AstroSkipper Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: New Moon 28 32-bit, well configured and used appropriately, consumes the least RAM compared to other browsers. If I have a few extensions installed and only have one tab open, I am at around 200 MB after starting the browser. I think that's a good value compared to others. I have to correct my statement a bit. Mypal 68.14.2b 32-bit in single-process mode installed with 23 extensions (7 of them disabled), 14 uc.js scripts, 13 css stylesheets and one open tab consumes only round about 180 MB after browser start. So, a bit less than New Moon 28. Edited June 20 by AstroSkipper Update of content 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anton12 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) https://msfn.org/board/topic/185966-my-browser-builds-part-5/page/73/#comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows Task Manager/Performance: use of physical memory OS W2K-KernelEx Opera 12.18 NM28 (2024-06-13) (32-bit) with palefill-1.28.xpi St52 (2024-06-13) (32-bit) with palefill-1.28.xpi Opening the above URL requires according to Windows Task Manager/Performance the following resources: Opera 12.18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W2K 96 MB W2k + Opera 12.18 + blank page 124 MB W2k + Opera 12.18 + URL 128 MB ----------------------------------------------------------------- NM28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- W2K 96 MB W2k + NM28 + blank page 210 MB W2k + NM28 + URL 254 MB ----------------------------------------------------------------- St52 ------------------------------------------------------------------ W2K 96 MB W2k + St52 + blank page 226 MB W2k + St52 + URL 260 MB ------------------------------------------------------------------ As you can see St52 uses more RAM than Opera 12.18 or NM28. Edited June 20 by anton12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 23 hours ago, anton12 said: Here is a techno-philosophical question: How could it be that we got along with 256MB - 1024MB(1GB) RAM when NT5.0/5.1 dominated the web ? you can see this using Opera 11.x to 12.x for "WHY" when "HTML 5" kicked in, new java-script engines had to be made i remember that Opera strugled with this, hence why later it laged behind Chromium/Safari back then what was implemented in processing JS with jumpt from HTML 4/CSS 2.3 to HTML 5/CSS 3 - i don't know, but it was heavy and now you get everything RAM eating bullshido true, RAM problem is not existant nowdays... heck my PC is 12 years old now but i have 8 GB RAM and browsing is not problem but as quoter above said, back then we had 1 GB or 1.5 GB of it and WTF happened Edited June 20 by vinifera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 I can get by with 1 GB of RAM on an almost 10 years old smartphone just fine with few tabs of normal websites. Of course I don't expect it to run heavy web apps and there are some cumbersome, unbearable sites like https://www.mimovrste.com/, but most others are a breeze (I don't count most social media). The trick is not using full blown web browser, but a browser utilizing WebView like Via. I'm not aware of any non Chromium implementation of WebView on Android, but it's how to keep resource usage down. Not sure how recent versions of Via are, should still be OK, though at some point the user reviews were worse... In any case, NOTHING on either my phone or computer updates automatically. Most browsers on a desktop will lean towards larger RAM usage though. You could keep it simple if you really wanted and especially if you still use one of those old machines that survived capacitor plague, but if you have the RAM, it's there to be used. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, you know? BTW... https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/modern-web-bloat-means-some-entry-level-phones-cant-run-simple-web-pages-and-load-times-are-high-for-pcs-some-sites-run-worse-than-pubg Funny it mentions Quora, I never had problems with Quora, even on that old smartphone, except with nags for registering. Am I supposed to do anything special? May take a bit to load, but afterwards it's mostly fine. That said, modern web is riddled with analytics and other garbage, which must be blocked to keep things somewhat sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) I know dev tools are provided as-is... But I still find references to Firefox amusing. I also didn't know Firefox codebase at any point included ASCII art anywhere. While browsers struggle to run id Tech 4, ala DOOM 3, classic DOOM is not a problem, even for UXP browsers (OK, maybe a little bit...). http://browser-doom.io/ But I'm not sure if ZDoom engine would run well if ported to web browser environment. This one doesn't just feature shareware (demo) versions of those games, lets you upload data files of full versions. Edited June 21 by UCyborg Maybe a little bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 i don't think you can compare phone browsing and pc browsing hence why mobile browsers go to m.website.whatever and pc do not yes you can still use old browsers on phone and not much RAM heck until recently i still used Opera that was ~11 years old for Android, 90% sites ran smoothly but mobile sites were "made" for mobile browsing, not to mention most started for webkit anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 2 hours ago, vinifera said: i don't think you can compare phone browsing and pc browsing hence why mobile browsers go to m.website.whatever and pc do not No problem here surfing all websites by default in mobile view on my Windows XP computer. You can do that in every browser. I do this by default only in Thorium in a blacklist mode, i.e. all websites on the blacklist are accessed in desktop view, all others in mobile view. Works fine here. Edited June 21 by AstroSkipper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) How common are complete separate sites for mobile and desktop these days? I have the impression they mostly opt to responsive design, so you get the same site regardless of the device, the CSS magic takes care of layout. 