- This topic has 41 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated May 13-10:57 am by Brian Masinick.
-
Posts
-
ModdIt
@this page Palemoon, No script, Java off. Decentraleyes,Canvas Blocker 326mb
Firefox, No script, java on so I could login. Mem usage climbing to around 405 mb from initial 366.Although I do nothing CPU LOAD with Firefox averages out at 9%, far higher than Palemoon @ 2% average
climbing to max 6% with Java on for this site only, google entrusted in both cases.
Both 64 Bit.- This reply was modified 3 years ago by ModdIt. Reason: Clarify
Brian Masinick
Palemoon is a browser that is a pretty good compromise between speed and resource efficiency.
If you examine Chrome, Chromium and browsers derived from the Chromium code base, you’ll see that they are fast and they tend to consume a lot of memory.
Of these, Vivaldi, derived from Opera, which also uses the same browser engine, it does a good job of trimming unused resources. Brave is another rewrite and it’s fast, seems to block a lot of sites, but for the wary, it whitelists “partner” advertisers.
Lots of choices. You have to decide for yourself whether you want safety, speed, privacy, or limited resource consumption.
--
Brian MasinickBrian Masinick
Hi Brian, readers,
latest Vivaldi is hogging memory, has been reported but not fixed.
What is the version number of the”defective release?
Are both the Vivaldi release and the snapshot defective?
I’ve not witnessed memory failing to be released and in fact I have watched this browser very effectively release memory resources so I think it’s important to cite the scenarios in which memory is “hogged”. Please provide a specific example that I can replicate. Thanks.
--
Brian Masinick
manyroads
Remember a lot of the memory use comes from the net… I ran a bunch of tests and there’s hardly a difference between, uzbl, surf, dillo and chrome/ firefox with multiple open tabs to the same sites. It’s not the browser, it’s the net consuming the ram.
Pax vobiscum,
Mark Rabideau - http://many-roads.com
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
dwm & i3wm ~Reg. Linux User #449130
20 Jan 2021 ~ "End of an Error"Hallo Brian, had to ask kids to be sure. 3.0.1874.38-1
This version is using way higher memory than the last of the 2 series, seems memory usage can climb until the system becomes unusable.Answer in forum to a poster was: recommend trying to upgrade the RAM to at least 4 GB or better yet 8 GB if you can. It will perform much better when it doesn’t need to rely on SWAP memory on a HDD. If the system doesn’t have upgradable RAM, a lighter browser that uses fewer resources than Vivaldi, or other Chromium based browsers, would probably work better for you, sorry.
After troubleshooting and setting a new profile followed suggestion in, https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/46771/higher-ram-usage-and-cpu-when-vivaldi-stable-begin.
Replaced by Palemoon which does not creep toward ever higher memory usage on updates.Brian Masinick
Thanks Moddit. I do see most of the fastest browsers preferring to start up using close to a GB of memory. In this regard Palemoon is definitely one of the best browsers because it can handle most pages yet it is more conservative with memory than all except the really minimal browsers that don’t offer full functionality.
I don’t see memory creep with Vivaldi, what I see is that the initial memory footprint probably works best on a computer with at least 4GB of memory installed, otherwise as you note, it may swap (at first). Based on the behavior I observed I believe that once it trims memory it will run more efficiently. I would also suggest that there are not many browsers that will run well with a lot of tabs open on a memory constrained system; Palemoon would probably be one of the best compromises in this situation.
--
Brian MasinickBrian Masinick
Waterfox is another browser that appears to do pretty well with respect to conserving memory. Over the past couple of months it has been updated at least monthly.
If that continues, Waterfox makes a good choice; it behaves similarly to Firefox and can use many of the same addons, but it’s decidedly lighter than Firefox, is NOT identical at all; it uses only the browser engine in common and it’s pretty efficient, as good or better than Palemoon in that regard.
Waterfox 2020.05 Release
May 07, 2020
Security updates and some feature changes.
https://www.waterfox.net/blog/waterfox-2020.05-release/
I believe that it’s available through antiX too.With a single tab open to Yahoo Mail, waterfox + IceWM + roxterm consume under 600 MB.
With two tabs (depending on what they are), memory usage is still 672-675 MB. Not bad at all with a full-featured Web browser.- This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by Brian Masinick.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by Brian Masinick.
--
Brian Masinick
rokytnji
Happy on how I roll. I did a
apt search waterfoxout of curiosity. Lots of waterfox choices in AntiX.
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 problemsandfree
I thought to give waterfox a try, but:
Could not mark all packages for installation or upgrade The following packages have unresolvable dependencies. Make sure that all required repositories are added and enabled in the preferences. waterfox: Depends: waterfox-classic-kpe but it is not installableSystem: Host: dragon Kernel: 4.4.221-antix.2-486-smp i686 bits: 32 Desktop: IceWM 1.6.5 Distro: antiX-19_386-full Marielle Franco 16 October 2019Repos: Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/antix.list 1: deb http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/buster/ buster main nonfree nosystemd Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/buster-backports.list 1: deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main contrib non-free Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian-stable-updates.list 1: deb http://ftp.gr.debian.org/debian/ buster-updates main contrib non-free Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian.list 1: deb http://ftp.gr.debian.org/debian/ buster main contrib non-free 2: deb http://security.debian.org/ buster/updates main contrib non-free No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/onion.list No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/various.list
anticapitalista
Waterfox is only 64 bit.
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Brian Masinick
Waterfox is only 64 bit.
Yes, unfortunately 32-bit software, especially Web browsing software, is becoming rare.
antiX still has some 32-bit software that works. You have to examine the available software to find 32-bit programs.
Many distributions do not have any 32-bit software anymore. It’s been several years since many distributions supported 32-bit software.
I sent some of my old, still functional systems to reclamation sites, not because they were broken, but because only a few things still ran on them and I had plenty of other equipment that worked.
I will say that antiX was still working on every system throughout their useful lifecycle and every system was still working, just getting old and functional with only specific software.
--
Brian Masinick
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
