"Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

General discussion area and chat

Moderator: satrow

Forum rules
This General Discussions forum is an open chat area, so you can talk about almost any subject. Please keep things civil, though!

Please do try to somewhat stick to the relevance of this forum, which focuses on everything around the Pale Moon project and its user community. "Totally random" subjects don't really belong here, even in the general discussion area.
newbie3
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon, 23 May 2016, 17:11

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby newbie3 » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 05:19

Sajadi, thank you for the advice. I'll do exactly that. I'm wondering can I have two "Google Chrome" browsers on the same device? I installed "Google Chrome Beta", but still there is one site, where I can't watch live streaming.

And I think that talking about browsing, the speed is leading. But the people are different and I agree with that.

Trippynet, yes, I agree with you that the user interface of "Pale Moon" is the best. Maybe it's the only browser, where I can see my favorite Forecastfox in the status bar. Also the menus are better and more intuitive, than those on "Chrome"' and "Firefox". But I like the fast browsing and the lag time in "Pale Moon" makes me sad. If that is resolved, there is no other reason to choose another browser.

Moonraker, you're right. "Firefox" and "Chrome" have some similarities. And, yes, "Pale Moon" is no doubt the best browser on the Web, but should become faster (in my opinion). And if the CPU usage can be decreased, it will be fine, too.
---
A very loyal fan of the browser "Pale Moon" and the "Pale Moon Productions".

newbie3
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon, 23 May 2016, 17:11

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby newbie3 » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 05:59

Guys, I will return to "Pale Moon". The high speed is nice and I like it, but there are other things that are important, too. I'm sure that "Pale Moon" will get faster. I added "Fasterfox".
Last edited by newbie3 on Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 06:20, edited 1 time in total.
---
A very loyal fan of the browser "Pale Moon" and the "Pale Moon Productions".

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4611
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 07:19

That extension should be blacklisted.. It tries to address preferences that have either changed behaviors, not in existence anymore or at all, and sets things to not work properly in very odd ways..

newbie3
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon, 23 May 2016, 17:11

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby newbie3 » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 07:31

Thank you for that note, New Tobin Paradigm. In that case I'll use "Chrome" for main browsing and "Pale Moon" for some additional work, until the latter becomes much faster and lighter as CPU and memory usage. I just read two articles on that subject and they confirmed the same things we discuss here.
---
A very loyal fan of the browser "Pale Moon" and the "Pale Moon Productions".

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Sajadi » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 11:00

newbie3 wrote:Thank you for that note, New Tobin Paradigm. In that case I'll use "Chrome" for main browsing and "Pale Moon" for some additional work, until the latter becomes much faster and lighter as CPU and memory usage. I just read two articles on that subject and they confirmed the same things we discuss here.


As said, Chrome is the one which is more heavier. Open for example 100 tabs in Pale Moon.. Open 100 tabs in Chrome. In Pale Moon that is no problem at all, Chrome eats tons of memory.

So, keep your facts straight please. Chrome is not at all competitive in terms of low memory usage with early Firefox or Pale Moon because of the way Chrome/Chromium handles it (Multi-process Architecture).
Last edited by Sajadi on Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 11:04, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Moonraker » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 11:10

erm sajadi your statement is not entirely correct and which operating system config would you be opening 100 tabs on exactly.?.it may be heavy on your system but not perhaps on others as there are literally thousands of different configs out there so your statement cannot really hold weight.On my linux system i have tried several browsers and palemoon and chrome would be the more memory efficient but that is going by my computer and should not be considered a sweeeping fact.

The best way is to just try them all on your system and then come to a reasonable conclusion.
Slacko puppy linux 64bit.
Pale moon 27.9.0

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Sajadi » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 11:16

Moonraker wrote:erm sajadi your statement is not entirely correct and which operating system config would you be opening 100 tabs on exactly.?.it may be heavy on your system but not perhaps on others as there are literally thousands of different configs out there so your statement cannot really hold weight.On my linux system i have tried several browsers and palemoon and chrome would be the more memory efficient but that is going by my computer and should not be considered a sweeeping fact.

