ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.2044 rebuild 2

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

And as far as that goes, only two Vista x64 users have reported this (both of which have said in the past that they have moved on from 360Chrome).

Or did they?  If the Vista users WANT 360Chrome 2044, that is one thing.  I'd hate to think that we (myself included) have HIJACKED this thread with this "trojan scan" non-issue to those that use 360Chrome daily on XP and 10.

I don't remember when I said I don't use 360Chrome, you got me confused with someone else, nothing is hijacked since the Trojan message comes from the browser itself. Though, it's a bit different on XP and Vista.

Did you have the chance to compare 1030 with 2044 with enough real life usage? Is it faster? Maybe not worth it? Or maybe worth to search for the cause? 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 minute ago, Dixel said:

Did you have the chance to compare 1030 with 2044 with enough real life usage?

Not yet.

I've been using 2044 for three days.  Non-stop here at work (Win10 x64 monitored by Global IT) for 9 to 11 hours plus another 2 to 3 hours at home (XP x64) plus 1 to 2 hours at home (Win10 x64).

While our Global IT isn't exactly the smartest of the bunch, they have issued ZERO "nastygrams" and they would within an hour if something didn't "look right".

Technically the "monitoring" is fully automated and "notifications" are issued to IT by those automated "scans".

If Global IT were notified by any of the automated scans, my computer would literally drop to email only with limited access even for email until "resolved".

While I prefer to stay off that "radar", I have been running 2044 here at work with ZERO "nastygrams" from Global IT.

While I respect the Vista x64 "warning", I personally trust our Global IT "monitoring" over and above whatever is causing this on Vista x64.

Sure, if we can find a fix, I'm all for it.  But it is not a deal-breaker for me and I also don't think it is for the majority of our userbase (which is quite TINY, as far as that goes).

2036 was only slightly slightly slightly less performant than 1030.  Real-life noticeable?  NO!  Only noticeable by benchmark scores but essentially "within margin of error".

2044 seems to equal 2036 in all regards as far as benchmark scores.  I don't see myself dropping back down to 1030.  While 1030 was perhaps the "peak", it's all technically "within margin of error".

I don't parse the Chinese revision mods from one release to the next.  I do have to kind of "assume" that there was a REASON they upgraded 1030 and that there is a REASON they are at 2044.

I don't know those REASONS nor "pretend to".  

So 2044 is quickly becoming my DEFAULT.  But sure, I'm all for additional improvements.

I have not looked into 2044 versus 2036 ClearType differences.  I do not use ClearType and actually see this as an advantage for 2044 over 2036.

I plan to attempt to recreate the ClearType difference on XP with ClearType enabled, have not done that yet.

[seven4ever]

After some days testing, this release is table for my Xp 64 on real hardware.

I've found an other untranslated part, click on ">" is working

[rereser]

confirmed , and after clicking on the > after the 4 squares (details) it opens the 360chrome trusted root and not the windows cert manager.

edit : trusted certificates are fine in translation and function.

Edited October 20, 2023 by rereser

[NotHereToPlayGames]

5 hours ago, Dixel said:

Did you have the chance to compare 1030 with 2044 with enough real life usage? Is it faster?

Strictly from Speedometer 2.1 with only one run each  --  2044 scored 75.5...  1030 scored 75.2...  2036 scored 74.8...

This is on XP x64 on a fairly old i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz with 16 GB RAM.

So if we really want to "squeeze the turnip" for every last tiny drop of performance, seems 2044 is the "fastest".

But those numbers are so close that we really are technically "within margin of error".

I'll try a few other benchmark just for curiosity.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

All three of these benchmarks say the same thing - that 1030 is faster then 2036, but that 2044 is faster then 1030.

But the scores are so close together that if I had the time to average 100 scores instead of only 3, then all three may very well merge to the exact same score.

These scores do not offer any statistical reason to run one version over the other.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I'm unable to replicate the Insecure Connection translation error.  Can you provide a URL where this occurred?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Vista Ultimate SP2 x64 installed.  Windows Defender activated.  360Chrome 2044 working as expected.  Still working on updating through September 2012 (I do not support post-EOL "patches", be it XP or Vista).

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[rereser]

used this to replicate the certificate translate issue.
example link : http://example.com/
any http site will do to replicate , https is fine , untrusted or not.
behaviour is the same on all 13.5 versions.

Edited October 21, 2023 by rereser

[seven4ever]

About unsecure connexion, an example : 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220926141420/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/ms16-014-description-of-the-security-update-for-windows-vista-windows-server-2008-windows-7-windows-server-2008-r2-windows-server-2012-windows-8-1-and-windows-server-2012-r2-february-9-2016-114d5f4b-ca8e-9bf0-63f1-eebfa94c5e74

[Cocodile]

3 hours ago, seven4ever said:

About unsecure connexion, an example : 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220926141420/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/ms16-014-description-of-the-security-update-for-windows-vista-windows-server-2008-windows-7-windows-server-2008-r2-windows-server-2012-windows-8-1-and-windows-server-2012-r2-february-9-2016-114d5f4b-ca8e-9bf0-63f1-eebfa94c5e74

I get the same with ungoogled 110.

[seven4ever]

I think you have a unsecure blocking alert . My link gives correct rendering with 306 browser:

[Cocodile]

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Vista Ultimate SP2 x64 installed.  Windows Defender activated.  360Chrome 2044 working as expected.  Still working on updating through September 2012 (I do not support post-EOL "patches", be it XP or Vista)

It's a VM, Vista's defender is obsolete for 20 years, I don't even remember how good (or bad?) it was at detecting Trojans when it was young, build 6002 is the thing that no one cares about anymore, but thanks for the screengrab.

It's almost the same as if you installed bare bones XP SP3.

[Cocodile]

3 hours ago, seven4ever said:

I think you have a unsecure blocking alert . My link gives correct rendering with 306 browser:

 

The padlock on your browser is not green, so it's not secure for you, too.

[Cocodile]

3 hours ago, seven4ever said:

I think you have a unsecure blocking alert . My link gives correct rendering with 306 browser:

I turned off the warning, it still shown as insecure.