Pale Moon 8.0

Pale Moon is a custom-built and optimized Firefox-based browser for Windows operating systems with current, high performance processors. It looks identical to the standard Firefox browser and supports Firefox extensions, themes and identities.

Features:

  • Highly optimized for modern processors
  • 100% Firefox sourced: As safe as the browser that has seen years of development.
  • Uses slightly less memory because of disabled redundant and optional code
  • Significant speed increases for page drawing and script processing
  • Stability: experience fewer browser crashes.
  • Support for SVG and Canvas, and downloadable fonts including WOFF
  • Support for HTML5 and WebGL (v4+)
  • Support for Firefox extensions (add-ons), themes and personas
  • Support for OOPP (Out-of-process plugin execution)
  • Able to use existing Firefox bookmarks and settings with this migration tool

Pale Moon 8.0 is a new major update building on the Firefox 8.0 code base, with additional fixes to improve cache and network handling for faster page loading. Full details can be found in the Release notes.

Additional changes:

  • Improved cache handling: this will make the browser handle system resources more efficiently on most systems.
  • Improved networking: communication with web servers should be noticeably faster and smoother
  • Fix for a rare image decoding bug (garbage, possible crashes)

Download setup: Pale Moon 8.0 | 11.8 MB (Freeware)
Download portable: Pale Moon 8.0 | 13.7 MB
Download: Pale Moon 8.0 x64 | 13.1 MB
View: Homepage

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Halo CE Anniversary review: a great classic, rejuvinated

Next Story

Auslogics Disk Defrag 3.3.0.2

12 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

OMG now im confused can you at least say that waterfox 64 v8 released soon is better then the firefox nightly 64 i was using it but lately it started to crash alot with its newest update to be honest it felt faster and smoother then ie9 64 ,but at least ie9 is stable was interested in waterfox v8

Because while they're useful and they work, they're slow - they use a default build/compile setup so they're "guaranteed" to work on most any configuration (meaning the OS and the hardware it's running on) but they're hardly optimized for the latest processors, etc. The Ayakawa compiles that I've been using for some time now are roughly 20-30% faster than the "stock" builds/compiles that Mozilla provides directly.

Every little bit helps...

br0adband said,
Because while they're useful and they work, they're slow - they use a default build/compile setup so they're "guaranteed" to work on most any configuration (meaning the OS and the hardware it's running on) but they're hardly optimized for the latest processors, etc. The Ayakawa compiles that I've been using for some time now are roughly 20-30% faster than the "stock" builds/compiles that Mozilla provides directly.

Every little bit helps...

I beg to differ in a most cardinal way possible. Not only these Ayakawa compiles are not the fastest, but there is no credible evidence presented yet that there's a meaningful difference between various compiles in benchmark runs.

Here's some results from my today's semi-automated test done today:

Sunspider (lower is better):

IE9 x86 (196.6ms) <- oh wow! oh wow!
Opera 11.60 beta x86 (233.7ms)
Chrome Canary 17.0 x86 (236.8ms)

Waterfox 7.0 x64 (266.1ms)
Palemoon 8.0 x64 (221.2ms)

Ayakawa 8.0 x86 Nov-5 (242.9ms)
Ayakawa 10.0 x64 Oct-25 (355.3ms)
Ayakawa 11.0 x86 Nov-9 (343.0ms)

Nightly 11.0 x64 Nov-14 (219.7ms)


Kraken (lower is better):

IE9 x86 (12044.3ms)
Opera 11.60 beta x86 (9848.5ms)
Chrome Canary 17.0 x86 (2727.3ms)

Waterfox 7.0 x64 (4640.0ms)
Palemoon 8.0 x64 (4645.8ms)

Ayakawa 8.0 x86 Nov-5 (4598.2ms)
Ayakawa 10.0 x64 Oct-25 (11975.4ms)
Ayakawa 11.0 x86 Nov-9 (11652.6ms)

Nightly 11.0 x64 Nov-14 (3272.9ms)


V8 (higher is better):

IE9 x86 (3042)
Opera 11.60 beta x86 (4578)
Chrome Canary 17.0 x86 (10536) <- orly?

