General :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
I couldn't locate the option in the Installer, nor in the Portable archive. Has this feature been removed or is it awaiting implementation? I am looking in K-Meleon 74 Stable and 75 Betas.
I see it in the older K-Meleon 1.6.0 Beta2 archive and before. I would imagine it probably wouldn't work if I just copied loader.exe over to the current version, right? I know I have to make a Startup shortcut.
I would really appreciate using this preloader as I have a 1GHz processor.
Yes, dimly remember that Dorian mentioned that it's gone in newer versions. Personally I'm not sure if I'd want to have a loader, or if it really helps much. Only know in the forum there were often complaints that had to do with it, because people were not aware they had it running in the background.
No idea if it would work to use the one from older versions, would perhaps just try and see ;-)
Loader is gone. In the recent past it was only used to make an icon in fast start.
The loader.exe from 1.6 works for 74 with that function.
It does that for any K-Meleon.exe in the folder it is started.
p.s. But it is not the powerful and bugy pre-loader of old that loaded part of the engine IE style - for that You would use a really old loader and run the risks of the old bugs on Your system. :O
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 07:49PM by guenter.
Yes, copying the loader over to KM 74, it does continue to work the same as recent versions before. But, I see it does more than put a shortcut icon in the system tray. If I move the Config slider to any one of the three settings other than None, a portion of K-Meleon is put into memory and makes for a somewhat snappier start. So, some pre-loading is possible, just not three distinct modes. The three all seem to use the same memory regardless, and I perceive no difference between them. This behavior is no different in KM 1.6 and the several versions before it.
I looked in the changelog and discovered why the three preload settings behave the same.
So, there you go. It appears only the Fast (Preload browser engine) setting was retained of the three, despite no visual change to the slider in Config. Interestingly, the loader.exe grew in size from 20KB to 32KB with this less functionality.
Unfortunately, copying the loader.exe from KM 0.9 does not give KM 74 the full function back, so I guess too much has changed internally.
Anyway, KM 0.9 with Extreme preloading is amazingly fast without using too much memory. You're right, though. I can't really give up KM 74, so if the loader did work 74 probably would consume too much memory for me (I have only 256M
. If I had any more memory, it would be all right.
True. The loader definitely is not perfect since it doesn't seem to release memory enough; it should restart K-meleon instead of just minimizing it. This would also help activate any changed settings that require a restart anyway, without the user needing to restart the loader. I could perhaps script a generic loader for my needs to do that.
I tried only with the loaders from 1.6 and 0.7.1. The 0.7 loader has a problem with starting the right K-Meleon.exe (which is the one in it folder). It can do the
extreme preload. RAM Size is not that big. XP SP3.
I didn't try anything older than 0.9. Presumably that problem must have been fixed, since I didn't notice it in 0.9 or above. Are you saying the loader in the service pack 0.7.1 works OK? The changelog starts only at 1.0, so I haven't any idea what was fixed beforehand.
I'm on XP as well. RAM usage is very conservative for 1.6 and below, which is important for a program that may go unutilized in the system tray on a given day. I had thought QtWeb was great in regards to startup speed and memory, but the older K-Meleons are far better. In my case KM 0.9+Loader is starting up at 25000K versus QtWeb with 53000K in combined RAM and VM; so better than half. However, that may be a mute point since QtWeb is more up-to-date.
Naturally, I want to use the modern KM 74 in the tray, but it is simply too hungry with 3.2x the total memory of KM 0.9 (80500K vs 25000K RAM+VM). That represents 30% of my actual RAM, for something that may or may not be used. I tend to go through a lot of VM and my disk is very slow. Clearly this isn't an easy decision.
The capabilities in KM 74 really stand out against the aging and simplistic QtWeb browser, but I suppose each has its strengths and weaknesses. I don't mind using a bunch of browsers for different purposes, but it does complicate things. Every browser including QtWeb and K-Meleon have run out of memory for me.
Obviously, these kinds of measures pale by comparison to the truly thirsty browsers that I have come to know. In fact, for any browser it's unreasonable for me to think that memory usage has anywhere to go but up.
My system has 2 GB RAM. But I stopped to use the loader ages ago. I tried with the one from 0.7.1 because I had deleted newer never used ones.
The speculative JS compilation and ahead loading can be be switched off IMHO with the Gecko based browsers but the price is less speed. It was discussed in forum during 1.6 times but i do not recall details.
There are always possible trade offs.
JIT (JustInTime) compiler, default setting:
pref("javascript.options.baselinejit", true);
It might help setting it to "false". Disabling JavaScript is even more helpful.
However, 250MB at disposal is much too little. The web has changed a lot during the last decade.
Thanks guenter and Yogi. I'll definitely try those settings in Gecko since JavaScript is such an intensive task on my system. It probably is a good compromise rather than shutting off JavaScript completely. I've already known about disabling prefetching.
Having 256MB has never been adequate. Even after a cold boot I only have 32MB or less available without the browser running. It is hard to believe this offering was considered generous in 2001 for an OEM XP machine. I am frequently amazed that Firefox runs fairly decently on 256 MB RAM for awhile.
