Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Wed 24 May 2017, 04:23
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Is there a FAST mozilla based browser for old PC ?
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 9 [122 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 7, 8, 9 Next
Author Message
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Thu 15 Jan 2015, 09:24    Post subject:  

Quote:
there is also an options window.

not for everything and especially the stuff mozilla have deemed unfashionable or whatever reasons they have for removing functionality Very Happy

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Moat


Joined: 16 Jul 2013
Posts: 665
Location: Mid-mitten, USA

PostPosted: Thu 15 Jan 2015, 16:52    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
Quote:
there is also an options window.

not for everything and especially the stuff mozilla have deemed unfashionable or whatever reasons they have for removing functionality Very Happy

mike


Agreed - and I've found, oddly, that some of the menu's options settings don't appear to "stick" through multiple sessions. Assuring those settings (and many others!) via about:config cures it.

Also agree with mikeb about getting dirty with about:config - I've found that a few minutes of tweaking there after a fresh install allows even the latest, bloated Firefoxes to run plenty fast and smooth on even my 10-ish year old hardware. Everybody's MMV, though...

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Thu 15 Jan 2015, 17:26    Post subject:  

Yes settings that don't work...I managed to get form filling working again via about:config in ff 3.5/6 after they broke it...the config gui simply did not do what it said it would do. As for form history totally messed up in later versions since its now tied to history of pages which I really don't want. ...not worth the 100MB+ profile and are not bookmarks for saving pages you WANT to save? Not to mention those 100+ sqlite data bases contribute to slowdowns... what the hell were their devs snorting when they come up with that stuff? Its like tractors are great...so lets fill up the house with them darling Very Happy

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
8Geee


Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 1104
Location: N.E. USA

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jan 2015, 02:14    Post subject:  

Any ideas as to what sql-db's can get tossed Using AdBlock Plus, Redirect Cleaner, Better Privacy, YouTube HTML5, and FireFTP here. libxul is ginormous at 41Mb/91Mb.
_________________
Linux user #498913
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
gcmartin

Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 6730
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jan 2015, 05:17    Post subject:  

A 2006 PC with 1GB RAM is potentially a 64bit PC. If so, you may be slow because of RAM speed, drive speed, or USB controller speed.

Your ceiling in NOT the PUP browser, but the speed of the internet as the CPU and the other items mentioned is ions faster than your internet.

There is one BIG difference in some PUPs versus others...latency.

If your system is 64bit consider FATDOG. It has shortened pathlengths even with its larger complex programs and excellent performance while not being ISO "download heavy". Also, I did have a Simplicity ISO somewhere that, though a much larger ISO, it exhibited the best I had seen in low latency for internet use, as I remember.

Hope this outlook helps

_________________
Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engines or use DogPile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jan 2015, 08:14    Post subject:  

Quote:
Any ideas as to what sql-db's can get tossed Using AdBlock Plus, Redirect Cleaner, Better Privacy, YouTube HTML5, and FireFTP here. libxul is ginormous at 41Mb/91Mb.

well thats the dilemma...you are at the mercy of the web browser designers...if they want to bloat then we have to go along with it.

Even mozilla themselves have admitted they have overused sqlite.

regardless of how 'modern' the hardware is ... excessive code and data storage is still inefficient....why not let fast machinery truly reap the benefits of its speed.
One of the main bottle necks at the moment is handling large databases stuffed with irrelevant data ... remember web servers have multi cpu and large amounts of ram as the databases are the main load factor.

mike

Also amuses me that there are web browsers larger than the operating systems I use BEFORE the data harvesting begins.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Colonel Panic


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Fri 16 Jan 2015, 20:40    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
Quote:
Any ideas as to what sql-db's can get tossed Using AdBlock Plus, Redirect Cleaner, Better Privacy, YouTube HTML5, and FireFTP here. libxul is ginormous at 41Mb/91Mb.

well thats the dilemma...you are at the mercy of the web browser designers...if they want to bloat then we have to go along with it.

Even mozilla themselves have admitted they have overused sqlite.

regardless of how 'modern' the hardware is ... excessive code and data storage is still inefficient....why not let fast machinery truly reap the benefits of its speed.
One of the main bottle necks at the moment is handling large databases stuffed with irrelevant data ... remember web servers have multi cpu and large amounts of ram as the databases are the main load factor.

mike

Also amuses me that there are web browsers larger than the operating systems I use BEFORE the data harvesting begins.


Agreed, Mike, but also I think the web browser designers are themselves at the mercy of our changing expectations of what we want from our browsers.

