Web browser suggestion

Message
Author
markwiering
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:22 pm

Web browser suggestion

#1 Post by markwiering »

Hello there! :-D

I run MX Linux 18.3 32-bit on my Fujitsu Siemens Scenic E600 i865G with Intel Pentium IV 2.8 Ghz, 1014 MiB (it was 1.5 GiB before, but I decreased it since Windows XP refused to run reliably with so much RAM), 64 MB integrated graphics card of Intel and a 80 GB hard drive that has a 40 GB NTFS partition (Windows XP + Puppy Linux), a 37 GB partition (MX Linux) and 3 GB SWAP.

While MX Linux itself runs great, it happened multiple times that the computer began to run extremely slow, to the point that a hard reboot was the only option to get the computer working again (nothing else worked, not even xkill when started with the shortcut Num 0; xkill simply refused to start!)

I quickly noticed that this was because of Mozilla Firefox. At startup, MX Linux uses 20% of my RAM. Later, this decreases to 13%, so I assume that 13% RAM usage on 1014 MiB is the minimum that MX Linux requires to operate. When I run Mozilla Firefox with one single tab, however, the RAM usage springs to 60-70%, but then it gradually grows to 90% (with one single tab open...), and then the aggressive swapping starts, rendering the computer unusable, after which I do a hard reboot.

Then I removed Mozilla Firefox and replaced this with Palemoon. Palemoon is way more responsive, doesn't eat all of my RAM and doesn't even make the operating system crash when working with 10 or more tabs opened. With Palemoon, MX Linux is usable again.

But, this left me with a question. If MX Linux advertises being midweight, why does it come with an extremely heavyweight web browser by default? Even if MX Linux itself is midweight, if you are required to have a couple of gigabytes of RAM to run the web browser, then it isn't midweight any more. That makes MX Linux heavyweight.

So, my suggestion is, is to remove Mozilla Firefox as the default web browser of MX Linux and replace it with something more lightweight, like Palemoon! :happy:

This way, even someone using a slightly older computer (like myself!) can use MX Linux to full satisfaction, without requiring that user to manually look for a lighter web browser. Palemoon still renders all web pages correctly, so you don't lose any functionality when using it.

OR, you could provide two ISO files of MX Linux, in which you suggest to run the one with Palemoon if you have less than 2 GB of RAM. That could also be a great solution. ;)

User avatar
dolphin_oracle
Developer
Posts: 20001
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:17 pm

Re: Web browser suggestion

#2 Post by dolphin_oracle »

varying situations are why we have the options available in MX-packageinstaller and in the repositories in general, so I'm quite happy you have something working for you.

Just keep in mind that a P4 with 1 GB of ram is awfully awfully resource constrained. Also, "midweight" would be considerably heavier that what your machine specs in at.

Thank you for the suggestion.
http://www.youtube.com/runwiththedolphin
lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4 - MX-23
FYI: mx "test" repo is not the same thing as debian testing repo.

Huckleberry Finn

Re: Web browser suggestion

#3 Post by Huckleberry Finn »

Mine is also 2GB but the latest Firefox is really not heavier than others, it starts under 500 MB ( at idle the pc is at 147 already) and generally doesn't exceed 1 GB in total.. Also when closing tabs, it drops quickly to around 500 again. Yes, it starts a bit late but it's reliable imho.

I tried all others in Win, only Brave and Iridium are a bit lighter or snappier.. Palemoon was increasing the cpu suddenly and going on with high cpu.. And on MX tried qupzilla (now Falcon) which was "terrible", and even heavier than the current Firefox and not able to open some pages thoroughly.. I immediatey removed that, too.. The current Firefox is not bad really... Imho, others are not trustable as they might not work on some pages and not suitable to place in an official iso (especially when you're at #1) as people would soon begin to complain: "this doesn't open, that page doesn't open thoroughly etc.." I'd trust only to Firefox for such reasons.
Last edited by Huckleberry Finn on Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jerry3904
Administrator
Posts: 21932
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Web browser suggestion

#4 Post by Jerry3904 »

I agree. They have done a lot of work on Midori, I wonder how that does now.
Production: 5.10, MX-23 Xfce, AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core, GeForce GT 630/PCIe/SSE2, 16 GB, SSD 120 GB, Data 1TB
Personal: Lenovo X1 Carbon with MX-23 Fluxbox and Windows 10
Other: Raspberry Pi 5 with MX-23 Xfce Raspberry Pi Respin

Huckleberry Finn

Re: Web browser suggestion

#5 Post by Huckleberry Finn »

Meanwhile, Once upon a time I liked Midori when I saw it was really light.. But as you all know, that frustrating no-reason crashing.. I just mean; I find them unreliable to be presented in an official iso as the default web browser.. They would cause a negative impression imho..