19 hours ago, vinifera said: but as quoter above said, back then we had 1 GB or 1.5 GB of it and WTF happened You could say that about any era, really, just adjust the numbers. I started with 133 MHz Pentium and 16 MB of RAM. You could actually watch progress bar for Hover! to load. First "modern" PC I got had a 2 GHz Celeron and 256 MB of RAM. That RAM amount soon proved insufficient (was upgraded to 1 GB). At much later time, I learned I was basically pushing low-end PC to the limit by trying to play latest games on it. The hardware seemed flaky as-is, overclocking didn't help and again, at much later time, I got to know it was an era of capacitor plague on top. And those Maxtors just loved going out with a click of death, that PC got motherboard replaced at some point as well, maybe I'd still have the PC if it wasn't for it ending up without a HDD and bunch of old stuff was discarded when moving to a new location. On 6/20/2024 at 2:45 AM, AstroSkipper said: At the moment, I am using New Moon 28 with 74 extensions installed, 4 of them disabled I can't even imagine what I'd want in a browser to be able to come up with a list of 74 extensions. I do notice even with my much humbler list, there is significant delay in startup time, which can't be halved even by having browser profile folder plus even entire browser loaded from RAM disk. Edited June 21 by UCyborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anton12 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 AstroSkipper said: "No problem here surfing all websites by default in mobile view on my Windows XP computer. You can do that in every browser." Hello AstroSkipper, Please,would you kindly describe in detail the way you do it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted Friday at 06:48 PM Share Posted Friday at 06:48 PM (edited) 3 hours ago, UCyborg said: I can't even imagine what I'd want in a browser to be able to come up with a list of 74 extensions. This is a very old profile, @VistaLover would call it a (very) dirty profile. Every missing functionality was retrofitted by me with many scripts, custom buttons, CSS style sheets and, as already mentioned, tons of extensions. But believe or not, this profile is still working. And legacy extensions are not that heavy as webextensions. Many of them have no negative impact on the browser's performance. Edited Friday at 08:02 PM by AstroSkipper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted Friday at 08:50 PM Share Posted Friday at 08:50 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, AstroSkipper said: And legacy extensions are not that heavy as webextensions In my experience this is also true except for Ublock. As discussed in one of your threads, the sqlite gets to grow to 80+mgb, and takes a while to load. In mypal, with basically the same lists, but using "storage", it is 25mb, and loads almost instantly (around 1 second). Edited Friday at 09:15 PM by dmiranda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmiranda Posted Friday at 08:53 PM Share Posted Friday at 08:53 PM (edited) Our ublock gurues @Sampei.Nihira or @AstroSkipper should start a separate thread just about ublock, I reckon. Edited Friday at 08:56 PM by dmiranda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted Friday at 09:55 PM Share Posted Friday at 09:55 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, dmiranda said: In my experience this is also true except for Ublock. As discussed in one of your threads, the sqlite gets to grow to 80+mgb Mine never grows beyond 30 MB. I don't know what you people are doing with uBO TBH. Edited Friday at 09:58 PM by UCyborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted Friday at 10:17 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:17 PM 4 hours ago, anton12 said: AstroSkipper said: "No problem here surfing all websites by default in mobile view on my Windows XP computer. You can do that in every browser." Hello AstroSkipper, Please,would you kindly describe in detail the way you do it ? In Thorium and in Mypal 68, I use the extension UserAgent-Switcher and Manager for this purpose. I already wrote about it here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/186133-thorium/?do=findComment&comment=1266981 In New Moon 28 or Serpent, similar solutions can be applied if needed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted Friday at 10:25 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:25 PM (edited) 31 minutes ago, UCyborg said: Mine never grows beyond 30 MB. I don't know what you people are doing with uBO TBH. Same here. And if the sqlite file is totally bloated due to frequent import and removal of filter lists, the installation should be reset or this file should be simply deleted, of course after creating a full backup which can then immediately restored when the browser has been started again. Edited Friday at 10:31 PM by AstroSkipper 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now