN tab, 1x Speedometer tab, 2x GitHub project page tabs, Firefox needs 700 MB. 32-bit versions.

Edited February 25, 2023 by UCyborg

[cmccaff1]

2 hours ago, UCyborg said:

a bit of speedup is refreshing, though it also costs more memory and I lose some extensions (though also gain some other extensions - web altering ones really, not browser altering ones). Also needs more RAM

That is a very good point. The Chromium developers are on the right track in terms of optimizing for speed (and I really hope it stays that way), but it is inevitable that as the capabilities of the browser increase, so too does the CPU/RAM required to make it run well.
Chromium 109, I am sure, would run as well or better than 96, but it would come at the cost of a slightly higher CPU/RAM footprint.
Actually, I just went back to Chromium 90 as I noticed some 'quirks' with 96 (including certain files not downloading with a left click; I would have to copy/paste the link into the address bar--I have had this happen in Chromium 109 too, ungoogled and Hibbiki builds, so I'm sure it's not a hardware or OS issue). It's inevitable that I'll have to move up to 96 according to the 20 version rule, but I want it to happen over time, gradually.
In real world use 90 seems to be offering equal if not better performance compared to 96 and 109, and is a bit more stable in my experiences (I've had 96 freeze and lock up several times with a certain number of tabs loaded, if the memory use is high enough; this does not seem to affect 90).
Obviously, I'm not making sales pitches to convince people to use an old version of their favorite browser; everyone has their own use cases and unique needs. But as someone who uses a PC that is now over a decade old, there is a lot to be said for staying on old versions of software, unless you have a use case that absolutely necessitates making the switch to something more up-to-date. No doubt I'm speaking to the choir here, since the people who frequent this site know their stuff better than the 'average' person.