Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Talk about code development, features, specific bugs, enhancements, patches, and similar things.
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.

What instruction set should be the minimum for Pale Moon going forward?

Poll ended at 2024-03-09, 15:33

Keep it as-is (SSE2 or later)
18
33%
AVX (Bulldozer/AMD FX/Intel Sandy Bridge)
19
35%
AVX2 (Excavator/Zen/Haswell/Core i3/5/7)
15
27%
Just show me the results
3
5%
 
Total votes: 55

User avatar
back2themoon
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2892
Joined: 2012-08-19, 20:32

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by back2themoon » 2024-04-03, 13:56

Ok, I've reinstalled the AVX2 build on the laptop. Will let you know if crashes occur.
AVX2.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
marigold
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 53
Joined: 2023-05-26, 17:45

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by marigold » 2024-04-03, 16:10

athenian200 wrote:
2024-04-02, 03:07
I think the problem may just come down to the fact that what we want to make and what a lot of our users apparently want us to work on are two very different things.
Could be. As a user, I only care if this is a "hobby" project or a serious open source project that will survive in the long term. If it's a hobby project, I will obviously not invest my time in using the software, evangelising it and perhaps even contributing to it. If you do not care whether people use your software (or don't care about maintaining and growing your userbase), what is the point of your labour in developing for it? It'll just become a hobby project for some you ... and at some point some of you will lose interest and development will slow down or end. As a user, that's not in my best interest. Right?

Now, I am not saying you guys don't care about your userbase. Obviously the purpose behind this poll itself is to make sure that you don't piss off a lot of your existing userbase. And I appreciate that the PM team cares about that. Sure, I like your software and I'd love for you guys to support whatever old hardware I use. But obviously that's an unrealistic expectation too. At some point, you will have to stop supporting the oldest hardware, and risk losing some users. All I am saying is be practical when doing so.

And the way to do that is a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). That's what I did with my previous post. You guys say the advantage of optimising for newer hardware will be a faster software and easier development. I agree. But consider the cons too - you will lose users, it may make Palemoon more power hungry (which means less battery life on laptops) and if you don't optimise right, you may actually make the browser slower.

Now, you are saying "we don't mind losing some users". Ok, do another CBA on that to see if that's realistic and practical. (After all, it is ok to lose some users if a faster browser can attract new users and make development easier).

(P.S: If you think this post is hostile, please remember that communicating by writing is more difficult because the lack of non-verbal cues often result in misinterpretation and misunderstanding. I am offering constructive feedback and not attacking anyone here.)

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 37665
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2024-04-03, 19:21

I think you're completely missing the mark here. We've done this for about 15 years now. It's not a hobby and even asking that question just displays you're apparently not aware of our history, our vision, our goals and our M.O.
Now that's fine, of course, but you may want to consider it before offering advice and trying to educate on cost-benefit or consulting on how I'm supposed to approach this. I'm way ahead of you. cost-benefit is something I always do on an on-going basis for most decisions made for the project, especially bigger ones like this. e.g. "losing users"? We'll lose users regardless; the question is rather which users lost will give us a more viable future? The users who may be vocal but actually don't align with our mission, or the users who may not be vocal but who will depart if we underperform consistently? etc. etc. etc.
marigold wrote:
2024-04-03, 16:10
I am offering constructive feedback and not attacking anyone here.
I don't think you are, but to be frank, you're also not helping. 8-)
"A dead end street is a place to turn around and go into a new direction" - Anonymous
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
athenian200
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1612
Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
Location: Georgia

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by athenian200 » 2024-04-03, 19:46

marigold wrote:
2024-04-03, 16:10
Could be. As a user, I only care if this is a "hobby" project or a serious open source project that will survive in the long term. If it's a hobby project, I will obviously not invest my time in using the software, evangelising it and perhaps even contributing to it. If you do not care whether people use your software (or don't care about maintaining and growing your userbase), what is the point of your labour in developing for it? It'll just become a hobby project for some you ... and at some point some of you will lose interest and development will slow down or end. As a user, that's not in my best interest. Right?
I mean, honestly, if I apply the kind of logic you are applying here, I would probably come to the conclusion that Pale Moon stopped being practical in 2020 and we should have called it quits a long time ago.

