"- but we have started to use more chrome and components
to make our browser better ; - " - Guenter

I noticed yesterday that neither one of my newest modifications by Fred seems to start up as fast as the original 0.9 with Brian Bruns' update.

My system is limited by very poor caching, so it's slow. Celeron 1.7, 479 avail RAM, XP Pro SP2, ADSL.

One of Fred's seems faster than the other. Also, "seems" is the operative word, because I can't defend a word of this--I just get a feeling, as I'm using these versions, that they are taking a bit longer to call up (I'm pretty sure about that) and to browse (they "seem" slower).

They are excellent, but so is Firefox. I'm just wondering whether our wonderful conveniences might have an effect on browser speed. Or am I simply mistaken?

I don't know if it's here the problem, but I noticed that using a pac file as done by drakken (if I remember) makes Kmeleon 09 fr2 slow, slow ...

The system works, but I think that when browsing, K-Meleon is passing its time to verify pacfile contents.

A big PAC file can slow browsing IF you have a slow computer, because the computer has to process the file. However, I had it running on a 500Mhz/win98 machine,m and there was no speed difference between using the PAC and not using it.

I have a PII-350 and w98se, and the difference is great with or without pacfile.

But I admit that my config is a little small ...

On that system, anything at all will slow it to a crawl. :-\
The PAC file is probably your best answer for content blocking though, any other method will slow your system as much if not more. What you could do though is remove unneeded entries from the PAC file. Chop it down to just one or two lines that you can use as samples, then add to it to block whatever you need to block. The smaller the file is, the faster your computer can sift through it.

Well, Drahken, I have to let you off the hook. I'm not using your PAC file. My concern about slow speed doesn't implicate you! :-)

k-m used to have only about 300 kb chrome that is about 1.2 mb when unpacked.

now we have more but even our test versions with much chrome come now where
near a mozilla suite or a FF with many extensions. Most things that we needed were
done as macros especially by jsnj.

There's one site that gives you the ability to generate a PAC file (or HOSTS file, or one of several other ad blocking files) from their list of bad sites. DON'T USE IT. The file it generates is MASSIVE and is guaranteed to slow any system. It's pretty good for a comprehensive HOSTS file, but terrible for a PAC file. The difference is that HOSTS files have to use full domain addresses, they can't use wildcards and they can't use subdirectories or filenames. PAC files on the other hand can use directories and filenames, and can use wildcards, which in turn means that a PAC file can be many times smaller and still block all the same things. Unfortunately, the script at the site I mentioned doesn't take this into account, and makes the PAC file identical to theHOSTS file.

@Guenter, I think there is a very wrong road to go down here.

Many people have asked why K-Meleon doesn't have all sorts of extensions and eye-candy like Firefox.

I have always replied that there are 2 reasons:

(1) Because K-Meleon is dedicated to being as light and fast as possible.

(2) Because, even if K-Meleon DID add all those things, what would it evolve into? --Merely a poorman's Firefox, meaning a weaker copy of Firefox. There is absolutely no need to have a second browser that could only look like Firefox in a bargain basement. K-M has never been in competition with Firefox, and that is a good thing, because Firefox has staked its claim very substantially to its toy-market territory.

If I have the choice of using a slower, heavier K-Meleon versus a lighter, faster K-Meleon, give me the lighter, faster one, every time. That's what I came here for.

By coincidence, Opera makes its second debut during this discussion of speed. On my system, Opera 8.50 starts faster than K-Meleon, and browses faster than K-Meleon.

Which is just my point. I think K-M's existence depends on its lightweight speed. Opera works on Windows 95 and up. Opera is a cinch to download and set up.

(Firefox fakes an easy install, but then hands several extensions as options to unwary refugees from IE 6. They can either do without, or learn how to download. That ain't the case with Opera.)

Apart from several niceties in K-Meleon which I personally enjoy--one, believe it or not, being the versatility of formatting possibilities in K-M's much-maligned Bookmarks--K-Meleon retains its beautiful adaptability to individual customizing. In K-M, if there is something that you don't quite like, why, you CHANGE it.

Those of us who really love that freedom will always love using K-Meleon.

Other folk will disappear from here and go to Opera now, so I do believe K-M will lose an appreciable number of users. People who came here more because of a DISlike of Firefox will disappear. The better alternative to Firefox will be Opera, free and without banner ads.

I think it would be a great idea for K-Meleon to continue just as it is doing, but with a more conscious awareness of lightweight speed. If some new feature causes it to slow down--as evidently something is right now--I think K-M would be best off to remain faithful to a mandate of "lightweight speed" over conveniences.

Because those same conveniences may well be offered more effectively in both Firefox AND Opera, now that Opera has changed its territory.

IMHO.
:-)

I use k-meleon purely for:

A - it's speed
B - it's speed
C - it's speed
"
"
"
WXYZ - tinkering around with configuring it - hours of fun for one of the family -: )







.