The best way is to just try them all on your system and then come to a reasonable conclusion.


I am talking about raw tab openings. I have a session running at home on Pale Moon with as a whole 300 tabs - activated are for daily usage around 100 - so, in terms of raw tab opening, Chrome/Chromium runs out faster on memory than Pale Moon. I have tested various Chromium browsers in the past - and used for a while in the past instead of Pale Moon Brave or Vivaldi.

And one thing all of them have in common... Chromium/Chrome without add-ons - Pale Moon without add-ons - Chromium can't open as many tabs as Pale Moon before running out of memory. Actually that IS true ;)

Chrome/Chromium opens up for every single add-on or opened tab an extra process which consumes memory. The benefit is if one tab crashes, the others stay most of the time stable. The downside is that that system is rather memory heavy.

Seems also Quantum Firefox is less RAM hungry than Chrome ;)

http://www.erahm.org/2017/09/25/firefox ... antum-era/

Edge has the highest memory usage on Windows, Chrome comes in with 1.4X the memory usage of Firefox 64-bit on Windows, about 2X Firefox on Linux.
Last edited by Sajadi on Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 11:28, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Moonraker » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 12:50

@sajadi.
With all due respect but those are tests performed on YOUR machine and that is irrelevant to say my computer for instance.Those links which you kindly provided are irrelevant as those tests are done on other computers but not mine.My experience is different and i found firefox using more memory than chrome but to be fair to firefox that would be the nature of multi-process or whatever it is they term it.
I dont like chrome because it offers no user friendly options and palemoon is the final outpost in terms of customisation.Firefox has got an issue with cookie extensions at the moment.

thats my opinion FWIW. :D
Slacko puppy linux 64bit.
Pale moon 27.9.0

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Sajadi » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 12:58

Moonraker wrote:@sajadi.
With all due respect but those are tests performed on YOUR machine and that is irrelevant to say my computer for instance.Those links which you kindly provided are irrelevant as those tests are done on other computers but not mine.My experience is different and i found firefox using more memory than chrome but to be fair to firefox that would be the nature of multi-process or whatever it is they term it.
I dont like chrome because it offers no user friendly options and palemoon is the final outpost in terms of customisation.Firefox has got an issue with cookie extensions at the moment.

thats my opinion FWIW. :D


In the end it also depends how many add-ons you have installed. But compared in pure out of the box state without any add-ons installed and no other modifications done and depending how many tabs you have open, Firefox will win in most cases against Chrome memory efficiency wise ;) And i am pretty sure of that :D

Perhaps not in your case, but Chrome's handling of things because of the multi process architecture makes in most cases that difference.

I suggest ask the guys over at Vivaldi browser forum - most of them will agree that if they compare Opera Classic with Vivaldi - Vivaldi is more frustrating to use for heavy tab users ;)

What Opera and Firefox old/Pale Moon have in common is that they are not using multi process :D
Last edited by Sajadi on Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 13:15, edited 5 times in total.

newbie3
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon, 23 May 2016, 17:11

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby newbie3 » Mon, 19 Mar 2018, 15:59

I just saw some black quadrates on "Google Chrome Beta" (as my sister uses the stable version) and it happens again (I saw them yesterday, but I thought it is something occasional). And I don't think that they will fix this bug anytime soon. So, I'm back to my favorite "Pale Moon". :-)
---
A very loyal fan of the browser "Pale Moon" and the "Pale Moon Productions".

User avatar
Thehandyman1957
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1617
Joined: Tue, 19 May 2015, 02:26
Location: Arizona U.S.

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Thehandyman1957 » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 01:05

black quadrates?
:?:

Looked it up, could not find anything about it. Would you mind explaining what that is?
"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely FOOLPROOF, is underestimating the ingenuity of complete FOOLS! ;) "

User avatar
Sajadi
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri, 19 Apr 2013, 00:46

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Sajadi » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 11:10

Sounds like an issue related to hardware acceleration, that issue is experienced by quite some people using Chromium based browsers ;) You can deactivate it in the settings of Chromium.

