Default browser

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Barnabyh wrote:

I would definitely vote for Seamonkey. It uses less resources than running a browser and email separately and I like the fact that it appears both modern enough and yet still traditional due to coming as a suite. It’s easy to customize and there are a ton of plugins and light themes to make it look more modern, even if not quite as many as FF and not all that have been written for FF are available and working in SM.

Palemoon has always crashed for me here, except in Puppy. For a stand-alone all-purpose browser, hate it or not, I would always suggest Chromium or even Google-Chrome these days, set up with a menu entry for Private Browsing Mode to launch directly.

I’ve always been a fan of Seamonkey, so I like the idea, too, but there may be other considerations that take priority, and therefore I’m happy to defer to what works best for the development team and their release priorities. We definitely have Seamonkey, Firefox, and many other Web browsers available in the Debian repositories, so this should not become a large issue; hopefully we can satisfy those who need a small system image and ease of use as some of our priorities; again, that’s a leadership choice, not mine. (always interested in what’s best for the overall effort)

--
Brian Masinick

[Member TonyVanDam]

Helpful

Up

0

::

anticapitalista wrote:

For future antiX releases, I’m thinking of changing the default browser.

For the last 2 releases, the default has been firefox-esr.

It has morphed into a huge RAM hog and I am not happy with this development.
For example, as I type it is using close to 700MB RAM out of a total of c800!!

We need a ‘modern’ GUI browser so don’t suggest elinks, dillo etc.

I’m thinking of palemoon or seamonkey.
Both are using about the same in terms of RAM usage c 220MB

Please post your thoughts

1. I would not recommend Palemoon because it will be replace by Basilisk. It will basically be a fork of Firefox 4-28 being replace with a fork of Firefox 29-56. But at least Palemoon has its own add-ons and it is no longer relying on abandoned Firefox add-ons.

2. Seamonkey is an interesting option since it is a web broswer & e-mail client all in one. But I cannot recommend it neither because it is still using Firefox 29-56 era add-ons that are no longer supported.

3. Qupzilla is a little buggy and dated. I cannot comment on Falkon until it becomes available for Debian and/or antiX repos.

With all of that said, the only real options for modern-day web browsers are Firefox Quantum [which is a lot faster than Firefox 29-56 and use much less CPU] & Chromium. Brave is a honorable mention, except some people may not like the fact that Brave takes up a little over 400 MB of disk drive space.

In terms of speed, Firefox Quantum & Chromium are even now. But those results may vary on your own desktop & laptop.

[Member TonyVanDam]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I forgot to mention that Firefox Quantum requires pulseaudio for audio. For those that do not want pulseaudio installed at all, there is apulse available in Debian repos.

[Member mroot]

Helpful

Up

0

::

TonyVanDam-

what are your hardware specs?

cpu=?

ram=?

[Member PPC]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I’ve been trying Firefox Quantum with a few personalisations, that could be included by default in a Firefox (Quantum) browser included in a future antiX version. And yes, I had to install “pulse audio” to have sound working, wich I didn’t like…
The changes I made, at least according to my limited experience using the browser this way, make FF quantum memory footprint about the same as FF ESR for most of my browsing… This could be a way to, if the developers want to stick with FF in future releases…

Just in case the changes I made to FF are of interest to anyone else…

Firefox quantum personalisations for use on low ram computers (mine has 1 gig of RAM):
WARNING: I changed this settings, mostly according to Mozilla official webpages (, if you want to change the default settings do so knowing you may run into trouble (also: write down the default values just in case you need to undo the changes):

In FF’s adress bar enter “about:config”, and if a warning shows up, click trough it…
– set “browser.cache.memory.max_entry_size” to about half the default size, in my case “2500”
– set “browser.sessionhistory.max_entries” to “5” (the default is “50”)
– set “browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers” to “1” (I belive the default is “-1”, automatic management)
– close all instances of FF running and reopen FF and check the Ram on Conky…

[Forum Admin rokytnji]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Good to know PPC. Thanks. Whatever default browser comes on AntiX. With me. I may stick with it or not. Especially on my test boxes like single core atom netbooks, old panasonic cf-48, Ibm T23 laptop.

Ram is not the issue for me on the above gear I listed. CPU capabilities are. T23 is non sse2 p3. Panasonic is 2004 with a M cpu. Atoms are single core n270. Modern browsers are leaving these in the dust. Youtube? Streamlight bails me out on the Atoms and Panasonic.

The IBM T23 just tears the video in MPV and the cpu is maxxed to T. Unless I use Dillo to get video url and then try Streamlight. CPU is my limitations.
Not ram.

Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.

Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

[Member azrielle]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I vote for either Pale Moon, Mozilla Lite (what is packaged with Puppy LxPupSc), or Otter Browser. All are fairly low resource requiring, and therefore more in keeping with AntiX’ mission of rendering older computers functional again. As opposed to ANY current Firefox release.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by azrielle.

Lenovo T430 i5/3220M 8GB 14.1" MX17.1/AntiX 17.1 Fluxbox/Win7SP1 180GB SSD+128GB mSATA
Lenovo X230 i7/3520M 12GB 12.5" MX17.1/Win7SP1 500GB SSD
Lenovo X131e i3/3227u 8GB 11.6" MX17.1/AntiX 17.1 Fluxbox/Win7SP1 500GB SSD

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I’m running antiX with the following configuration today:

$ inxi -Fxz
System:
Host: antix-k Kernel: 4.15.9-antix.1-686-smp-pae i686 bits: 32 compiler: gcc
v: 6.3.0 Desktop: IceWM 1.4.2
Distro: antiX-17.1_386-base Heather Heyer 17 March 2018
Machine:
Type: Portable System: Dell product: Latitude D610 v: N/A serial: <filter>
Mobo: Dell model: 0D4571 serial: <filter> BIOS: Dell v: A03 date: 03/02/2005
Battery:
ID-1: BAT0 charge: N/A condition: N/A/53.3 Wh model: Sony DELL C26035
status: Charging
CPU:
Topology: Single Core model: Intel Pentium M bits: 32 type: MCP arch: Dothan rev: 8
L2 cache: 2048 KiB
flags: nx pae sse sse2 bogomips: 2128
Speed: 1067 MHz min/max: 800/1600 MHz Core speed (MHz): 1: 1067
Graphics:
Card-1: Intel Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics driver: i915 v: kernel
bus ID: 00:02.0
Display: server: X.Org 1.19.2 driver: intel unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,vesa
resolution: 1024×768~60Hz
OpenGL: renderer: Mesa DRI Intel 915GM x86/MMX/SSE2 v: 2.1 Mesa 13.0.6
direct render: Yes
Audio:
Card-1: Intel 82801FB/FBM/FR/FW/FRW AC97 Audio driver: snd_intel8x0 v: kernel
bus ID: 00:1e.2
Sound Server: ALSA v: k4.15.9-antix.1-686-smp-pae
Network:
Card-1: Broadcom Limited NetXtreme BCM5751 Gigabit Ethernet PCI Express driver: tg3
v: 3.137 port: N/A bus ID: 02:00.0
IF: eth0 state: down mac: <filter>
Card-2: Intel PRO/Wireless 2200BG [Calexico2] Network Connection driver: ipw2200
v: 1.2.2kmprq bus ID: 03:03.0
IF: eth1 state: up mac: <filter>
Drives:
HDD Total Size: 37.26 GiB used: 4.96 GiB (13.3%)
ID-1: /dev/sda vendor: Fujitsu model: MHV2040AH size: 37.26 GiB
Partition:
ID-1: / size: 7.81 GiB used: 4.96 GiB (63.5%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sda2
ID-2: swap-1 size: 2.00 GiB used: 1.3 MiB (0.1%) fs: swap dev: /dev/sda3
Sensors:
System Temperatures: cpu: 62.0 C mobo: N/A
Fan Speeds (RPM): cpu: 3152
Info:
Processes: 103 Uptime: 30m Memory: 487.4 MiB used: 275.2 MiB (56.5%) Init: SysVinit
runlevel: 5 Compilers: gcc: 6.3.0 Shell: bash v: 4.4.12 inxi: 3.0.10
masinick@antix-k:~
$

Firefox ESR worked OK, but definitely consumed a lot of CPU and memory resources on this system – an “oldie” that fits right into the kinds of systems we “specialize in”.

With the current Firefox release – Firefox 61.0, resource usage is still pretty high, around 202MB resident memory when 61 is running, though the system “runs” OK.

I’ll update this note a few times with stats from other browser releases.

We actually appear to be using somewhat fewer resources with Firefox ESR: around 161 MB resident memory usage, but momentary CPU usage does appear to be spiking closer to the 90-95% range for brief moments with this browser, and only a terminal running to monitor.

More to come…

Seamonkey definitely seems to be a bit easier on antiX than either the ESR or current releases of Firefox. A lot of these details can vary by the moment, but for some snapshot figures, CPU usage with Seamonkey was hovering around 50% when active, and memory usage, though not “low”, was somewhat contained, holding under 200 MB. I saw some figures between 170 MB and 180 MB when the browser first started using this page.

