How is Basilisk using less memory than Pale Moon?

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: Basilisk-Dev

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 700
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

How is Basilisk using less memory than Pale Moon?

Unread post by andyprough » 2023-02-22, 18:40

I assumed Pale Moon would use less memory, but so far in my single day of testing I'm finding that Basilisk is using noticeably less. Is there a simple explanation for why that would be?

Thanks in advance. This is a very nice browser, great work.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: How is Basilisk using less memory than Pale Moon?

Unread post by moonbat » 2023-02-22, 23:03

Are you comparing fresh, out of the box unaltered versions of both, else the comparison doesn't make sense.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 700
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: How is Basilisk using less memory than Pale Moon?

Unread post by andyprough » 2023-02-22, 23:07

moonbat wrote:
2023-02-22, 23:03
Are you comparing fresh, out of the box unaltered versions of both, else the comparison doesn't make sense.
Yes I am. Well, at least it's a fresh clean Pale Moon profile. Probably I need to back up the entire .moonchild productions folder and download an all new Pale Moon tarball and start over.

User avatar
moonbat
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4942
Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Contact:

Re: How is Basilisk using less memory than Pale Moon?

Unread post by moonbat » 2023-02-22, 23:10

No..just create a fresh profile on each browser, don't install any addons or change any settings, and then compare how they load the same websites or how much memory they consume over time.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."

Image
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 700
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: How is Basilisk using less memory than Pale Moon?

Unread post by andyprough » 2023-02-22, 23:20

moonbat wrote:
2023-02-22, 23:10
No..just create a fresh profile on each browser, don't install any addons or change any settings, and then compare how they load the same websites or how much memory they consume over time.
Yes, that's what I've done, and Basilisk is running 30mb to 80mb less memory usage on every site so far. I was just wondering what's the difference between them that might effect memory, as I know almost nothing about Basilisk. Maybe it's quite sensible that it uses less memory.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: How is Basilisk using less memory than Pale Moon?

Unread post by Moonchild » 2023-02-23, 00:11

Keep in mind that Pale Moon isn't necessarily configured for "minimal memory" in all respects. In fact, some caches and buffers are larger than what Firefox used as defaults, so that would likely influence this. In addition, a different UI/theme will also use different amounts of resources.
"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

Locked