I posted this question also in our mod-section and another mod has the same results - but we thought that PM 64 bit should be quicker than FF 32 bit ?? )
We both have Windows 8.1
FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Moderator: trava90
Forum rules
This board is for technical/general usage questions and troubleshooting for the Pale Moon browser only. The main focus here is on Pale Moon on Windows. Please direct your questions that are specific for Linux and Mac to the dedicated boards for those operating systems.
Technical issues and questions not related to the Pale Moon browser should be posted in other boards!
Please keep off-topic and general discussion out of this board, thank you!
This board is for technical/general usage questions and troubleshooting for the Pale Moon browser only. The main focus here is on Pale Moon on Windows. Please direct your questions that are specific for Linux and Mac to the dedicated boards for those operating systems.
Technical issues and questions not related to the Pale Moon browser should be posted in other boards!
Please keep off-topic and general discussion out of this board, thank you!
-
Passer
FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Can this be richt ?
(the image is a post of our computerforum : http://www.pc-helpforum.be/f320/ff-32-b ... post477490
I posted this question also in our mod-section and another mod has the same results - but we thought that PM 64 bit should be quicker than FF 32 bit ?? )
We both have Windows 8.1
(the image is a post of our computerforum : http://www.pc-helpforum.be/f320/ff-32-b ... post477490
I posted this question also in our mod-section and another mod has the same results - but we thought that PM 64 bit should be quicker than FF 32 bit ?? )
We both have Windows 8.1
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
You may want to read viewtopic.php?f=24&t=650 -- especially the section on comparing x64 with x86 in benchmarks.
Also keep in mind that sub-tests may very strongly influence overall score (Firefox 32 is likely faster at handling strings and DOM than Pale Moon is at this time, especially comparing in tight loops - a large difference in those tests will likely boost the overall "score" by an unrepresentative amount).
Thirdly, peacekeeper is dated by now and likely not very accurate. A quick look at # of operations measured in subtests on modern hardware puts it well into a margin of error that renders it pretty much useless
Afterthought: Overall, it's your choice what you want to use: a browser that satisfies your need for a "higher number" in arbitrary (and likely unrepresentative) tests, or a browser that lets you browse the web the way you want it and gives an overall improvement in stability and smoothness. I'm personally not going to be drawn into a discussion about scores; if you need a benchmark to begin with to compare "size" (you know what I mean ) then for normal use of what the browser was meant for you should be looking at other factors why you would want Pale Moon or Firefox or any other browser.
Also keep in mind that sub-tests may very strongly influence overall score (Firefox 32 is likely faster at handling strings and DOM than Pale Moon is at this time, especially comparing in tight loops - a large difference in those tests will likely boost the overall "score" by an unrepresentative amount).
Thirdly, peacekeeper is dated by now and likely not very accurate. A quick look at # of operations measured in subtests on modern hardware puts it well into a margin of error that renders it pretty much useless
Afterthought: Overall, it's your choice what you want to use: a browser that satisfies your need for a "higher number" in arbitrary (and likely unrepresentative) tests, or a browser that lets you browse the web the way you want it and gives an overall improvement in stability and smoothness. I'm personally not going to be drawn into a discussion about scores; if you need a benchmark to begin with to compare "size" (you know what I mean
) then for normal use of what the browser was meant for you should be looking at other factors why you would want Pale Moon or Firefox or any other browser."Son, in life you do not fight battles because you expect to win, you fight them merely because they need to be fought." -- Snagglepuss
-
Passer
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Ok, Moonchild, we know what we wanted to know !
tnx for your reply
Passer
tnx for your reply
Passer
-
cooperb21
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Im no developer but wont pale moon eventually need to be based off newer browser version. Eventually it will get to slow that users wont want to use it.
That or new web browser tech will come out etc.. you can only build off something that old for so long.
All depends what you want though I think chrome is the fastests but UI sucks and has privacy issues and less customization so its a trade off is it that much faster.
Honestly I cant tell much difference in real world loading.
That or new web browser tech will come out etc.. you can only build off something that old for so long.
All depends what you want though I think chrome is the fastests but UI sucks and has privacy issues and less customization so its a trade off is it that much faster.
