Pale Moon speed compared to Firefox (result: FF is faster)

[JohnTHaller]

I ran a set of speed tests for the current Pale Moon 24.4 and Firefox 28.0 in Peacekeeper, Sunspider and Dromaeo. Firefox performed better in all 3. It isn't really surprising as Pale Moon is missing out on the performance enhancements in Firefox 25-28 as it's pegged to the older (and slower) Firefox ESR branch. I know there's been some discussion about Pale Moon's speed here in the past, so I thought a few folks might be interested. The full results are here: http://portableapps.com/node/39509

[joby_toss]

I've always wondered how someone can put up a FF based browser that is faster, more powerful etc., without the huge resources Mozilla has...

[Midas]

Thanks for that, JohnTHaller.

Now preparing for the switch to vanilla...

EDIT: BTW, Cyberfox topic is at http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... hp?t=20290 ...

[JohnTHaller]

In theory, they can be a little bit faster if they set the compilation options to only support more modern processors. Mozilla, rightly, wants to ensure that Firefox works for as many people as possible, so they set it to work on Pentium III chips (and the older Atom chips based on them) and Athlon XP chips whereas Pale Moon does not. There is a small amount of optimization you give up to do so. Additionally, if they cut away some features that could possibly slow things down a hair (like accessibility, since the app doesn't need to work with and expose additional things to the OS), they can gain a small measure of performance there as well. Mozilla, rightly, doesn't want to make that decision either as it would exclude quite a few people from using their product.

Pale Moon makes the decision to exclude some users - some because they lack technical hardware, some due to disability - in the name of speed, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Afterall, it's open source, and the excluded users have another choice of software that works almost exactly the same, so it's not too much of an exclusion. But, by choosing to pin to ESR, Pale Moon is nearly always missing out on a set of performance enhancements that have been introduced into Firefox after the ESR branch was split off.

In theory, Pale Moon 24.x could indeed be faster than Firefox 24.x due to the decisions to exclude certain hardware support and features in the name of speed. But that would be negated just 6 weeks later when Firefox 25 gets some new Javascript engine, DOM, or canvas improvement that doesn't land in Firefox ESR 24.0.1 on which Pale Moon is based. So, they'd only be faster for 1 out of 7 six week periods based on the ESR release schedule, assuming that Mozilla keeps improving performance with each major version release.

[ixz]

indeed, that is very interesting. i wonder if cyberfox puts up a better show?

[JohnTHaller]

indeed, that is very interesting. i wonder if cyberfox puts up a better show?

Good point. I ran the tests over lunch. Cyberfox 28.0 (Intel) Portable is about 5% slower on Peacekeeper, nearly 10% slower on Sunspider and a bit under 1% faster on Dromaeo. I added the results to the chart: http://portableapps.com/node/39509

These results are on a Core2 Quad Q6600 running at 2.4GHz, so performance of the newer chipsets could be different.

[the_watcher]

In theory, Pale Moon 24.x could indeed be faster than Firefox 24.x due to the decisions to exclude certain hardware support and features in the name of speed. But that would be negated just 6 weeks later when Firefox 25 gets some new Javascript engine, DOM, or canvas improvement that doesn't land in Firefox ESR 24.0.1 on which Pale Moon is based. So, they'd only be faster for 1 out of 7 six week periods based on the ESR release schedule, assuming that Mozilla keeps improving performance with each major version release.

Well said, John. If what you (a user) is looking for is speed, you'd better stick to the default choice -Firefox- and avoid the alternatives. And it's not only speed, but also the compatibility each alternative build offers with add-ons, that is different. Sadly, when mozilla changed to the rapid-release model, add-on compatibility suffered tremendously. Palemoon is on the safe side here, choosing an -older- ESR branch to be based upon. Security is also a factor to consider. (The developer, Moonchild, is doing a great job here constantly adding all security updates that comes with later versions of ff).
However, alternative builds differentiate themselves not only in compilation options and by cutting features not needed to most people, but also in offering features not available in regular firefox. At least not without an add-on. That to me is palemoon's greatest strength, as i've been an opera guy till now, where most features where available in the browser without the need for extra add-ons, and what sets it apart from the rest of the bunch. Moonchild has a clear vision of what he wants it (palemoon) to be, and it shows. That's why i'm using it even more than firefox every day. And when Australis lands, this difference will show even more.