Happened at one point to me during Vivaldi usage in the past - deactivating or using the startup flag disable-gpu has fixed that issue for me during that time.
Last edited by Sajadi on Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 11:13, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Moonraker » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 12:16

This will no doubt be an ongoing issue for people using older computers as the update frenzy continues and why should big corporations dictate what computers we should use and this is what it is heading towards as software testers will favour newer machines and older computers will incur more issues.
So much for freedom of choice.
Slacko puppy linux 64bit.
Pale moon 27.9.0

User avatar
adesh
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue, 06 Jun 2017, 07:38

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby adesh » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 12:31

Off-topic:
It's all business and money and profit and "WE MOVE THE WORLD FORWARD SHIT"! By writing software that requires more resources, big corporations are forcing users to upgrade their devices. Bacause obviously old, but yet fully functional hardware cannot meet the evergrowing demand of the crappy software. This means more people will have to buy the latest and the greatest hardware. Then after about a year and a half, software will demand even more and people will have to upgrade again. In the future, we can expect the upgrade cycles to be shorter. As you can see, this greatly helps the industry (not the user). Quite a few times in case of performance problems, software companies simply ask their users to upgrade because obviously optimizing software is expensive (Security is expensive too). Be trendy and buy shit!

tenseys
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue, 15 Sep 2015, 09:09
Location: NYC

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby tenseys » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 16:27

I use a few browsers and I have to say I am not a fan of Firefox Quantum at all. I used to really like FF before 57 but no longer. I still use FF from time to time since I'm so used to it and it does tend to work with everything plus friends use it and I like to be familiar with it. That said I'm using it less and less.

First of all, FF is slow to start up and get to my home page. All of my other browsers are faster.

FF takes 5-6 seconds easily and it doesn't matter if I use a clean profile and make sure it is well cached. PM does it in 3 seconds, Chrome about 3.5 and IE does it in two seconds. It is the slowest browser in terms of start up to homepage. Otherwise its speed real world is average at best. PM feels a lot snappier. FF used to be fast in version 56 and below when it used regular add-ons and often had multiprocess disabled as a result by default.

It also is the only browser that knocks my CPU up to almost 100% very briefly when it launches and then it rapidly comes back down. It doesn't matter if I disable multiprocess and turn off hardware acceleration, it is still aggressive with cpu at times. A few tabs with a video here and there will tend to make the fan audible.

Then there are the add-ons. Or add-ons that no longer exists that I used to use. And then the customization options. It's not as bad as chrome because at least FF still lets you use the menu bar (which chrome never had) and will let you use a separate field for SE searches etc. I find Chrome's UI absolutely horrible but on the other hand it seems faster than FF Quantum and not as aggressive CPU wise as FF Quantum.

I find PM faster than both of them.

The one good thing about FF is that it does tend to work with all sites as does Chrome however...

Just a few minutes ago, I placed an order at amazon and then tried to cancel it using FF 59.0.1. It woudn't let me cancel the order because for some reason the selection boxes would not show even with my one extension disabled.

So I launched PM and it showed the boxes fine, I checked them and canceled the order. So I had to use PM because FF couldn't even handle Amazon.

Anyway, very disappointed with FF now. It's slow (and marketed as twice as fast - BS), a cpu hog, has much less extension availability and there already is a browser that does multiprocess tentacles with a lot of extensions and does it faster and that is chrome.

PM for me is faster, very customizable (just look at the status bar customizations which I found very handy for an issue), it can use normal add-ons that don't have the limitations of webextensions and is overall a better experience. Occasionally I find a site that doesn't work right or show right but that is becoming less frequent and usually has an easy fix. That said, I like to use different browsers but lately I'm finding myself real close to getting rid of FF entirely.
Last edited by tenseys on Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 18:13, edited 7 times in total.
I'm using Pale Moon version 28.0.1 (64-bit) on Windows 10 Home 64-bit.

