Thorium

[NotHereToPlayGames]

9 minutes ago, Dixel said:

Don't dwell on old browsers, I'm not a fan of upgrading

Agreed!  I only updgrade AFTER one of my online banking or payment sites stop working.

If that can be limited to only once every 1.5 years, I'll be happy.  But it seems like it's closer to every 9 months or so and that's just INSANE.

[Dixel]

11 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Sure.  But I will only spend that time if you can show screencaps of where you see a benefit.  I know what I saw and I'm not the one claiming this switch to be useful.  I'll call that "fair game" and the ball is in your court.  

It's already proven. "Save memory in Chrome by using one process per site"

https://www.ghacks.net/2015/02/08/save-memory-in-chrome-by-using-one-process-per-site/

Now your turn!

[NotHereToPlayGames]

9 minutes ago, Dixel said:

Brave claims they are Ungoogled. Google telemetry removed, Brave telemetry added.

I've never actually used Brave.  I only stumbled upon their forum when searching for my bank login issues with the MOST-RECENT version of Ungoogled.

It was then that I figured out that there is a "hole".  v122 thru v124 works fine.  For now.  And for some reason, the same thing is happening with Brave.

To be honest, I kind of hope that Supermium or Thorium get to the stage of development that one of them will be my next.  Time will tell...

[NotHereToPlayGames]

19 minutes ago, Dixel said:

Now your turn!

Here's with that switch.  

crap!  one sec...  I need to go into profile and make room for attachments...

 

Here is with that switch.  Two YouTube tabs.  1.31 GB RAM.  17 child processes.

Edited September 3, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Here is without - 1.38 instead of 1.31, that falls within margin of error and STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.  18 child processes.  But 18 versus 17 is also insignificant.  I bet if I waited 30 seconds, I would have seen 15.  Or maybe 21, lol.

Point is, if this is supposed to be a godsave on RAM, wouldn't it drop it down to below 1 GB for running two YouTube tabs ???

[NotHereToPlayGames]

35 minutes ago, Dixel said:

https://www.ghacks.net/2015/02/08/save-memory-in-chrome-by-using-one-process-per-site/

Their reference was with FIVE GHacks web pages.  My reference was with only two YouTube tabs.  Maybe (but I kind of doub it) I will try again with five YouTube tabs.  But, um, my ears can only listen to one, I have never in my entire life had five YouTube tabs open.  One for listening, a second for searching.  I've never needed more.  Sometimes we bring upon our own pain.  Anybody running FIVE tabs at YouTube falls within that category.  

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I will compare one of these days at work.  It's not uncommon for me to have four or five DigiKey tabs, four or five Mouser tabs, and three or four McMaster-Carr tabs.  That should be a much better test.

[Dixel]

13 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I will compare one of these days at work.  It's not uncommon for me to have four or five DigiKey tabs, four or five Mouser tabs, and three or four McMaster-Carr tabs.  That should be a much better test.

As I already wrote here, I'm on vacation, no desktop PC around, besides - you mustn't compare on Windows 10, I wrote that, too. Only those OS that don't have the new memory functioning are relevant,

[Dixel]

17 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

1.38 instead of 1.31, that falls within margin of error and STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

Probably because you added the switch after the switches' end. (on the screenshot).

BTW, the order matters, at first I thought it was a placebo, but no,

[NotHereToPlayGames]

2 hours ago, Dixel said:

Probably because you added the switch after the switches' end. (on the screenshot).

BTW, the order matters, at first I thought it was a placebo, but no,

No.  That's how the X-Chromium LOADER does the switches and then chrome://version displays them.  Some of those switches are via chrome://flags and some are via startup shortcut.  the "end" is the dividing line between the two.

I have never witnessed the X-Chromium LOADER switch order matter.

My order is -

[NotHereToPlayGames]

5 hours ago, Dixel said:

you mustn't compare on Windows 10

Then my testing is hereby over.  I do not, and cannot, run Thorium or Supermium until they become fully UNGOOGLED.

We all have our own "lines in the sand", that one is mine.  My non-Win10 machines run Serpent 52 - d@mnedest SLOWEST browser I have ever come across!  But it "works" for my old XP x86 for what I need it for.

Edited September 4, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Granted this is still in Win10, but I can conclude that --process-per-site does make an "improvement" when five MSFN tabs are open (with the switch at the VERY END of my LOADER parameters line).

 

With switch: - 15 child processes, 0.99 GB RAM for all chrome processes.

 

Without switch - 19 child processes, 1.3 GB RAM for all chrome processes.

 

 

However, that said, I have no plans of adding this switch for my everyday needs.

I do not want the RISK associated with one DigiKey or Mouser or McMaster-Carr tab crashing all other tabs of the same web site.

Multiple tabs of the SAME web site is the ONLY situation where this switch will "do" anything.  And that's jut not my "norm" (except for rare times at work, where I do not want the RISK).

[Saxon]

14 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Granted this is still in Win10, but I can conclude that --process-per-site does make an "improvement" when five MSFN tabs are open (with the switch at the VERY END of my LOADER parameters line).

 

With switch: - 15 child processes, 0.99 GB RAM for all chrome processes.

 

Without switch - 19 child processes, 1.3 GB RAM for all chrome processes.

 

 

However, that said, I have no plans of adding this switch for my everyday needs.

I do not want the RISK associated with one DigiKey or Mouser or McMaster-Carr tab crashing all other tabs of the same web site.

Multiple tabs of the SAME web site is the ONLY situation where this switch will "do" anything.  And that's jut not my "norm" (except for rare times at work, where I do not want the RISK).

Wow! 400mb saved is very cool! I'm gonna use that flag, let me ask, why do you block IPV6, it doesn't work in Supermium anyways, btw I'm on IPV6 at work, and it feels faster,

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I have 16 GB RAM on my primary home computer and 32 GB RAM here on my work computer.

Saving 400 MB is INSIGNIFICANT to me.  It is 400 MB on my computer with 16 GB RAM.  That doesn't mean it will be the same for someone running 4 GB or 8 GB RAM.

I rarely have MULTIPLE tabs from the SAME WEB SITE but when I do, I don't want the risk of ONE of them crashing ALL of them all for the sake of saving LITERALLY 1.25% (work computer) or 2.5% (home computer) of RAM.

The Risk Reward just isn't there.  Not to me.  But to each their own.

 

Regarding IPV6 - I have no clue if we have it here at work.  But I don't have it at home and I just use the same EXACT "portable profile" at both locations.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Although, I guess I also have to admit that I have NEVER had a tab crash when using Win10 + Ungoogled.

It used to happen "often enough" in WinXP that I guess now I'm just being "hypersensitive" in safeguarding against losing something in one-of-five or ten or 15 tabs when ONE other tab from the same web site crashes for whatever reason.

And that is what this switch will do - open 15 tabs here at MSFN and if one of the 15 crashes, for whatever reason, then you just lost the other 14.

Again, has never happened for me in Win10 + Ungoogled.

But as everyone here knows, WinXP is an entirely different eXPerience.