ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5

It's been an interesting path, that's for sure.
I was never a fan of IE - but used to use "IE shells" (Maxthon, GreenBrowser, Sleipnir, SlimBrowser, Avant).
I remember having "tabs" LONG before our company IT Department "Firefox Fanboy" ever heard of "tabs" (but that was so long ago that my memory may be fuzzy, lol).

I was never a fan of Firefox either!
So in the sense that an "IE shell" is just a "front end GUI" for IE's rendering engine, I basically went from Sleipnir to GreenBrowser to Official Pale Moon to Roytam1's New Moon 27 to Roytam1's Arctic Fox to Roytam1's New Moon 28.
I was using Roytam's Arctic Fox when I joined MSFN (thus the lack of originality in my username and little expectations of being at MSFN anywhere near as long as I have).
I was using the Firefox rendering engine without using the Firefox GUI.

I always liked my web browser to be "light and efficient".
But first and foremost, it had to work.
Nowadays, that's simply NOT the case for ANY of the Roytam1 releases. I applaud the work!
But TWO YEARS AGO, they ALL stopped WORKING for web sites that I need to visit every month.

I've been a 360Chrome user ever since. It has given "new life" to XP.
But yeah, it's not as RAM-friendly as other browsers - the price you pay for something that actually WORKS.
 
ArcticFoxie said:
So in the sense that an "IE shell" is just a "front end GUI" for IE's rendering engine, I basically went from Sleipnir to GreenBrowser to Official Pale Moon to Roytam1's New Moon 27 to Roytam1's Arctic Fox to Roytam1's New Moon 28.
I was using Roytam's Arctic Fox when I joined MSFN (thus the lack of originality in my username and little expectations of being at MSFN anywhere near as long as I have).
I was using the Firefox rendering engine without using the Firefox GUI.

I always liked my web browser to be "light and efficient".
Click to expand...

Like Palmoon, Newmoon. Always looking for a newer version with just SSE compiled and not SSE2.
 
I've been using the regular 13.5.1030 version for awhile now and it works very well.Only issue is sound breaking up on videos,but it doesn't happen all the time.
I think I read that the sound problem has been a Chrome problem for years.
Would the regular 13.5.2022 version be a significant improvement over regular 13.5.1030 or not so much?
 
AM7 said:
I've been using the regular 13.5.1030 version for awhile now and it works very well.Only issue is sound breaking up on videos,but it doesn't happen all the time.
I think I read that the sound problem has been a Chrome problem for years.
Would the regular 13.5.2022 version be a significant improvement over regular 13.5.1030 or not so much?
Click to expand...
Test it.
It's Windows resources problem, tweak it... so slimming it is the solution, slim services before all...
 
AM7 said:
I've been using the regular 13.5.1030 version for awhile now and it works very well.Only issue is sound breaking up on videos,but it doesn't happen all the time.
I think I read that the sound problem has been a Chrome problem for years.
Would the regular 13.5.2022 version be a significant improvement over regular 13.5.1030 or not so much?
Click to expand...
Try his V13.0.2170.0 with the updated files accept for chrome.dll and tell us if your videos skip anywhere near at must. Even @NHTPG may revert it at some point as they both use the same chrome engine but the application is heavier.

Thank you :)
 
I'm new to Chrome browsers.
I tried one many years ago briefly and it sucked bigtime.
Never had any sound problems in the past with browsers like IE,Firefox,Mypal,Serpent on this old XP 32 bit system.P4-3.0ghz-2gb ram.
Not really a fan of Chrome but there is nothing available at the moment that works as well on XP than 360 Chrome.
One would think that Chrome shouldn't have sound problems either.
 
I was never a fan of Chrome either.
But after having used it for the last two years and comparing it to using Mypal, Pale Moon, and New Moon for over a DECADE, I have ZERO plans to EVER return to MyPal, Pale Moon, or New Moon.

Sorry, Chrome is BETTER - bar none.
After using it for two years, I now truly know WHY it has such a GIGANTIC lead in global market share.
 
P4 is a single-process CPU.
I no longer have any single-process CPU's to test this on, so...

Can anyone using a single-core CPU give a RAM-consumption report as opposed to just stating sound issues?
Stating sound issues doesn't really narrow anything down.

What I would be curious of is the following -
RAM on single-process CPU for default out-of-the-box 360Chrome v13.0 build 2170
RAM on single-process CPU for default out-of-the-box 360Chrome v13.5 build 1030
RAM on single-process CPU for default out-of-the-box 360Chrome v13.5 build 2022

Then disable chrome://flags/#site-isolation-trial-opt-out for all three of the above and how RAM-consumption changes.
 
There is some work being done to reduce RAM consumption.
This is build 2022 "before" and "after".
The first "bump" in RAM is our "before", the second "bump" in RAM is our "after".
ram.JPG
 
So memory now is 155.4 MB - then before- hmm some 3x more so 465 MB? maybe
Awesome, thank you for your efforts!:)
 
The infamous KID has returned to our other web site. :(

In the next couple of days, I am hoping to have 13.5 build 1030 "caught up" with all of the tweaks that only landed on 13.5 build 2022.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top