time frame for a better x64 browser?
Moderator: trava90
Forum rules
This board is for technical/general usage questions and troubleshooting for the Pale Moon browser only.
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.
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!
time frame for a better x64 browser?
is there any time frame for a native x64 browser that is significantly better than the x86 version?
by significant i mean at least 30% better.
As of now, the x64 has the potential to be faster than the x86 version. any particular time when PM shifts to a recommended x64 version ? or when the performance of x64 is significantly better?
by significant i mean at least 30% better.
As of now, the x64 has the potential to be faster than the x86 version. any particular time when PM shifts to a recommended x64 version ? or when the performance of x64 is significantly better?
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
Performance is already significantly better as far as large data blocks goes - but benchmarks won't show it because benchmarks don't test on it. See also my explanation of comparing benchmark results in the FAQ post.
You can't expect 30% better performance, ever, of a 64-bit application that does most of its work in 8-bit space (text). So that is never going to happen.
Native 64-bit applications are only really a huge step forward from the user's experience side if what the application does is actually using the 64-bit address space or large data blocks. The only advantage there is for Pale Moon x64 in most of what it does is that it cuts away the need for the WoW64 layer in Windows, which is why you see lower CPU strain on complex pages in it. So basically you are using a more efficient browser, from a machine perspective, but not necessarily from a user perspective because of the tasks it is set to perform.
You can't expect 30% better performance, ever, of a 64-bit application that does most of its work in 8-bit space (text). So that is never going to happen.
Native 64-bit applications are only really a huge step forward from the user's experience side if what the application does is actually using the 64-bit address space or large data blocks. The only advantage there is for Pale Moon x64 in most of what it does is that it cuts away the need for the WoW64 layer in Windows, which is why you see lower CPU strain on complex pages in it. So basically you are using a more efficient browser, from a machine perspective, but not necessarily from a user perspective because of the tasks it is set to perform.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
WoW64 is hardly 1%-2% performance loss. probably lesser.
any timeframe for when mozilla source code will get multiprocessing?
any timeframe for when mozilla source code will get multiprocessing?
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
According to whom?stravinsky wrote:WoW64 is hardly 1%-2% performance loss. probably lesser.
You're asking the wrong personAny timeframe for when mozilla source code will get multiprocessing?
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
@Moonchild...
So what is your best hunch about the next IMPROVED Pale Moon 64bit,which I love?
Kind regards
-Cowboy
So what is your best hunch about the next IMPROVED Pale Moon 64bit,which I love?
Kind regards
-Cowboy
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
Probably worth asking now since 12.2 has hit..
Since benchmarks aren't really indicative of the TRUE performance we're likely to experience with a browser, do you consider the 64bit version to be a better choice as far as performance goes now?
Since benchmarks aren't really indicative of the TRUE performance we're likely to experience with a browser, do you consider the 64bit version to be a better choice as far as performance goes now?
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
Sometimes I miss the old Silicon Graphics IRIX Os, it was really 64 bits and the old Netscape could handle a heavy use. Actually Windows is a mess for support legacy code from all places, traces of MSDOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95/98... Windows is a mess inside the core.stravinsky wrote:is there any time frame for a native x64 browser that is significantly better than the x86 version?
by significant i mean at least 30% better.
As of now, the x64 has the potential to be faster than the x86 version. any particular time when PM shifts to a recommended x64 version ? or when the performance of x64 is significantly better?
Multiprocessing is more than just yank code to several processors, you must "cut" in pieces the process and make sure that all processors do their part and assemble the work again in the correct order. That is a complex trick to do, so why I'm not surprised that Mozilla takes ages for create a version multicore of FireFox.
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
It depends on your use.Ryrynz wrote:Probably worth asking now since 12.2 has hit..
Since benchmarks aren't really indicative of the TRUE performance we're likely to experience with a browser, do you consider the 64bit version to be a better choice as far as performance goes now?
Pale Moon 12.2 x64 should be faster and more efficient than its 32-bit counterpart, BUT it's not necessarily a better choice because of very limited plugin support, 64-bit graphics driver issues that occur on a number of systems, etc.