I don't think Pale Moon would hold up well under a cost-benefit analysis, or any kind of business logic that a potential investor or banker considering a loan might want to apply. The project is mostly driven by principles and vision, not by looking at the numbers and trying to do what it takes to retain users at all costs. Sure, we would rather not alienate everyone, but that's not our primary concern, not like it would be for a business that has to focus on profit and customer base and pleasing investors.

I feel like there is an unfortunate tendency of people to just do everything by the numbers, and dismiss anything that's not appealing to do as a commercial project because it's too niche as little more than "a hobby," and then write it off.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 37665
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2024-04-03, 20:54

athenian200 wrote:
2024-04-03, 19:46
I don't think Pale Moon would hold up well under a cost-benefit analysis
I'm not sure it was strictly meant as a financial term here. I assumed "cost" was the invested time, effort and expertise, not monetary expenses.
Commercially, Pale Moon isn't interesting at all, because we're not turning a tidy YoY profit. But that's not the goal here. This is not a for-profit endeavour (unlike Mozilla). What comes in is used to pay the bills, pay bounties, pay for insurance, legal fees, and more. If there would be a surplus at the ends of all that, it would likely go into giving us some more server headroom, streamline things better, and give some more exposure to the project.
Does that make it a hobby? Absolutely not. This is a full time job and then some for me. My work weeks are fully dedicated to it. We work hard to continue and develop the platform, and is a serious open source project that has survived in the long term and hopefully will survive for a lot longer.
"A dead end street is a place to turn around and go into a new direction" - Anonymous
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
R3n_001
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 67
Joined: 2019-05-25, 20:39

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by R3n_001 » 2024-04-03, 22:13

andyprough wrote:
2024-04-03, 09:02
If you find a way to test Pale Moon's video decoding, AVX2 has been shown to give a huge boost in that area. Here's one example: https://www.phoronix.com/news/AVX2-dav1d-0.9-Benchmarks
I was going to try to find an AV1 benchmark, but I'm not sure if I can. Seems to only be visible with 10 bit videos at hundreds of FPS. Then I realized this was upgrading from 0.8.2 to 0.9, I think it just automatically uses AVX2 if available with the newer version. I doubt browsers would want to ship two encoders, and I doubt they would stick with outdated 0.8.2.
andyprough wrote:
2024-04-03, 09:02
Like @Nuck-TH, I doubt that typical synthetic browser benchmark tests that target chromium engines are going to tell you terribly much about Pale Moon performance.
What started as me testing Firefox only turned into me testing a bunch of browsers. I found with Thorium, 64 bit SSE3 is basically the same as AVX2 in those benchmarks too. Also New Moon with fucking IA-32, not even SSE1, does considerably better than Pale Moon 33.0.2 AVX2 in all three benchmarks.

Considering the above, I wonder if the AVX code is automatic. I'd need to force a scenario where AVX code can't run. The only way I know of that on my current hardware would be to try XP or Vista with respective extended kernel or 7 SP0. That would tell me if it just uses it when available.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 37665
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2024-04-03, 22:24

R3n_001 wrote:
2024-04-03, 22:13
I found with Thorium, 64 bit SSE3 is basically the same as AVX2 in those benchmarks too. Also New Moon with fucking IA-32, not even SSE1, does considerably better than Pale Moon 33.0.2 AVX2 in all three benchmarks.
Maybe you didn't see my previous response... these benchmarks exercise parts of the browser that have hand-crafted optimized parts in them that will exercise the CPU instruction sets even if the global optimizations for compiling are limited. Also, I don't know New Moon's current state but if they are behind in development then their javascript engine won't be as encumbered by additional complexity introduced with added JS features (which slows things down) -- and that would easily explain why it would do better in those synthetic benchmarks. Also, if they use PGO and train on benchmarks, then of course that will pump scores for benchmarking (which isn't real-world use).
"A dead end street is a place to turn around and go into a new direction" - Anonymous
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Massacre
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 151
Joined: 2020-05-01, 13:16

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Massacre » 2024-04-04, 05:40

athenian200 wrote:
2024-04-02, 03:07
marigold wrote:
2024-04-02, 02:28
If you do want to go ahead with it, my suggestion would be to offer 3 separate builds - an "unoptimised" 32-bit and 64-bit build and an "AVX optimised" 64-bit build. But yes, that will increases the work for the maintainers. Or abandon the plan - I honestly don't believe losing a lot of your user base is worth it. Take a hint from Mozilla, Google and Brave who have a much larger userbase and still think twice about resorting to such hardware optimisations
Doing more official builds is not a realistic option.
Why?

