modnar Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Just a heads-up if this in any way touches any of roytam1's browsers: I have just seen this video about G**gle quite possibly deliberately hampering Fireferret VP9 performance, but Mozilla found a way around it, but it's not in the new v127 release yet... Mozilla Has Finally Found a Fix for YouTube Playback Issues in Firefox - Says Google is to Blame 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathwiz Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 BTW, if you follow the YouTube link above in St 55, all you get is a "please update your browser" page. The SSUAO built into St 55 for YouTube is for Mo 60. The St 52 version from Feb. 23 is the same, so I suspect they both need updating. The minimum version YouTube now allows appears to be 64 (which is still surprisingly long ago!) So St users should update the general.useragent.override.youtube.com pref to spoof Mo version 64 or later instead of 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j7n Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 So how much faster can Firefox clones now be on YouTube? I don't think that the bottleneck on an old PC was the video, but the layout around it. If I open too many tabs, because I forget which ones have served their purpose, they shrink so much that I can't read any text on them without the tooltip and I need to open even more tabs. I tend to always open links in a new tab to not lose the already displayed content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Yeah, I wonder if any custom user agent override still makes any sense on YouTube since WebComponents were implemented when it comes to processing its UI. Anyway, I've decided to stay with 64-bit build. You don't need to hoard much to reach the limits of 32-bit flavor. I feel stupid now that I know the one annoying gripe I had with Pale Moon could be avoided if I didn't insist on 32-bit build as long as I did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 48 minutes ago, UCyborg said: I feel stupid now that I know the one annoying gripe I had with Pale Moon could be avoided if I didn't insist on 32-bit build as long as I did. It's not just you. I made the same mistake. Despite being on XP x64, I stuck with 32-bit browsers because the RAM consumption was LOWER! Everybody "here" makes that mistake, they look at RAM consumption and think that "paints the whole picute". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 The good is you don't have to worry about 64-bit applications if you are using Windows XP Professional 32-bit. And of course, RAM consumption is not everything, but it is particularly important for those with little available RAM. In such a system, it can happen very quickly that 100% RAM consumption occurs, for example, in New Moon 28 only due to one scrap page. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 There's nothing to worry about 64-bit applications these days, they just work it seems. Over 10 years ago quirks might have been more common. In my experience, there was more worrying about 32-bit binaries, at some point, some of us were even hacking them with Large Address Aware flag to prevent running out of memory when it came to more demanding or just less efficient stuff. That was before that flag became the norm in 32-bit binaries. 3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: Despite being on XP x64 XP x64 was quite ahead of the time, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotHereToPlayGames Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 23 minutes ago, UCyborg said: XP x64 was quite ahead of the time, huh? YEP! If it weren't for the constant "dog chasing its tail" aspect of web browsers and bank account / bill payment web sites, I'd still be on it. But there is also the "fact" that XP was holding me back, there is SO MUCH MORE that a "computer" can DO once you "let go" of the feeling of being "superior" or "more in the know" just by sticking with XP. Been there, done that. I was "smarter" than ALL of friends and family because I was running XP and they were not. That "superiority complex" keeps MSFN alive. So that "works for me", lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Are we still talking about @roytam1's browsers here? Or are we having a fundamental discussion here about which operating system is better or worse and why one should use crappy new 64-bt OSes? The latter would of course be completely offtopic. @roytam1's browsers make it possible to surf even with older computers. Among other things, old hardware is very often only 32-bit capable. So, there are good reasons to use the 32-bit browser versions offered here. Right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 Tried Serpent 52 and New Moon 28 on XP, didn't see any difference in CPU usage in YouTube comments section between 32-bit and 64-bit versions, one cure fully occupied and running full speed in both cases. Actually, I just booted back to Win10 20H2 after trialing Win11 23H2 for half-year or so, didn't see any difference here either with official 64-bit Pale Moon in comparison with 32-bit build, CPU was running full speed. So what the heck would result in such reduction on Win11 specifically with 64-bit build? This is weird and makes no sense. One difference I can think of I have late 2023 NVIDIA drivers loaded on Win11 while I still have old ones from January 2021 on Win10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathwiz Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 10 hours ago, UCyborg said: I wonder if any custom user agent override still makes any sense on YouTube since WebComponents were implemented when it comes to processing its UI. These days, about the only reason for a SSUAO is to avoid "update your browser" pages. YouTube on Serpent works with a Mo 64 override, so St must support enough "modern" crap for YouTube to work, but any SSUAO with a lower version just gives you the "update your browser" page anyway. I brought up the subject here because Serpent has a built-in SSUAO for YouTube, but it no longer lets YouTube work. I expect @basilisk-dev will update the SSUAO in official Basilisk soon, after which YouTube will again work with both Basilisk and Serpent OOTB, but in the meantime, folks need to put in an updated SSUAO themselves. All of that said, YouTube may not work if you use an override that's "too" new either, since it may then expect, and try to use, modern features that Serpent doesn't support. YouTube seemed to come up OK with version 90, but I didn't test it beyond just seeing the correct page come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathwiz Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 As far as choosing between @roytam1's 32 and 64 bit browser versions goes, my general advice would be to use the "bitness" that matches your hardware. After all, if you have a 64-bit processor, you probably have more RAM anyhow. But not necessarily; I ran my 64-bit PC with only 4 GB until last year. So I usually wasn't giving up much by running 32-bit apps on it. Maybe a little speed, but I scarcely noticed. And browsers can make things more complicated. For example, if you still use old plug-ins, doesn't the "bitness" of the plug-in have to match the "bitness" of the browser? So you may want a 32-bit browser even on a 64-bit PC for plug-in compatibility. (That said, I think that when plug-ins were more of a thing, most were available in both 32 and 64 bit versions.) 