I have been running the latest Pale Moon and I confirm my issue is rectified. I have watch many new movie trailers on YouTube in HD and no issues. Thanks to alien bob for the package and PM for the update. I'm a happy camper now.

4 members found this post helpful.

Yeah I'm guessing that Palemoon is written by Windows developers and GNU/Linux compilability is an afterthought. Actually, it simply would not compile on GCC when I tried it some time ago. Gave up on it.

For fast browsing needs, like browsing HTML manuals and such, Dillo and Lynx do a fantastic job, depending on content.

Otherwise selectively enabling JavaScript on Firefox helps as well. That also helps reveal the more sinister face of the modern web. i.e. pages that refuse to deliver content unless you run their obfuscated code on your machine.

2 members found this post helpful.

ok, i've been using palemoon on archlinux for quite a while now.
the arch user repository has a precompiled package (palemoon-bin) and a source package (palemoon).
i have been using the source package for a long time now.
updates are fairly frequent, the compiling always takes a long while, but has never failed so far.
palemoon works just fine and dandy here.

just my 2ct.

3 members found this post helpful.

I'm more or less done with this feature, from what I can tell it builds successfully with these flags and then stores the profile into ~/.config/palemoon

Another note I made was to set Vendor=config and Name=palemoon in application.ini and define the same in branding.nsi, confvars.sh, and defs.mk.
But I'm not sure all that was needed to be done, anyway it's all set, this is the output now:
Have fun.

3 members found this post helpful.

Pale Moon 27.5.0 is on steroids. Pages are opening instantly damn-near. No buffering from Youtube or PBS kids. This is and will continue to be my default browser until it starts to go downhill.

2 members found this post helpful.

Hmm, the changelog does not specifically mention any outstanding performance improvements. Are you comparing 27.5 to the 27.4.x series?

I learned about Palemoon in this thread and after some testing converted to it on my little 2-in-1 laptop. However, the Rust-related improvements to Firefox I was talking about recently began to arrive with version 55 and now I am back on FF (version 56 as of today). Memory consumption is now on par with Palemoon and responsiveness is better. The next version 57 is expected to be a huge leap forward and testers seem to confirm this.

One thing about FF 57 is that it is going to break extension/addon compatibility with earlier versions. The only one I am using is NoScript and it is expected to have been ported by then. For those who absolutely need the unported addons Palemoon will probably be a good alternative.

If they could integrate into Palemoon the new FF engine that would be a real killer but I think the two projects have diverged sufficiently to make this improbable.

2 members found this post helpful.

that would make it normal firefox agian?
palemoon started out as keeping alive an old firefox version, surely it has developed since then but i'm guessing it has its limits.
this doesn't sound feasible at all, but whatdoiknow, i am not a coder.

the hype is that FF has gotten much better, faster, less bloated with newer versions.
i still don't believe that hype.

i would like to mention seamonkey.
imo, it's lighter than palemoon, one gets a mail client in the mix - one that is equally much ligther compared to thunderbird - it's actively developed or at least maintained, and it isn't a fork of anything.
it has a fair amount of known working addons, and some firefox only addons also work.
the UX is good.

It would be a trimmed-down version. The point was to disable some rarely used options to reduce resource consumption. Since FF aims to be a full-featured browser one can try to do this to any FF version.

That claim is made in every new version of every piece of software, isn't it . But seriously, in my experience, at least for the change from FF 54 to 55 this was true. The guys literally developed a new programming language --already getting significant attention by itself-- to achieve what they wanted.

Ah, I see. The programming language was not a good one, I suppose, that's why it was so incredibly slow!

. I pointed that out the emphasize the scale of the effort. Most of the speed improvements come from the utilization of better algorithms, of course. The main contribution of Rust is safety and concurrency support. But it is also true that among the programming languages that offer similar features, Rust compiles to faster-running code than most others (if not all).

I fear all that effort may be misplaced, as far as Firefox is concerned, unless they are aiming to rewrite the entire thing.

I'm sure writing a modern browser is not trivial. Otherwise we would have had several alternatives before it got this bad, I would imagine.

When you say "this bad", which version of FF are you referring to?

I haven't tested the new Firefox (compiling from source /w rust) yet. Anyone have any feedback on it?

I am on whichever version is in Slack 14.2 with the latest patches. I am talking about any release within the past several years. Firefox has had dismal performance on ridiculous processors. Low powered machines can not load an average page inside of a minute. (Haven't measured this, but I'd wager it is accurate to within 15 secs with an Atom.)

I'm not the only person who has pointed this out, either.

If you have time and bandwidth for the download, you can try my Plasma5 Live ISO, it is based on the latest Slackware-current, and apart from Slackware's Firefox 56.0 it also includes Pale Moon 27.5.0.
If you do not like Plasma 5, you can select several other desktop environments from the graphical login screen: Lumina, LXQT, XFCE. At least it will enable you to compare Firefox and Pale Moon side to side.

2 members found this post helpful.