Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

badnick · Unread post by **badnick** » 2017-10-11, 19:06

Speed test (clean profiles for both, no addons)
Windows 10/64---PM 27.5.1/64
https://sendvid.com/9g4st5za

Moderator Edit: Don't post bald links, an explanation is also needed. Preferably full details for those that don't have 7 minutes to waste watching your mouse athletics.

Badnick's showing that, on his system/connection, the latest Pale Moon release is faster loading than the latest Firefox Beta...

JustOff · Unread post by **JustOff** » 2017-10-11, 19:39

Unfortunately all the tests you recorded are absolutely meaningless. This is similar to figuring out in which case 6 is obtained more often on dice: if you shoot a video on a Samsung or Apple phone

badnick · Unread post by **badnick** » 2017-10-11, 19:51

I tested more pages than in video..but If I'd put them all ..the movie would have been too long.

JustOff · Unread post by **JustOff** » 2017-10-11, 19:59

Sorry, but you don't understand: Pingdom Website Speed Test results do not depend on browser they are running in

badnick · Unread post by **badnick** » 2017-10-11, 20:09

Oh..I see!
Unfortunately I can't delete the post. Maybe..the moderators.

adisib · Unread post by **adisib** » 2017-10-11, 20:23

For page load comparisons with local browsers you could try:
http://www.raymondhill.net/ublock/pageloadspeed.html

I'm pretty sure it is designed to test configurations within the same browser, and probably will not be accurate for comparing different browsers because they might e.g. not fire load events at the same time. Firefox and Pale Moon might be closely related enough in some versions that they could compare well, but I don't know. I've gotten Pale Moon resulting in about 25% faster page loads than Firefox 53 with whatever settings I am using, but I'm not sure how up-to-date my Firefox configuration is, and 57 is more diverged and can likely not be closely related enough to be comparable. Also, benchmarks don't mean much anyway.

Moonraker · Unread post by **Moonraker** » 2017-10-11, 20:28

i find such tests meaningless.
browser is only as quick as the internet connection you give it.

badnick · Unread post by **badnick** » 2017-10-11, 20:51

Moonraker wrote:i find such tests meaningless.
browser is only as quick as the internet connection you give it.

It was just my curiosity. But I assure you I have a large pipe.

Unread post by **Moonchild** » 2017-10-12, 09:53

Or you could not make a video and actually post the results from each test as text, so it can easily be seen and evaluated by everyone, regardless of available time and media.

badnick · Unread post by **badnick** » 2017-10-12, 11:09

I did same test on the link suggested by "adisib".
From 20 random links just in 7 cases Fx 57 was faster than PM and for some of them the difference was just tens of miliseconds.
But what I noticed PM became lazy to the end when is "warning", most of the "negative" cases occurred towards the end.

Giraffe · Unread post by **Giraffe** » 2017-10-15, 07:35

I started to try Fx 57 a couple of weeks ago. I'd given up on Fx (and Cyberfox) as they take 5+ S to open and the same time to load Startpage; PM takes " S for each!
Fx 57 takes 1.5 S to open [1] and then 3.5 S to load Startpage.

No tests for speed though.

[1] ATM Fx 57 is barely useable due to lack of extensions, so it might slow down with the same number as I have in Cyberfox.

Pale Moon forum

Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1

Re: Firefox Beta 57 vs Pale Moon 27.5.1