If you just want raw performance and don't care about the plugin compatibility issues and have modern hardware (including dedicated full feature graphics, ruling out a lot of laptops) with updated and properly supported drivers, then it's a better choice. Otherwise take the cautious approach.
Parallel multi-core support is a long way off. And it seems Mozilla is more interested in "polish" than "mechanics" at the moment, so progress in that respect doesn't seem to be on the menu.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
+1And it seems Mozilla is more interested in "polish" than "mechanics" at the moment, so progress in that respect doesn't seem to be on the menu.
from reading a lot of bugzilla bugs and the discussions, i could see that the devs arent really trying for better performance. They are looking for "appearance of speed" , not the actual speed..
for a really good browser, take a look at Opera 12 RC.
is it even being looked into? i dont think there is any work being done on this at all. they are too busy releasing new versions every 6 weeks.Parallel multi-core support is a long way off.
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
slightly OT, but anyway :
i tried to open 800 tabs together on a number of browsers. the tabs were quite simple, they basically had ~5 hyperlinks and 1 image. ONLY PM was able to open all of them. . I have 4GB ram. i used 32bit versions of all browsers.
1 FF nightly 15 : ate > 4GB RAM . So had to end-task it. would have opened the tabs but used all of RAM first.
2. Chrome Canary 21 : ate >4GB RAM + Complete hang.
3. Opera nightly : Hang.
4. PM 12.1 : ate about 2.5GB RAM but opened all the tabs without missing a single tab
5. IE9 : complete hang + hang-crash-restart-hang cycle.
6. IE8 :
link of the tabs i opened : http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/2012-05-08/index.html
i tried to open 800 tabs together on a number of browsers. the tabs were quite simple, they basically had ~5 hyperlinks and 1 image. ONLY PM was able to open all of them. . I have 4GB ram. i used 32bit versions of all browsers.
1 FF nightly 15 : ate > 4GB RAM . So had to end-task it. would have opened the tabs but used all of RAM first.
2. Chrome Canary 21 : ate >4GB RAM + Complete hang.
3. Opera nightly : Hang.
4. PM 12.1 : ate about 2.5GB RAM but opened all the tabs without missing a single tab
5. IE9 : complete hang + hang-crash-restart-hang cycle.
6. IE8 :
link of the tabs i opened : http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/2012-05-08/index.html
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
It doesn't look like it's on the menu, as I saidstravinsky wrote:is it even being looked into? i dont think there is any work being done on this at all. they are too busy releasing new versions every 6 weeks.Parallel multi-core support is a long way off.
There was this talk about a separate project going on to at least parallelize tabs to use all cores if 4+ tabs were opened (on a 4-core machine), but it's been remarkably quiet on that front.
I've looked at bugs being addressed in v13 and v14, doesn't look promising - maybe v15 has sufficient new material again to consider a new major Pale Moon build, but we'll have to see -- I notice a LOT of backouts on all FF channels because of bustage.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
well, chrome and IE10 do do this.There was this talk about a separate project going on to at least parallelize tabs to use all cores if 4+ tabs were opened (on a 4-core machine), but it's been remarkably quiet on that front.
v13 has a lot of changes. but that is already PM12.2 , right?I've looked at bugs being addressed in v13 and v14, doesn't look promising - maybe v15 has sufficient new material again to consider a new major Pale Moon build, but we'll have to see
as of now, v14 is quite tame and does not have a lot of new "surface changes" . most of them are internal. so v14 can safely become PM12.3
v15 does promise to have lots of "user/surface/ui " changes. so maybe a new version then.
But by then FF=15 and PM=12.3 OMGWTF PM is sooo slow because obviously 15> 12.3 ,Doh
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
Right, sure they do. Compared memory use lately?stravinsky wrote:well, chrome and IE10 do do this.There was this talk about a separate project going on to at least parallelize tabs to use all cores if 4+ tabs were opened (on a 4-core machine), but it's been remarkably quiet on that front.
EDIT: And of course I meant that it's quiet on that front for Gecko-based browsers.