Just as an example; back when I first went online in 1997 (as part of a fairly basic computer course I was doing), the browser we used was Netscape 2 on top of Windows 95, and there was no Flash in those days for playing videos or multimedia clips - even if there had been, the internet connection we were using was too slow to have made it anything other than painful.

Did we mind? Not at all! Even being able to visit the BBC News webpage and see a page of news, with pictures and text, on a computer screen was a great and much appreciated novelty. You'd probably get the same effect now by browsing in Dillo or Netsurf.

Times change, and so does software and what we expect from it. Similarly, it's hard to believe now that Microsoft Office 97, and Word in particular, was criticised as bloatware when it came out; it's almost nimble now by comparison with Office 2010.

_________________
Acer Aspire M1610 (Core 2 Duo, 2.3 GHz), 3 GB of RAM, 320 GB hard drive running PuppEX Xenial, Lighthouse64 7.02, PuppEX Slacko 6.3.0, Slacko 6.9.6.4, Tahr 6.0.6 and Chloe X-Tahr 2.0.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Sat 17 Jan 2015, 08:09    Post subject:  

Quote:
Agreed, Mike, but also I think the web browser designers are themselves at the mercy of our changing expectations of what we want from our browsers.

You suggest they actually listen to user... try getting anyone to take notice at the mozilla site...forget it. Its a geek paradise and sod the common user. Or at least a very warped view of what joe public 'wants'.

Firefox 3.6 does everything ..actually so does 1.5 that the latest firefox does...apart from handling web gimmics...thats it...so what is the tripling of size for... whats so great about a 10MB database when a 200K text file does the same job? And no its NOT faster...opera stuck with text files and it was known as the fastest on the web short of going dillo style so more geek bull going on there.
Its not about users demanding weird and wonderful features..they just accept what is there unless they have geekness issues Very Happy its about devs changing methods for the sheer hell of it with little thought to the consequences...it might be more fun for them but not for us.
If I updated I would lose useful features, gain pointless ones... render pages a bit better and run more slowly or not at all if incompatible...whats the point?

I religiously updated firefox for years..each release was BETTER.... then something changed....new devs probably..those who started the project are not necessarily the ones steering it now.
And those meaningless version numbers... why play the google chrome game...thats not exactly 'professional' . The seamonkey team at least still have a shred of common sense lingering in there.

Its not big and its not clever Very Happy

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Sat 17 Jan 2015, 09:06    Post subject:  

Ah you say... webm/html5

Ok a method of displaying media that semi controlled by google instead of Adobe that is worse than flash in terms of playback unless you have the right hardware. It then can display hi definition video which surprisingly enough my pentium 3's can do with xvid . Seems like pushing formats that force the purchase of new hardware to DO THE SAME THING thats all.

What the point apart from some companies financial gain? Not like that level of compression is essential with broadband and huge drives.

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Colonel Panic


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Sat 17 Jan 2015, 20:13    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
Quote:
Agreed, Mike, but also I think the web browser designers are themselves at the mercy of our changing expectations of what we want from our browsers.

You suggest they actually listen to user... try getting anyone to take notice at the mozilla site...forget it. Its a geek paradise and sod the common user. Or at least a very warped view of what joe public 'wants'.

Firefox 3.6 does everything ..actually so does 1.5 that the latest firefox does...apart from handling web gimmics...thats it...so what is the tripling of size for... whats so great about a 10MB database when a 200K text file does the same job? And no its NOT faster...opera stuck with text files and it was known as the fastest on the web short of going dillo style so more geek bull going on there.
Its not about users demanding weird and wonderful features..they just accept what is there unless they have geekness issues Very Happy its about devs changing methods for the sheer hell of it with little thought to the consequences...it might be more fun for them but not for us.
If I updated I would lose useful features, gain pointless ones... render pages a bit better and run more slowly or not at all if incompatible...whats the point?

I religiously updated firefox for years..each release was BETTER.... then something changed....new devs probably..those who started the project are not necessarily the ones steering it now.
And those meaningless version numbers... why play the google chrome game...thats not exactly 'professional' . The seamonkey team at least still have a shred of common sense lingering in there.

Its not big and its not clever Very Happy

mike


I wish I could agree Mike, but I've just booted up 3.6.28 and it's fairer to say it does most things that later Firefoxes can do. It wouldn't play a Youtube video when I tried one, for example, and I was limited to the basic HTML version of GMail because the browser wouldn't load the "standard view" one. That makes a difference when, for example, you want to mass delete all the spam on a page (easy in standard view but not in basic HTML where you first have to select every spam message individually).