[JohnTHaller]

Well said, John. If what you (a user) is looking for is speed, you'd better stick to the default choice -Firefox- and avoid the alternatives.

The reason I'd focused on speed is that the most common reason people cite when they've asked us to make Pale Moon available in the PortableApps.com App Store is that it's 'faster than Firefox'. Likely, what the users are seeing is the speed of a clean install of Pale Moon next to a Firefox install with multiple extensions, older settings, etc. It seems like there is a need for a 'profile cleaner' that will reset your Firefox profile but preserve your bookmarks and passwords (and optionally your cookies) as well as a few choice settings (proxy settings, for instance).

And it's not only speed, but also the compatibility each alternative build offers with add-ons, that is different. Sadly, when mozilla changed to the rapid-release model, add-on compatibility suffered tremendously. Palemoon is on the safe side here, choosing an -older- ESR branch to be based upon.

I think there was some adjustment when they switched models, mainly due to incorrect Min/Max version numbers in the manifests of the extensions. But I haven't noticed any issues as of late. Granted, I stick with extensions released officially on addons.mozilla.org and never directly from other sites. Additionally, Pale Moon loses compatibility with some Firefox extensions ("Support for almost all Firefox Extensions"), which may effect some users.

Security is also a factor to consider. (The developer, Moonchild, is doing a great job here constantly adding all security updates that comes with later versions of ff).

Security-wise, I'd think that Firefox proper would be the more secure product, if for nothing else than the rigorous review processes and sheer number of eyes on the builds. Granted, Moonchild does seem to be keeping up with the ESR releases fairly well and is taking the time to digitally sign his builds, which is a plus compared to some Firefox forks.

However, alternative builds differentiate themselves not only in compilation options and by cutting features not needed to most people, but also in offering features not available in regular firefox. At least not without an add-on. That to me is palemoon's greatest strength, as i've been an opera guy till now, where most features where available in the browser without the need for extra add-ons, and what sets it apart from the rest of the bunch. Moonchild has a clear vision of what he wants it (palemoon) to be, and it shows. That's why i'm using it even more than firefox every day. And when Australis lands, this difference will show even more.

I'm a bit confused on this as Pale Moon seems to offer less than Firefox (taking things out, etc) and doesn't seem to add anything in that Firefox doesn't already have. Opera always had a kitchen sink approach with features... most stuff was bundled without the need for extensions. At least until they switched to the Webkit/Blink-based newer builds in 15+.

As for Australis, I personally like it. It's pretty smooth and works well. And it's been the default in Thunderbird for a while now (minus the new big menu icons). It's easy for someone who wants to switch to another theme, of course. And it'll land in Firefox ESR (and, likely Pale Moon) under a year after it lands in Firefox stable. Not to mention that extensions may start being written for Australis and drop support for the legacy UI.

[the_watcher]

Well said, John. If what you (a user) is looking for is speed, you'd better stick to the default choice -Firefox- and avoid the alternatives.

The reason I'd focused on speed is that the most common reason people cite when they've asked us to make Pale Moon available in the PortableApps.com App Store is that it's 'faster than Firefox'. Likely, what the users are seeing is the speed of a clean install of Pale Moon next to a Firefox install with multiple extensions, older settings, etc. It seems like there is a need for a 'profile cleaner' that will reset your Firefox profile but preserve your bookmarks and passwords (and optionally your cookies) as well as a few choice settings (proxy settings, for instance).

I'd like to clarify here that i was not referring to John, with the "If what you (a user) is looking for" part. I didn't phrase that very well.
The idea for a "profile cleaner" is great. Aren't there extensions that can do that? Or Mozilla's profile migrator? I think that's how it's called.
As for add-ons, i myself haven't noticed any incompatibilities in any of the extensions i've tried. However, incompatibilities may exist. One should refer to Palemoon's website for more info.
Australis is a big change, i haven't tried it myself, but i see lots of people arguing that as it is now, is bad for those who like to customize their browser. Ghacks has written quite extensively against it. And there are quite a lot interesting stuff said to Palemoon's forums, too.

[JohnTHaller]

I'd like to clarify here that i was not referring to John, with the "If what you (a user) is looking for" part. I didn't phrase that very well.

I know that It's just that 'speed' has been the only reason anyone has ever given me when I asked them why they wanted Pale Moon added to PortableApps.com.

The idea for a "profile cleaner" is great. Aren't there extensions that can do that? Or Mozilla's profile migrator? I think that's how it's called.

