Of course, I also wouldn’t recommend playing back videos from inside a browser with such an old CPU. On that machine, by just moving the mouse pointer very quickly, the CPU usage goes up to 100%, I don’t even have to open a web browser or anything. Definitely unusable, but with Links2 it was unusable as well, because despite that the same page loaded in “only” 20 seconds, scrolling and navigating on the page was terrible and unusable. I have a 633MHz Celeron with only 384 MB RAM, and Gnome Web could load simple news sites in a few minutes. Audio was perfect though.Īndyprough, you should run your tests again, something was went wrong very likely. Because even in case of this small resolution, there were frame drops. When antiX Linux boots up, it consumes 133 MB, so in total this means 395 MB of used RAM. Gnome Web can play back youtube videos on while consuming only 262 MB. Gnome Web is not taking up 1300 MB of RAM when opening and playing the embedded youtube video. Maybe for that one old machine that has a lot of ram and where you just really feel you must watch an embedded youtube video in the browser – for a very narrow use case like that it would be OK.Īs far as the question of whether it should be the default browser on any version of antiX? I would say definitely not. As it is, I think it’s just not the best browser under any circumstance. If it weren’t such a memory hog it would be good for old machines, and if it had a lot more functionality and privacy and security settings it would be good for modern machines. I am impressed by the built-in ad blocker – seems to work well. I’d have to wonder if most old machines of that generation would have enough memory to get much use out of Gnome web (package is actually named ‘epiphany-browser’). On my system this morning it’s taking 1300mb of ram just to run the video on the homepage of in a single tab.įor me, links2 or elinks plus mpv and youtube-dl for videos would be a better way to go on much older machines. ![]() It’s an OK browser in terms of rendering, but it seems to be a memory hog in my limited testing. ![]() There is already at least 1 user who has issues because antiX Linux cannot provide by default a working web browser: Tested it on an actual Athlon XP and Intel Celeron (Coppermine). And maybe GNOME Web should be the default installed web browser, at least in case of the 32 bit release of antiX Linux. Using a browser (palemoon-sse) from 2 years ago is a security risk, and shouldn’t be in the Package Installer at all, GNOME Web should be there instead. It can even play embedded videos (YouTube as well of course). The browser can display and run any modern web page or web app. Every security update arrives in very short time. The Debian team compiles GNOME Web in a way that it won’t require SSE2 and it is frequently updated. Maybe it should be even the default browser. It should be available from the Package Installer (“antiX app store”). There is only one browser left which works without SSE2, and it is called GNOME Web. Just try to play a YouTube video, that will crash it for sure. Firefox won’t crash instantly, but when you open a page, it might crash. Currently, all browsers crash on CPUs without SSE2. ![]() ![]() Since antiX Linux is targeted for low-end machines, it should provide a browser by default what works on old CPUs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |