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.Octopuss wrote: ↑2018-09-19, 11:37Moonchild, 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?
XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
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: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup..... 
Pale moon 29.4.1
Pale moon 29.4.1
-
uss2048
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
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.
To the Pale Moon development team and community: keep up the good work. Many thanks.
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
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.
Nichi nichi kore ko jitsu = Every day is a good day.
-
John connor
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
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.
-
John connor
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
Nigaikaze wrote: ↑2019-05-13, 02:42Windows 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.
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.
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
26.5 AFAIK
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13702
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13702
Win10home(1709), PM33.0.0-portable as of Feb 1, '24
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
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.
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.
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup.....
Pale moon 29.4.1
Pale moon 29.4.1
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
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.
"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
-
John connor
Re: XUL update made Pale Moon 28 at least 20% slower
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.
Thanks!