ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.2036 rebuild 1

[msfntor]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I still say you need a better test site.

I've posted already two other websites with my test results...

 

Here you have three other speedy pages I've found:

abcpage.com: http://abcpage.com/ - but do NOT load page content by allowing manually this link in uBlock... best result (in my DCBrowser, sorry): 0.10 s - it's THE fastest page I've found! It's setting 1 cookie, no problem.

Vanced: https://vancedapp.com/ - best result (from cache!) 0.15 s, very speedy! No cookie. Best result in your latest 360Chrome 13.5.2036_r1_r: 0.20 s.

emedmd.com: http://ww12.emedmd.com/ - best result (from cache!): 0.15 s, idem... 

Edited April 20, 2023 by msfntor
added: in my DCBrowser, sorry - and added: Best result in your latest 360Chrome...

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I'm finding it impossible to believe your results.  Sorry, just utterly IMPOSSIBLE.  I'm testing without uBlock.

You have to CLEAR YOUR CACHE otherwise all you are doing is testing how fast your hard drive and web browser talk to each other and that line of communication has NOTHING to do with "page load time".

My internet speed is FASTER than yours, not bragging, just stating a very important VARIABLE in this experiment.

XP SP2 VirtualBox.

 

 

The https://vancedapp.com/ site is a perfect example !!!

WATCH IT LOAD!  The "Page Load Time" extension is posting a time BEFORE the page "animates" into view - how is that an accurate page load time, you can NOT stop the stopwatch, IMO, until *after* the page "animates".

 

 

[msfntor]

53 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'm finding it impossible to believe your results.  Sorry, just utterly IMPOSSIBLE.  I'm testing without uBlock.

ArcticFoxie, I don't know why my recent results of this link: http://abcpage.com/ became like yours... but the two other new links I posted above are very speedy ( like 0.14 s (from cache) for both vanced and emedmd.com...in DCBrowser, and 0.24 best result (from cache) in your latest 360Chrome), yes... now I want to go to sleep, see you tomorrow, sorry...

Edited April 20, 2023 by msfntor
very speedy addings

[msfntor]

Today, Vanced page https://vancedapp.com/ performs in DCBrowser/Incognito window: 0.10 s (from cache, after some reloads of the page - hitting "Reload this page" button...), and in your latest 360Chrome: 2.20 first result (so without starting from the cache), and 0.19 s best result after some reloads of the page (so from the cache). Your browser is clearing automatically all browser data each time after closing it.

In MiniBrowser (after clearing browser data manually and restarting browser): 0.79 first result, then 0.16 best result from the cache...

 

And this new link dredevops: https://dredevops.com/need-for-speed/ - in DCBrowser, Incognito window: 0.52 first start, then best result from some reloads (so from cache): 0.21 s.

Your latest 360Chrome: 1.17 s first result, then 0.28 best result from the cache.

In MiniBrowser: 0.62 s first result, then 0.23 best result from the cache after multiple reloads.

 

A left click on the extension allows you to get the loading times (ms) for all events ...

Edited April 21, 2023 by msfntor

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I feel this topic is a dog chasing its own tail.

Why are you so "worried" (or so it comes across that way) on Page Load Time differences of nine HUNDREDTHS of a second - FROM CACHE?

Different browsers manage "cache headers" differently.  This doesn't mean that a browser is clearing data, it means that the browser handles "time stamps" differently.

The browser doesn't pull from cache FIRST, it first contacts the web site then compares "time stamps" with what the browser knows is in cache, then determines which of the two locations to pull from.

Different browser configurations will handle preload/prefetch differently.

You're also working (I think) on a single-core CPU and using web browsers optimized for use on multi-core CPUs.

How far do you want to take this?  Are you familiar with "Decentraleyes"?

I have Proxomitron filters that can load EVERY page across the entire World Wide Web in a tenth of a second - but they are "preview" filters and not for "everyday use".

I have Proxomitron filters that handle cache-handling for images differently than .css and .js then handle a handful of CDNs from a "local archive" versus fetching them when a web page requests them.

I'm failing to see what the "objective" here is - to demonstrate how "awesome" you find DCBrowser?  Why?  You are comparing Chrome v75 with Chrome v86 and expect identical results - never gonna happen.

A "fairer" comparison would be DCBrowser to 360Chrome v11 or v12 - basesed solely on the number of javascript advancements between v75 and v86.

 

NINE HUNDREDTHS OF A SECOND.

Electricity does not travel the speed of light in a vacuum, it is SLOWER, but let's use light in a vacuum for a frame of reference.

Light (in a vacuum) travels at 186 miles per millisecond (0.100 seconds).

You're talking about 0.090 seconds and make it sound like the sky is falling.

Light travels 18.6 miles per hundredth of a second.

That's 1,674 miles in nine hundredths of a second.

Twice that for this hypothetical lightning fast fiber optic cable between your computer and the server hosting the web page you are "page load timing".

So if you want to achieve nine hundredths of a second between you and the server, you have to move the server to the halfway point so that 4.5 hundredths of a second is to get there and the other 4.5 hundredths of a second is the return trip.

That's 837 miles.

But of course we didn't account for a "very fast" DNS Resolve of 20 milliseconds.

