Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

[smallhagrid]

Someone who thinks very much like myself, I see:

still using Opera 12.16 here and it weighs in at ~26 MB or so.

sometimes i need a second browser because of urls i block in Opera and then i find that PaleMoon 24.7.1 is quite good compared to the alternatives.

i've also tried Otter, QtWeb, Vivaldi, and the newer Opera and so far there's not much reason to use them imo.

i got tired of Firefox. IE8 is bloatware on my netbook - slower than....
wont use anything by google.

And...
I thank you for your affirming reply.
I too have Opera 12 portable - but avoid using it much as it is very hoggy on RAM usage, as are most 'modern' browsers near as I can tell.

[freakazoid]

Tungsten is based on blink, so no go for smallhagrid -- here it is, nonetheless: http://en.tungsten-start.net/ (portable is a ~50MB download).

This looks interesting. It's a 50MB download, but probably decompresses to around > 100MB (haven't tested).

[smallhagrid]

Hi Joby_toss and Midas.
I do have these and need to test them a bit more:

How about QupZilla or Midori?

What I have not done yet is to see about the customizations which I both prefer AND need.

Unfortunately for me:

Nice, suggesting those crossed my mind, as did the now obsolete QtWeb (http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1469).

Although I'm not overly satisfied with it, I have stuck with Firefox for the past year -- with the amount of tabs I open and the omnipresence of Ajax and Flash, I see more often than I would want its memory toll rise over the 1GB mark...

FYI, I just checked my freshly started Firefox v35.0.1 on Windows XP SP3 with 50+ tabs (open but not really loaded, because if I tried the laptop would grind to a halt; this is on a 2GHz T7300 Core Duo with 4GB RAM) and here's the result (memory column headers are "Private bytes" and "Working set"):

Barring full blown Web browsers like the ones already mentioned, the only alternative would be text/console browsers with ready made Windows binaries like Links (http://links.twibright.com/) or Lynx (http://lynx.isc.org/) -- YMMV regarding compatibility or portability...

What I had not yet mentioned is that I have to deal with a strange visual/perceptual problem wherein too much graphic and/or intense stuff is actually a visual problem for me; so the plain, 'classic', square, unadorned style of the original browsers is what I can actually see & read the best of all.

What would be perfect for me would be a magical version of Firefox that accepts my preferred extensions and is also plain, blocky and square...while still being 'modern' & able to do HTML5 & such.

Aside of that - my query aims at whatever is smallest in size with such abilities AND somehow light upon resource usage at the very same time.

My wildest hopes have been for a Firefox variant which has been unknown to me - but thus far no such magical beast has appeared ?!?

[smallhagrid]

Thanks Again Midas:

Tungsten is based on blink, so no go for smallhagrid -- here it is, nonetheless: http://en.tungsten-start.net/ (portable is a ~50MB download).

I'll have a look as I am a curious soul...
A resource that bears mentioning IMO is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... b_browsers

[smallhagrid]

OK, had a quick look there:

Tungsten is based on blink, so no go for smallhagrid -- here it is, nonetheless: http://en.tungsten-start.net/ (portable is a ~50MB download).

This looks interesting. It's a 50MB download, but probably decompresses to around > 100MB (haven't tested).

And very much like that it may be light enough while it uses the least desirable 'guts' and is a bit less verbally centered than my eyes prefer...I may give it a whirl just the same.

Thanks.

[smallhagrid]

Thanks - and very close to what I have...:

On a barebones Firefox install with only one tab open, you should be using less than 150MB-200MB RAM. I know since I have Firefox installed on a nettop with about ten extensions loaded.

On my main com, I use about ~500-700MB RAM since I have 300 tabs in four tabgroups plus ~50 active extensions.

As for filesize, Firefox Portable (v36) takes up 85MB. Of course, this will increase with extensions and history, etc. FYI, I have disabled history in Firefox.

If you don't like Australis, change it with various extensions like Classic Theme Restorer.

This very second my old Firefox has 12 open tabs and weighs in using 144MB.

The extension you suggest is a good one from what I have read - but I also use a whole raft of great older ones that appear not to be compatible with newer versions - and yes, I do know they can be tweaked, while at the very same time I do not wish to spend my remaining time in this life fighting to learn which works vs. which breaks that browser version.

In particular, my most needed ones are Custom Buttons, NoUN Buttons, Total Toolbar and YARIP.

To keep things so that I can use them I have tried repeatedly to customize newer Firefox versions and have found each time that none have been as visually functional for my strange old eyes as the dinosaur I am using this very minute.

Thanks for pitching in to this trhread and making it so nice and active Folks !!