Originally I wanted 512MB, but it was not a popular option — too expensive to sell to customers I suppose. I have always intended to upgrade to the max 512MB, but never seemed to. Is it best not to exceed the max recommendation to avoid possible heat damage to a notebook?
Usually, one can go as high as the motherboard and BIOS allow.
That is good to hear because opinion on the web couldn't be more divided. Since it is a performance enhancement, some people observe their system, as a whole, working harder, faster and producing more heat. While others claim the opposite; more memory should reduce unnecessary CPU and disk activity, leading to less heat or averaging out.
I wasn't sure because the manufacturer probably has not considered the memory in question when testing, so it may lead to unsafe operation or affect reliablity and longevity. It is also possible that the manufacturer has tested modules in excess of the recommendation and has encountered longevity failures, hence the reason for the recommendation. Not all designs can be stressed equally and it likely can be assumed there will be some natural decline in cooling ability over time.
As an example of limitations, when I purchased this machine I thought I was getting a great processor, an AMD Athlon4 with the support for the full SSE instruction set. To my horror, it was delivered deliberately detuned with SSE disabled by AMD and with no support in the BIOS to enable the SSE status bit. I've looked at other machines with this problem and the manufacturer has not released a BIOS update to address this. It is as if they don't want you to use it! With more and more software being written for SSE and SSE2, it is a real predicament because many software developers aren't aware that modern CPUs could have crippled SSE. It is disheartening having something you can't even take advantage of.
General discussion about K-Meleon
Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
Rainbow
Date: February 11, 2015 09:21PM
I couldn't locate the option in the Installer, nor in the Portable archive. Has this feature been removed or is it awaiting implementation? I am looking in K-Meleon 74 Stable and 75 Betas.
I see it in the older K-Meleon 1.6.0 Beta2 archive and before. I would imagine it probably wouldn't work if I just copied loader.exe over to the current version, right? I know I have to make a Startup shortcut.
I would really appreciate using this preloader as I have a 1GHz processor.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
siria
Date: February 11, 2015 10:12PM
Yes, dimly remember that Dorian mentioned that it's gone in newer versions. Personally I'm not sure if I'd want to have a loader, or if it really helps much. Only know in the forum there were often complaints that had to do with it, because people were not aware they had it running in the background.
No idea if it would work to use the one from older versions, would perhaps just try and see ;-)
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
guenter
Date: February 12, 2015 07:47PM
Quote
Rainbow
I couldn't locate the option in the Installer, nor in the Portable archive. Has this feature been removed or is it awaiting implementation? I am looking in K-Meleon 74 Stable and 75 Betas.
I see it in the older K-Meleon 1.6.0 Beta2 archive and before. I would imagine it probably wouldn't work if I just copied loader.exe over to the current version, right? I know I have to make a Startup shortcut.
I would really appreciate using this preloader as I have a 1GHz processor.
Loader is gone. In the recent past it was only used to make an icon in fast start.
The loader.exe from 1.6 works for 74 with that function.
It does that for any K-Meleon.exe in the folder it is started.
p.s. But it is not the powerful and bugy pre-loader of old that loaded part of the engine IE style - for that You would use a really old loader and run the risks of the old bugs on Your system. :O
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 07:49PM by guenter.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
Rainbow
Date: February 13, 2015 08:24AM
Quote
guenter
Loader is gone. In the recent past it was only used to make an icon in fast start.
The loader.exe from 1.6 works for 74 with that function.
Yes, copying the loader over to KM 74, it does continue to work the same as recent versions before. But, I see it does more than put a shortcut icon in the system tray. If I move the Config slider to any one of the three settings other than None, a portion of K-Meleon is put into memory and makes for a somewhat snappier start. So, some pre-loading is possible, just not three distinct modes. The three all seem to use the same memory regardless, and I perceive no difference between them. This behavior is no different in KM 1.6 and the several versions before it.
Quote
guenter
p.s. But it is not the powerful and bugy pre-loader of old that loaded part of the engine IE style - for that You would use a really old loader and run the risks of the old bugs on Your system. :O
I looked in the changelog and discovered why the three preload settings behave the same.
K-Meleon 1.0 (14 July 2006) Rem: Loader faster and extreme setting removed from core.
So, there you go. It appears only the Fast (Preload browser engine) setting was retained of the three, despite no visual change to the slider in Config. Interestingly, the loader.exe grew in size from 20KB to 32KB with this less functionality.
Unfortunately, copying the loader.exe from KM 0.9 does not give KM 74 the full function back, so I guess too much has changed internally.
Anyway, KM 0.9 with Extreme preloading is amazingly fast without using too much memory. You're right, though. I can't really give up KM 74, so if the loader did work 74 probably would consume too much memory for me (I have only 256M
. If I had any more memory, it would be all right.
Quote
siria
Personally I'm not sure if I'd want to have a loader, or if it really helps much. Only know in the forum there were often complaints that had to do with it, because people were not aware they had it running in the background.