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Moonraker » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 18:48

I would like to add that in my personal experience palemoon and chrome have been the lightest on my computer and i have found firefox quantum has a problem with cookie management.CPU spikes occasionally.
Slacko puppy linux 64bit.
Pale moon 27.9.0

PalleP
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed, 14 Feb 2018, 17:36

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby PalleP » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 21:01

I really don't understand all this talk about faster and slower. I have used Pale Moon for many years and have only experienced delays when sites try to force 50 Java scripts on me.
Otherwise pages load what I would call immediately, which means no noticable delay. I have no other browser installed to compare with, and really, I don't care if one browser is a few milliseconds faster to load a page than another browser.
I have seen other computers loading the browser and the pages slowly, but that has always been because people are paranoid and therefore have installed heavy AV software that will slow even the fastest pc down to a crawl. Removing all this crabby AV programs will normally make the pc fast as lightning. These AV programs are also so bloated with all kinds of malwarelike functions, like f.i. the https interference. This can probably also cause huge delays, but I actually don't know since I don't use any of these bloated AV programs. These paranoid AV's will often also scan palemoon.exe for the 7432' time when it loads, which of course takes some time, and some of them will even send palemoon.exe for a cloud scan "to be on the safe side".
So my advice is to look at other factors on the pc if the browser feels slow.

tenseys
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue, 15 Sep 2015, 09:09
Location: NYC

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby tenseys » Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 21:33

I just don't like that they call it twice as fast since in my experience at some points it is twice as slow on a few different computers and OS's since Quantum that I've seen. FF used to be a fast snappy browser a while back. Now Its blah plus the other issues.
Last edited by tenseys on Wed, 21 Mar 2018, 02:36, edited 10 times in total.
I'm using Pale Moon version 28.0.1 (64-bit) on Windows 10 Home 64-bit.

newbie3
Apollo supporter
Apollo supporter
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon, 23 May 2016, 17:11

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby newbie3 » Sat, 24 Mar 2018, 10:36

Thehandyman1957, the black quadrates appeared all of a sudden (and they move through the screen), when browsing. The first time I thought it was some ad-related bug, but the second time it occured I realized that it's not something occasional. I don't like that feeling. And there is a big problem with the Gmail notifier in "Chrome Beta" (I don't have the same problem in "Firefox" (with the same notifier) and especially in "Pale Moon", where I use another type of Gmail notifier and it works fine). The good thing of "Chrome" is just the speed, nothing else. It doesn't even work with "BitComet". And I can't open bookmarks in submenus all in once as tabs. So, I remain with the same ole "Pale Moon", despite the lag time. I can enjoy my favorite Forecastfox in the status bar of "Pale Moon" as long as I want (beside the other positive aspects of a really good browser), and I appreciate it. Also I keep all my bookmarks in "Pale Moon" as a default browser and when I use "Firefox" or "Chrome" I have to import them again and again to keep them up to date. I need a diversity from time to time, but I always return to "Pale Moon" as it's the best one in its class (where I can do and enjoy everything, which I quality browser should offer).
---
A very loyal fan of the browser "Pale Moon" and the "Pale Moon Productions".

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed, 30 Sep 2015, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: "Pale Moon" vs. "Mozilla Firefox" - reasons for choice in the present time.

Unread postby Moonraker » Sat, 24 Mar 2018, 11:28

I have not noticed any noticeable difference in speed with all of the browsers i have tried.I currently only have palemoon and basillisk installed and they run just fine.
With more speed will also come more resource usage and the cpu may have to work harder.I would be interested to know what machines mozilla test resource usage on as it certainly wasnt mine and the results were horrendous with high cpu usage and ram nearly up to 2gb at some points.
Slacko puppy linux 64bit.
Pale moon 27.9.0


Return to “General discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests