Jump to content

Saphir

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    36

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Austria

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Saphir

  1. Saphir
    Exactly, see also this thread which is about the problematic topic: Edit: Does not matter, pages like Outlook are instant Pale Moon killers - no matter what you have activated or deactivated. Open and close them one time and you can restart the browser. Twitch is another offender, but slows down the browser a bit.... slower at least, not in an instant unlike Outlook. Only "workaround" which helps: Install portable, open the browser a second time so an additional profile is created, copy over your cookies and password files (and history perhaps if you need it and session) and use that alternative profile for heavy pages. That way your workflow on the "normal" Pale Moon portable stays undisturbed.
  2. Saphir
    There is also another flag with incremental gc - I think it was something with dom
  3. Saphir
    I would not be too hopeful for that, as also base Firefox 52 engine had massive memory issues in the past.. So it's "a defect by design" What seems to help a bit is fully disabling incremental garbage collection
  4. Saphir
    Thanks, with that the problem will also be removed in Pale Moon :)
  5. Saphir
    @roytam1Any idea why on your builds Discord is rendered accurately while on UXP-Pale Moon the backgrounds are missing? That was your first build which works with Discord= --------------------------------------------------------------- https://msfn.org/board/topic/184051-my-browser-builds-part-4/page/20/#comment-1233118 https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-28.10.6a1.win64-git-20221224-d849524bd-uxp-5e9f3d066-xpmod.7z - 24.12.2022 In Pale Moon 32+ Discord instead is showing no backgrounds Release notes for 32+ = http://www.palemoon.org/releasenotes.shtml Any ideas?
  6. Saphir
    Obsolete, please delete that
  7. Saphir
    No crash here in New Moon 28
  8. Saphir
    Some more pages can be accessed now, Facebook messager works partly, Reddit comments can be seen, its even possible again to log into Tumblr and view the page (at least to some degree - not being able to press the x button on some popping up dialog elements) Lets hope some more ECMAScript/CSS features are going to be implemented in the near future, it would benefit UXP a lot :)
  9. Saphir
    @roytam1what exactly happens/is breaking?
  10. Saphir
    @roytam1Check if https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/pulls/2228 fixes the issues
  11. Saphir
    @roytam1you have been correct btw. - luckily fix has already been found by dbsoft
  12. Saphir
    @roytam1link please, so I can forward to the UXP repo 😎 Thread which shows more likely the case that this video framework rather is broken for now: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=29759&sid=90d6499725edde8f4b6be562ad3e083d
  13. Saphir
    @roytam1 Franklin DM said the following: ".. or maybe VideoJS itself is broken? Only the first video (Disney's Oceans) in their examples page here appears to work fine regardless of the browser in use. The other example videos listed, as well as the one on their front page is broken even in latest Firefox, at least, on my end"
  14. Saphir
    @roytam1Any site where it happens to report? Or under what circumstances happen that crashes? So far i do not experience any crashes here at all.
  15. Saphir
    Sorry, fixed it 😎
  16. Saphir
    Good news as it seems, Martok is trying to getting rid of 2 UXP villains: https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/2142 and https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/2097 See here for progress https://repo.palemoon.org/martok/UXP-contrib/commits/branch/work/class-fields And also with Dynamic Module Import worked on, it seems that if everything turns out as planned, UXP based browsers will soon receive a very high compatibility boost necessary for the modern web
  17. Saphir
    @roytam1At which page did that happen? Would be perhaps a good idea to open then a bug report on the UXP repo again.
  18. Saphir
    It was indeed designed for a totally different browser concept in mind - The one of a minimalist browser without much customization features and which basically is similar to the Chromium model in many ways. Everything old... the old UI and it's customization features, add-ons and themes stood in the way of Mozilla to make a Chrome clone without actually being Chrome - and being able to appeal that way to all the Chrome users (and we already know that backfired MASSIVELY )
  19. Saphir
    @MathwizIt may be true that newer multi-process code is written in Rust, as it was perfected in much later Firefox code bases. But UXP - has in comparison to later Firefox code bases - very few of that inside, it may work, but it is far from being perfect - What i meant is this: It would be a much more complex task to try to bring 100% stable and grown up multi-process code into UXP as in comparison to "just implementing" Google Webcomponents. So whatever for a degree of Rust code was in the Firefox 52 code-base - it is useless cruft - as there is none who could succeed with a task as big like that, so as long as nobody qualified is around who could handle all the dependencies and the tons of bugs which brings multi-process along my comments stay valid
  20. Saphir
    @UCyborg Same, we should keep in mind that multi-process opens a hell-hole of security issues and tons of bugs. This complexity introduced with a multi-process based system is nothing to take lightly.
  21. Saphir
    @Mathwiz But the thing is UXP uses no Rust, so it is basically useless cruft to add that back. There is just minimalist Rust usage in code bases below 57 - what for a use would it be to restore this again? Rust clearly makes only sense if you would use a code base beyond 57 as planned base code for any theoretical future release (and that would be a no-go again as the classic UI with it's unique features could not be brought forward) - 100% flawlessly working Multi-Process usage in an engine below 57 is a goal basically impossible. I would say there are 2 defining moments in Mozilla's own timeline: - Firefox 0.x-56 - the era of customization and being different towards Chrome - Firefox 57 - ??? - the era of minimalism and simplicity - "maximum Chrome user compatibility" And yeah, they are optimized for Chrome - but what is the defining feature what Chrome uses? Multi-process - UXP web compatibility issues are are totally unique problem.
  22. Saphir
    @roytam1 What is the benefit of 55 over 52? Anyway, i hope it works out for you, and that it is not impossible, as the UXP/Pale Moon project was also forced to return to 52 when trying to to it with that one.
  23. Saphir
    If they would use a newer code-base as base code, they would lose all customization features - that is clearly a no-go. But it clearly would help if they would use multi-process - but that one was just in baby-steps during the time where the code base versions 52-56 have been out. And back-porting more multi-process code requires for sure Rust - which makes this also a no-go. The main problem is that all modern web-pages and all modern ECMAScript/CSS features and drafts are designed to work only properly with multi-process browsers in mind - and if a single process browser visits such a page - or tries to make use of such standards and drafts it simply can't handle that properly as it was never intended to work with stuff like that correctly. That is at least my point of view.
  24. Saphir
    Well, one site which instantly slows down when you had it open is Outlook - Do that once and the browser goes down instantly, slowdowns appearing. So yeah, it has some serious memory issues, the question is how to solve them.
  25. Saphir
    Happy Easter everyone! One villain was finally fixed and resolution added also today and one other addition: Add window.event #595= https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/595 Implement self.structuredClone() #2197 https://repo.palemoon.org/MoonchildProductions/UXP/issues/2197 ------------------------------------------------------------------- And for everyone who wants to follow the progress of: Class Fields and Initializers #8 https://repo.palemoon.org/martok/UXP-contrib/issues/8 and Implement dynamic module import #1691 https://repo.palemoon.org/dbsoft/UXP/src/branch/dynamic-module-import
×
×
  • Create New...