I'm inclined to agree with Carson.

With the 0.8.2 version, when I clicked the "Quick Launch" link, it truly was the "Quick Launch" Link---if I blinked even I missed the start up sequence of the browser! -BANG!- and my browser AND homepage was loaded, there and ready for me to surf the net, all without the loader, and completely from a cold reboot at that!

Then came v0.9: The "Quick Launch" link is still the "Quick Launch" link. However, it takes a second for the browser to build, load my homepage, and be ready to surf the web. This is from a cold reboot on my AMD 1.4gig processor (which has been tweaked to clock in at a 1.8 pIV specs).

Now come the various builds. Granted, they are just builds and NOT the "Official Version". But hopefully one of them is in the process of becoming the next KM1.0. Umm... the "Quick Launch" link, I feel, has no longer right to bear that name as it takes a good 4 to 5 seconds from the browser window to draw, load my homepage, and be ready to surf.

(In all of these I cannot compare net speed because of my type of connection all browsers load pretty much instantly so I have to compare load times.)

Granted: Even at 4 to 5 seconds it's still much faster than Firefox, which takes approximately 6 to 8 seconds to build and be ready. It's now comparable to the Mozilla Suite on my computer, which takes 5 to 6 seconds to launch, but it's now equal to my SeaMonkey. (Perhaps I shouldn't compare the two as my SM is set up under specialised circumstances and not according to the norm.)

So as I said, I'm inclined to agree with Carson. What happened to K-Meleon's speed? I hope when v1.0 comes out attention will be focused on bringing the speed of start up back down again to the 1 to 2 second timeframe and I hope that we'll still be able to see people brag that, "K-Meleon 1.0 is the only modern browser that I can run on my p75 that I found in the closet!"

Would be nice, eh?

Thanks for letting me put in my 2½¢.

Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"

Although the speed of K-Meleon builds may be decreasing, the quality is increasing dramatically. I personally haven't had enough of a difference in speed between the original 0.9 build and the newer builds, but that's probably because I keep my computer running like a P4 1.5ghz w/ 512 MB RAM... although I only have a P2 498mhz w/ 256 MB RAM. I pride myself in my computer's speed. I use K-Meleon to save my RAM for the memory intensive programs that I use at times like WinMX, UltraVNC Viewer & Server, Trillian, Adobe Photoshop, DivX Player, etc.
I'd have to say that I do agree that there probably is a difference in speed, but I'm not feeling it... and even if I was feeling it, I think the extra features would be worth it.

Question: Do the CCF Minimal Editions consume less resources? If so, maybe you could start using those and if you find that it lacks a certain feature you need, you could either incorporate it yourself or ask someone to help on the forums (I'd be more than glad to help, if I'm able to).

Brian

Maybe can try the latest K-MeleonCCF ME 0.04 Reloaded version which is much faster and cost less resources than Alpha2.

Hao

I have kept updating an old k-m embed chrome.
(only not cast into embed jar because it is easier to update in the state prior to that).
the current version consists of files from 1.710 to current 1.7.12 nightly.

it is at: http://rapidshare.de/files/5346765/chrome.1.7.12minimal.exe.html

and can AFAIK be used as alternative chrome with any recently updated 0.9_1.7.x
(with Fred´s toolkit changes / some of which are result of changed res ; - ))

The disadvantage: many amenities that came from Monkee-Sage, Sebastian,
w-b team and especially jsnj between 0.8 and 0.9 will not run with it.

When combined with a browser that has joined xpt ..
. it gives You the a simlar feeling
what the k-m of old had and the test k-m by Monkee-Sage.
entirely nostalgic. guenter was a new arrival to forum then.
and he had to be told why test browser did not run how to locate mfc70.dll

I have not tested it online lately - maybe some can tell me whether it could still be
more then nostalgia - regards

p. s. Carson - thx for Vancouver picture. Eyes glad to see You here - mail still only started - lazy me! hope Soleil and You are fine! and having a good time.

Oboyoboyoboyoboy, this is all very confoozing to my noggin, as my brain ain't wot it used to be . . . .

Well, let's see, here. I had a default 0.9 {1.7.5} January 17 build, which I had updated with Brian Bruns' {1.7.11b}, and then modified quite a bit to my liking. A nice K-M, and I wuz using it as my tried-and-true for awhile.

Today I must have dropped a wrench in the works, because it stopped calling up. No go.

No big deal; I've got half a ton of K-Meleons sitting around. So many that I have a pop-up desktop menu that displays my most often used K-Ms and then continues to expand to my experimental K-M sub-menu; and that has listings arranged by name--Hao, Fred, Guenter--to keep things in order. :-)

But then Guenter made his chrome (above, available. So I decided to try it in my broken Brian Bruns build. That one was going to be trashed anyway, so I deleted its chrome (the entire shebang) and I dropped Guenter's chrome, the one he tells us about in the preceding post, into its place.

That wuz all I did.

Then I pressed for it on my desktop, and up it came (so the glitch that killed it must've been in its chrome. That would have been of my doing; not Brian's. It had worked nicely for a few days.)

Not only did it come up, looking just fine and dandy, but, um, it is
very
fast.

Try it; you'll like it.

Thanks, Guenter. I don't know what I'm doing, but K-M is sure working well.

WHOA there! Whoa MOLLY!!

Oh--sorry. It's getting away on me again. It is
so
f
a
s
t
:-)

Well, gentlemen, I think we shouldn´t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Hao's 1.91 CCF 04 Alpha 1 gives me exactly the same "BANG!" feeling described by some folks here Out of the box it starts in ONE second!! It's FANTASTIC!!!
No need to remove anything. And I am not using the 'Loader' (it creates problems if you want to start another flavour of KM and you forget to kill the process)

Firefox (both 1.0.6 and 1.5 nightlies) take 4-5 seconds to appear.

But I admit they are rather overloaded with extensions that for different reasons I cannot live without, though I try to keep the list pruned down. But it's a a TOOL. Not a speed contest. Work must get done. So you use the best tool for the job, and you don´t get something for nothing. They take their toll. You just have to strike the right balance.

'Out of the box' (no extensions) Deer Park 1.5 public beta took about 2 secs to start.

Another Firefox 1.06 annoyance, is that in addition to XUL which slows it down, it has become a memory hog.

Since they are moving to 1.5 with the 1.8b4 GRE, they've given up trying to plug the myriad memory leaks in 1.06 that make it use 200 Megas of RAM after a couple of hours browsing. This does NOT appear to happen with the 1.5 nightlies I am testing.

This memory problem in 1.06 makes itself felt specially if you download things. Not X rated stuff. Just downloading the viewed page often enough in FF eventually throws the dang thing over the edge, so they had to invent that wonderful extension-kludge, that makes everything come up neatly when you have to kill it and restart it because the whole shebang freezes solid out of lack of resources. FF regains its composture, till next time.

But K-meleon is so marvelously MODULAR that barebone configurations can coexist with standard-featured ones, such as the WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL CCF's. (I use the Phoenity skin, by the way, it works fine and looks great)

And those who so wish or need can go overboard with enriched configs, such as Fred's builds, or make their own.

But please don't strip the thing down unnecessarily! Don´t throw the baby with the bath water! Only for those who want it that way!

ONE SECOND start time without the loader is good enough for most!!

I thought that at the end of the development cycle, a statically linked version would be built to increase speed, as the K-Ninja or Wechselbag do. Is that in Dorian and others' minds?

Jmillar, what does your system look like? What you say makes perfect sense, but methinks you've got a pretty nice setup there, with lots of power. It sounds like it.
:-)

When I hear (see) people arguing about 'speed', I allways get my stomach aching. That is because 'speed' is very very very subjective...

I'm using K-M 0.9 and have used 0.8.2 before. I've used 1.7.5, 1.7.8, 1.7.10 and 1.7.11 GREs. I've tried guenter's WW2 (with its joined xpt's). I've not noticed any difference in 'speed'.

As far as page loading times are concerned, this will of course depend on your internet connection. I'm still on a slow dialup connection. This connection is slow - very slow - and it will stay slow whatever browser I will be using. The limited bandwidth is the limiting factor in regard to page loading speed, not the browser. But perhaps I will change my mind when I get my 2 MBit/s ADSL next month (to be honest, I can't await it :-)...

As far as application speed is concerned, this will very much depend on your system (configuration). I'm running Win2k on a PIII-700 (running at 933 MHz) with 256 MB of RAM. My K-M starts up within one second (two seconds in worst case), it starts up 'instantly' when I use the loader. My former system (still in use) was a PII-Celeron-400. So I know very well, how 'slow' a PII system - like Alain's or Brian's - is, when compared to mine. However, I wonder why I should upgrade my old hardware, when I hear that a ~1.5 GHz system - like Eyes-Only's - is 'slower' than mine. LOL. Do I need to buy a 3 GHz system to get something that is as 'fast' as what I already have? ROFL.

@Carson: This is not intended to make you unsure of yourself! Carry On! ;-)

@Eyes-Only: Nice to see you here, my dear wise friend! I've just recently wondered where you were! Spent some hollydays, ha? Have a good time!

