General :
K-Meleon Web Browser Forum
General discussion about K-Meleon
Simple Mail
Date: April 02, 2008 07:00PM
Anyone ever tried to adapt FireFox's Simple Mail Extension for K-Meleon?
Tks,
N
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 02, 2008 07:50PM
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 03, 2008 12:38AM
Rats.
N>> Anyone ever tried to adapt FireFox's Simple Mail Extension for K-Meleon?
D>> Yes they tried: [kmeleon.sourceforge.net]
This is really too bad. Simple Mail is an excellent little email client. I use it in FireFox all the time. It is soooo good that I have dumped Thunderbird altogether. Considering how compact K-Meleon is, if it could be made to work here, it would be very complimentary imo.
:-(
N
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2008 04:05AM by ndebord.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 03, 2008 12:12PM
km may change to toolkit when SeaMonkey does - it might be easier then.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 03, 2008 05:00PM
Guenter,
G>> Km may change to toolkit when SeaMonkey does - it might be easier then.
Hadn't thought of that. Would be nice. Think of the possibilities. An embedded email client in KM and for that matter, a portable KM. <g>
N
Re: Simple Mail
Posted by:
cmau
Date: April 03, 2008 09:06PM
Actually, I made it work using the MozStorage extension for firefox and a lot of hacks. However, it seems to cause memory leaks in K-Meleon (or are those common?) so it won't be good for public use. Right now with Simple Mail I have to restart K-Meleon every other day. Once there is a build for Gecko 1.9 it should be easy to port it, hopefully it will work without memory leaks.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 04, 2008 04:38PM
AFAIRemember Dorian mentioned long ago that he fixed all leaks on K-meleon's side
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2008 04:39PM by guenter.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 06, 2008 09:31PM
My experience has it that K-Meleon leaks memory massively, especially after a lot of layer activity and over large spans of time (like from one day to the next -- I have learned to live with this by periodically restarting the browser, configured to always reload last session, with the help of Sysinternals Process Explorer). I reported this last year in the thread mentioned below (with screenshot); even after upgrading to 1.1.4 problem persists, and I have observed this behaviour in every computer I used KM on...
http://kmeleonbrowser.org/forum/read.php?1,74944
Using K-Meleon is well worth this minor nuisance, but I wish it would be corrected.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2008 09:33PM by foobarly.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 07, 2008 04:19AM
foobarly,
I'm curious about when you discovered this memory leak and with which versions it occurs.
Tks
N
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 08, 2008 09:11PM
Vanilla K-Meleon, versions 1.1.3 & 1.1.4, Windows XP SP2, no localization (Acer 1694 WLMi, HP Vectra Vl400, Non-descript Pentium IV 3.0 GHz w/ 1MB RAM)...
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 08, 2008 10:15PM
foobarly,
Ah, I've not run either of those two versions. I have 1.5a2 for testing purposes and KM 1.0.2 (with Fred's patches) as my everyday browser.
IF simple mail works with any of the KMs, I'll definitely use that version.
N
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 10, 2008 11:38PM
Here's an updated screen cap:
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 11, 2008 04:08PM
I really trust on Sysinternals tools but I believe that the memory usage is showing to you is not the RAM memory usage but the Cached memory.
I'm based in my own experiences with K-meleon and other programs that you can see that they have, easily, over 512MB of memory cached but real RAM is very low, maybe about 20MB, 50MB, depending of the program you are using. (that cached memory with KM only could be possible when I browser (i mean open) images of about 20MB each).
Please, use XP Task manager, add the column "virtual memory size" and "memory use" and tell as what they say. (names of columns may be not exactly those because my system isn't in english)
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 12, 2008 12:24AM
I've done that before (see the other thread)... I am sure this is real, since when it happens the disks never stop spinning with read & write noises & lights; plus the whole system gets really sluggish -- sometimes I have to wait like two minutes for Process Explorer to show up so I can kill the lizard. :O
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2008 12:24AM by foobarly.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 13, 2008 03:54PM
Mmmm I'll leave K-meleon this night doing nothing to see what happens.
