The Future of Pale Moon
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 bugs, git, the repositories, 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. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.
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.
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 bugs, git, the repositories, 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. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.
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.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
I just read the announcement regarding Atom builds. So is the current releases able to run on XP or not? From reading the post it sounds like the Atom builds are no better than the stranded build and thus no Atom build will be made anymore. I just want to know when XP won't be supported as I have a netbook that serves as a server/kitchen kiosk for PhoeTray and looking up things in the kitchen when I need to. It might be a PITA for me to have to install a Windows 7 version on the netbook. I'm not even sure which version that would be. The netbook only has 1 GB of RAM.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Yes, the current releases still run on Windows XP.John connor wrote:I just read the announcement regarding Atom builds. So is the current releases able to run on XP or not?
Windows XP support will be dropped as of the next milestone release, which is Pale Moon v27.John connor wrote:I just want to know when XP won't be supported
Nichi nichi kore ko jitsu = Every day is a good day.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
*sigh* Since people apparently have some difficulty understanding what has been written, I'll sum it up:
Initial plan, v27+: Atom, x86, x64 (no WinXP)
Final plan, v27+: x86, x64
- NO version of Pale Moon 27 or later will be supporting Windows XP.
- The Atom version for v27 also would NOT support XP, if created.
- Testing has shown that it would be a waste of time and resources to keep building the Atom version on v27 or later, so we won't.
- Windows XP will be supported up to and including the last released v26.* version of Pale Moon for Atom.
- When we hit our next milestone with v27.0, the Atom version will no longer be built and anyone on Vista or later currently using the atom version should switch to the main-line version.
- When we hit our next milestone with v27.0, there will be NO version of Pale Moon (except unsupported and no longer updated older versions) that run on XP, POSReady, Server2003 or other NT5-based operating systems. This would even have been the case if Atom versions were still built.
Initial plan, v27+: Atom, x86, x64 (no WinXP)
Final plan, v27+: x86, x64
"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
- Antonius32
- Add-ons Team
- Posts: 695
- Joined: 2014-05-25, 11:18
- Location: Netherlands
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Which version of Firefox will Pale Moon 27 identify itself as on AMO?
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Likely unchanged -- because our front-end framework won't change significantly and what's compatible with us now will be compatible with us then as far as integration with the UI is concerned.Antonius32 wrote:Which version of Firefox will Pale Moon 27 identify itself as on AMO?
Jetpack/SDK add-ons will no longer be possible though.
"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: The Future of Pale Moon
Thank you for being open about future development. I have contacted developers of a few add-ons I use that don't yet have PM versions, here's hoping they are willing to support PM.
(I don't use nearly as many add-ons as a lot of people here, and most of my add-ons have Pale Moon versions already. The three big exceptions are DownloadThemAll (need to use an older version), QuickJava (also need to use an old version), and CleanLinks (the current version is compatible with PM due to supporting Firefox 24, but it doesn't have a PM-specific version.)
(I don't use nearly as many add-ons as a lot of people here, and most of my add-ons have Pale Moon versions already. The three big exceptions are DownloadThemAll (need to use an older version), QuickJava (also need to use an old version), and CleanLinks (the current version is compatible with PM due to supporting Firefox 24, but it doesn't have a PM-specific version.)
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Ah, I haven't seen that you are planning to rework the language handling. I approve.Drop our current localization.
I only have one question:
What is this supposed to mean?Full themes and lightweight themes.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
It will be quite a while and quite the effort to bring langpacks back into the fold when Tycho becomes Pale Moon 27. There are a LOT of strings and we still don't have an all inclusive system that is suited to the task of handling 30-60 langpacks. When they do come back it will likely be limited to major languages.Wuzzy wrote:Ah, I haven't seen that you are planning to rework the language handling. I approve.Drop our current localization.
I really should be saying.. "Do some research" because of the tone of the posts you have already made..Wuzzy wrote:I only have one question:What is this supposed to mean?Full themes and lightweight themes.
However,
Lightweight themes aka Personas (not the short lived name for a Firefox Account) are simple toolbar backgrounds. The full themes allow a complete transformation of how the browser visually looks. See: https://addons.palemoon.org/themes/complete/The Pale Moon Add-ons Mananger wrote: [...]themes allow you to personalize Pale Moon's visual aesthetic[...]
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Too bad the XP support drops, I think i will need to switch to Firefox on a future I really like palemoon
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
You know, you can continue to usetheelf wrote:Too bad the XP support drops, I think i will need to switch to Firefox on a future I really like palemoon
It's not like it will turn into a turd at midnight.
Last edited by Thehandyman1957 on 2016-09-17, 17:54, edited 2 times in total.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
I've been a fan of Mozilla type browsers since Netscape 1. From there, naturally, I went to Seamonkey. Also naturally, I follow the various forks and I like what I am hearing here.
