palemoon browser

[bigpup]

Pale Moon has built in update with v28.0 onward.
So, simply use internal update to get v28.8.0
Just did it.

[Mike Walsh]

@ All:-

Is it just me....or is the page scrolling in Palemoon much smoother (and somewhat faster now) than it was previously?

Prior to today's update to 28.8.0, scrolling on the big old Compaq was always a touch jerky (and somewhat erratic, speed-wise). Now, it seems much smoother than before.....and somewhat faster, too. Far more like Firefox now!

I'm not complaining. If this is a change from Moonchild and the Palemoon team, it's a very welcome one. I like it!


Mike.

[bigpup]

Scrolling was one of the big problems in the early days of Pale Moon.
They have settings for it in preferences, but it always seemed to have issues.
I too have noticed it getting much better.
Maybe they finally figured it out!

[zagreb999]

scroll in palemoon
as in latest firefox

about:config
right click
add new

ui.scrollToClick = 3

integer

[nic007]

All Puppys with kernel version 3 and newer can handle xz compression.

[01101001b]

scroll in palemoon
as in latest firefox

about:config
right click
add new

ui.scrollToClick = 3

Apparently, valid values are 0 and 1 (I guess any value apart from 0 is taken as "1"). Just my two cents

[jrb]

I just got watchdogs palemoon-28.8.0-glibc219tweak.pet to work in lupu-528.

First I copied these libs from Racy-5.5

• libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
  libglib-2.0.so.0
  libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
  libpangoft2-1.0.so.0

Then I booted lupu-528.005 and installed palemoon-28.8.0-glibc219tweak.pet mentioned above.

Then I placed the copied libs in /usr/lib/palemoon/glibc219/lib and started palemoon. And here I am posting from it.

[watchdog]

I just got watchdogs palemoon-28.8.0-glibc219tweak.pet to work in lupu-528.

Great achievement! Thanks! I have no more my old lupu install but I think you did a beautiful present to many lupu fans.

[Mike Walsh]

Nice one, jrb..!

I've been meaning to investigate how to do that for quite some time. Up until now I've only had Palemoon running from a chroot 'jail', alongside Iron 69 and FF68esr.....but having it running natively is, of course, tons better.....

Cheers, mate! (And that is a nice 'Xmas' prezzie, too. Second one from the forum today, in fact.. !)


Mike.

[sindi]

[quote="jrb"]I just got watchdogs [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 93#1035893]palemoon-28.8.0-glibc219tweak.pet[/url] to work in [url=http://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/puppy-5.2.8/]lupu-528[/url]. :D

First I copied these libs from Racy-5.5[list]libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0
libglib-2.0.so.0
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0[/list]Then I booted lupu-528.005 and installed palemoon-28.8.0-glibc219tweak.pet mentioned above.

Then I placed the copied libs in [b]/usr/lib/palemoon/glibc219/lib[/b] and started palemoon. And here I am posting from it. 8)[/quote]

I tried this in lupu2016 and got a GdkPixBuf error, which someone else who installed Komodo fixed by installing gdkpixbuf2, which lupu2016 does not have in package manager.

[jrb]

I tried this in lupu2016 and got a GdkPixBuf error, which someone else who installed Komodo fixed by installing gdkpixbuf2, which lupu2016 does not have in package manager.

Racy has libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0

[sindi]

I copied over the one libgdk_pixbuf lib to /usr/lib/palemoon/glibc/lib/
but the next error message is that it cannot fix a directory:
/usr/lib/gdk_pixbuf-2.0. Does lupu 5.2.8... have that?

[Mike Walsh]

@ all:-

Now then; is it just me, or has anybody else noticed just how long Palemoon takes to fire up, ever since the update to 28.8.0?

I'm talking about a relatively powerful Puppy desktop here; 64-bit dual-core Athlon64 X2 CPU, 3 GB RAM, large amounts of storage space (in assorted flavours). Previous releases fired-up relatively quickly, yet this one takes nearly 40 seconds until there's any signs of life!

Just wondered if I'm the only one to notice this..?


Mike.