Honestly I cant tell much difference in real world loading.
-
cooperb21
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Don't see why palemoon cant do something similar to cyberfox they have old firefox UI on top of all improves with new versions of firefox why stay on old one when its doing worse on performance.
-
New Tobin Paradigm
- Knows the dark side
- Posts: 8884
- Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
- Location: Seriphia Galaxy
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
They don't... They just have Classic Theme Restorer addon bundled with their browser...cooperb21 wrote:Don't see why palemoon cant do something similar to cyberfox they have old firefox UI on top of all improves with new versions of firefox why stay on old one when its doing worse on performance.
Also, for a better understanding of Pale Moon past, present, and future may I direct you to this I wrote for this exact situation: http://binaryoutcast.com/techcentral/editorials/binary-outcast-view-into-the-future-of-pale-moon/
Last edited by New Tobin Paradigm on 2014-09-13, 20:04, edited 2 times in total.
How far are you prepared to go? How much are you prepared to risk? How many people are you prepared to sacrifice for victory?
Are you willing to die friendless, alone, deserted by everyone? Because that's what may be required of you in the war that is to come.
Are you willing to die friendless, alone, deserted by everyone? Because that's what may be required of you in the war that is to come.
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
You answered your own question:cooperb21 wrote:Don't see why palemoon cant do something similar to cyberfox they have old firefox UI on top of all improves with new versions of firefox why stay on old one when its doing worse on performance.
cooperb21 wrote:Honestly I cant tell much difference in real world loading.
"Son, in life you do not fight battles because you expect to win, you fight them merely because they need to be fought." -- Snagglepuss
-
cooperb21
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
I guess it depends on pc not sure i find palemoon faster in loading sites even though every benchmark will say its slower lol.Moonchild wrote:You answered your own question:cooperb21 wrote:Don't see why palemoon cant do something similar to cyberfox they have old firefox UI on top of all improves with new versions of firefox why stay on old one when its doing worse on performance.cooperb21 wrote:Honestly I cant tell much difference in real world loading.
Not sure its its 64bit or that it uses my more powerful hardware better than firefox or chrome.
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Well, that proves my point about benchmarks then, doesn't it?cooperb21 wrote:I guess it depends on pc not sure i find palemoon faster in loading sites even though every benchmark will say its slower lol.
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that Pale Moon is "old" -- it's not. Just like HTML5 is a developing standard, Pale Moon is a piece of software that receives constant attention and improvements. Don't mistake a higher version number or rapid major releases for an indicator of progress; it's been the opposite, lately.
"Son, in life you do not fight battles because you expect to win, you fight them merely because they need to be fought." -- Snagglepuss
-
New Tobin Paradigm
- Knows the dark side
- Posts: 8884
- Joined: 2012-10-09, 19:37
- Location: Seriphia Galaxy
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
As described in detail here: http://binaryoutcast.com/techcentral/editorials/what-version-is-it-anyway/, cooperb21Moonchild wrote:Well, that proves my point about benchmarks then, doesn't it?cooperb21 wrote:I guess it depends on pc not sure i find palemoon faster in loading sites even though every benchmark will say its slower lol.
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that Pale Moon is "old" -- it's not. Just like HTML5 is a developing standard, Pale Moon is a piece of software that receives constant attention and improvements. Don't mistake a higher version number or rapid major releases for an indicator of progress; it's been the opposite, lately.
Off-topic:
I KNEW I wrote those for a reason!
I KNEW I wrote those for a reason!
How far are you prepared to go? How much are you prepared to risk? How many people are you prepared to sacrifice for victory?
Are you willing to die friendless, alone, deserted by everyone? Because that's what may be required of you in the war that is to come.
Are you willing to die friendless, alone, deserted by everyone? Because that's what may be required of you in the war that is to come.
-
buggy
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Not interested by this kind of things personally, but by curiosity i made my own, certified with no trucages (all browsers in safe mode). Not changed what i already thought.
-
Passer
Re: FF 32 quicker than PM 64 ??
Correction: the link in my beginning post isn't correct, this is the right one: http://www.pc-helpforum.be/f168/test-je ... post476550