User avatar
Massacre
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 151
Joined: 2020-05-01, 13:16

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Massacre » 2024-04-04, 05:44

Moonchild wrote:
2024-04-03, 19:21
I'm way ahead of you. cost-benefit is something I always do on an on-going basis for most decisions made for the project, especially bigger ones like this. e.g. "losing users"? We'll lose users regardless; the question is rather which users lost will give us a more viable future? The users who may be vocal but actually don't align with our mission, or the users who may not be vocal but who will depart if we underperform consistently? etc. etc. etc.
You will definitely lose more casual users of low to middle-end hardware, not specifically very old.

User avatar
suzyne
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 713
Joined: 2023-06-28, 22:43
Location: Australia

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by suzyne » 2024-04-04, 06:09

Massacre wrote:
2024-04-04, 05:44
You will definitely lose more casual users of low to middle-end hardware, not specifically very old.
As casual users with low to middle-end hardware can't they just use the 32 bit version and be satisfied?
Laptop 1: Windows 11 64-bit, i7 @ 2.80GHz, 16GB, NVIDIA GeForce MX450.
Laptop 2: Windows 10 32-bit, Atom Z3735F @ 1.33GHz, 2GB, Intel HD Graphics.
Laptop 3: Linux Mint 20.3 64-bit, i5 @ 2.5GHz, 8GB, Intel HD Graphics 620.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 37665
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2024-04-04, 09:26

Massacre wrote:
2024-04-04, 05:40
Doing more official builds is not a realistic option.
Why?
This has been explained multiple times before. Including in this very thread, if you care to actually read before posting.
"A dead end street is a place to turn around and go into a new direction" - Anonymous
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Massacre
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 151
Joined: 2020-05-01, 13:16

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Massacre » 2024-04-04, 14:17

suzyne wrote:
2024-04-04, 06:09
Massacre wrote:
2024-04-04, 05:44
You will definitely lose more casual users of low to middle-end hardware, not specifically very old.
As casual users with low to middle-end hardware can't they just use the 32 bit version and be satisfied?
If they will not use sites like Youtube, Facebook, VK in Pale Moon - yes.

User avatar
athenian200
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1612
Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
Location: Georgia

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by athenian200 » 2024-04-04, 14:30

Massacre wrote:
2024-04-04, 05:40
Why?
To be blunt? It's mostly because of Linux users demanding that we provide both GTK2 and GTK3 builds of any edition we offer. Any additional builds would require us to go from two Linux builds to four Linux builds. In total, we would go from maintaining 4 official builds of Pale Moon, to 7 official builds. Almost double, with most of the work falling on Travis. I'm sure Travis doesn't want to do four builds again, lightening that load is part of why we dropped the 32-bit Linux versions in the first place. We gave them a choice between 32-bit and GTK2, they chose GTK2.

An additional build isn't really needed for Windows because we already have a 32-bit version on there that would run just fine on most affected machines, though, even if we did provide one, it would only be a third build. On Linux, doing both AVX and SSE2 would be forcing Travis to do four builds.

I'd volunteer to do some additional builds myself to take the pressure off, but I suck at keeping up with the release cycle as it is because of school...

The only other option we really have is to just keep everything the way it is.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind

User avatar
andyprough
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1115
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by andyprough » 2024-04-04, 14:57

athenian200 wrote:
2024-04-04, 14:30
Almost double, with most of the work falling on Travis. I'm sure Travis doesn't want to do four builds again, lightening that load is part of why we dropped the 32-bit Linux versions in the first place. We gave them a choice between 32-bit and GTK2, they chose GTK2. ...

On Linux, doing both AVX and SSE2 would be forcing Travis to do four builds.

I'd volunteer to do some additional builds myself to take the pressure off, but I suck at keeping up with the release cycle as it is because of school...

