TELVM wrote:

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

The main drawback of using RAM disks is that information is lost after powering down.

Any decent ramdisk can save an image to HDD before shutdown, and load it again after booting. I use batchs to load just the PaleMoon Profile to ramdisk after boot, and save it to HDD before shutdown (much faster).

Also we can turn the drawback into a security/housekeeping advantage, by using the ramdisk as an automatic garbage disintegrator on shutdown (temp files etc.).

As a matter of fact I use a RAM disk for precisely that, for... for science 😊

Seems legit.

It seems I am a tab whore, and FF, so far, is the only browser that can take it. Oh, and I like the option Remember the ol tabs? I think FF was the first browser to implement it.
Right now I installed Pale Moon, so far I like it. Imported my FF profile and it seems both less CPU and RAM hungry. Booted in XP 32, so I only have 3 GB usable RAM. Well... 29 tabs, plus Chrome with 5 tabs, total RAM used 1276 MB. People using nVidia cards might have less, IMO Radeon drivers use more RAM.

fillosaurus wrote:

... Booted in XP 32, so I only have 3 GB usable RAM ...

If I understand right you have the typical problem of 4GB of physical RAM installed, but a 32-bit Windows that ignores and wastes ~0.75GB of memory.

That's the ideal scenario for nesting a ramdisk in 'The Forbidden Zone', to use the RAM that would otherwise be wasted: Up To 16 GB Of RAM On A 32-Bit System!

TELVM wrote:

If I understand right you have the typical problem of 4GB of physical RAM installed, but a 32-bit Windows that ignores and wastes ~0.75GB of memory.

That's the ideal scenario for nesting a ramdisk in 'The Forbidden Zone', to use the RAM that would otherwise be wasted: Up To 16 GB Of RAM On A 32-Bit System!

That's, in fact, the only acceptable use of a swapfile in a RAM disk I can think of.

x64 Operating System manage RAM way much better and are somewhat more stable. I find that putting more than 4GB on a x86 system is pointless.

@TELVM
I have 8 Gb and multibooting XP 32, 7 64, AROS, FreeDOS and several Linuxes. It just happened that first windows I installed Pale Moon was XP; I keep XP for the sake of old games which do not work ok in 7.

Big problem for me is eBay crashes ff on both 7 and xp, occasionally when logging in. Requiring a reboot to fix as ending the process does nothing.

fillosaurus wrote:

@TELVM
I have 8 Gb and multibooting XP 32, 7 64, AROS, FreeDOS and several Linuxes. It just happened that first windows I installed Pale Moon was XP; I keep XP for the sake of old games which do not work ok in 7.

In that case I'd run XP 32bit with two fixed-size ramdisks, one ~3.5GB for pagefile, and another ~1.25GB for %TEMP% & %TMP%, browser profile & cache, etc.

If you liked PaleMoon 32bit, the x64 version is even faster 😉 .

ratfink wrote:

Big problem for me is eBay crashes ff on both 7 and xp, occasionally when logging in. Requiring a reboot to fix as ending the process does nothing.

Didn't you bring this up in another thread..?

Given that it is eBay in particular, it sounds a lot like some kind of malware infection.

Jorpho wrote:

ratfink wrote:

Big problem for me is eBay crashes ff on both 7 and xp, occasionally when logging in. Requiring a reboot to fix as ending the process does nothing.

Didn't you bring this up in another thread..?

quite possibly, i must have forgotten. 😵. i guess if no-one else finds this then it's specific to my setup [or indeed malware]. i suspect some over-eager security software. intermittent problems are such a pain to fix.

just in case check if you have cookies turned on

Earlier I posted I was still using Firefox 3.0. I may have just run into a major problem with that.
As of yesterday, I'm finding that suddenly youtube has become excruciatingly laggy. Not the videos, not the internet connection - the rendering of the web site itself. Scrolling is choppy, interacting with those "more results" buttons takes ages, and freezes all of Firefox while it's process uses a full CPU core worth of execution time doing who knows what. Videos are very choppy until you switch to full screen, because of whatever is happening on the web page. Same thing today, after a reboot.

This is on Firefox 3.0, which until recently worked fine. I can't think of any reason for this problem except that maybe they've changed something in their scripting which the old browser hates. Upgrading may have now become necessary, even though I never cared for the later versions.
I hope there's some explanation for it. If a Phenom2 no longer meets youtube's usable CPU requirements, then they can go *** themselves.

Yeah they always keep coming up with new bugs concerning Flash so don't think that everything will be great on FF20. I used the 3.5 series or whatever it was called for the longest time and finally decided to upgade to the new version numbers mess about ~1.5 years ago and nothing has improved. That bug where you scroll down and bits of the site keep messing up the flash video is a staple for years now, the only way to get rid of it was to downgrade Flash to an earlier version and that was no option for me after a while. Now with 20 I have a fresh new bug where you pause the video, come back to it later and when you click on play the audio will start but the video will just stay on that one image.

Firefox has too many fingers in the pie, it goes too far to accommodate too many use cases.

If you're one of the paranoid-about-Google crowd, then try Chromium. It's the open source project that Chrome is based on.

shamino wrote:

Earlier I posted I was still using Firefox 3.0. I may have just run into a major problem with that. As of yesterday, I'm findin […]
Show full quote

Earlier I posted I was still using Firefox 3.0. I may have just run into a major problem with that.
As of yesterday, I'm finding that suddenly youtube has become excruciatingly laggy. Not the videos, not the internet connection - the rendering of the web site itself. Scrolling is choppy, interacting with those "more results" buttons takes ages, and freezes all of Firefox while it's process uses a full CPU core worth of execution time doing who knows what. Videos are very choppy until you switch to full screen, because of whatever is happening on the web page. Same thing today, after a reboot.

This is on Firefox 3.0, which until recently worked fine. I can't think of any reason for this problem except that maybe they've changed something in their scripting which the old browser hates. Upgrading may have now become necessary, even though I never cared for the later versions.
I hope there's some explanation for it. If a Phenom2 no longer meets youtube's usable CPU requirements, then they can go *** themselves.

You'll have to upgrade eventually, like it or not...with HTML 5 and all...which Youtube more or less uses.

Paranoid? Which version, the original Black Sabbath or Megadeth?

fillosaurus wrote:

Paranoid? Which version, the original Black Sabbath or Megadeth?

The Dickies one 😜

So it turns out I already had Palemoon 3.6.32 on my hard drive. I forgot it was there.
I tried that and youtube works perfectly again. In fact it's faster than I've seen it for a very long time.
I guess FF 3.0 has some crippling rendering problem with the site's current scripting. Oh well.

Another Firefox update (?today) - 20.0.1.

Some people think very frequent updates are signs of very active developer community with adding of non-stop improvements.

Others think, too frequent 'updates' ( - 'patch' in disguise) shows the product is not complete, with lots of holes to patch up, or even half baked and with lots of errors - hence the needed workaround.

I don't know which one it falls into.