Talk:Comparison of lightweight web browsers

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software.

well what is the definition of 'lightweight' web browsers? If I compare my old Opera 12 with 'new modern' web browsers (especially having 70+ tabs and windows open) then I would guess this browser could also be counted as lightweight... But I guess that isn't meant. So what is the definition of lightweight? mabdul 09:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good question. What makes a browser "lightweight" is a matter of design principles. It is not an absolute measure of resource consumption or a relative comparison of features. An alpha version of a browser with many features remaining to be implemented isn't lightweight by design. I have tried to clarify this in the lead section —Ringbang (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second applying more thought to the definition, and I propose some measures. 1) Size - how big is the browser and supporting libraries 2) RAM Impact - how memory intensive is the browser 3) CPU Impact - how CPU intensive is the browser. 4) A score combining the previous, per supported feature... As a frame of reference - I just installed all of the browsers listed here, and more than half of them was significantly (50%+) bigger than the latest Firefox. Firefox, however, absolutely crawled on the ARMv9 processor board that I ran it on. The two most usable ones were Dillo and Netsurf. Dagelf (talk)

Lightweight should only include Dillo and other tiny browsers that have either no support for JavaScript or a rather limited subset. Also, any browser that uses the engines of any of the major browsers, such as V8/Blink from Chrome or Gecko/SpiderMonkey from Firefox, definitely is not lightweight. -Pmffl (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your thoughts. Please cite a few reliable sources and maybe we can have a discussion. In the meantime, please don't blank content on your whim. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Slimboat browser? www.slimboat.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbw9999 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you gather all the metrics and add it?Dagelf (talk)

wa commision?

and how about this one? http://uzbl.org/readme.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazrani (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of lightweight web browsers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vfZn8qDP?url=http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/beos/ to http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/beos/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See https://bugs.debian.org/864951 . Jidanni (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Moon doesn't belong on this list. It's the size of Firefox, way bigger than a true ligthweight like Dillo or Lynx. -Pmffl (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This ref from the Pale Moon page is a comparison test of several browsers, including Firefox and Chrome. Pale Moon fared the best in terms of overall memory usage profile when 10 sites were opened in separate tabs. So it is relatively efficient in that respect compared to its full-size browser peers. But the fact that it is included in the full-size group means it doesn't belong on this page. -Pmffl (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that that's a test of full-size browsers? All it says is "This comparison guide analyzes the performance of select browsers to find out which version of it performs better." It doesn't say what the basis for selection was. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at it another way. There is not a single ref in this article that supports Pale Moon being a "lightweight". It was somehow just added to the page at least 2 years ago (the edit history shows a December 2015 edit with "Pale Moon" in the name). What's the reason why Pale Moon added to this article in the first place? -Pmffl (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research and I'm coming to agree with you. Pale Moon was added to the list in October 2015 by an IP editor who has made a total of five edits, four of them related to Pale Moon (three to this article). The developer doesn't describe Pale Moon as a lightweight browser.[1][2] It should probably be removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into that. Good finds from the Pale Moon developer. So I'm going to remove it again. If it's to be on this page it should be justified with a ref. -Pmffl (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can "last release: 9 years ago" (Elinks browser) be considered "active development" ? --boarders paradise (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is luakit not listed here? I see in the history that someone added luakit but it was removed. I came here to check out information about the browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.198.235 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]