I never bothered comparing rendering speed, because FF is, generally, slow in page rendering. It does not bother me as much as memory consumption. FF runs in less memory compared Chrome and Chromium, and could be tweaked to use even less memory.

Pale Moon is using even less memory than Firefox. It is important on my older, 32-bit machine. PM is much more nimble on old machine.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yes it is clear Firefox is much faster than Palemoon.

That does not agree with the behavior I have observed. On what platform, what CPU, and how much memory?

I found palemoon slightly faster on a Thinkpad with 4G ram running Win10 on 4 3.5GHz Intel cores.

1 members found this post helpful.

I find Pale Moon faster and more responsive on both of my computers. Especially on old, 32-bit one Pale Moon has significant advantage. However, it is possible that presence or lack of some libraries on the system might make it slower or faster. I don't have multilib, for example. I think I had problem once with some program on 64-bit that wanted to load library from /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64, but I can't remember what the program was any more.

1 members found this post helpful.

Both of my slow Netbooks, Intel Atom N270 with 1.5 gig of ram, and an Atom N450 with 2gigs of ram. I had so many browsers installed at once on them Chromium, Opera 12, Opera Beta, Firefox ESR, Firefox Beta, Seamonkey, Midroi, Xombrero, Dillo, and Palemoon. Not saying Palemoon runs slow as to be unusable but it was not faster than Firefox, and on some pages it took forever to load, and had memory leaks. the chromium based browsers ran the fastest until you opened up a bunch of tabs, with many tabs Midori and Firefox were the fastest. I had 100 open tabs in Firefox and it was slower but still smooth. Having many tabs opened was no problem for Midori but the ux and handling of bookmarks and history are a pain in Midori so I did not use that browser everyday.

Using those Netbooks and another slow Laptop for a few years until I got my desktop fixed made me love Flash, it ran faster than html5 video in all of the browsers that had both enabled.

Pixxt, Pale Moon is compiled with some switches which are supposed tomake it optimized, especially on newer hardware. Maybe those switches are not always the best choice. Try installing from Debian package. Debian people are often more conservative.

1 members found this post helpful.

You're kidding right? I'm running the binary repackage of Pale Moon (x86_64) on a '07 Inspiron 1520 with a C2D @ 2GHz, 4GB RAM, 800MHz FSB, 13 Addons (Adblock Latitude being one of them) and I have no issues.

I don't understand why you keep wanting to install Debian packages on a Slackware installation. That just doesn't make sense to me.

2 members found this post helpful.

I have no issues, either, but Pixxt says he has. I assume he is not crazy to say that, unless proven otherwise.

There are 2 Pale Moon Slackbuilds. One compiles from source, if you have time to wait for it to complete.

The other is using build from Pale Moon site, one that *REQUIRES SSE2* instruction set for 32-bit platforms, as the *DESCRIPTION* says. It is clearly stated that some or all of *CONTRIBUTED BUILDS* *REQUIRE SSE* only. Debian is one of the most conservative distros, so I expect DEB package (one of the contributed builds) to support SSE only CPU's. At least one of Pixxt's machines is 32-bit.

Besides, one of my machines is very old 32-bit and it supports sse2. However sse only build runs better for some reasons.

Is this clear enough ?

Or perhaps they are PERFECT, for the major Intel and AMD processors, but not so fine for ATOM.
I think I could write a book about software that performs differently on ATOM!

1 members found this post helpful.

Now this makes infinitely more sense.
For some reason the Atom part didn't register with me when I first read Pixxt's post.

I am using Pale Moon (the binary repackage) on my ASUS TP200SA notebook. This system has 2GBs of RAM and a Celeron N3050 processor. I don't see a noticeable speed difference between PM and Firefox, but the former uses less RAM and that makes a lot of difference to me.

Before switching to PM from FF, due to the tabs and other software I prefer to keep open all the time, the system would be pressured (albeit slightly) to swap memory out after a while. I even considered using window managers lighter than XFCE. But in the end, the switch to PM made this unnecessary.

I am really anxious to see what FF will be like when they complete the moving of the codebase to Rust. When FF makes full use of the concurrency features of Rust it should become a much better performing (and way more secure) piece of software.

1 members found this post helpful.

Isn't this somehow wrong ? The web pages are loaded with crap more and more, we need parallel thread/process architecture to handle it. The response is going to be even more crap. The content has, I'd say, deteriorated. I could browse for hours in the past, never had enough time, now I am finished in 30 minutes max.

Web pages are more like desktop apps now, but that worked even in browsers from 5 years ago. I am never using a browser which doesn't have "offline switch" extension because of all that crap which keeps loading forever.

2 members found this post helpful.

You've nailed it on the head, I think.

Nobody has written a browser correctly, yet.

While we're waiting for someone to do that (and resisting the urge to do it ourselves), we use whichever browser is least horrible. At the moment, I'm of the opinion that that's Pale Moon.

4 members found this post helpful.

What are you guys solution for playing youtube videos?

I fail to see the relevance of this question to the topic of the thread? Pale Moon plays Youtube videos just fine.

1 members found this post helpful.