User avatar
seaken64
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: Web browser suggestion

#6 Post by seaken64 »

Hi markwiering, welcome!

You discovered that a Pentium-IV with 1 MB RAM is not really well suited to even the "mid-weight" MX Linux out of the box. But MX can work on that rig if you do a little tweaking.

I think we should resist the idea that MX has to be ready for everyone OOTB and for all newbies who may try to avoid making any changes to the system setup. That would be more for a "Heavy-weight" system where the goal is to be universal and the everything for everyone. There are a few distros out there that try to be like that but they almost certainly will not work on an old P-IV.

My expectations when I look for a distro for an old P-IV or P-III is that I will have to make some effort to get it to work smoothly. I usually know I will have to change the browser and run an add-on to help block ads and scripts.

MX makes it easy to tweak the system and remove and add software. OOTB expectations have to be tendered to the equipment.

I use SeaMonkey a lot and run uBlock Origin. And I usually try for 2MB RAM minimum when using MX. With 1MB I use antiX.

Seaken64
MX21-64 XFCE & W11 on Lenovo 330S LT. MX21-KDE & MX21-XFCE on Live USB.
MX18-64 & W7, Fedora on HP Core2 DT
MX21-32 XFCE w/ MX-Fluxbox on P4HT DT w/ antiX21, SUSE Tumbleweed, Q4OS, WXP
antiX21 on Compaq PIII 1 Ghz DT, w/ Debian, MX18FB, W2K

User avatar
Jerry3904
Administrator
Posts: 21932
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:13 am

Re: Web browser suggestion

#7 Post by Jerry3904 »

Huckleberry wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:12 pm Meanwhile, Once upon a time I liked Midori when I saw it was really light.. But as you all know, that frustrating no-reason crashing.. I just mean; I find them unreliable to be presented in an official iso as the default web browser.. They would cause a negative impression imho..
That certainly used to be the case. Have you tried it since 4.14 came out? I have not but intend to one of these days. But just for fun, I am wedded to Opera.
Production: 5.10, MX-23 Xfce, AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core, GeForce GT 630/PCIe/SSE2, 16 GB, SSD 120 GB, Data 1TB
Personal: Lenovo X1 Carbon with MX-23 Fluxbox and Windows 10
Other: Raspberry Pi 5 with MX-23 Xfce Raspberry Pi Respin

User avatar
seaken64
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:43 pm

Re: Web browser suggestion

#8 Post by seaken64 »

I had the same problem with Midori a couple of years ago. Constantly crashing. I will check it out again and see if it still has this issue.

Seaken64
MX21-64 XFCE & W11 on Lenovo 330S LT. MX21-KDE & MX21-XFCE on Live USB.
MX18-64 & W7, Fedora on HP Core2 DT
MX21-32 XFCE w/ MX-Fluxbox on P4HT DT w/ antiX21, SUSE Tumbleweed, Q4OS, WXP
antiX21 on Compaq PIII 1 Ghz DT, w/ Debian, MX18FB, W2K

fladd
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:24 pm

Re: Web browser suggestion

#9 Post by fladd »

Browsers these days are weird. 20 years ago surfing the web was perfectly possible with 128MB memory. Not it isn't anymore...

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12832
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Web browser suggestion

#10 Post by Stevo »

fladd wrote: Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:08 pm Browsers these days are weird. 20 years ago surfing the web was perfectly possible with 128MB memory. Not it isn't anymore...
Not with pages shoving oodles of Javascript at your poor little CPU!
BTW, we do have Midori 9.0 in the test repo.

Post Reply

Return to “General”