Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

Discuss anything related to portable freeware here.
Message
Author
smallhagrid
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:42 pm

Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#1 Post by smallhagrid »

OK, I admit it right at the start of this post:
I use a very old version of Firefox Portable on my desktop PC. And prefer it.

Please do not flame or bash me for my preferences;
I'm quite aware that I prefer some older stuff & that I am 'behind the times' and I'm OK with that.
YES=> some folks love stuff that I do not love a'tall, and that is OK for them, not for me.
No need to try to change one another's preferences; live and let live, I say.

Here's my gripe:
Tried most any & everything else in browsers I could find that offers a portable version and most are huge, hoggy things that eat RAM like it is peanuts & popcorn - OR:
Just plain painful to use either due to their visual styles or total lack of respect for privacy (like Chrome...).

Time does exact its toll however, so every now & again I re-visit the various offerings & try some more.

Thus far I see that they are all still huge, hoggy things or totally lobotomized like Chrome and/or Australis based things.

Here are some examples of what I've found & tried:
Palemoon 24 was pretty good, as is KmTwin.
There are also Slim-(something) browsers - one of which only locked my PC up tightly.
(SlimBoat was kind of OK, but just barely.)
Dooble is/was pretty good as is KMeleon & QTWeb.
PocketK would be great if it could be updated & not quite so limited
SeaMonkey would be better IMO if there was a portable of it that is browser-only as not everyone needs all the other stuff it offers.

So now I'll try to form a query of all this and hope it will make any sense to anyone but me:

I seek a browser or browser variant that is...
- Portable
- NOT based on IE whatsoever
- NOT lobotomized like Chrome and/or Australis
- Reasonable in byte-size (like 10-100MB...200+MB for a browser is ABSURD.)
- As light & fast as possible while remaining customizable (kind of like Palemoon used to be...)

I've looked here & elsewhere and must add that IMO Opera quit being Opera a while back - just as Palemoon now has problems as detailed in the comments here about it (especially useful is the info posted by Ancientimages).

Chromium Portable -might- be OK if only there was some theme to de-lobotomize it (as in make it look & work more like the classic Firefox...but I've not found any such a thing).

I may spend (waste ?!?) some time trying to de-lobotomize, customize & use Firefox Portable 36 - but 1st I need to be sure there are plenty of headache meds in the house...
Last time I took a swipe at a newer version of that all I got was a nasty headache after wasting hours trying to make it just...be...a...browser...again !!!

Thanks in advance for any helpful & sympathetic pointers or tips.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#2 Post by JohnTHaller »

Keep in mind that all Chrome/Chromium based browsers are very large and will continue to get larger. Chrome Portable currently weighs in at 153MB and Chromium Portable currently weighs in at 217MB. Due to user demand, we may switch Chrome Portable to be both 32-bit and 64-bit shortly, which will double its install size to around 300MB. All Chrome/Blink-based browsers I have looked at have issues with settings and passwords being maintained portably as well.

Firefox is the most portable mainstream browser by quite a long shot due to the way it's built. And the fact that it doesn't rely on the local PC for encryption, certificates, proxy settings, etc. You can re-theme it quite a bit if you don't like the base look of it. Or you can switch to Firefox Developer Edition and get its squared off black theme (which has an equally good looking silver variant included).
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

Specular
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#3 Post by Specular »

I imported my previous profile from pre-Australis to v34 to test compatibility and most everything imported and was compatible still. Apart from the default UI change very little has changed from the previous setup in Australis (except for the Refresh button in the address bar, but Stylish could probably change that back). Still have a full original menu, keyconfig, custom userstyles, etc.

As for RAM usage my install is usually between 250-350MB, which is comparable to Opera Presto usage so it's decent enough. According the the db the install size is 50MB which is acceptable, and flash drives get larger and cheaper every few months.

Main issue with any Firefox configuration is the time it can take to set up something just right, which can be a while initially. Any poweruser though is used to this with software, and the trade-off is eventually worth it imo.

smallhagrid
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:42 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#4 Post by smallhagrid »

Thanks for the replies folks.
As stated in my OP - I am not very happy with these, which have become 'monster browsers' and would like very much to hear of alternate variants if anyone knows of really good ones that I may not be aware of.

Regarding RAM usage; when I re-start Firefox is usually when it reaches 250MB; if it gets as far as 350MB, that is just around where it gets balky and is then very likely to crash itself closed.

Since the OP I did find a newer version of Dooble via SF and I see that K-Meleon is working towards a version release as well, but that was about all I found with a quick look around today.

NickR
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:37 am

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#5 Post by NickR »

In Nov 2013 Midas mentioned FirefoxLight

http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 271#p67271

works for me circa 150M

smallhagrid
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:42 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#6 Post by smallhagrid »

Thanks for your reply NickR:
NickR wrote:In Nov 2013 Midas mentioned FirefoxLight
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 271#p67271
works for me circa 150M
64-bit, I should have mentioned that my old PC is not 64-bit.

Same story here, apparently:
https://pcxfirefox.wordpress.com/

User avatar
Userfriendly
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:41 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#7 Post by Userfriendly »

Light and pcxfirefox has both 32-bit and 64-bit builds. Just curious, can you list your PC specs. Just how ancient is this thing.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#8 Post by webfork »

Two quick things before a larger reply:

First, what exactly does "lobotomized" mean? And second:
smallhagrid wrote:I use a very old version of Firefox Portable on my desktop PC.
For a variety of security reasons, I recommend switching to Firefox ESR http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/f ... rtable-esr .

bzl333
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#9 Post by bzl333 »

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.

User avatar
joby_toss
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:57 am
Location: Romania
Contact:

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#10 Post by joby_toss »

How about QupZilla or Midori?

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6705
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#11 Post by Midas »

joby_toss wrote:How about QupZilla or Midori?

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... :x

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"):

Image

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...

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6705
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Tungsten

#12 Post by 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).

freakazoid
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#13 Post by freakazoid »

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.
Last edited by freakazoid on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
is it stealth? ;)

bzl333
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:11 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#14 Post by bzl333 »

@ Midas - i can run 100+ tabs in Opera on my old netbook. hehe :mrgreen:

does take up about half of the 2 gb ram though.

btw, is Tungsten worth adding to the database?

smallhagrid
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:42 pm

Re: Newer zombie-like browsers...ugh.

#15 Post by smallhagrid »

Hi Webfork, and thanks.
webfork wrote:Two quick things before a larger reply:
First, what exactly does "lobotomized" mean? And second:
smallhagrid wrote:I use a very old version of Firefox Portable on my desktop PC.
For a variety of security reasons, I recommend switching to Firefox ESR http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/f ... rtable-esr .
In reply:
1.
When browsers got morphed into cartoony, rounded, 90%+ graphic things minus menus and WORDS - so that folks who hate to read can be more comfortable 'just lookin at de pichurs'...
2.
Thank you for being concerned about my PC's security.
It's all good here, I assure you.

Post Reply