True. The loader definitely is not perfect since it doesn't seem to release memory enough; it should restart K-meleon instead of just minimizing it. This would also help activate any changed settings that require a restart anyway, without the user needing to restart the loader. I could perhaps script a generic loader for my needs to do that.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
guenter
Date: February 13, 2015 03:10PM
I tried only with the loaders from 1.6 and 0.7.1. The 0.7 loader has a problem with starting the right K-Meleon.exe (which is the one in it folder). It can do the
extreme preload. RAM Size is not that big. XP SP3.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
Rainbow
Date: February 14, 2015 11:20AM
I didn't try anything older than 0.9. Presumably that problem must have been fixed, since I didn't notice it in 0.9 or above. Are you saying the loader in the service pack 0.7.1 works OK? The changelog starts only at 1.0, so I haven't any idea what was fixed beforehand.
I'm on XP as well. RAM usage is very conservative for 1.6 and below, which is important for a program that may go unutilized in the system tray on a given day. I had thought QtWeb was great in regards to startup speed and memory, but the older K-Meleons are far better. In my case KM 0.9+Loader is starting up at 25000K versus QtWeb with 53000K in combined RAM and VM; so better than half. However, that may be a mute point since QtWeb is more up-to-date.
Naturally, I want to use the modern KM 74 in the tray, but it is simply too hungry with 3.2x the total memory of KM 0.9 (80500K vs 25000K RAM+VM). That represents 30% of my actual RAM, for something that may or may not be used. I tend to go through a lot of VM and my disk is very slow. Clearly this isn't an easy decision.
The capabilities in KM 74 really stand out against the aging and simplistic QtWeb browser, but I suppose each has its strengths and weaknesses. I don't mind using a bunch of browsers for different purposes, but it does complicate things. Every browser including QtWeb and K-Meleon have run out of memory for me.
Obviously, these kinds of measures pale by comparison to the truly thirsty browsers that I have come to know. In fact, for any browser it's unreasonable for me to think that memory usage has anywhere to go but up.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
guenter
Date: February 14, 2015 12:49PM
My system has 2 GB RAM. But I stopped to use the loader ages ago. I tried with the one from 0.7.1 because I had deleted newer never used ones.
The speculative JS compilation and ahead loading can be be switched off IMHO with the Gecko based browsers but the price is less speed. It was discussed in forum during 1.6 times but i do not recall details.
There are always possible trade offs.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
Yogi
Date: February 17, 2015 12:37AM
JIT (JustInTime) compiler, default setting:
pref("javascript.options.baselinejit", true);
It might help setting it to "false". Disabling JavaScript is even more helpful.
However, 250MB at disposal is much too little. The web has changed a lot during the last decade.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
Rainbow
Date: February 19, 2015 12:22AM
Thanks guenter and Yogi. I'll definitely try those settings in Gecko since JavaScript is such an intensive task on my system. It probably is a good compromise rather than shutting off JavaScript completely. I've already known about disabling prefetching.
Having 256MB has never been adequate. Even after a cold boot I only have 32MB or less available without the browser running. It is hard to believe this offering was considered generous in 2001 for an OEM XP machine. I am frequently amazed that Firefox runs fairly decently on 256 MB RAM for awhile.
Originally I wanted 512MB, but it was not a popular option — too expensive to sell to customers I suppose. I have always intended to upgrade to the max 512MB, but never seemed to. Is it best not to exceed the max recommendation to avoid possible heat damage to a notebook?
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
JamesD
Date: February 19, 2015 02:00PM
Quote
Rainbow
Is it best not to exceed the max recommendation to avoid possible heat damage to a notebook?
Usually, one can go as high as the motherboard and BIOS allow.
Re: Is the K-Meleon Loader Gone?
Posted by:
Rainbow
Date: February 19, 2015 10:52PM
Quote
JamesD
Usually, one can go as high as the motherboard and BIOS allow.
That is good to hear because opinion on the web couldn't be more divided. Since it is a performance enhancement, some people observe their system, as a whole, working harder, faster and producing more heat. While others claim the opposite; more memory should reduce unnecessary CPU and disk activity, leading to less heat or averaging out.
I wasn't sure because the manufacturer probably has not considered the memory in question when testing, so it may lead to unsafe operation or affect reliablity and longevity. It is also possible that the manufacturer has tested modules in excess of the recommendation and has encountered longevity failures, hence the reason for the recommendation. Not all designs can be stressed equally and it likely can be assumed there will be some natural decline in cooling ability over time.
As an example of limitations, when I purchased this machine I thought I was getting a great processor, an AMD Athlon4 with the support for the full SSE instruction set. To my horror, it was delivered deliberately detuned with SSE disabled by AMD and with no support in the BIOS to enable the SSE status bit. I've looked at other machines with this problem and the manufacturer has not released a BIOS update to address this. It is as if they don't want you to use it! With more and more software being written for SSE and SSE2, it is a real predicament because many software developers aren't aware that modern CPUs could have crippled SSE. It is disheartening having something you can't even take advantage of.
English