M
msfntor
- in DCBrowser, cause I've allowed in uBlock cdnjs.cloudflare - before, I've it on deny!! it does not even show up on the website, but since - I have this stop button...
Sorry for this off topic.
ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5
- Thread starter ArcticFoxie
- Start date
Sorry for this off topic.
Hmmm ... I am blocking;
0.0.0.0 cdnjs.cloudflare.com
0.0.0.0 ablinks.picsart.com.cdn.cloudflare.net
M
msfntor
...and MAYBE it's due to twitter internal changes?... I want to see this again..
Download links:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/isb0lvgi3iqs3o5/360ChromePortable_11.0.2031_rebuild_8.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e90n8oyiejzzfda/360ChromePortable_11.0.2031_rebuild_8_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oysjkor4gdohtti/360ChromePortable_12.0.1247_rebuild_12.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8urimyj1uqhh4s3/360ChromePortable_12.0.1247_rebuild_12_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/49u3gw6h1rzaobg/360ChromePortable_13.0.2170_rebuild_1_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f3g8kbyg4t167qf/360ChromePortable_13.0.2206_rebuild_9.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfpghauyz9lzy0c/360ChromePortable_13.0.2206_rebuild_9_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vy66ihmgjbjmylc/360ChromePortable_13.5.1030_rebuild_6.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqm6xalr2csxplq/360ChromePortable_13.5.1030_rebuild_6_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4n9q2kuz6gtjrn/360ChromePortable_13.5.2022_rebuild_3.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezipnov6wqgiirr/360ChromePortable_13.5.2022_rebuild_3_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/isb0lvgi3iqs3o5/360ChromePortable_11.0.2031_rebuild_8.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e90n8oyiejzzfda/360ChromePortable_11.0.2031_rebuild_8_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oysjkor4gdohtti/360ChromePortable_12.0.1247_rebuild_12.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8urimyj1uqhh4s3/360ChromePortable_12.0.1247_rebuild_12_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/49u3gw6h1rzaobg/360ChromePortable_13.0.2170_rebuild_1_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f3g8kbyg4t167qf/360ChromePortable_13.0.2206_rebuild_9.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfpghauyz9lzy0c/360ChromePortable_13.0.2206_rebuild_9_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vy66ihmgjbjmylc/360ChromePortable_13.5.1030_rebuild_6.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqm6xalr2csxplq/360ChromePortable_13.5.1030_rebuild_6_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w4n9q2kuz6gtjrn/360ChromePortable_13.5.2022_rebuild_3.zip?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezipnov6wqgiirr/360ChromePortable_13.5.2022_rebuild_3_ungoogled.zip?dl=1
13.5.2022_rebuild_3 (regular and ungoogled) is the most "up-to-date".
To-do:
reintroduce "swiftshader" to 13.5.1030 - "swiftshader" is NOT 'solely' tied to Vulkan graphics API in the sense that 360Chrome will crash on some multi-monitor systems if these are not present
context menu removals for 13.5.1030
add GUI updates from 13.5.2022 to 13.5.1030
compare/contrast "FOUC" on 13.5.1030 vs 13.5.2022 vs 13.5.2036
To-do:
reintroduce "swiftshader" to 13.5.1030 - "swiftshader" is NOT 'solely' tied to Vulkan graphics API in the sense that 360Chrome will crash on some multi-monitor systems if these are not present
context menu removals for 13.5.1030
add GUI updates from 13.5.2022 to 13.5.1030
compare/contrast "FOUC" on 13.5.1030 vs 13.5.2022 vs 13.5.2036
Awesome 
re: compare/contrast "FOUC" on 13.5.1030 vs 13.5.2022 vs 13.5.2036
FOUC is equally prominent in both 1030 and 2022 so no sense in reverting to 1030.
Abandoning all work in "dark mode" unless anybody can find a way to have about:blank have a dark background as opposed to default WHITE.
The strobe light FOUC is gawdawful !!!
FOUC is equally prominent in both 1030 and 2022 so no sense in reverting to 1030.
Abandoning all work in "dark mode" unless anybody can find a way to have about:blank have a dark background as opposed to default WHITE.
The strobe light FOUC is gawdawful !!!
Last edited:
So far.
I'm still hoping that all of the "d#mn NOISE" from the "two people" that are not on XP wake up one morning totally BORED with the thread and finally MOVE ON.