That said, my coding(etc) skills are, sadly, nonexistent. But if there is anything I can do to help, that is not coding related, I'm in....
That said, my coding(etc) skills are, sadly, nonexistent. But if there is anything I can do to help, that is not coding related, I'm in....
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
So, how about some official AVX2 builds as it's now supported by the big three x86ers? {Generic AVX2 support is AVX2+BMI2} {{Also, AVX2 support implies /fp:fast is more precise than /fp:precise & /fp:strict}}
Isiah II(28nm) to Catherine(16nm) and onwards for VIA supports AVX2. (28nm + Quad-core, latest VIA chip)
Excavator(28nm) to Zen(14nm) and onwards for AMD supports AVX2. (Stoney & Raven depreciates Cat)
Haswell(22nm) to Kabylake(14nm) and onwards for Intel supports AVX2. (Core M depreciates Atom)
Also possible added support for DirectX 12 and Vulkan; https://github.com/google/angle/tree/ma ... rer/vulkan <== ANGLE is in progress in implementing Vulkan. D3DCompiler/ANGLE would simply rename Vx_ (Vulkan Call) to S_ (DX12 Call). So to support one is to support the other.
Isiah II(28nm) to Catherine(16nm) and onwards for VIA supports AVX2. (28nm + Quad-core, latest VIA chip)
Excavator(28nm) to Zen(14nm) and onwards for AMD supports AVX2. (Stoney & Raven depreciates Cat)
Haswell(22nm) to Kabylake(14nm) and onwards for Intel supports AVX2. (Core M depreciates Atom)
Also possible added support for DirectX 12 and Vulkan; https://github.com/google/angle/tree/ma ... rer/vulkan <== ANGLE is in progress in implementing Vulkan. D3DCompiler/ANGLE would simply rename Vx_ (Vulkan Call) to S_ (DX12 Call). So to support one is to support the other.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Rebuilds for AVX and AVX2 will have to be the task of a separate maintainer (including support for them).seronx wrote:So, how about some official AVX2 builds as it's now supported by the big three x86ers?
You're mixing up 2 things. Raw floating point precision when AVX2 instructions are used has nothing to do with the fast floating point model.seronx wrote:AVX2 support implies /fp:fast is more precise than /fp:precise & /fp:strict
/fp:fast allows the compiler to decide at compile time whether to change the model, to down-cast types, or to use different low-level calculation methods depending on the compiled code. This makes the results unpredictable, and you should not use this as a global flag, ever - you should only use it on fp-heavy calculations where the results are only used for display purposes, and not re-used in further calculations (e.g. don't use it for layout metrics or JS).
DX12 support is exclusive to Windows 10. That's just nonsense to aim for at the code level for us. Also, we do not need Vulkan or DX12 for a desktop compositing application.
"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: The Future of Pale Moon
VRCPPS(/fp:fast) is used rather than VDIVSS(/fp:precisce), in which VRCPPS is more fast while being more accurate. Thus, the results with /fp:fast in a VEX.AVX is more accurate than /fp:precise REX.SSE2 & VEX.AVX.Moonchild wrote:You're mixing up 2 things. Raw floating point precision when AVX2 instructions are used has nothing to do with the fast floating point model.
/fp:fast allows the compiler to decide at compile time whether to change the model, to down-cast types, or to use different low-level calculation methods depending on the compiled code. This makes the results unpredictable, and you should not use this as a global flag, ever - you should only use it on fp-heavy calculations where the results are only used for display purposes, and not re-used in further calculations (e.g. don't use it for layout metrics or JS).
Overall, with /arch:AVX2 & /fp:fast, VS2015+ will compile code with instructions that provide higher precision rounding than with /fp:precise. Since, the /fp:precise set are largely depreciated/uplifted instructions with lower precision rounding. The instructions will also tend to be SIMD rather than SISD. To say /fp:precise is better is to say e10s is better. Both are ducktape fixes to covered up problems. All open source Microsoft projects have this since 2012; (Updated projects with /fp:fast for all configs, /arch:SSE2 for Win32 configs). Just for comparison while /fp:precise is default for Visual Studio, /fp:fast is default for ICC. Tycho shouldn't have any issues with /fp:fast do to forced SSE2 optimizations.
Vulkan while is supported by majority of operating systems. To support Vulkan is to support DirectX12 as they are both based on AMD's Mantle API. For power consumption concerns Vulkan is preferred, it also has lower risks of random driver prone errors. DXVA won't automatically fail because DirectX 2D/9Ex/10/11 is rendering things in the background for example.Moonchild wrote:DX12 support is exclusive to Windows 10. That's just nonsense to aim for at the code level for us. Also, we do not need Vulkan or DX12 for a desktop compositing application.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
First, thanks very much for Pale Moon. I started with Mosaic way back in the day and Fire Fox was my browser of choice for a long time. Unfortunately development of newer FF versions has gone in terrible directions. Its user interface is poor by comparison to older versions but much more importantly its stability and scalability are garbage in newer versions. In older FF versions I could have 15 windows open with 200 tabs and everything was fine. In newer FF versions I'd start to see sluggishness with just 10-15 tabs open and the browser very often grinds to a halt requiring me to kill the process (and with far fewer than 100 tabs). Then I found Pale Moon this past year and everything was grand once again. Great user interface plus the stability and scalability of older FF versions.