The faster your system is, the less difference in speed you'll notice. The faster your connection is, the less you'll notice. Most speed difference only become noticeable on slow systems/connections. For example: Mozilla/firefox take a full 30seconds to load up on a 500Mhz system (KM takes no more than 1 second on such a system), but are only slightly slower to load than KM when on a 2Ghz system.
I too am on dialup, and definitely notice a browsing speed difference between some browsers. Opera is very fast, KMs that are based on GRE 1.8x are about as fast (it's a tossup between KM 1.8x and opera), moz/ff versions that use 1.8x are almost as fast as the 1.8x KMs, the 1.7x KMs are about the same speed as the 1.8x moz/ff, IE is in this range somewhere (although I don't use it enough to know exactly where), and moz/ff based on 1.7x or older are very slow indeed.

kko, you are absolutely right (as you always are!) but you are positioned right now right on the far edge of "lean and mean". Let me explain.

I said somewhere else that we felt we were saying goodbye forever to "lean and mean" when we abandoned DOS to Windows 3x. The dreaded Windows shell, which took away our freedom and creativity. It definitely seemed that it did.

It was nice to be able to move any program anywhere on the computer. Say, Word! Just pack it up and move it somewhere else! Nothing was linked to it.

I see the same thing happening a second time right here, as people with 98se look fearsomely into the void. XP is much, much better--as you've said--but, once again, it is big; it is HUGE; and (together with the much bigger systems it's intended for) it is a long, long way away from trimming things down nice and light. There is no need to, in fact, because the systems have giant storage spaces (hard drives are dirt cheap compared to what they used to be) and loaded with RAM.

So instead of speed depending on lightweight efficiency, it depends on excessive muscle. Get rid of your Porsche. Take delivery of your Hummer.

Seems a shame. It's the same old deal we had when we lost DOS. Even between Windows ME and XP I've seen the difference--a friend of mine (who knows nothing about his computer) has a perfectly-working ME that runs much faster than my XP just because his system is smaller and "tighter" than mine. He has less of everything than I do, but he has "proportionately" more power available for what he is running. In theory my system is more versatile, but his speed sounds like yours, kko. He presses buttons and things happen. I get to spend a lot more time watching hourglass figures; the wrong kind, however.

Carson,


What is the difference between Brian and Guenter's chrome? (And if I should need to go to Guenter's chrome, where or which version can I find it in?

I ask because I too have gone for Brian's executables on top of GRE 1.7.5 from the original KM 0.9 distribution. Caveat. On occasion, I have mixed and matched and screwed up the whole shebang. Right now it is running very nicely though.

N

I'm pretty clueless about the various chromes, but I've been doing some testing recently for Guenter. He sent me a stripped-down chrome he uses to build on, but he also made that chrome downloadable via this forum.

I guess it depends what choices you make about what you want to run. We all seem to be in agreement that we use SOME things (no doubt different for everyone) but we don't use MOST things.

Guenter's basic chrome can be found in the "Toys and Speed" thread if you scroll down to Guenter's post at 9:21:05, 01:47. He explains it there.
http://kmeleonbrowser.org/forum/read.php?f=1&i=29967&t=29967

Gee whiz! I gave a URL to the very same thread we're in now! Okay, just scroll UP, then.

Hello,

No doubt the newer versions will affect old/slow systems to a much greater extent.

I did some quick comparison KM start up tests on the following system:

System: PII300 Win98SE, 192MB, ZA, NOD32


KM.82 & .9 vr1.5 13 sec

CCF0.019PR3 vr1.7.5 11 sec (has been the default)

CCF0.03RC1 vr1.9a1 32 sec

CCF0.03RC2 vr1.8b4 30 sec

CCFME0.04 vr1.8b4 21 sec

CCFME0.04reloaded vr1.8b4 33 sec


These were all 'cold' starts, with a PC reboot between each test.

Incidentally, Opera 8.5 loaded in 7 sec.

Of course these are just sample tests from one individual, many factors come into play.

Perhaps someone else with an old system could do similar test, for comparison.

Regards,

Andy

Strange. On my old 500Mhz comp, ME0.04 loaded noticeably faster than plain 0.9, and roughly the same as 0.82.

I did a quick test on my work PIII 500, Win98, and both .9 and CCF 0.04 Alpha2 loaded in about 8 secs.

Andy

@Carson: What you said about "lean and mean" makes absolutely sense to me. But say, have you meant my system or me myself? Anyhow, I guess both would be fitting Your right, I'm not a multitasking personality. I prefer doing one thing after the other rather than all at the same time...

Get rid of your Porsche. Take delivery of your Hummer.

Believe me, if you would have to pay the prices for fuel in the US (I know, you live in canada, but I don't know the canadian prices that we have to pay in europe (towards 1.5 ¤ - not per gallon, per liter!), you wouldn't see that much SUV's on north american roads!

P.S. That trick with the link was really a good one! Carry On!

Sorry, € = EURO

In Vancouver, it's about € 0.77 per litre right now, which is the most it has ever been.

I am now refraining from writing a great huge thing about my interpretation (as an ecologist) of the economic politics behind that. Consider me well-behaved.
:-)