MyPal 68

[AstroSkipper]

19 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

Another solution without the need of moving the Open new tab button will be posted by me, too. 

@Tomcat76 A JavaScript solution for your problem with hiding the tab bar, if only one tab is open, can be found here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/183657-mypal-68-in-windows-xp-custom-buttons-and-extensions/?do=findComment&comment=1271917
 

 

[UCyborg]

18 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Other than St52 is the SLOWEST D#MN THING that I have ever witnessed on my old Acer Aspire with in Intel Atom CPU.

Aye, old low-end computers emphasize the slowness even more. Slower response is common on better hardware as well, even with it comes tab switching. St52 can be made slightly more responsive with multi-process mode, which has its own issues. My slowest computer has a dual-core AMD E1-6010 APU running at 1,35 GHz, just 2 GB of RAM (with 256 MB used as video memory) and a 32-bit Win10 1809. It's fun, use Pale Moon for too long and it hangs, even with some free RAM. Could upgrade it at some point, get more RAM and replace Win10 with 64-bit version, but don't feel it to be urgent as long as I have another faster computer available.

I guess the weight of discontentment with Google and Mozilla's ways of developing a web browser is greater for me than the weight of drawbacks of an UXP based web browser.

[GH0st]

Buuuurp!!! ..... excuse me!

[AstroSkipper]

Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode, only one empty tab open, 25 extensions installed with 17 enabled, 2 additional themes installed with one of them enabled, 13 UC.JS scripts enabled, 13 CSS stylesheets enabled, xul.dll file rebased and memory minimisation performed. The RAM usage is then round about 250 MB a few minutes after starting the browser:



What is yours?

Edited September 4, 2024 by AstroSkipper

[AstroSkipper]

And now, all in a minimal, quite fresh profile of  Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode, only one empty tab open, 3 extensions installed with 1 enabled, no themes installed, 1 UC.JS script enabled, no CSS stylesheets enabled, xul.dll file rebased and memory minimisation performed. The RAM usage is then round about 120 MB a few minutes after starting the browser:



I am generally interested in RAM usage values of other users to see how Mypal 68.14.4b behaves on different computers. And of course, I am particularly interested in comparative values under Windows XP 32-bit on old, weak computers such as mine. 

Edited September 4, 2024 by AstroSkipper

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Seems nobody else is biting, so I'll bite.

Acer Aspire One (weaker than yours, as we have previously discussed)...  WinXP x86...  4 GB RAM...  Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode...  Only one empty tab...  No extensions...  No themes...  No memory minimisations - NONE...

 

Default out-of-the-box (no rebase)  --  356.97 MB

 

Rebased xul.dll  --  119.22 MB

Edited September 5, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

14 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Seems nobody else is biting, so I'll bite.

Acer Aspire One (weaker than yours, as we have previously discussed)...  WinXP x86...  4 GB RAM...  Mypal 68.14.4b in multiprocess mode...  Only one empty tab...  No extensions...  No themes...  No memory minimisations - NONE...

 

Default out-of-the-box (no rebase)  --  356.97 MB

 

Rebased xul.dll  --  119.22 MB

Good comparison! This clearly shows the positive effect of rebasing I stated in previous posts. 66.6% less RAM consumption. That's a lot. 

BTW, maybe your CPU is weaker (I can't remember what kind of CPU you have) but your system is equipped with 4 GB RAM, mine with only 1.5 GB RAM (slow SD-RAM, i.e., no DDR-RAM).

Edited September 6, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[AstroSkipper]

14 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Seems nobody else is biting, so I'll bite.

That's a general problem here on MSFN. If members/users have problems, they are very communicative and willing to provide information. But when it comes to selflessly contributing something to the cause, a certain listlessness prevails. Very regrettable. In principle, the same people always make a contribution here to move the cause forward. 

Edited September 6, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[NotHereToPlayGames]

10 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

but your system is equipped with 4 GB RAM

 

10 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

I can't remember what kind of CPU you have

 

I mispoke.  Apologies.  I can screencap from home "if I must".  I prefer not to, this computer is SLOW AS SH#T.  Only runs to notify me of incoming texts or email as I do not own a phone.  Then I walk across the house to a REAL computer!

I cited 4 GB but that was my Celeron machine running XP.  I no longer have the Celeron.

I too only have 1.5 GB RAM.

[AstroSkipper]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 

 

I mispoke.  Apologies.  I can screencap from home "if I must".  I prefer not to, this computer is SLOW AS SH#T.  Only runs to notify me of incoming texts or email as I do not own a phone.  Then I walk across the house to a REAL computer!

I cited 4 GB but that was my Celeron machine running XP.  I no longer have the Celeron.

I too only have 1.5 GB RAM.

Ok. As far as I can see, my Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8GHz 32-bit has a higher operating frequency than your Intel Atom 1.6GHz. In all other categories, your CPU is better than mine. L1/L2 cache, thermal values, instruction sets and so on. And you use DDR2-RAM which is much faster than the old, slow SD-RAM I use. Furthermore, I assume your Intel Atom CPU supports Hyper-Threading technology, my CPU does not. Even your Intel GMA 950 graphics is more efficient than my NVIDIA GeForce 6200 AGP 4x (8x is not supported on my motherboard). And as we all know, the operation frequenzy is difficult to compare regarding completely different processors, i.e., a higher frequenzy value does not necessarily mean a higher performance. BTW, which Intel Atom CPU is it? N270?  

All in all, I think your old Acer is faster than my old computer. 

Edited September 6, 2024 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[NotHereToPlayGames]

57 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

All in all, I think your old Acer is faster than my old computer.

Perhaps.  But you have a tablet and you rely on it for "real work".  I most definitely want nothing to do with my old Acer as far as "real work" is concerned.

Edited September 6, 2024 by NotHereToPlayGames

[UCyborg]

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-4-280GHz-vs-Intel-Atom-N270/m3163vsm2697

 

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But you have a tablet and you rely on it for "real work".

Not quite true. I use both my old Windows XP computer and my Android tablet for what you call "real work". And in some special cases, a notebook with Windows 7 and Windows 10. But that was not the point here. Anyway! This thread is actually about Mypal 68, and I am happy to confirm that this browser works well on my old hardware. And much better when optimised. 

[AstroSkipper]

1 hour ago, UCyborg said:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-4-280GHz-vs-Intel-Atom-N270/m3163vsm2697

 

Thanks for linking! Unfortunately, such comparisons are not particularly useful. It also depends considerably on other components such as the RAM memory, north and south bridge, the bus clock, the graphics adapter, processor features, hyper-threading and so on.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I've owned Pentium 4s in the past - they're faster than this slow-as-duck Intel Atom.

It sounds to me like you are backpeddling your scientific objectivity and now relying on "gut feelings" instead.

There's a lot of benchmark web sites out there, they all cite Pentium 4s as faster than Intel Atoms.  You're an objective and scientific lad.  Take a step back and return to the table without subjectivity and hypotheticals.

Your bias is showing at the moment and that's not you.