I'm not competent to comment on the rest of what you say about Firefox except that you're probably right about a 10 MB database being unnecessary bloatware when a 200K textfile does the same job.

BTW, I've still got a copy of the last Linux version of Opera, 12.16, and use it a lot; it does almost everything Firefox can do.

_________________
Acer Aspire M1610 (Core 2 Duo, 2.3 GHz), 3 GB of RAM, 320 GB hard drive running PuppEX Xenial, Lighthouse64 7.02, PuppEX Slacko 6.3.0, Slacko 6.9.6.4, Tahr 6.0.6 and Chloe X-Tahr 2.0.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
sheldonisaac

Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 653
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Sat 17 Jan 2015, 20:32    Post subject:  

Colonel Panic wrote:
BTW, I've still got a copy of the last Linux version of Opera, 12.16, and use it a lot; it does almost everything Firefox can do.

That's what I use most of the time.

Thanks,
Sheldon

_________________
Dell E6410: Slim Slacko 6, LuPu Super 2, Tahr
Dell D610: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2
Intel D865GBF: Tiny Windows 7, Puppy Linux 5.2
Acer Aspire One: Windows XP, Puppy Linux 5.2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Colonel Panic


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 1882

PostPosted: Sun 18 Jan 2015, 07:11    Post subject:  

sheldonisaac wrote:
Colonel Panic wrote:
BTW, I've still got a copy of the last Linux version of Opera, 12.16, and use it a lot; it does almost everything Firefox can do.

That's what I use most of the time.

Thanks,
Sheldon


Yeah, and Opera 12.17 (for Windows) runs well in Wine too. There are unfortunately one or two sites I use and which Opera can't manage, however, which is why I still find I have to use a Mozilla-based browser such as Firefox or Seamonkey.

_________________
Acer Aspire M1610 (Core 2 Duo, 2.3 GHz), 3 GB of RAM, 320 GB hard drive running PuppEX Xenial, Lighthouse64 7.02, PuppEX Slacko 6.3.0, Slacko 6.9.6.4, Tahr 6.0.6 and Chloe X-Tahr 2.0.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Sun 18 Jan 2015, 09:10    Post subject:  

Quote:
It wouldn't play a Youtube video when I tried one, for example, and I was limited to the basic HTML version of GMail because the browser wouldn't load the "standard view" one.

I can use you tube with firefox 1.5 and flash 9... so something gone wrong there.

I use firefox 3.6 and flash 10.0.15 on you tube and so does the family... no special tweaks. We also use a mp4 downloader add on . Some videos don't like the older flash...its the adverts or drm I assume they want to push.

As for gmail..of course its won't its built to push chromium... google docs is the same...as mentioned compaines use the web to push their products and I believe google have something called android. Google also own you tube so same applies.... works soo well on android but you try getting flash working ok on the same system...well why would you want to use the rest of the web. Google are simply doing what Microsoft did ...trying to own the web...they just do a better job of it.
Corporate internet controls is an ongong problem... we shall see the outcome at some point...will it become a new form of TV station or remain a free and open method of information exchange.

As for the browsers I accept they have to keep up with web crap with the renderer...its the rest of the crud that spoils it...seamonkey seems better in that respect but its still riddled with those sqlite databases and matching LOSS of features. As I said I was always the first to update then firefox 4 arrived.....

mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
mikeb


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 11071

PostPosted: Sun 18 Jan 2015, 09:37    Post subject:  

Sorry but I must add that I had a gmail account (and you tube before they took over) and I was disgusted by google's complete disregard for privacy and security. They are also only champions of their own personal gain and also quite cheerfully use open source to profit from.

They have been in court of this subject too.... if you like your privacy please do consider alternatives.

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
bark_bark_bark

Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 1913
Location: Wisconsin USA

PostPosted: Sun 18 Jan 2015, 14:03    Post subject:  

mikeb wrote:
Sorry but I must add that I had a gmail account (and you tube before they took over) and I was disgusted by google's complete disregard for privacy and security. They are also only champions of their own personal gain and also quite cheerfully use open source to profit from.

They have been in court of this subject too.... if you like your privacy please do consider alternatives.

Mike


I've tried (many times) telling my brother that google is evil and that they make make money collecting your information and he never gets it. He is way too brainwashed and that there is no hope for him to have his eyes open to reality.

_________________
What consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of your business so if you think there is something wrong with homosexuality and your bothered by it, then you're an idiot who needs to mind their own business.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 9 [122 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 7, 8, 9 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1406s ][ Queries: 14 (0.0252s) ][ GZIP on ]