Waterfox 7.0 x64 (3718)
Palemoon 8.0 x64 (4761)

Ayakawa 8.0 x86 Nov-5 (3832)
Ayakawa 10.0 x64 Oct-25 (1610)
Ayakawa 11.0 x86 Nov-9 (1677)

Nightly 11.0 x64 Nov-14 (5795)


Peacekeeper (higher is better):

IE9 x86 (6372; 6992, 3351, 13726, 13570, 2808, 11774)
Opera 11.60 beta x86 (10305; 10711, 7730, 24506, 8530, 9985, 16484)
Chrome Canary 17.0 x86 (10660; 6518, 5645, 8425, 25521, 6748, 21728)

Waterfox 7.0 x64 (5783; 4046, 4005, 17891, 10052, 4175, 9512)
Palemoon 8.0 x64 (7100; 5023, 5962, 21910, 10141, 6160, 9649)

Ayakawa 8.0 x86 Nov-5 (6488; 4295, 4631, 17259, 10634, 4985, 10909)
Ayakawa 10.0 x64 Oct-25 (5375; 4012, 4150, 14587, 7553, 4026, 8868)
Ayakawa 11.0 x86 Nov-9 (5705; 4122, 4151, 13887, 8224, 4620, 9301)

Nightly 11.0 x64 Nov-14 (5779; 3912, 3963, 19255, 12859, 3741, 8645)


WebVizBench (higher is better):

IE9 x86 (6300 / 33.44 fps)
Opera 11.60 beta x86 (3190 / 8.21 fps)
Chrome Canary 17.0 x86 (5630 / 33.64 fps)

Waterfox 7.0 x64 (6500 / 25.34 fps)
Palemoon 8.0 x64 (6820 / 30.74 fps)

Ayakawa 8.0 x86 Nov-5 (6560 / 26.56 fps)
Ayakawa 10.0 x64 Oct-25 (6140 / 23.31 fps)
Ayakawa 11.0 x86 Nov-9 (6490 / 24.3 fps)

Nightly 11.0 x64 Nov-14 (6300 / 24.15 fps)


Maze Solver 20x20 (lower is better):

IE9 x86 (1.1s)
Opera 11.60 beta x86 (1.2s)
Chrome Canary 17.0 x86 (0.7s)

Waterfox 7.0 x64 (5.4s)
Palemoon 8.0 x64 (6.0s)

Ayakawa 8.0 x86 Nov-5 (6.0s)
Ayakawa 10.0 x64 Oct-25 (3.5s)
Ayakawa 11.0 x86 Nov-9 (5.6s)

Nightly 11.0 x64 Nov-14 (6.8s)


Dromaeo DOM Core (higher is better):

IE9 x86 (213.71, 72.10, 2391.02, 34.25)
Opera 11.60 beta x86 (607.52, 302.97, 3474.57, 135.86)
Chrome Canary 17.0 x86 (551.51, 311.17, 10591.46, 386.53)

Waterfox 7.0 x64 (543.16, 91.61, 8647.20, 252.55)
Palemoon 8.0 x64 (594.02, 374.13, 10336.98, 234.59)

Ayakawa 8.0 x86 Nov-5 (613.12, 94.82, 9349.72, 214.01)
Ayakawa 10.0 x64 Oct-25 (654.42, 87.05, 7982.93, 294.41)
Ayakawa 11.0 x86 Nov-9 (643.48, 91.38, 8552.82, 320.81)

Nightly 11.0 x64 Nov-14 (798.89, 77.89, 9453.64, 308.64)

There is, however, a noticable difference in apparent UI responsiveness and startup/shutdown time. However, that is a non-measurable, non-comparable quantity and is likely platform/setup dependant.

Bottom line: Use what fits you. Even points made by any numbers is moot.

The sad thing is that Pale Moon and Waterfox are nowhere near as fast as the people putting them out make 'em sound. There's another person by the name of Ayakawa and he (or she, I really don't know) does VS2010 compiles and they are by far the fastest builds/compiles of ANY Firefox version out there by anybody else. I just gave Waterfox a shot not 10 minutes ago and the latest build (7.0.1) came in at ~360ms on Sunspider (and I know people will complain about Sunspider and whatever but that's just one benchmark; I also used V8 and Kraken too just like Mozilla does).

The 7.0.1 Ayakawa build I have (x64) pulls ~270ms on Sunspider on the same machine - realize you have to compare the browsers on the same hardware for it to be relevant, this is an HP G62 Core i3 laptop - and it scored better in Kraken and V8 as well. So no, Pale Moon nor Waterfox are "the fastest 64 bit versions of Firefox..."

Not hardly.

You can find Ayakawa's builds at: http://code.google.com/p/fx-ayakawa/downloads/list if you're interested. Change the search menu to "All downloads" for past versions if you're interested in testing. And just for the record, the 11.0a1 build he posted a few days ago (32 bit for now) pulls ~250-ish on Sunspider on this same laptop, so that's the fastest build/compile I've yet to use, period.

cork1958 said,

Been using the 64bit of Waterfox though on my 64bit machines.
http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/

Many thanks. Didn't know about this.

Waterfox just beat Pale Moon by being able to use my existing profile of Nightly right away, so I didn't even have to bother with exporting config & addons. Now I'm waiting for 8.0.

For the curious people, Waterfox also indeed feels snappier than both vanilla 8.0 and nightly 11.0, for what it being said by someone on the internets is worth. I can't be arsed to run them all through V8, Peacekeeper and Sunspidr.