Firefox 2.0.0.20, compiled with gtk 1.2

Stuff that has yet to be sorted into a category.
Post Reply
Message
Author
zenfunk
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 18 Mar 2009, 07:28

Firefox 2.0.0.20, compiled with gtk 1.2

#1 Post by zenfunk »

As mentioned earlier, there is a Firefox 2.0 series that is compiled with gtk1.2.

URL: http://www.lamarelle.org/mo-zi-lla/mozilla.php#fx

I tried the latest static tar.bz2 package, simply unziped it and it worked.
I'm using a custom Puppy based on 4.1.2. You probably need gtk 1.2.

http://www.lamarelle.org/firefox/2.0.0. ... k1.tar.bz2

Compared to firepup it seems to be just as fast on startup time and uses 2 MB less RAM.

HTH the ram challenged who just can't stand dillo.

BTW, the ugliness of gtk 1.2 seems to get better over time. You will get used to it.

Christian
Last edited by zenfunk on Sat 02 May 2009, 10:45, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ecomoney
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 07:00
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

#2 Post by ecomoney »

How tested is it?
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]

Sorry, my server is down atm!

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#3 Post by mikeb »

Curious...have you tried flash 9/10 with it.
I compiled firefox 1.5 to gtk 1.2 and it ran well but not with the flash 9 plugin as I guess because it reqires gtk2 (for its menu).

regards

mike

zenfunk
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 18 Mar 2009, 07:28

#4 Post by zenfunk »

How tested is it?
Don't know.
I got the tip from this blog:

http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2008/09/02 ... k12-stuff/

Installed it yesterday night and that's pretty much it.

So far openstreetmaps editor and youtube work. I got about 3 frames per second in youtube... best result so far on this machine. Woooohooo!!!!

I added flashblock, adblock and fasterfox, so far without any glitches.
The flashplugin is a 9.something series from the forums- forgot which one exactly.

Cheers, Christian.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#5 Post by mikeb »

The flashplugin is a 9.something series from the forums- forgot which one exactly
now that's interesting...I got something like a segmentation fault.....
Did you use pretty standard configuration?
Apart from my flash 9 problem it did run very well...flash 7 for me was fine.
How tested is it?
test it....

mike

User avatar
ecomoney
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 07:00
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

#6 Post by ecomoney »

mikeb wrote:test it....
I have...for two years in an open access cybercafe on puppys users. Heres the result.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=40497

I understand puppies developers will have different requirements. But if its in testing It should be labeled "Alpha", so people are aware before they download and install.

Im looking forward to watching the development of Christians edition of Firefox, there are things Im sure we will both learn.
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]

Sorry, my server is down atm!

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#7 Post by mikeb »

How tested is it?
Funny I thought for some obscure reason that you were referring to the gtk 1.2 version of firefox mentioned in this topic...oops my mistake...sorry barry...erm ecomoney whatever

mike

zenfunk
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 18 Mar 2009, 07:28

#8 Post by zenfunk »

@ mikeb:
Bummer. On the first tryout I was using an installation with firepup preinstalled. When I unpacked the gtk1.2 firefox it used the .mozilla folder in root from firepup. I was able to play flash just fine.

However, on a fresh install without the preexisting .mozilla folder, the browser crashed whenever I tried to run flash 9 (from the normal repository BTW).

Unfortunately I threw the gtk1.2 firefox away before reading your comment about flash 7 being ok, so I couldn't try this one out.

Probably I have given up too early, especially because it worked with the preexisting firepup .mozilla folder.

All in all my personal conclusion was that apart from the slightly lower ram usage, there was no speed advantage of firefox gtk1.2 over firepup. It even felt a bit slower. I didn't run propper measurings. The differences weren't great after all.

Because of the lower ram usage the gtk1.2 version could probably be recommended for someone with a very low ram machine who can't play flash anyways because of the lacking cpu power.

@ ecomoney:
To make it clearer, this is not my firefox version. I just downloaded and unziped it.
HTH, Christian

zenfunk
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 18 Mar 2009, 07:28

#9 Post by zenfunk »

@mikeb (again):
It would be interesting how your version gtk1.2 of firefox1.5 would compete against standard firepup.

Or, as I allready suggested to tuuuxxxx, a firepup compiled against gtk1.2- this would be a winner I think.

The next step would be to compile against uclib. We could make the smallest firefox build ever. But that's probably something for the Deli Linux guys.... :wink: .

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#10 Post by mikeb »

When I unpacked the gtk1.2 firefox it used the .mozilla folder in root from firepup. I was able to play flash just fine.
Interesting observation.......I was compiling 1.5 to investigate a mysterious crash ......at one point I felt I had a cure ( changed window manager libs) ..tested out ok but after applying to my usual setup the problem returned...the .mozilla folder seemed the only factor that had been changed (from testing 2 different versions).
Conclusion...the contents of .mozilla can affect stability.

My reason for trying a gtk 1.2 compilation was to see if firefox stability could be improved as gtk2 seems to be involved with such problems, rather than for size reduction or speed but the inability to use flash 9 defeated the object. Never had any problem with flash 7.

Anyway as an aside to show that flash 9 is naff compare the pink to lilac gradient in these 2 images...and what is the extra 5MB for anyway???

mike
Attachments
flash9_gradient.png
(17.38 KiB) Downloaded 929 times
flash7_gradient.png
(22.27 KiB) Downloaded 880 times

zenfunk
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 18 Mar 2009, 07:28

More investigation has to be done

#11 Post by zenfunk »

Hm, after having used firepup again fore an hour or so, it feels a bit slower than gtk1.2 firefox. It might well be a case of the grass allways looking greener on the other side of the valley.

Given the fact that the gtk1.2 version worked properly with the firepup .mozilla folder, it still might do the trick for my puplet.

I have to do some propper speed tests.

Page load from the internet is way too unreliable because of the high variability of my network connection.

I think it has to be done with local pages. Also, startup time is a big factor on an older machine. Anybody knows some nice benchmarks for browsers that could be of use here?

BTW:
Is flash 7 capable of playing videos? (youtube etc.) This is the only application I really need flash. Most of the time it's only used to show me popups, ads etc. (which are blocked by flashblock and adblock nicely)

Note to myself:
Unfortunately you can't have both versions or the foxes on one installation at the same time, because when the first version has messed with the .mozilla folder, on the next startup the other one complains briefly about it and vice versa...

Speed tests have to be done one after the other though.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#12 Post by mikeb »

Is flash 7 capable of playing videos? (youtube etc.) This is the only application I really need flash. Most of the time it's only used to show me popups, ads etc. (which are blocked by flashblock and adblock nicely)
yes no problem with you tube and google using flash 7....no full screen but that's hopeless on older machines due to no video acceleration.

Some video sites want flash 9 but its for other functions??? and I find those won't play smoothly on an older machine anyway...eg guba.com.

For decent flv playback I usually play the download in /tmp or use something like cclive to download without flash and play with vlc (gxine?).

mike

zenfunk
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 18 Mar 2009, 07:28

#13 Post by zenfunk »

OK, I ran some speed tests:

firepup firefox gtk1.2

loading a huge image 8,7 sec 6,5 sec

css- test 6 sec 4 sec

loading a big page 12 sec 11 sec

startupcold 13 sec 12,5 sec

startupwarm 12 sec 12 sec

Every test was done at least 3 times, the number shown is the average.

Startup time about the same, the firefox gtk 1.2 is a bit faster rendering stuff.
I installed flash version 7 and it plays videos just fine (3 fps, same as with flash9).
I also installed a plugin for downloading flash videos and can watch them with mplayer - great.

Cheers, Christian

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#14 Post by mikeb »

Good stuff...

How big was your firefox folder out of interest?

mike

zenfunk
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed 18 Mar 2009, 07:28

#15 Post by zenfunk »

The compressed archive was 8.5 MB.
The uncompressed folder is 27 MB, with the usual extensions and aditional theme I'm at 28,7 MB.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#16 Post by mikeb »

Thanks for the info.
I was using optimise and strip but still ended up 30% bigger than an official version....

regards

mike

Post Reply