The only other option we really have is to just keep everything the way it is.
I've done official kernel builds for distros in the past, I could easily set up a vm with whatever build environment is preferred and help out with some GNU/Linux builds. I'm sure there are others here that have the time and experience like me to pitch in. If you just want more builds and need someone to help, just say the word. Ultimately, we could churn out lots of additional GNU/Linux builds if you wanted, it wouldn't really be a problem. I think my current machine builds Pale Moon in about 13 minutes without any hard effort. I thought the bigger problem that MC pointed out awhile ago had to do with the infrastructure to host all those different downloads - that's a whole different problem.

User avatar
trava90
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1764
Joined: 2013-05-20, 18:19
Location: Somewhere in Sector 001

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by trava90 » 2024-04-04, 15:29

The problem with Linux is that it's such a wild west with desktop environments, GTK versions, lib versions in use (FFmpeg, Glib, etc. etc.), not to mention distro-specific quirks and philosophies and the plethora of hardware that Linux is used on. For every "common" distro configuration and hardware combination, there's someone else using a system completely different and tailored to their specific needs/wants. And while I know that the customizability and range of hardware Linux can be used on is often viewed as a strength, from a developer/software release perspective it is a nightmare because most people want (and often demand) the software they use to fit into their tailor-made distro/philosophy and configuration of choice.

athenian200 is right - I don't particularly want to go back to doing 4 builds again if it can be helped. It would literally double the amount of time I spend on release engineering - I have to build, sign, test, and upload every configuration for every release (sometimes even multiple times if a last-minute issue is found). It would be impossible to produce Linux builds for every configuration out there. And even if it were, how would we be able to test them all? Then we'd have people complaining about how bad Pale Moon on Linux is because we couldn't test for their specific setup when it really doesn't have anything to do with Pale Moon at all. Not to mention the amount of confusion that we would introduce to the user ("Wow there's a lot of options on the download page! Which one should I use?") and complexity it would require on our infrastructure for updates and such.

The line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere and for us that line is to keep all the mainline builds for all supported operating systems as consistent as possible. Even if that means our mainline builds may not work for some people due to their software choices or hardware they use. And while I do sympathize with those using Linux because they do have older hardware (for the record even I am not immune to this change as I do have an older system that sees near-daily use that will not be able to run the mainline build once we switch to AVX) and realize that while many distros out there specifically target older hardware, that does not mean that all software built for Linux must target the same hardware. As has been stated many times, Pale Moon's goal is not and has never been to target older or low-powered hardware. Doesn't matter if that is the hardware your OS may target.

Basically, I think this can all be summed up with the quote from Moonchild's signature - "Linux makes everything difficult."

User avatar
marigold
Moonbather
Moonbather
Posts: 53
Joined: 2023-05-26, 17:45

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by marigold » 2024-04-04, 15:34

suzyne wrote:
2024-04-04, 06:09
As casual users with low to middle-end hardware can't they just use the 32 bit version and be satisfied?
Just a heads-up - macOS no longer supports and runs 32-bit apps. So you may end up alienating some macOS users too if the 64-bit hardware optimised version doesn't work for some of them.

User avatar
Massacre
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 151
Joined: 2020-05-01, 13:16

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by Massacre » 2024-04-04, 15:41

athenian200 wrote:
2024-04-04, 14:30
An additional build isn't really needed for Windows because we already have a 32-bit version on there that would run just fine on most affected machines
This could be true if AVX equals supporting >4GB RAM (or Pale Moon 32-bit will never exhaust its address space no matter which site is opened).
The only other option we really have is to just keep everything the way it is.
Well, if there is absolutely no resources, I'd leave AVX to unofficial builder for now.

User avatar
athenian200
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1612
Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
Location: Georgia

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by athenian200 » 2024-04-04, 16:45

marigold wrote:
2024-04-04, 15:34
Just a heads-up - macOS no longer supports and runs 32-bit apps. So you may end up alienating some macOS users too if the 64-bit hardware optimised version doesn't work for some of them.
Well, I think we can give dbsoft some leeway to make some exceptions for Mac, if there wind up being a lot of complaints on that platform. Do a lot of Mac users stick with old hardware, I'm not very familiar with that ecosystem? I'm already not planning to do AVX on illumos and Solaris due to most illumos users being on older hardware. My builds are just hosted on an FTP server, don't auto-update, aren't always updated every release, and are technically not 100% official the way Travis's builds are, and thus don't have a large impact on Pale Moon's image... they're a bit more like the Nuck-TH builds, but to support an alternate OS rather than an alternate instruction set.

