Pale Moon 15.3 beta 3 (public beta)

[Moonchild]

Actually Firefox 17b4 has the same performance on Webvisbench with azure enabled as it does disabled so either azure is running better or azure isn't running at all..

Considering you get the same performance on Pale Moon with it disabled.... My guess is it's not running at all.

[Tallpaultn]

PM 15.3b3 seems to work so far...

[safari801]

I'm guessing this is a 32 bit build?

[Rohugh]

I'm guessing this is a 32 bit build?

Yes correct - although it works without problems on a 64 bit machine .

[Moonchild]

Updated to OP to indicate it's 32-bit, and why.

[nevadacrab]

This build requires Windows Vista or later, due to toolset restrictions in Visual Studio 2012 and lack of documentation. The Final CTP has been used of Update 1, but there is no clear documentation yet to build XP compatible binaries from the command-line.

Please forgive my lack of understanding re: technical terms....
Do I understand correctly that this build will not run on WinXP but the final will?
Which brings up a question;
Do you forsee a day in which Palemoon will no longer run on XP? Many of us with older computers will ride the XP train until MS no longer supports it (sometime in 2014, if the Mayans don't get us first).
Thank you for your good work.

[Moonchild]

Do I understand correctly that this build will not run on WinXP but the final will?

The final release will run on XP one way or another. If I can't get a build working on XP with Visual Studio 2012, then I will probably have to create a separate "Windows XP version" compiled with the previous compiler until such time as it works. This is an update nightmare though, apart from being double work, considering the updater can't check the version of the operating system and grab a different update file based on that. I can build it into the web installer though, but that won't help anyone already running Pale Moon and wanting to use the internal updater.

Which brings up a question;
Do you forsee a day in which Palemoon will no longer run on XP? Many of us with older computers will ride the XP train until MS no longer supports it (sometime in 2014, if the Mayans don't get us first).
Thank you for your good work.

I have no intention of dropping support for Windows XP while it is still actively supported (until EoL in 2014), but if building it from VS2012 turns out to be impossible, and as a result I have to maintain two branches, then I may possibly drop XP support in the long run (stress long). No concrete plans to that effect yet, and a lot of "if"s though - I'll make sure to try my very best to get a working build on VS2012; as said what it needs is proper documentation on how to target Windows XP when not using Microsoft's graphical development environment (where this is as simple as setting a property on a project - no such luck for the Mozilla code).

[Moonchild]

A small update on the Windows XP compatibility here: I seem to have wrangled Visual Studio (With the Final CTP of Update 1) into producing Windows XP compatible binaries, by using some trial&error and looking closely at what the IDE sets for the compatibility mode. Preliminary testing looks good. If this pans out the way it looks now, I will be able to build a single version for XP/Vista/7/8 with the added advantages of the new compiler.

[Tallgeese]

Good evening.

I just wanted to mention that unless I have utterly lost my gourd, it seems to me that the CSS3 transition property still utilizes the "moz" prefix in this version. I know you're not updating Pale Moon to use FF 16 code, but I wanted to point out that one change you might want to implement is the removal of those prefixes for the "transition" properties.

[dark_moon]

But it works, even without the moz prefix, so this isn't a big problem

[Moonchild]

Thanks for pointing that out, but considering transitions are still a working draft, the -moz prefix for it (still being considered an experimental technology) is not something pressing right now.
See also: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/CSS/transition

I will consider reviewing the CSS spec for it, but considering the gecko version used by documentation standards uses the -moz prefix, and application/engine version may (and regularly is) be checked by websites as a determining factor, removing the prefix would potentially break those sites (finding a 15.* browser, subsequently serving a dynamic page with -moz prefix, and transitions as a result not working).

Depending on release plans and what code base is going to be used for the next major version of Pale Moon, I may possibly add support for both syntaxes, but will not remove the -moz syntax support in 15.* because of the above.

But it works, even without the moz prefix, so this isn't a big problem

No, actually, it doesn't

[Tallgeese]

Ah, thank you for the thoughtful response.

I am sorry if I seemed oddly insistent, I was half-asleep at the time. The reason I pointed it out is because FF 16 lets you use transitions without the -moz prefix, and I wasn't quite sure if you wanted to keep Pale Moon's CSS3 implementation in line with Mozilla's.