Thorium

[Dixel]

22 hours ago, Dave-H said:

No difference with the switch added on my XP system.
Still eating RAM, and then the tab process crashes.

For the time being, try third party Instagram browsing sites, maybe? No login needed.

https://www.pixwox.com/profile/INSERT_PROFILE_NAME_HERE/

Not sure whom this site belongs to, but works fine,

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Wow!  2.55 GB for that particular tab!  Looks like win32s is going to attempt a reversal.

[Dixel]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Wow!  2.55 GB for that particular tab!  Looks like win32s is going to attempt a reversal.

You can't compare browsers running on Win10 to any previous OS. I'll explain why. RAM management is different on Win10, it's the cause for the bug. They weren't able to fix it.

The Russian guy (forgot his name, Blunauvich, was it?) he also acknowledged this huge memory leak, he couldn't fix it, then wrote about it to win32, the leak is still not fixed, 

[Dixel]

The reason lies around the PrefetchVirtualMemory and VirtualAlloc, since 110-112 the memory management code in Chrome was rewritten.

This was the reason they dropped everything below 10, starting V110.

PrefetchVirtualMemory (newly introduced function) glitches out on XP. The porters tried to replace it VirtualAlloc. No luck, as we see,

[mina7601]

9 minutes ago, Dixel said:

(forgot his name, Blunauvich, was it?)

Blaukovitch.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

28 minutes ago, Dixel said:

They weren't able to fix it.

I suppose that is one way to look at it.  But doesn't it kind of assume that they were "trying" to fix it?  Nobody but us here at MSFN really even use 32-bit these days.

So I kind of look at it as an issue so rare that it isn't WORTH "fixing".  Basically, force that 1 out of 500,000 web pages to redesign their "index".  If that index even pertains to 32-bit audiences?

I mean, if this has been around since 110, that was February 2023.  So it only took TWENTY MONTHS (19?) for any of us here at MSFN to catch wind of it.

That sort of index page is kind of "dumb".  But that's just my opinion, lol.

Edited September 2, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

Contrary to my original statement, I have tried to open the Facebook website in Thorium. Even there I am rewarded with a 100% CPU load, and my free RAM memory is being eaten up. The only thing that allows the page to load is using a mobile user agent. Unfortunately, many elements are then not displayed correctly. So, it remains the same. The FB page is just rubbish. 

[Dixel]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I suppose that is one way to look at it.  But doesn't it kind of assume that they were "trying" to fix it?  Nobody but us here at MSFN really even use 32-bit these days.

So I kind of look at it as an issue so rare that it isn't WORTH "fixing".  Basically, force that 1 out of 500,000 web pages to redesign their "index".  If that index even pertains to 32-bit audiences?

I mean, if this has been around since 110, that was February 2023.  So it only took TWENTY MONTHS (19?) for any of us here at MSFN to catch wind of it.

That sort of index page is kind of "dumb".  But that's just my opinion, lol.

Looks like you didn't pay attention to the post, the leak had happened with 64-bit Supermium. But then again, the function is glitchy on both - 32 and 64.

[Dixel]

11 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

The only thing that allows the page to load is using a mobile user agent.

That's because websites simply load less scripts for phones. You're too low on RAM.

I use a 16GB junk (low specs) PC with Pentium for the internet at home. It's the bare minimum,

[Dixel]

11 hours ago, mina7601 said:

Blaukovitch.

I'm pretty sure it's not the same man, and the Russian simply took another famous man's name just forthe laughs and giggles.

No one would ban the real Blaukovitch on github, not to mention the real Blaukovitch wouldn't post cra*cks on github or anywhere else, to begin with.

[AstroSkipper]

9 minutes ago, Dixel said:

That's because websites simply load less scripts for phones. You're too low on RAM.

I use a 16GB junk (low specs) PC with Pentium for the internet at home. It's the bare minimum,

I see it like this. If websites can't be loaded properly on my old computer under Windows XP, it's a sign that this website has disqualified itself for my system and now has the pleasure of making the acquaintance of my Android tablet. BTW, websites that take up hundreds of megabytes of RAM are simply rubbish in my world.  Especially if they waste my precious RAM to show ads, offer meaningless things and collect user data. 

[Dave-H]

4 hours ago, VistaLover said:

 

Quote

 

On 9/1/2024 at 6:29 PM, Dave-H said:

Anyone any idea why it would suddenly start doing this, I haven't knowingly changed anything which might have caused it?

 

Quote

 

12 hours ago, Dave-H said:

I had to turn uBlock Origin Lite up to maximum filtering on Facebook and Instagram as otherwise the endless annoying 'sponsored posts' still get through.

 

... Oops dear Dave  , isn't that a contradiction of sorts?  

Not really, as when I posted the first quote I hadn't been told by @Sampei.Nihira about the way that uBlock Origin Lite works, which gave me the clue as to what was actually happening. I hadn't made the connection until then.

[VistaLover]

1 hour ago, Dixel said:

The Russian guy (forgot his name, Blunauvich, was it?)

1 hour ago, mina7601 said:

Blaukovitch.

1 hour ago, Dixel said:

I'm pretty sure it's not the same man, and the Russian simply took another famous man's name just forthe laughs and giggles.
No one would ban the real Blaukovitch on github, not to mention the real Blaukovitch wouldn't post cra*cks on github or anywhere else, to begin with.

https://github.com/Blaukovitch?tab=repositories

Christian name: Reinhard

Residence: Austria

(unsure about his descent, of course ) ; the account isn't currently banned, it does appear as the one account that provides bin-patched recent Google Chrome versions Win7-compatible  ; but what has already been written about the RAM stands true: 

Quote

x64/x86. But x64 still affected by VirtualAlloc (HUGE MEMORY) serious bug. Run x64 if you have 8 Gb or above RAM.

I am on Vista SP2 32-bit, BTW, so I've never used myself any of these "cra*ks" ...

[Dixel]

11 hours ago, VistaLover said:

https://github.com/Blaukovitch?tab=repositories

Christian name: Reinhard

Residence: Austria

(unsure about his descent, of course ) ; the account isn't currently banned, it does appear as the one account that provides bin-patched recent Google Chrome versions Win7-compatible  ; but what has already been written about the RAM stands true: 

I am on Vista SP2 32-bit, BTW, so I've never used myself any of these "cra*ks" ...

I can't believe Reinhard Blaukovitch simply gives out all of the ways to cra*k Securom, the CD protection of the company he claims to work for! Do you? It's more like an IQ test.

Besides, someone with the same name hosts several pirating sites in the RU zone, we *of course* know that Russia had legalised intellectual property theft, but if you claim he lives in Austria, not Russia,

how is this possible, then ? You're trying to say he simply steals from Austria, at the same time living there, which would assume he is a citizen, most likely...

That said, his Chrome port is terrible. Good win32 didn't collaborate with that person (whatever he is).

 

[Dixel]

On 9/2/2024 at 5:08 AM, Dave-H said:

No difference with the switch added on my XP system.
Still eating RAM, and then the tab process crashes.

first and foremost: --process-per-site

second: --enable-rgba-4444-textures (allow to use more simplistic textures), as I suspect the problem might be the images (their size) that Chrome converts to raw from jpeg.

They wrote about that glitch in Supermium on github, too.