I'm still hoping that all of the "d#mn NOISE" from the "two people" that are not on XP wake up one morning totally BORED with the thread and finally MOVE ON.
So far, I'm seeing nothing in 2036 to warrant all the work.
Will likely skip 2036 as there is never any indication upstream if it is "final" or not.
Will likely skip 2036 as there is never any indication upstream if it is "final" or not.
as for the 2036 "update" , i think you are correct.
some comment on the "high ram" discussion.
on win xp start it uses 130 mb ram.
after starting 13.5.2022 with a new tab i am at around 300 mb ram.
with some sites loaded the total goes up to 400 - 500.
so i don't understand the "high ram" issue.
maybe it is because i use noscript ...
some comment on the "high ram" discussion.
on win xp start it uses 130 mb ram.
after starting 13.5.2022 with a new tab i am at around 300 mb ram.
with some sites loaded the total goes up to 400 - 500.
so i don't understand the "high ram" issue.
maybe it is because i use noscript ...
Last edited:
With only this XP Forums tab and my list of extensions, I'm at 18 + 71 + 94 + 72 + 22 + 32 + 33 (seven processes on an 8-core CPU).
That adds up to 342 MB.
BNav is the ONLY roytam release that I use (I intentionally use 20210820).
It's at 74 with no tabs open and only Stylem extension.
It balloons to 312 MB when I open only one tab.
It is not a linear comparison. One is a multi-process browser and the other is a single-process browser.
I don't know if BNav can be forced to use "e10s" or not.
That adds up to 342 MB.
BNav is the ONLY roytam release that I use (I intentionally use 20210820).
It's at 74 with no tabs open and only Stylem extension.
It balloons to 312 MB when I open only one tab.
It is not a linear comparison. One is a multi-process browser and the other is a single-process browser.
I don't know if BNav can be forced to use "e10s" or not.
By the time I finished my reply, my 342 MB dropped to 315 MB.
And BNav dropped from 312 MB to 257 MB.
But these comparisons are kind of meaningless.
The way that multiple processes are managed is somewhat of a "black box".
I may have 315 MB with only one tab on this i7 with 16 GB RAM, but what will I have on my Core 2 Duo with only 2 GB RAM?
And BNav dropped from 312 MB to 257 MB.
But these comparisons are kind of meaningless.
The way that multiple processes are managed is somewhat of a "black box".
I may have 315 MB with only one tab on this i7 with 16 GB RAM, but what will I have on my Core 2 Duo with only 2 GB RAM?
M
msfntor
No don't give up, please...
On Chrome Web Store are many darking New Tab extensions... eg. Blank New Tab Dark Mode (it's perfect dark gray mode!) - 6.45 KB, version 1.0 by Bertrand Fan: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/blank-new-tab-dark-mode/kbgpnmhanjagjnkiekpnkcefiafpapfa
Why not to look at extension code with Chrome extension source viewer:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...e-v/jifpbeccnghkjeaalbbjmodiffmgedin?hl=en-US
NEW TAB and ABOUT:BLANK are two different things.
It is very easy to make a "new tab" dark.
BUT...
The PROBLEM is that about:blank is always loaded FIRST.
Then "milliseconds later", dark-mode .css is applied to the default WHITE.
This causes a strobe light effect - ie, SEIZURES and MIGRAINES.
Unless about:blank can be default dark instead of WHITE then milliseconds later changed to dark, then no offense, but I will not attach my name to it.
It is very easy to make a "new tab" dark.
BUT...
The PROBLEM is that about:blank is always loaded FIRST.
Then "milliseconds later", dark-mode .css is applied to the default WHITE.
This causes a strobe light effect - ie, SEIZURES and MIGRAINES.
Unless about:blank can be default dark instead of WHITE then milliseconds later changed to dark, then no offense, but I will not attach my name to it.
<OT>
There have been studies conducted that suggests that "dark mode" actually ruins one's eyesight.
I guess if one can't "see" the strobe light FOUC effect, then one could argue that one's eyesight has already been ruined
</OT>
There have been studies conducted that suggests that "dark mode" actually ruins one's eyesight.
I guess if one can't "see" the strobe light FOUC effect, then one could argue that one's eyesight has already been ruined
</OT>
Last edited:
M
msfntor
DCBrowser's "twitter login popup problem" is no more problem (have "close" button now), and is NOT related to the state of cdnjs.cloudflare in uBlock. So the solution it's due to twitter internal changes.