AVX check before start

[Pentium4User]

Hello!

As we have already seen some threads about users without AVX capable processors failing to start PM, would it be a big problem to test AVX availability before starting PM and if it is not available, print an error message?

--
kind regards
Marco

[Moonchild]

This isn't possible because the executable is compiled against AVX instructions, and will require AVX to start up. Any check for AVX would have to occur before the AVX executable is started. Obviously that isn't possible.

I've already gone out of my way to ensure people aren't served a version that can't run through the updater. There's no way we can check all other ways people decide to install and run Pale Moon. We just need to keep informing people who decide not to read anything before they install software, or decide to run the risk of incompatibilities through 3rd party software updaters.

As an aside, it is particular that more than a few of the people complaining about it seem to also not read forum rules regarding user names and (temporary) e-mails.

[moonbat]

Use a tool like CPU-X (or its Windows equivalent) for detailed CPU info, including supported instruction sets.

CPU info Ryzen 7.png

[andyprough]

Use a tool like CPU-X (or its Windows equivalent) for detailed CPU info, including supported instruction sets.

The 'lscpu' command will tell you a lot about your cpu also.

A terminal command like

Code: Select all

lscpu | grep avx

will highlight if your cpu has any avx or avx2 flags.

For example, here's avx and avx2 highlighted:

2024-09-08_00-11.jpg

[suzyne]

I use Speccy that I downloaded from PortableApps.com to get this type of information (and a huge amount of other details) for my Windows laptops.

[Pentium4User]

The idea behind that was to provide a mechanism to notify users that don't know about the AVX topic.
AS MC turned out, this would be hard to implement.

Just because I am curious:
Wouldn't it be possible to attach assembler code to the executable that doesn't use AVX instructions that checks for the capabilities?
I know this won't be implemented, but technically should be possible.

[Moonchild]

It's technically possible to do so, but would require tailor-crafted solutions for each O.S. (Windows PE and POSIX/ELF are totally different beasts. I don't even know what Mac or BSDs would do...), would need some less portable executable code to "glue on" the check after compilation, and in general is a can of worms that will very likely also make every AV suite triggered from here to the end of the universe.

[RealityRipple]

I think the best you can hope to do is make the Windows installer do the checking, as SSE2 in bug #1271759. And of course, that doesn't help anyone on the other OSs.

[Lucio Chiappetti]

I remember when I long long ago first installed Pale Moon on Linux (I always installed from tarball ... now I use the updater) there was a page on system requirements, which I checked.
I searched for it now and found, perhaps somehow hidden, this https://www.palemoon.org/systemrequirements.shtml.
Could the page be given more emphasis so that a downloader is ... strongly pushed to read it ?
And also adding some hints how to check critical requirements ?

This of course won't protect against sloppy users, or those who download from other sitrs/repos.

[Moonchild]

It's not hidden at all; not sure what you're talking about.
It's linked to from the home page and download page in prominent locations.

[vannilla]

I think the best you can hope to do is make the Windows installer do the checking, as SSE2 in bug #1271759. And of course, that doesn't help anyone on the other OSs.

Package managers usually have some "preinst" hook where they can do some stuff like modifying the filesystem.
It should be possible to run something like lscpu there and have the manager error out, maybe displaying a message to let users know about alternative builds for their processor. It's a little bit fragile, but it can work.
The tarball can't do this since it would require running a command during unpacking, which is obviously impossible.

[Lucio Chiappetti]

It's not hidden at all; not sure what you're talking about.
It's linked to from the home page and download page in prominent locations.

I meant it is not highlighted in any particular way (compare the "download now" button) with respect to normal text and links. I remembered such a page existed, but I did not re-discover it at first glance (actually, in the home page only after you mentioned it). Maybe if it were inverse video red blinking more people will read it (and not complain on the forum later). Or if users are forced to pass through the page and click "OK I've read it" before downloading.
Or maybe that will have effect only on 5% of "lusers" and is not worth the change.

Edit: Read your reply below, and of course you are master and commander

[Moonchild]

It's listed in the release notes, and explicitly mentioned in the news blurb on on the home page too that system requirements changed. System requirements are linked on the home page and on the download page at the very top, and the change was announced several times through all channels before release.
I'm sorry but I can't fix people skipping all that, and I won't make a scary button or graphic because then we'd get all the hordes of people on non-ancient systems who panic.
On top, people on sufficiently old machines are also much more likely to run Win 32-bit which isn't impacted.

I'm not going to change it for the small handful of people who wouldn't read anyway. If it was a big issue, the forum would have exploded last month.