Firefox has the ability to reset itself somewhat and will prompt to do so if you haven't used it in quite some time (removing extensions, etc). But, to my knowledge, there is no extension or utility to do a full reset of a profile and keep specific things (bookmarks, passwords, etc) on demand. It's not that hard to do, realistically, and I could probably work up a beta version of a utility to do so in an hour or two.

As for add-ons, i myself haven't noticed any incompatibilities in any of the extensions i've tried. However, incompatibilities may exist. One should refer to Palemoon's website for more info.

I don't know either. I was just quoting the Pale Moon site. I'd wager there may be a handful of extensions that don't work due to the name change as well as any extensions that interact with things that Pale Moon pulls out: parental controls, accessibility, webrtc, some tab functionality, etc.

Australis is a big change, i haven't tried it myself, but i see lots of people arguing that as it is now, is bad for those who like to customize their browser. Ghacks has written quite extensively against it. And there are quite a lot interesting stuff said to Palemoon's forums, too.

For me, personally, I stopped using most extensions a few years back. I found that they only help occasionally at the expense of making the browser slower most of the time. Today, I use 5. And I never used the addons toolbar other than a few experiments maybe 5+ years ago, so I won't miss it. Mozilla is trying to streamline and improve Firefox for the majority of users. Unfortunately, that may mean leaving behind a small percentage of users that want to heavily customize their browser UI... or possibly supporting them via an extension to add a special add-on bar in, perhaps. Of all the big browsers, Firefox will still be the most customizable and extensible by a long shot even with Australis.

[Userfriendly]

Wanna try pcxFirefox? - http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcxfirefox/

It's based on the tete firefox builds you've probably heard about a couple years ago. It's faster than regular Firefox/palemoon/cyberfox at every benchmark on my Intel i5 3570k using the SSE3 x64 builds.

At least with these builds they keep the firefox name so you can just easily use them with your firefox portable launcher. Though I'm not sure of the legality of unofficial 3rd party builds not changing the name.

Never like Palemoon either because its so far behind the versions and never understood its appeal when stuff like tete and pcxfirefox have been faster for a long time now.

[JohnTHaller]

Wanna try pcxFirefox? - http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcxfirefox/

It's based on the tete firefox builds you've probably heard about a couple years ago. It's faster than regular Firefox/palemoon/cyberfox at every benchmark on my Intel i5 3570k using the SSE3 x64 builds.

At least with these builds they keep the firefox name so you can just easily use them with your firefox portable launcher. Though I'm not sure of the legality of unofficial 3rd party builds not changing the name.

Never like Palemoon either because its so far behind the versions and never understood its appeal when stuff like tete and pcxfirefox have been faster for a long time now.

If they're using the Firefox name, they're doing so illegally. And, as with Waterfox, the 64-bit builds of Firefox are not considered stable. The 64-bit code branch of Firefox source for Windows still has quite a few unresolved bugs. That's one of the main reasons there's not an official Firefox x64 release. Builds like Waterfox and pcxFirefox do not patch those bugs, they're still there in these renamed builds.

[webfork]

Though I'm not sure of the legality of unofficial 3rd party builds not changing the name.

This question comes up a lot.

This corresponds to my research, but it's nice to see some real numbers. Could you list the system specs of the machine(s) you ran the test on?

[SYSTEM]

Could you list the system specs of the machine(s) you ran the test on?

These results are on a Core2 Quad Q6600 running at 2.4GHz, so performance of the newer chipsets could be different.

[Userfriendly]

My Specs:
CPU: Intel i5 3570k @ 4.3ghz,
Memory: G.Skill 16GB @ 1600mhz
Graphics: Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 Boost
OS: Windows 8.1 update 1 x64.

Benchmarked 32bit builds of Firefox 28, Palemoon 24.4.1, and pxcFirefox 28 sse3.

PeaceKeeper (Higher is better)
Firefox: 4139
Palemoon: 3176
pcx sse3: 4483

Sunspider (Lower is better)
Firefox: 120.6ms +/- 2.4%
Palemoon: 131.4ms +/- 1.8%
pcx sse3: 121.6ms +/- 1.6%

Dromaeo (Higher is better)
Firefox: 1083.27runs/s (Total)
Palemoon: 939.65runs/s (Total)
pcx sse3: 1175.74runs/s (Total)