I hope Pale Moon 25 is released before FF 25

[Snappy Phoenix]

I hope Moon Child repeats what he did with v24 of Pale Moon where the Final version was relesased even before Mozilla's FF 24 themselves, that's like a slap on the face to them for this awesome browser!

Kudos to Moon Child

[Moonchild]

In case you missed the news: there won't be a Pale Moon 25 or 26, or PaleChrome 27+
Pale Moon is currently following the code base for the extended service release of Firefox to base itself on, and I'm taking an apprehensive approach towards future Firefox "major" releases since Mozilla's focus seems to be in the completely wrong direction right now. You can expect 24.* releases for a while to come.

Pale Moon 24.0 was released when it was ready - in this case it was before Firefox was done cooking.

[Snappy Phoenix]

Thank you sir! and I commend you for this! Mozilla stopped focusing on improving their once good browser and now just wants to play Tom & Jerry chase with Chrome, good job

cheers

[Ryrynz]

I hope there's a way for some of the future stuff from Firefox to make it's way into version 24. Like this from 26.

[Moonchild]

I hope there's a way for some of the future stuff from Firefox to make it's way into version 24. Like this from 26.

That's not going to happen if you just throw an unspecified graph my way with no explanation, link, verification, etc.
Also, I find the claim that "one graphics heavy page" would consume 2.5 GB of memory absolutely silly. In addition, Graphics in the current version are decoded "on-demand" and won't load memory until they are actually (almost) scrolled into view, so I find this graph odd, anyway, since it should show memory use while scrolling if more images are decoded. Part of the memshrink/snappy projects.

[eskaton]

linked below is a story regarding the info ryrynz was referring to:

http://www.ghacks.net/2013/10/01/firefox-24-will-ship-serious-memory-consumption-improvements-image-heavy-pages/

i was curious about this as well:
http://www.ghacks.net/2013/10/02/mozillas-flash-plugin-replacement-shumway-lands-firefox-nightly/

[Moonchild]

I see..
That webpage is a perfect example of how you can force a browser not to use their normal resource recovery options - meaning it is laid out absolutely terribly (dumping all high res photos, scaled down, in one element).
Yes, it makes Pale Moon eat RAM like candy, as well, upon first load. No surprise really, and definitely not the kind of "scenario" I think I should go out of my way for to address. I'd sooner say to the person "learn how to make a webpage"

EDIT: Although, if I can back-port bug #847223 then it may well land in Pale Moon 24.* as well. It seems to refactor quite a bit though, which is going to be time consuming.

[ninaholic]

linked below is a story regarding the info ryrynz was referring to:
http://www.ghacks.net/2013/10/01/firefox-24-will-ship-serious-memory-consumption-improvements-image-heavy-pages/

I found this comment from your link interesting (confirmation that Windows 8 Task Manager actually lies about IE10/11 RAM usage? ):

andyjm October 1, 2013 at 3:15 pm #

I get mostly similar results to you on the image heavy page Martin, with one very strange exception.
I'm using Windows 8, Internet Explorer 10, Firefox 24 and Chrome 29.
Windows task manager says IE10 uses about 250mb with that page. Chrome's built in task manager reports IE10 as using 3gb for the same page. Given that my total RAM usage drops by 3gb when I close IE10 I think Chrome's numbers might be right!
It's slightly off topic I know, but it would be interesting to know if you get the same with IE11.

To get back on topic, I'm looking forward to Firefox 26.


Martin Brinkmann October 1, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

I just checked, and can confirm that. The Windows Task Manager and Chrome are reporting different RAM uses. I checked with Process Explorer, and it confirms Chrome's reading. Not sure though why the values are not reported in the Task Manager correctly.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysi ... 96653.aspx


andyjm October 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm #

I now know not to rely on Windows task manager in the future.

Thanks for confirming it and reminding me about Process Explorer.

i was curious about this as well:
http://www.ghacks.net/2013/10/02/mozillas-flash-plugin-replacement-shumway-lands-firefox-nightly/

I've tried Shumway too and a few others, but Youtube still seems to expect "Adobe Flash" for it's videos with advertisements.

[Ryrynz]

Updating libpng seems to be a good thing too, guess that would be fairly easy.

This fork in the road has been some time coming, I'll probably be tempted by 26.. can't stand still on the browser for too long.

[Moonchild]

Updating libpng seems to be a good thing too, guess that would be fairly easy.

Yup, it's a fairly stand-alone module.

This fork in the road has been some time coming, I'll probably be tempted by 26.. can't stand still on the browser for too long.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It's not like I'll stop development on the browser just because I am using the ESR code base. That will include back-porting code changes that will benefit Pale Moon and are in line with the general goals (and preventing spikes in memory usage are definitely part of that).
Firefox 26 is still some time away. I actually think that particular piece of code will be back-ported before it hits the release channel. It seems time consuming to do but certainly not impossible. I'll just have to be careful that I don't break dependencies.