6 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said: XP was holding me back, there is SO MUCH MORE that a "computer" can DO once you "let go" of the feeling of being "superior" or "more in the know" just by sticking with XP. I'd like to re-frame that a bit. I don't think it's so much that XP (or any OS) just "can't do" certain things; it's more a matter of XP only having "certain ways" to do things, and M$ has added different (arguably better, at least in some cases) ways of doing those things; M$'s development tools now use those new, different ways to do those things, and therefore browsers and other apps built with those tools need access to those new, different ways of doing things. It takes a lot of hard work to bridge the gaps between older OSes, development tools, and application code, as I'm sure @roytam1, @Nicholas McAnespy, and @win32 can all attest; and to be blunt, most developers won't bother. They'll just make it easy on themselves and say "Win 10 required" whether we like it or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas McAnespy Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 11 hours ago, Mathwiz said: As far as choosing between @roytam1's 32 and 64 bit browser versions goes, my general advice would be to use the "bitness" that matches your hardware. After all, if you have a 64-bit processor, you probably have more RAM anyhow. But not necessarily; I ran my 64-bit PC with only 4 GB until last year. I'd like to re-frame that a bit. I don't think it's so much that XP (or any OS) just "can't do" certain things; it's more a matter of XP only having "certain ways" to do things, and M$ has added different (arguably better, at least in some cases) ways of doing those things; M$'s development tools now use those new, different ways to do those things, and therefore browsers and other apps built with those tools need access to those new, different ways of doing things. It takes a lot of hard work to bridge the gaps between older OSes, development tools, and application code, as I'm sure @roytam1, @Nicholas McAnespy, and @win32 can all attest; and to be blunt, most developers won't bother. They'll just make it easy on themselves and say "Win 10 required" whether we like it or not. 1. I'm still using 4GB RAM (that computer is offline though, so I typically use 1-1.5 GB of it). 2. As far as development tools go, I use what allows me to support the operating systems I want, and what uses the least system resources to get the job done. That means I'll use Visual C++ 2010 or older to compile Firefox 38.8.0esr, and New Moon 27.9.6, and Visual C++ 6.0 or older with Firefox 1.5 - 3.0. I managed to compile Firefox 3.0a7, and make it execute on Windows 98, but I can't search for anything using either the address bar or the search bar. It is a Windows 98 specific problem though. Either I did not reinstate Windows 98 support correctly, or some other code broke the compatibility, and was added to the Mozilla/Gecko codebase between Firefox 3.0a4, and Firefox 3.0a7. Then after feeling discouraged, I tried @roytam1 's Firefox 3.6.28, which supports Windows NT4. Using xpcom/glue/nsINIParser.cpp (and nsINIParser.h) from RetroZilla causes Firefox 3.6.28 to fail silently on Windows 98. My present goal is to make Firefox 3.0a6 work with the Windows GFX toolkit, and Windows 95 as cleanly as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCyborg Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) Can't repro that thing with comments section on YouTube somehow consuming so much less CPU as usual anymore that it downclocked. Rebooted to Win11, idle RAM consumption at 1,6 GB rather than 2 GB (yay!), launched Pale Moon 64-bit, behavior as usual, same with roytam1's builds regardless of OS version or bitness, tried 64-bit Pale Moon on Linux as well, no difference. One thing that also happens randomly, but relatively rarely to me on YouTube when starting with clean state (just no cookies), sometimes I get this layout rather than the usual one with with description and comments below the video player: I wonder if that's actually hidden in YouTube's code and whether any subsequently injected scripts have anything to do with it. I sure don't find any settings for it while logged on, there isn't anything in Youtube polymer engine fixes script either. The only other scripts are [*]Return YouTube Dislike (reason for the bar below like/dislike buttons) and the scripts that uBlock Origin injects with default lists active + uBlock filters – Cookie Notices. [*]Also available as web extension, which actually works more correctly than user script, confirmed in Firefox and Chromium, where both were compared, a bit strange, both flavors seem to be updated at the same time, though I suspect web extension gets more attention and testing. Edit: I forgot to write, the video above is one of those that when you scroll down, very few links to related/suggested/whatever videos on the right side load, after the last one, there remains animating circle. When circle is in sight, CPU consumption is lower, when it's out of sight as you scroll away (up or down), CPU core is back at 100%! Edited June 24 by UCyborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroSkipper Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 (edited) 47 minutes ago, UCyborg said: I sure don't find any settings for it while logged on, there isn't anything in Youtube polymer engine fixes script either. The only other scripts are [*]Return YouTube Dislike (reason for the bar below like/dislike buttons) and the scripts that uBlock Origin injects with default lists active + uBlock filters – Cookie Notices. Did you try disabling all (YouTube) scripts except the Youtube polymer engine fixes? I have observed that some scripts do not work properly together with it. Edited June 24 by AstroSkipper 1 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