XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Talk about code development, features, specific bugzilla bugs, enhancements, patches, and other highly technical things.

Moderator: satrow

Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific referenced Bugzilla bugs, mercurial, etc.

This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Most "bug reports" do not belong in this board and should initially be posted in Community Support or other relevant support boards.

Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 991
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by Moonraker » 2019-04-24, 09:22

Octopuss wrote:
2018-09-19, 11:37
Moonchild, I have a related question.
PM27 was based on noticeably older Firefox code, right? It worked fine (I guess?), but over time, lots of websites started to feel slow or even extremely slow to the point of being barely useable (like scrolling in channel list on Twitch, clickin on anything on FB or scrolling far into old posts on Twitter). I think one of the explanations was that the Firefox code evolved, and PM27 didn't have what websites currently require to function properly anymore.
Since this apparently wasn't possible to fix/add/improve/something to PM27, PM28 was forked from newer Firefox. That's fine, but... what are you going to do for this to not happen again? Since there won't be any newer Firefox to fork again, what will you do when "the code" evolves again, or rather when websites start to require something newer than what PM28 offers?
I think it should be added that ALL browsers will face this and not just palemoon so to singularly criticise moonchild would be a grave injustice and thus all browser developers must face the same critique.
Xenial puppy linux 32-bit.
Pale moon 28.5.0.

User avatar
uss2048
New to the forum
New to the forum
Posts: 1
Joined: 2019-05-13, 00:35

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by uss2048 » 2019-05-13, 00:54

I have used Pale Moon as the web browser on my Windows Xp computer before until it became bloated. Two weeks ago, I tried the New Moon version and am still happy with its performance. It starts up quickly, and allows me to surf quickly. The HDD footprint is about 100MB. And it does not keep increasing without apparent way to reduce it. I figure that the reason for its speed is that it loads a lot of its codes into RAM when it starts up (I found it to take up about 250 MB). That is the only complaint of New Moon so far. Will it be possible to reduce the maximum memory footprint to about 150 MB. I hope that is not much to ask.

To the Pale Moon development team and community: keep up the good work. Many thanks.

User avatar
Nigaikaze
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1034
Joined: 2014-02-02, 22:15
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by Nigaikaze » 2019-05-13, 02:42

uss2048 wrote:
2019-05-13, 00:54
... on my Windows Xp computer ... I tried the New Moon version ...
Windows XP is no longer supported by Pale Moon or the Pale Moon developers, and has not been supported for some time. "New Moon" is the name of unofficial builds of Pale Moon, and any New Moon built for Windows XP would have to be supported by whichever other developer worked on it. You need to direct your question to that other developer wherever they support their software, not here on this forum.

User avatar
F22 Simpilot
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 87
Joined: 2019-01-06, 07:59
Location: From RLG fly heading 053 intercept 315 DVV look for the SAM

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by F22 Simpilot » 2019-05-13, 07:21

Just to chime in here. I've been using PM since about 2012 some time and with each update the browser loaded as fast as it always did. I used a Dell Precision M6300, a Dell Latitude now and my gaming desktop. The browser launches in about a second and a half. Albeit, I'm using SSDs in all computers.
E pur si muove.
All problems in the universe have a solution no matter how complicated.

User avatar
F22 Simpilot
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 87
Joined: 2019-01-06, 07:59
Location: From RLG fly heading 053 intercept 315 DVV look for the SAM

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by F22 Simpilot » 2019-05-13, 07:22

Nigaikaze wrote:
2019-05-13, 02:42
uss2048 wrote:
2019-05-13, 00:54
... on my Windows Xp computer ... I tried the New Moon version ...
Windows XP is no longer supported by Pale Moon or the Pale Moon developers, and has not been supported for some time. "New Moon" is the name of unofficial builds of Pale Moon, and any New Moon built for Windows XP would have to be supported by whichever other developer worked on it. You need to direct your question to that other developer wherever they support their software, not here on this forum.
Off-topic:
What was the last PM version to support XP? I have a netbook running the very old Atom-based version of PM and I need to update it.
E pur si muove.
All problems in the universe have a solution no matter how complicated.

Michaell
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 93
Joined: 2018-05-26, 18:13

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by Michaell » 2019-05-13, 07:58

Win10home(1709), PM28.4port

User avatar
Moonraker
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 991
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: Lincolnshire.UK.

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by Moonraker » 2019-05-13, 09:16

It seems to me that websites are the guilty ones of becoming bloated if browsers need to punch above it's weight so to speak.I have not noticed any slowdowns with v28 on my 32-bit computer.

Just out of interest.!
What does a website actually need to run ands operate and how much more do they need in years to come.?
Maybe javascript is the one who needs a diet.
Xenial puppy linux 32-bit.
Pale moon 28.5.0.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 23434
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: 58°2'16"N 14°58'31"E
Contact:

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by Moonchild » 2019-05-13, 10:18

Moonraker wrote:
2019-05-13, 09:16
Maybe javascript is the one who needs a diet.
I absolutely agree. Downloading and compiling 10MB of JS for a simple article page is total madness.
Not only has JS been pushed to "do everything", we've also seen framework tripping over each other to "do everything with everything" resulting in 99.9% unused code on the average page that the browser still needs to parse and process and allocate memory for and compile.
Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne

User avatar
F22 Simpilot
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 87
Joined: 2019-01-06, 07:59
Location: From RLG fly heading 053 intercept 315 DVV look for the SAM

Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower

Unread post by F22 Simpilot » 2019-05-14, 03:20

One thing these websites that are JS heavy need to do is segregate the code. You can do that with Amazon AWS or even CloudFlare. I don't think many websites do this or at least load code as you scroll the page.


Michaell wrote:
2019-05-13, 07:58
26.5 AFAIK
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13702
Thanks!
E pur si muove.
All problems in the universe have a solution no matter how complicated.

Post Reply