[smallhagrid]

Here is what I see...:

Light and pcxfirefox has both 32-bit and 64-bit builds.

Light is totally australis:

A light Firefox edition. Many components are slimmed down. So it can start faster and use less memory. By default, Light can run along with official firefox. Both x86 and x64 builds are available.

(From=> http://sourceforge.net/projects/lightfirefox/)

I did try PCX Firefox several versions ago and it refused to open for me - perhaps I'll try it again.
*********************
I have just grabbed both - extracted Light and will try them once I close this browser...
*********************

OK, I'm back...

Light - ain't.
Specifically, with my ancient Firefox open as it is right now with 11 tabs all loaded is using 2% of my 4GB RAM whereas Light with just its home page open in a single tab uses 6%.
(It is also not accepting of standard extensions and themes.)

PCX Firefox gripes and does not open at all.

Qupzilla is really nothing special and uses 7% RAM.

So - barring the appearance of some really cool Firefox variant that is as-yet undiscovered, it looks as if there is nothing new under the sun in browsers.

BooHooHoo.

[Userfriendly]

Besides the performance issues, the Firefox UI is infinitely customizable if you know how. Have you tried this addon that lets you revert the australis look and re-adds some functionality back - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... erestorer/

If you use Stylish you can make Firefox look however you want if you know a little CSS or browser their userstyle database.

Customize menus with this https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... nu-wizard/

Regarding some browsers not opening, a few of them require certain CPU instruction sets like sse2/sse3 (any cpu made in the last decade) and maybe some extra runtime libraries.

[smallhagrid]

Thanks Userfriendly.

I do know some things - and have found some marvelous but OLD solutions for my needs:

Besides the performance issues, the Firefox UI is infinitely customizable if you know how.

I thought I would try it with Light, but:

Have you tried this addon that lets you revert the australis look and re-adds some functionality back - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... erestorer/

Apparently it is not compatible with that one.

Stylish:

If you use Stylish you can make Firefox look however you want if you know a little CSS or browser their userstyle database.

Baffled me and had piles and piles of stuff to go with it that I tried searching without success.

This is new to me:

Customize menus with this https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... nu-wizard/

And may be useful at some point in time.

Thanks.

[I am Baas]

btw, is Tungsten worth adding to the database?

No.

[smallhagrid]

Here is the list of browsers in my test folder, arranged by byte-size.

All are ready to use portables.
Those with a + in front have shown to be the lightest and/or best of the lot.
PocketK has zero bytes because it is relocated for regular usage in another partition.
Also in use now and then are Palemoon 24 and KM Twin.

+PocketK (0 Kb)
QtWeb (6.10 Mb)
+QtWeb (7.78 Mb)
FF1.5 (17.08 Mb)
KM154 (17.24 Mb)
+KMeleon (17.43 Mb)
SlimBoat (53.22 Mb)
qupzilla (56.22 Mb)
Ult_FF (61.64 Mb)
light (65.74 Mb)
Opera12 (75.62 Mb)
Dooble.NEW (102.77 Mb)
+Dooble (107.32 Mb)
KMTwin (112.07 Mb)
midori (119.10 Mb)
Palemoon (184.05 Mb)
ffox5 (185.14 Mb)

Just sharing here for comparison's sake...

[bzl333]

btw, is Tungsten worth adding to the database?

No.

ok, thx.

[JohnTHaller]

Just realized I forgot to link it before. The new Developer's Edition theme in dark and light is available in all current Firefox releases if you enable it:
http://www.ghacks.net/2014/11/21/use-fi ... n-nightly/

Note that it can have issues if you've made a lot of manual changes to your setup.

[Midas]

@smallhagrid: is that Kmeleon of yours the latest v74.0?

I'm positive Kmeleon is natively portable and also infinitely tweakable, if you have the patience and the savvy -- it's my belief a customized Kmeleon would be your best bet for the stated requirements...

[smallhagrid]

Hello Midas, and thanks:

@smallhagrid: is that Kmeleon of yours the latest v74.0?
I'm positive Kmeleon is natively portable and also infinitely tweakable, if you have the patience and the savvy -- it's my belief a customized Kmeleon would be your best bet for the stated requirements...

Yes - and I watch its forum for the next version to come out of beta as well...

I looked into what I could do with Kmeleon before and was a bit intimidated by all the coding-like stuff one must do to get the simplicity of form that I need in order to function visually.

By way of comparison:
With the older Firefox I am using there are just a few very simple About:config tweaks that I use then the rest of what I need can all be done with the extensions I named earlier and some others besides.

I can take another look at that though and see if it is beyong my meager skills.
(When it comes to such things as CSS and other coding things I am at a sincere loss...)

Thanks.