Palemoon and Seamonkey both seem to start up with moderate resource usage. I didn’t check Seamonkey quite as quickly as Palemoon. For Palemoon, it was consuming moderate CPU and memory, under 50% CPU and under 170 MB until entering this forum and updating this note, at which time the observed memory usage jumped. I still noticed memory usage not much over 180 MB – again difficult to isolate without a tool that collects ongoing stats, but CPU also remained in check. I saw it over 70% but not much higher, except for very brief spikes.

Both Palemoon and Seamonkey easily consume fewer resources (on average in this admittedly limited test sample).

Just got back in here with Flashpeak Slimjet. It was difficult to tell what was going on because the system became fairly unresponsive on this OLD hardware with this browser. On my Dell Inspiron 5558 – hardly a NEW laptop, but well over a decade NEWER than this wonderful, but very aged old Dell Latitude D610, Flashpeak Slimjet performs very well. On the D610, it seems to overwhelm the system for a few moments, making everything slow and unresponsive. I couldn’t find any particular instance or thread of Slimjet consuming much over 120 MB, but this browser is multi-threaded. I did (when I was able to switch display windows quickly enough), able to find a few instances of this configuration pegging the CPU usage). Due to unresponsiveness, I was unable to see CPU usage over 95%, nor high memory or swap usage, but I suspect it was there. Can’t recommend Slimjet for old systems, though I like it on newer hardware. I suspect other Chrome-based solutions to cause similar issues under very heavy loads, but good performance if isolated and a lot of memory is available.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Brian Masinick.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Brian Masinick.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Brian Masinick.

--
Brian Masinick

[Member azrielle]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Any possibility of getting the Otter Browser recently introduced into the MX Test Repo (0.9.99 RC9) into the AntiX repo?

Lenovo T430 i5/3220M 8GB 14.1" MX17.1/AntiX 17.1 Fluxbox/Win7SP1 180GB SSD+128GB mSATA
Lenovo X230 i7/3520M 12GB 12.5" MX17.1/Win7SP1 500GB SSD
Lenovo X131e i3/3227u 8GB 11.6" MX17.1/AntiX 17.1 Fluxbox/Win7SP1 500GB SSD

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

azrielle wrote:

Any possibility of getting the Otter Browser recently introduced into the MX Test Repo (0.9.99 RC9) into the AntiX repo?

Shall I wait until it is released as final rather than uploading a release candidate version?

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member cyrilus31]

Helpful

Up

0

::

A new RC has been released yesterday. Maybe should you wait a little.
I can’t say I’m happy with Otter. Very fast, low footprint but tends to crash from time to time (MX or Windows, on many computers and I don’t know why)

[Member 0day]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Slimjet?

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I’ve no idea if it’s any good but, maybe somebody wanna give it a try …

https://minbrowser.github.io/min/

[Member partsman]

Helpful

Up

0

::

@ miss Tell
Hey thanks ! I agree it may not be the safest browser out there !
But wow ! its fast ! And nice for general browsing !
I will be using it here and there !
Thanks for the info ! 🙂

Anyone can build a fast processor. The trick is to build a fast system. (Seymour Cray)

[Member DaveW]

Helpful

Up

0

::

For what it’s worth, I’m running Antix 17 on an Asus eeepc900.
FireFox-ESR (version 60) runs reasonably well, but is slow, and keeps the cpu at full tilt.

I’ve experimented with SeaMonkey, Palemoon, and WaterFox. They all use less resources than FireFox.

Mostly, I have been using the Epiphany (aka, Web) Browser.
This has a very simple and intuitive GUI. (To me, SeaMonkey was much too cluttered.)
It is quite fast, and easy on resources. However, I have not done any definitive testing.

I have only experienced two issues with the Epiphany Browser, both related to printing.
1. Printing preferences are not remembered. I’m sure there is a config file somewhere. But, as is, it defaults 100% scale and A4 paper size. I have to enter the scale and US Letter on every print job. (FireFox seems to remember the last printing setup.)
2. When printing postage (as an ebay seller), domestic postage printed fine, but it refused to print international postage, saying that I needed to install Adobe PDF Reader. So, I moved over to FireFox, and it did the job. (No doubt, there is a way to tell the PDF viewer and the Epiphany browser to work together.)

Anyway, I’m a little surprised that the Epiphany browser has not come up in the discussion on this thread, previously.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by DaveW.

[Author]

Posts