I'm concerned that switching out the back end in "Tycho" to the same code Mozilla uses will result in a Pale Moon that performs terribly and doesn't scale. I haven't looked at the Mozilla code base in years, but my guess is the poor code that has caused instability is likely in the back end code and not just the front end. Have the Pale Moon developers looked into and considered this? I love Pale Moon but if it ends up performing as badly as current Fire Fox versions I'll have to stop using it even if it has a good UI. Performance and stability are necessities.
I'm concerned that switching out the back end in "Tycho" to the same code Mozilla uses will result in a Pale Moon that performs terribly and doesn't scale. I haven't looked at the Mozilla code base in years, but my guess is the poor code that has caused instability is likely in the back end code and not just the front end. Have the Pale Moon developers looked into and considered this? I love Pale Moon but if it ends up performing as badly as current Fire Fox versions I'll have to stop using it even if it has a good UI. Performance and stability are necessities.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Hello and welcome to the forum!jh144 wrote:I'm concerned that switching out the back end in "Tycho" to the same code Mozilla uses will result in a Pale Moon that performs terribly and doesn't scale. I haven't looked at the Mozilla code base in years, but my guess is the poor code that has caused instability is likely in the back end code and not just the front end. Have the Pale Moon developers looked into and considered this? I love Pale Moon but if it ends up performing as badly as current Fire Fox versions I'll have to stop using it even if it has a good UI. Performance and stability are necessities.
I understand your concerns about Tycho. Actually is the main reason that we release it as an alpha stage. I would like that you could download it and use it for a test, dont worry because Tycho is portable and dont affect your current 25/26 install.
Only with user feedback we can fine tune the browser and keep the best posible performance. So your help is welcome and wanted.
Best regards,
Lyceus
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Don't be worry, jh144.
I use Tycho now since release and i never had any freezes, crashes or else produced by Pale Moon.
Runs very stable & fast. And provide more web & addond compatibility.
You can test it as well, but please read the warning before use it.
I use Tycho now since release and i never had any freezes, crashes or else produced by Pale Moon.
Runs very stable & fast. And provide more web & addond compatibility.
You can test it as well, but please read the warning before use it.
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Pale Moon devs are definitely aware of the issues, and they are working hard to bring us better browser. ;-)jh144 wrote:I'm concerned that switching out the back end in "Tycho" to the same code Mozilla uses will result in a Pale Moon that performs terribly and doesn't scale. ... Have the Pale Moon developers looked into and considered this?
i can confirm what dark_moon said: i switched to Tycho since Alpha2, and so far it is faster, better, and slightly more responsive than v26. and i usually have ALOT of tabs opened: ~80 right now, for example, and this is not "huge number", but even less than something i usually have.
so don't worry: Pale Moon v27 won't ruin your day, quite the contrary: your life will be even better with it! ;-)
Re: The Future of Pale Moon
Actually Moonchild refused to use ESR 31 back end code in the past because it was too unstable so Moonchild should know when back end would be too unstable. He and other Pale Moon devs thinks that ESR 38 back end is stable enough to be used as back end to Tycho and of course can be improved independently by Pale Moon devs as previous back end has also been improved. Tycho has so far been stable when I have tested it (except alpha level issues that have already been reported and many of them are also fixed in the Tycho trunk/master branch. I can confirm that many reported issues are fixed because I have built Tycho from master branch)jh144 wrote:First, thanks very much for Pale Moon. I started with Mosaic way back in the day and Fire Fox was my browser of choice for a long time. Unfortunately development of newer FF versions has gone in terrible directions. Its user interface is poor by comparison to older versions but much more importantly its stability and scalability are garbage in newer versions. In older FF versions I could have 15 windows open with 200 tabs and everything was fine. In newer FF versions I'd start to see sluggishness with just 10-15 tabs open and the browser very often grinds to a halt requiring me to kill the process (and with far fewer than 100 tabs). Then I found Pale Moon this past year and everything was grand once again. Great user interface plus the stability and scalability of older FF versions.
I'm concerned that switching out the back end in "Tycho" to the same code Mozilla uses will result in a Pale Moon that performs terribly and doesn't scale. I haven't looked at the Mozilla code base in years, but my guess is the poor code that has caused instability is likely in the back end code and not just the front end. Have the Pale Moon developers looked into and considered this? I love Pale Moon but if it ends up performing as badly as current Fire Fox versions I'll have to stop using it even if it has a good UI. Performance and stability are necessities.