Since 20 milliseconds is 20% of 100 milliseconds, let's move the hosting server 20% closer to your house.

That puts the server at 670 miles from your house.

At 70mph, you could drive to the server in 9hrs 34minutes.

That would be a much more effective use of time than debating nine hundreths of a second "page load time" differences for three days.

 

All sarcastic, of course, lol.

But in all seriousness, why are you so concerned with nine hundredths of a second?

What is the "agenda" here?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

16 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Light (in a vacuum) travels at 186 miles per millisecond (0.100 seconds).

Oops, I meant 186 miles per millisecond (0.001 seconds).

[msfntor]

10 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But in all seriousness, why are you so concerned with nine hundredths of a second?

What is the "agenda" here?

You could be SURE, that I don't have the agenda!

I only report the numbers that are found by the extension, sorry. ("A left click on the extension allows you to get the loading times (ms) for all events ..." - it's from edited post above...)

Maybe the extension does not know you, does not know who you are? LOL

10 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

You're also working (I think) on a single-core CPU and using web browsers optimized for use on multi-core CPUs.

No, I've recently reported here my specs, I quote from the precedent page 11:

"Have Windows XP SP2 with Intel Core2 CPU, 6300, 1.86 GHz and 3 GB of RAM only, that's why..." - so I've Intel Core 2 Duo.

- But maybe my computer is dying recently, look on my topic: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184705-is-my-computer-dying-black-screen-at-startup/

 

[msfntor]

3 minutes ago, msfntor said:

- But maybe my computer is dying recently,

This sad and probable event will solve your problems...lol

[NotHereToPlayGames]

lol

But the main thing is this, you can NOT compare DCBrowser to 360Chrome, plain and simple.

Because you are comparing Chrome 75 to Chrome 86.

We have all known this for years, that OLDER versions of Chrome are "faster" then NEWER versions of Chrome.

It is WHY so many people prefer to use 360Chrome v11.

But it becomes a balanceing act of FUNCTIONALITY.

Sure, 360Chromve v11 is "faster" than 360Chrome v13.5, but it's also "faster" than DCBrowser (theoretically, I did not take the 123,456,789 milliseconds to test this theory).

But v11 will not load any web site using what MSFN Members refer to as "Googleisms".

[msfntor]

SURE!

IAmAwesome.com:  https://iamawesome.com/

you

[NotHereToPlayGames]

True.

[Cixert]

I have tested this version on 2 computers.
1- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 DDR 2 800mhz 4 GiB RAM
I open 32 tabs at the same time and the computer reaches 4 GiB RAM, at which point everything slows down having to work with virtual memory.

2- Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz DDR 333 Mhz 2 GiB RAM
I open 64 tabs at a time and the computer only reaches 1.3 GiB RAM so it still works perfectly.
I have already found in other versions of 360 Extreme Explorer that working with faster computers gives more problems than benefits...

[NotHereToPlayGames]

6 hours ago, Cixert said:

I have tested this version on 2 computers.
1- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 DDR 2 800mhz 4 GiB RAM
I open 32 tabs at the same time and the computer reaches 4 GiB RAM, at which point everything slows down having to work with virtual memory.

2- Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz DDR 333 Mhz 2 GiB RAM
I open 64 tabs at a time and the computer only reaches 1.3 GiB RAM so it still works perfectly.
I have already found in other versions of 360 Extreme Explorer that working with faster computers gives more problems than benefits...

And is that better or worse than other 360Chrome v13.5 builds ???

[Cixert]

22 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

And is that better or worse than other 360Chrome v13.5 builds ???

I think better.
Of course, I'm now very happy with my Pentium 4, I was going to retire it and now I don't see the need.
But I wonder why this happens on computers that have more RAM and if there is a solution?

Edited April 30, 2023 by Cixert

[cmccaff1]

5 hours ago, Cixert said:

Of course, I'm now very happy with my Pentium 4, I was going to retire it and now I don't see the need.

That's something I always love to hear--glad to know you're keeping your P4 going! I've been saying it for a long time: with XP or 7 and a relatively modern browser, a Pentium 4 can still fly even in 2023.
Even 8.x and earlier 10 releases (I recommend LTSB 2015 and 2016) also run quite well on a P4...of course, when you get into the more recent builds, P4s start to struggle a bit.
I use a Pentium E6800 (basically a stripped down Core 2 Duo) with 4GB of RAM...a trusty, reliable LGA775-era machine that continues to get the job done for me every day.

Getting back on topic, I've used 360 builds for years and have never had any major performance issues on my PC...of course, more recent builds run much better now that they've been properly rebased.
Provided you have applied the same performance tweaks to both machines, I can only presume there's some kind of built-in 'graceful fallback' system that allows 360 to run better on older hardware (though I strongly doubt that's the case).
I have no doubt that with a fresh installation of XP SP3, properly tweaked for performance, 360 should soar like an eagle on the specs you've provided. If can run well as it does on my E6800, it should be even better on a C2Q.

I hope this is at least somewhat useful! And for @NotHereToPlayGames: thanks for continuing to share your customized 360 builds! I'm currently using v13.5.2036, (regular) rebuild 1--paired with Roy's latest Serpent 52 build it completes a devastating one-two punch for solid modern browsing in XP. Stable, fast, and still very capable!