Anyway, this belongs to your personal life and you don't need to answer but... why do you left the browser open days. Are you doing something? If you do, what are you doing? You don't need to answer as I said.
Do you use any special plugin/add-on/macro.
Oh, and I used Process Explorer and those private bytes are the cached ones, the virutal memory, that is why OS is moving data from harddisk pagefile to memory, for your memory (512M
, 1GB is continously pagging :/
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2008 03:58PM by JohnHell.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 14, 2008 02:18PM
Well, near 24 hours later, because I left K-meleon open since I posted on this topic, the memory usage has changed but... not much. When I was yesterday afternoon (GMT+2) at the forum, the cached was around 55-60MB, yesterday night was 85MB and, well, now is this:
(Note: the cpu time is not the running time)
So I think no memory leaks and I was browsing all the afternoon/night through web portals as Yahoo, sites with flash as YouTube, etc :-)
But I noticed a
cached memory rising moment when I left the computer alone and K-meleon with a page loaded that had a meta-refresh each few minutes. So I think that if you left K-meleon realoading continuouly reloading may be the problem as it would be caching everytime.
I haven't got more ideas.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 14, 2008 05:19PM
Thanks for looking into this, JohnHell.
Mostly, I leave K-Meleon on so whenever I come back to my workstation(s) I am instantly set to resume my browsing where I last abandoned it -- I know I can use sessions to do the same, but with me, if it isn't open in the desktop, I won't even remember that there is a session saved, I am that braindead...
I am glad I seem to be the only one having this problem. But paged or not, those bytes still amount to memory, don't they? And the machines run in circles trying to keep up with such loads. Also, it doesn't have to get that bad -- as soon as the load starts approaching 100MB, I instantly feel the performance hit (that's when I call up Process Explorer and just tell it to restart K-Meleon).
I'll keep in mind your little experiment and in the future I'll try to be more thorough with the checking of this issue.
Thanks again.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 14, 2008 07:09PM
You are wellcome, all that can help you and all K-meleon users is good
and I had to test myself to join arguments
Mmmm, maybe your antivirus software can tell you something, try to disable/unninstall it because XP, ok, from start uses over 100MB of RAM, but I don't think you use 512 and over all the time :/ to need to free it. Maybe Avast starts to loop with memory checking... Just ideas
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 15, 2008 04:48PM
@ foobarley
Under SESSIONS - OPTIONS there is a box which can be checked such that the previous session will open when KM is started. You can have that automatic or KM will ask you.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 16, 2008 01:13AM
Yeah, I guess Avast could be the culprit, since it is present in all machines... Will keep digging. :O
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 16, 2008 01:22PM
Please, use
Antivir is better and free, Avast is a shit.
K-Meleon in Spanish
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2008 01:24PM by desga2.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 20, 2008 10:41PM
Do you have any evidence to support that, desga2?
www.av-comparatives.org doesn't seem to point that way... :O
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 23, 2008 03:56PM
@desga2: links are not working for lack of the proper referrer string...
Well, I'm revising my opinion about AntiVir, which I tried in the past with (subjective) unsatisfactory results.
But I still seriously doubt its 'Total' score as an accurate deciding factor, since in the last results ESET NOD32 -- which I regard as the best overall AV product (except for the fact that it is not free) -- only gets 71% but still has a Certification Level of Advanced+, while AntiVir PE Premium scores 81%, but its Certification Level is only Standard -- my guess is this is due to the many false positives index...
For the record, Avast! Pro scores a 'Total' of only 37%, but has few false positives and manages to get an Advanced Certification Level.
Re: Simple Mail
Date: April 23, 2008 04:42PM
If you reduce the heuristic level in AntiVir falses positives are less.
This values are usually because AntiVir recognizes more virus than Avast.
What's really Certification Level in what is besed it?
I think this is a subjetive value while number of detected virus is an objetive value.
P.S.;
AntiVir have a free version (Personal Edition, not Premium).
K-Meleon in Spanish
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2008 04:48PM by desga2.