[Sajadi]

Well, staying with the V24 codebase is the best thing, after all, that way Australis is still a larger part of the way away Sounds like the perfect deal, enough time that way to deal with the changes and making it possible that at least parts of the Customization Functions will still be available at Firefox Australis Codebases compared to Mozilla's Firechrome.

[Ryrynz]

This fork in the road has been some time coming, I'll probably be tempted by 26.. can't stand still on the browser for too long.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It's not like I'll stop development on the browser just because I am using the ESR code base. That will include back-porting code changes that will benefit Pale Moon and are in line with the general goals (and preventing spikes in memory usage are definitely part of that).

Nah, not implying that. It's just there was always the question of what could be back ported and just how much of a standstill the code would be at because of dependencies. That and just picking a particular
release as a base has been discussed a number of times here and I was expecting it to happen at some stage, hopefully it's smooth sailing forward.

[Moonchild]

Picking a particular release as a base is what I've been doing since v12. You seem to be expecting I'll stick with the v24 code base "forever", which is a misconception. I will keep a close eye on Firefox development, and will switch code base again when it becomes prudent -- but at this moment, we are looking at at least several months of "Australis prep" and then several more months of "seeing how it is received", that's why I chose to go for v24ESR, because it will allow me to keep security high with Mozilla-backported sec bugs and focus on functional back-ports of other improvements and own development while I wait out the results of the FireChrome movement.

[dudewithit]

looking by progress and performance bugs, Australis wouldnt launch till atleast FF 30-31.
IIRC, i read on some mozilla group that the plan to land australis is for FF31+ , if by then.

So PM can possibly be rebased to V28.

[Moonchild]

So PM can possibly be rebased to V28.

Only if there is a good and pressing reason to do so.
Otherwise, if it's going to be 31+ and we get another ESR before it lands, I'll swap to that ESR.

Honestly, if they are crippling the browser in current releases for something that is a year away (i.e.: implementing patches for the removal and change of features because they can't be carried forward to their implementation of the new theme), then wtf are they doing over there?

[Night Wing]

For me, I hope Australis for Firefox keeps getting delayed as long as possible. This keeps Pale Moon from suffering any collateral damage because of Australis.

I use Firefox 24 ESR as my backup browser in Windows 7 and the next Firefox ESR release is 31. When Australis goes public, I hope it lands in v32 of Firefox.

[Moonchild]

This keeps Pale Moon from suffering any collateral damage because of Australis.

Unfortunately there already is a lot of collateral damage. For example having to reintroduce the "hide the tab bar" feature because it was removed in preparation for Australis, and that's just the very tip of the iceberg - there are a lot more things under the hood that are being changed/stripped because Mozilla doesn't want to maintain it in the Australis theme or because "it causes problems" with the intended tab styling.

[Night Wing]

Moonchild,

I understand the things you've had to put back into Pale Moon because of the Firefox's developers (copiers) march to make Firefox a clone of Chrome looks wise and all the underpinnings Australis brings with it. I appreciate your hard work not caving in to look like Chrome like the Firefox developers are doing.

Firefox is my backup browser. I myself have to use the "Hide Tab Bar With One Tab" add-on with Firefox in both Windows and Linux. I can recall where one Firefox developer said, when they got rid of "hide the tab bar" under Tabs in Options to make way for Australis, "it will only impact a few people". Well, it's impacted over 16,809 people (as of this posting) who now use this add-on. This is quite a large number for hiding one tab to make way for Australis.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefo ... ab/?src=ss

Remember, this is just one small tab to hide. The people who use Firefox in my opinion are mostly non-technical and power users. We like to customize the browser and we like the old Firefox classic tabs look. I really think when Australis lands in Firefox, the Chrome look will turn off many long time Firefox users and they will seriously start to give Pale Moon a look see because you've chosen not to make Pale Moon look like Chrome.

Australis is a huge step for Mozilla and it's a step which may cause Mozilla to trip and fall. With Opera v15 now looking like Google Chrome, many long time Opera users have stayed with the classic Opera look of v12 and/or have moved on to other browsers. I sincerely hope you can hold back the Australis wave and it's underpinnings which affect Pale Moon for as long as you possibly can.

[Sajadi]

Already said it before but saying it again, let us just hope Mozilla does not play unfair and even force also on Browsers like Palemoon thanks to nearly impossible to bring back removed things that also the Fork Road has to go the Australis way... This would be utterly painful to see Palemoon also being forced to go that road...

[Moonchild]

I've said it before as well: if need be I'll redesign the UI if I can't bring the current one forward when I have to switch code base. I'm not going to use Australis, period - because it's just a hideous monstrosity and completely redundant (because we already have Chrome).

I'll find a solution one way or another.