[Wiz57]

Mike,
Have noticed a bit of slowdown in Pale Moon startup the first start after
a boot, but subsequent closing and restarts don't seem to be affected
too much. This is with PM 28.8.0 32 bit, ScPupLXQt 32 bit, frugal install
on shared HDD with other pups and WinXP...also haven't seen a huge
slow down in regular ScPup 32. In XP, I use a fork of PM called New
Moon by Roytam, but have a few add-ons with it that slow initial start
a bit more than the Linux PMs exhibit without add-ons (I use Pup
Advert Block in my puppies).

Acer Aspire One AO150, Intel Atom N270 CPU, 1.6 gHz, 1 gb RAM, 120 gb HDD
Wiz

[sindi]

X takes about 5 seconds to load, then Pale Moon is relatively quick on this 2004 laptop, single-core, 1.4GHz, 512MB RAM.
Only add-on is eta-matrix, disabled. We use My Pal with XP.

[bigpup]

First time startup.
About 5 to 10 seconds.
That is about normal now.

takes nearly 40

That seems a little too long to start.
Any errors reported if run from terminal?

If you have installed Pale Moon or done any updates.
It is all coming from the save, which is not loaded into RAM, but only loaded as read/write.
So, Pale Moon is read from the save and than loaded into RAM.
Takes time to do that.
Plus, who really knows, what other programs it starts, as dependencies, needed to run. plugin programs, add-ons, etc......

After you have used PaleMoon and close it.
It is still loaded in the RAM cache, because you may want to use it again.
Second start will be very fast. It is already in RAM.

[6502coder]

I've got Palemoon 28.8.0 32-bit running on my 1.3 GHz Celeron laptop, 1 GB RAM, running the most recent Slacko 5.8.3 by Sailor Enceladus. Not seeing any sluggishness here.

Palemoon's window appears in about 9 seconds, although it takes another second or two for PM to become responsive to mouse events.

I also have DPupStretch 7.5 RC 5 installed on this machine. I get the same startup times for Palemoon on that OS.

[Mike Walsh]

@ bigpup:-

After you have used PaleMoon and close it.
It is still loaded in the RAM cache, because you may want to use it again.
Second start will be very fast. It is already in RAM.

Aye, I'll agree with that. It could be due to the way I run my browsers, of course; all 'portables' are run from an external, remotely-mounted 'data' partition (Mozilla-based, all of these). The only ones I install the normal way are the Chromium-based browsers, since these are awkward to make 'portable'.

(Nowadays I install the browser itself as normal, but share profiles instead.....)

Don't have any problems with those!

Guess it's like as not me being 'awkward'.... Palemoon's as fast as always, once she's up-and-running....

(*shrug*)


Mike.

[jrb]

It could be due to the way I run my browsers, of course; all 'portables' are run from an external, remotely-mounted 'data' partition (Mozilla-based, all of these)

I'm running a portable install. I just timed startup at 4 seconds. Have you checked the size of your profile? I use a 1.92 Mb barebones profile template from which I deleted /Cache2, /startupCache, /thumbnails, and places.sqlite*. It is copied to palemoon_profile and then Palemoon fills in the missing files. At shutdown bookmarks and preference changes are copied back to the template. Some changes in about:config allow bookmarks to be saved.

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh

#open in terminal
tty -s; if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then xterm -hold -e "'$0' '$@'"; exit; fi

echo yes
RD=`readlink -fv ./palemoon-launch`
#echo $RD
DIR=`dirname $RD`
echo $DIR
cd $DIR

cp -af $DIR/home_page.html /root

#echo `pwd`
mkdir $DIR/profile 2> /dev/null
rm -fr $DIR/palemoon_profile*

cp -alpru $DIR/profile $DIR/palemoon_profile
sleep 1
if [ -e "$@" ]
  then
    $DIR/palemoon "$@" -profile $DIR/palemoon_profile
  else
    $DIR/palemoon -profile $DIR/palemoon_profile
fi

cp -au $DIR/prefs.js $DIR/profile
cp -au $DIR/palemoon_profile/bookmarks.html $DIR/profile
rm -fr $DIR/palemoon_profile*

I did this to fight bloat but perhaps it has helped with startup speed as well.

Good luck, J

[bigpup]

It could be due to the way I run my browsers, of course; all 'portables' are run from an external, remotely-mounted 'data' partition (Mozilla-based, all of these).

If the browser is loading up from an external, remotely-mounted drive.
There is your slow to load problem.
Slower read speed than an internal drive.