Pale Moon Users: 32-bit or 64-bit?

[Digerati]

When I first started using Pale Moon more and more as my primary browser a couple years ago (it has been my default for about 8 months), I went with the 32-bit version - mostly because of "potential" problems with plug-ins. All was fine, until recently (the last 3 or 4 months) when 5 - 6 times a week, 32-bit PM crashed. It nicely recovered all open pages :) but a crash is a crash, unwanted and annoying at best.

So last week, I decided (once again) to totally uninstall PM only this time, I decided to install the 64-bit version instead and I have to say, I am quite happy. Fingers crossed and I hope I did not jinx it by talking about it, but so far, it has been working great.

Note you can have both the 32-bit and the 64-bit installed at the same time but not sure that is a good idea. I uninstalled the 32-bit keeping my user data. The 64-bit picked it right up where I left off. :)

 

[Corrine]

I've had the 32-bit on this machine since forever but I had installed the 64-bit on another machine. For some reason, which I don't recall, I had problems with the 64-bit version. It wasn't anything serious but I ended up uninstalling it and installing the 32-bit version. I haven't (*knock on wood*) had any crash issues.

 

[Digerati]

For some reason, which I don't recall, I had problems with the 64-bit version.

So that was awhile ago? I am not suggesting you swap them out, but next time you need to install PM, you might give the 64-bit version a try.

 

[satrow]

The 64-bit version's really only required for longer or very heavy sessions, for more general usage of a 3-8 hours or so, the x86 will likely prove fine and not require as many resources, so better for lower powered PCs as well.

 

[plodr]

Straight 32 bit on all 4 Win 7 computers. Our desktop computers are 32 bit so no way could I install a 64 bit on them.

I think I'll be removing FF ESR once June 2018 comes and the addons situation changes. I am trying out WaterFox on my netbook but since it only comes in a 64 bit flavor, I won't be able to install it on two of the computers. I'm still looking for something in 32 bit for the desktop computers similar to FF as a backup browser.

 

[Digerati]

The 64-bit version's really only required for longer or very heavy sessions, for more general usage of a 3-8 hours or so, the x86 will likely prove fine and not require as many resources, so better for lower powered PCs as well.

I was not looking at this as what is required or better. No doubt 64-bit Windows will support a 32-bit browser so that is not the issue. But I will say, the "hours" one uses a browser (or any program, including the OS) has no bearing at all on whether 32-bit or 64-bit is better.

And the reality is, with the exception of the OS itself, the difference in the amount of resources the 64-bit program uses vs the 32-bit version (assuming the same features and configuration in each) is negligible. As a test, I have both the 32-bit and the 64-bit version of PM on my test system. I fired up the 32-bit with the home page set to Google and Task Manger said I was using 132MB of RAM. I then exited that and started the 64-bit version to the same home page and Task Manager reported using 144MB. If a system is taken down because of that extra 12MB, there are other issues and that is an exception, not the norm.

So while it would not make sense to use, and you are not likely to see a 64-bit OS on a system with only 2GB of RAM, there really is no reason you cannot use a 64-bit program if there was a 64-bit OS installed.

That said, the reality today is most computers are running 64-bit Windows and have more than 2GB of RAM installed. So the point I was trying to make by starting this thread is if you were using the 32-bit version because years ago, 64-bit add-on support was limited or because the 64-bit version of PM was buggy, those appear to no longer be issues.

 

[satrow]

Let's try an alternate 'reality' test.

I closed out my 5.75 day uptime Pale Moon 27.5 x64 session on W7, then down to 53 tabs over two windows, using 2.7GB, plus ~200 in the Flash Plugin container. My working PM profile has 8 Extensions plus Flash. I then opened the same session in both the x86 and x64 versions, checked all tabs had loaded, waited ~5 minutes and then took the Working set totals of the program plus plugin and screenshots.

These should show a time-compressed (without any extra memory load caused by auto-refreshing tabs or any memory leaks due to poor coding, and, as my profile contains ad/tracking blocks, it's also quite streamlined) version, hopefully similar to that of a moderately heavy 1-2 hour browsing/research session.

Obviously, should you wish to emulate something similar, the sites used and the amount of ads/auto-playing Flash/HTML5 videos and gifs will make a difference.

x86: 900MB + 105MB Flash.
x64: 1270MB + 150MB Flash.

 

[Digerati]

Let's try an alternate 'reality' test.

To prove what? This thread is not about what version uses fewer resources. By all means, if you have low performance computer slim on memory resources, use the 32-bit version. Or better yet, don't even use PM. There are thriftier browsers out there.

 

[Corrine]

Then again, there is Firefox which is in the process of taking away the option of running the 32-bit version on 64-bit machines with more than 2GB of RAM, not to forget the add-on technology changes, making all except one add-on I use Legacy and no longer usable. :shame2: Fortunately, that isn't the case with Pale Moon so I'm happy.