One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Pale06 · Post by **Pale06** » 2018-08-30, 02:30

Maybe this is related ?
Since a few weeks my online banking site doesn't work properly anymore.
the sign on screen gets partially covered by a new window.
The site is : https://ob.cua.com.au/ib/dd76da88930f78 ... uth.action
Contacted the bank, but they only advised to delete cookies and cache or to try another browser ! I've been using PM for over a year now, without ANY problems at all. I' ve tried a few versions of PM 25.8.1 and a few flavours of PM27. 97% of all other sites work perfectly and that particular site works on Wndows Chrome but not on Puppylinux 605.

Pallid Planetoid · Post by **Pallid Planetoid** » 2018-08-30, 14:27

Pale06 wrote:... my online banking site doesn't work properly anymore.
the sign on screen gets partially covered by a new window.
The site is : https://ob.cua.com.au/ib/dd76da88930f78 ... uth.action
Contacted the bank...

The log-in page for this Bank appears to render properly on PM 28.0.0.1 using Win7 OS (nothing that I can see is "partially covered" in my case):

In the event this might help -- you could try the Dismiss The Overlay extension to see if the "new window" that is "partially" covering the page is a sketchy (poorly designed) overlay that can be closed with this add-on.

Addendum: Another thing you could try is to clear the cookies for this website to see if this helps:

After doing the above --- Click on Security/View Cookies button to do this (only cookies for this site should be displayed):

: Cookies for this bank website can now be cleared.

After clearing cookies for this bank website test the log-in to see if this solved your issue.

Post by **New Tobin Paradigm** » 2018-08-31, 08:58

Please try the newly released Pale Moon 28.0.1 and report back.

Pale06 · Post by **Pale06** » 2018-09-01, 04:59

Thanks very much for that. I installed 28.0.1 and all is well.

therube · Post by **therube** » 2018-09-01, 12:06

https://99designs.com/blog/trends/web-d ... ends-2018/

While I did not have issues with that page, I'll note that the one .gif - alone, is rather expensive, CPU-wise, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/wp-con ... =max&w=930.

https://www.ventusky.com/39.543;-77.039

And then ventusky was mentioned. (Never heard of or been there before.) That page EATS RAM.
On browser start, from Session Restore, with whatever it is, I'm using ~400 MB of RAM, rather reasonable.
I then click the ventusky tab, & RAM immediately jumps to ...

Ha! That's wrong!
It is 99designs!

Once I click the 99designs tab, PM memory usage shoots up to 2 GB.
And that is with JavaScript blocked.
Enable JavaScript, scroll from top to bottom, then back up again, & memory usage is 4 GB.

And that said, & while I'd consider 4 GB to be huge, browser operation doesn't seem to be impacted.
(That is a really good test page, IMO. And I really should test in a new Profile too...)

And I really should test in a new Profile too...

4.5 GB of RAM.

An "unscientific" FF 61 is using 2 GB of RAM.
("Unscientific". Existing Profile, windows, tabs extensions... A bit better, restart in Safe Mode, but still "only" using 2 GB of RAM.)

I don't see an issue from a usability perspective.
And if you don't consider 4 GB of RAM to be outrageous, then no issue there either.
(I wonder how many more pages 99designs has designed & how many of those I can open before...)
Though memory usage seems way out of wack compared to other browsers I've looked at.

An "unscientific" SeaMonkey 2.49.5 is using 1.5 GB of RAM.
("Unscientific". Existing Profile, windows, tabs extensions... Less windows tabs then FF 61, but no extensions. Actually expected SM to do poorly here, so actually surprised. Now I'll have to look at SeaMonkey 2.53...)

SeaMonkey 2.53, new Profile, 1.5 GB of RAM.

(Even though, I shouldn't: Win7 x64, PM 28.0.1 x64, i5-3570k, 16 GB, Intel HD4000. All browsers were x64.)

tenseys · Post by **tenseys** » 2018-09-01, 13:36

therube wrote:https://99designs.com/blog/trends/web-d ... ends-2018/

While I did not have issues with that page, I'll note that the one .gif - alone, is rather expensive, CPU-wise, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/wp-con ... =max&w=930.....

https://www.ventusky.com/39.543;-77.039

And then ventusky was mentioned. (Never heard of or been there before.) That page EATS RAM.
On browser start, from Session Restore, with whatever it is, I'm using ~400 MB of RAM, rather reasonable.
I then click the ventusky tab, & RAM immediately jumps to ...

Ha! That's wrong!
It is 99designs!

Once I click the 99designs tab, PM memory usage shoots up to 2 GB.
And that is with JavaScript blocked.
Enable JavaScript, scroll from top to bottom, then back up again, & memory usage is 4 GB.....

And that said, & while I'd consider 4 GB to be huge, browser operation doesn't seem to be impacted.
(That is a really good test page, IMO. And I really should test in a new Profile too...)

(Even though, I shouldn't: Win7 x64, PM 28.0.1 x64, i5-3570k, 16 GB, Intel HD4000. All browsers were x64.)

I find the above a little hard to follow but this is what I see using Task manager:

1). When I start PM 28.0.1 and it goes to my homepage (protopage) after about 10 seconds my PM is using CPU = 0.9%, Memory = 195 MB.

2). I then go to PM forum via bookmark (PM CPU = 0%, Memory 190 MB), and open in new tab https://99designs.com/blog/trends/web-d ... ends-2018/.
PM is using CPU = 0 % , Memory = 245 MB.

3). I then open https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/wp-con ... =max&w=930 in new tab, and now PM CPU = 6%, Memory = 305 MB.

4). I then open this (Ventusky): https://www.ventusky.com/39.543;-77.039 in new tab and PM CPU = 13%, Memory = 413 MB

If I keep all tabs open for a bit, 10 minutes or so, and visit each one there is not much change... I never see Memory above 420 MB.

This is with my normal profile. New profile is similar.

Added: FF61 is similar, it uses more CPU and Memory in general but nothing crazy.

therube · Post by **therube** » 2018-09-01, 15:49

FF61.0.2
SM 2.49.5
SM 2.53
WF 6.22
PM 28.0.1

All the browsers, x64, new Profiles, first startup, opening whatever page(s) they open to.
(Nothing more.)

Mem usage, new Profile, & open browser to whatever it opens to.
(And I forgot to actually open PM, at that point

.)

Mem usage, pasting & opening https://99designs.com/blog/trends/web-d ... ends-2018/.
(Nothing more, paste & load the page.)

Mem usage, after having scrolled down, then back up 2x.
(During the initial scroll down, a "flyover" popups up, which I dismiss.)

(Yes, I should have resized the Mem shots & captured them all in one.)

Maybe, in this case, Portable is affecting things? I did not test otherwise.

Ventusky, was a red-herring.
Oh, & I changed some of the names, to protect the innocent (& the fishies).

tenseys · Post by **tenseys** » 2018-09-01, 17:45

Pale moon portable at least for me uses little memory on that website just like the desktop version.

tenseys · Post by **tenseys** » 2018-09-01, 17:59

Whoops... yes, after scrolling up and down twice and closing the popup, now I'm seeing high memory usage on regular PM 28.0.1

If I close PM, open and go back a second time, just scrolling to the bottom of that page sets it off - goes up as high or higher than 4GB, cpu and disk gets excited too. Not doing that again.

Other browsers behave normally.

Post by **satrow** » 2018-09-01, 18:21

Main culprits:
│ │ │ ├──1,454.35 MB (24.38%) ++ image(930x929, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ceden.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)
│ │ │ ├────625.91 MB (10.49%) ++ image(900x478, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/femmefatale.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)
│ │ │ ├────617.66 MB (10.35%) ++ image(900x453, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DesignBetter-2.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)
│ │ │ ├────382.69 MB (06.42%) ++ image(900x471, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/zendesk-2.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)
│ │ │ ├────334.98 MB (05.62%) ++ image(900x450, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/inturn.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)
│ │ │ ├────290.06 MB (04.86%) ++ image(900x471, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/heco.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)
│ │ │ ├────229.17 MB (03.84%) ++ image(900x473, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/digitalasset.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)
│ │ │ ├────202.51 MB (03.40%) ++ image(900x447, https://99designs-blog.imgix.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/heystack.gif?auto=format&q=60&fit=max&w=930)

Post by **Moonchild** » 2018-09-01, 21:17

Using an animated gif that way is always going to eat memory. It's large-size, high framerate, and encoded it's 24MB - the browser will have to decode all frames in memory to play it properly so will use the uncompressed frame size for each frame. Not doing that would mean having to decode each frame as it's played with is not efficient.

tenseys · Post by **tenseys** » 2018-09-01, 22:42

tenseys wrote:Other browsers behave normally.

Actually, FF and Edge also get a little crazy too with the memory hitting 1.5GB ish if you scroll down and stop at points.

Cutting edge web design....

Post by **Moonchild** » 2018-09-02, 05:35

tenseys wrote:Cutting edge web design....

Yeah using tech from 1997 in a way it was never designed for. Very cutting edge! Definitely will give you paper cuts

Pale Moon forum

One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear Topic is solved

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear

Re: One particular site throws PM 28 on its ear