Well if you reason THAT way, then "OMGWTF Firefox is sooooo slow. Chrome is already at 19!"But by then FF=15 and PM=12.3 OMGWTF PM is sooo slow because obviously 15> 12.3 ,Doh
And you misunderstand what's going on with Pale Moon now. PM12.2 is NOT based on FF13. PM 12.3 will NOT be based on FF14.
All these changes in Firefox releases aren't necessarily applicable or relevant to Pale Moon. Also, a large number of bugs are introduced by previously introduced bad code, so technically they aren't even changes/fixes for something that is present; they are fixes for something new that popped up because of new code.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
you got me there. i thought that was the case. as i thought, PM12.2 = FF13 with the annoying bits removed. (like: ui changes, parental control , data telemetry,home page, other annoying bs) + build time optimizations.And you misunderstand what's going on with Pale Moon now. PM12.2 is NOT based on FF13. PM 12.3 will NOT be based on FF14.
so what exactly is the code base of PM12.2 ? and changelog of PM12.2 Vs PM12.1 ? similarity between PM12.2 and FF13.
Edit2: if these bits are private/copyright, feel free not to reply.
Edit :
thats the reason FF got 8 major versions in 1 year. i recon by Chrome 35, FF will also be V35. So after that, FF > chrome ! FF FTWWell if you reason THAT way, then "OMGWTF Firefox is sooooo slow. Chrome is already at 19!"
atleast thats what mozilla wants the typical user to believe.
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
If I were to follow Mozilla's rapid release schedule, there would also be no reason not to stick to their numbering scheme.stravinsky wrote:you got me there. i thought that was the case. as i thought, PM12.2 = FF13 with the annoying bits removed. (like: ui changes, parental control , data telemetry,home page, other annoying bs) + build time optimizations.And you misunderstand what's going on with Pale Moon now. PM12.2 is NOT based on FF13. PM 12.3 will NOT be based on FF14.
The code base of Pale Moon 12.2 is the code base of Firefox 12 + Select Mozilla patches + Pale Moon development changes. You can find the link to the Pale Moon 12.2 source code on the technical details page (at the bottom). The source is not private - this is an Open Source project.so what exactly is the code base of PM12.2 ?
Contrary to popular belief, a higher version number doesn't automatically mean that it's better.thats the reason FF got 8 major versions in 1 year. i recon by Chrome 35, FF will also be V35. So after that, FF > chrome ! FF FTWWell if you reason THAT way, then "OMGWTF Firefox is sooooo slow. Chrome is already at 19!"
atleast thats what mozilla wants the typical user to believe.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
these are the ones that have landed in the current release version (ff13 now) or they may also be in the beta/aurora/nightly versions ?Select Mozilla patches
and these are the build time config changes ?Pale Moon development changes
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
The patches are select patches from the Mozilla Core and Firefox development (any channel). You really have to stop thinking in "a certain Firefox version" because it really isn't the way it works.stravinsky wrote:these are the ones that have landed in the current release version (ff13 now) or they may also be in the beta/aurora/nightly versions ?Select Mozilla patches
and these are the build time config changes ?Pale Moon development changes
Pale Moon development changes are new (or changed) source code, like the added Options in tabs/advanced and other code changes. Build-time configuration is far from all there is to it for Pale Moon. Maybe that's all Waterfox does, but not here.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
@stravinsky, I wonder if PM x64 would behave any differently in your 800-tab test. In particular perhaps it would use more that the 2.5GB of memory that PM 32bit used, although it should be able to operate using over 4GB if necessary.
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
maybe. the only problem is i have only 4GB RAM. you can try that if you like. just go the the link i provided, go to archive and open all the links.
you might want to use the add-on : multilinks
you might want to use the add-on : multilinks
Re: time frame for a better x64 browser?
The tests I've run indicate that x64 Mozilla versions use around 20-30% more memory than their x86 counterparts - it might be possible to test the 800 tabs on a 4GB system, if you have 6GB+ swapfile as a 'safety' measure - I'd back up any valuable data first though, it might come close to straining some limits of System resources