Linux and Windows are our flagship official builds and absolutely have to be kept in sync. But I think when it comes to Mac, it's up to the Mac maintainer whether he decides to do an additional SSE2 Mac build on his own. Since Mac uses Cocoa and not GTK, that may be a burden the Mac maintainer is willing to accept, as it only requires him to do one additional build. His call, I think.

EDIT: I've done some quick research here, in case it helps dbsoft make a decision...

Apple only started using Intel for Mac in 2006 (used PPC beforehand), which means effectively it started with Core 2 Duo processors (except for a very early 32-bit only Core Solo model). As far as I can tell, they stuck with Core 2 Duo processors for as long as they could, and then skipped straight to Sandy Bridge. I checked Mac Mini and MacBook Air to see exactly what CPUs they shipped with, and all of them are Core i3 at bare minimum... they never cheaped out and went with a Pentium or Celeron-class processor, and I have to give Apple kudos for that even if I don't like a lot of things about them. So the only Intel Macs that would be affected by this would be running some variation on Core 2 Duo... all Core i3/i5 Macs should have AVX, and even the oldest ones should support x86-64-v2, because Mac simply wasn't using Intel chips prior to SSE4.2 being a thing. However, it's also worth bearing in mind that anyone on an Intel Mac would not be able to upgrade easily, because all of Apple's new Macs are ARM-based, meaning they would have to move to a new architecture if they want the latest Mac. And AVX isn't even an issue on ARM or PPC, that's purely an Intel thing.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind

User avatar
suzyne
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 713
Joined: 2023-06-28, 22:43
Location: Australia

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by suzyne » 2024-04-04, 20:29

marigold wrote:
2024-04-04, 15:34
suzyne wrote:
2024-04-04, 06:09
As casual users with low to middle-end hardware can't they just use the 32 bit version and be satisfied?
Just a heads-up - macOS no longer supports and runs 32-bit apps. So you may end up alienating some macOS users too if the 64-bit hardware optimised version doesn't work for some of them.
Isn't the Mac version of Pale Moon outside of the official builds?

Would that team be allowed to omit the AVX/AVX2 requirement from their version of the browser, or choose to do an extra build if they want?
Laptop 1: Windows 11 64-bit, i7 @ 2.80GHz, 16GB, NVIDIA GeForce MX450.
Laptop 2: Windows 10 32-bit, Atom Z3735F @ 1.33GHz, 2GB, Intel HD Graphics.
Laptop 3: Linux Mint 20.3 64-bit, i5 @ 2.5GHz, 8GB, Intel HD Graphics 620.

User avatar
suzyne
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 713
Joined: 2023-06-28, 22:43
Location: Australia

Re: Defaulting to AVX for 64-bit architectures?

Unread post by suzyne » 2024-04-04, 20:50

Massacre wrote:
2024-04-04, 15:41
athenian200 wrote:
2024-04-04, 14:30
An additional build isn't really needed for Windows because we already have a 32-bit version on there that would run just fine on most affected machines
This could be true if AVX equals supporting >4GB RAM (or Pale Moon 32-bit will never exhaust its address space no matter which site is opened).
About the problem of 32 bits and access to less memory, for Pale Moon users who only have older or limited processing power available, I think they could try to be more practical with their tab management. With websites getting more and more complex, expecting to keep open that same number of tabs as was once possible may not be viable anymore.

People can mention outlier websites that consume a ridiculous amount of memory, but in my use, it is actually very challenging to hit the memory limit of the 32 bit version of Pale Moon.
Laptop 1: Windows 11 64-bit, i7 @ 2.80GHz, 16GB, NVIDIA GeForce MX450.
Laptop 2: Windows 10 32-bit, Atom Z3735F @ 1.33GHz, 2GB, Intel HD Graphics.
Laptop 3: Linux Mint 20.3 64-bit, i5 @ 2.5GHz, 8GB, Intel HD Graphics 620.