Run 64-bit Web-browser from a 32-bit Puppy

[mikeslr]

This technique may not only solve the problem of websites only allowing access to reasonably new web-browsers, of which there are only 64-bit ones, but may also enable you to use less RAM than running a 32-bit web-browser. See here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 793#p78793

peebee has created a 64bit Compatibility SFS and discussed how to use it here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 284#p78284. A swap of your Puppy's 32-bit kernel for a 64-bit kernel is a prerequisite.

Edit: Use this 64bit Compatibility SFS instead. https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 523#p79523

I've discussed my experiences employing the above under dpup-stretch, slacko_5.7.2CD, xenialpup32 and tahrpup32 here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 517#p78517 and here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 524#p78524.

Short version of what those posts report: roughly 500 Mbs of RAM will be used just to use a 64-bit web-browser. firefox needed close to a Gb. Edit: Follow the link at the top. Later explorations got this down to just over 300Mbs when using Slimjet64 or Palemoon64.

And factor in that I have 16 Gbs of RAM on my desktop and a reasonably powerful CPU. Although all the current web-browser flavors (some 'mozilla', some 'chromium') I tested were generally functional, only palemoon could upload attachments to posts. And the icons on palemoon's task-bar didn't display properly. Solved by updated 64-Compat SFS.

But also note that the Puppys I used were not the recent ones peebee reported about: S15 and jammy.

Edit: Wonder why I palemoon can post attachments and other browser can't? Below is using palemoon64 under xenialpup32. With the change in kernel and 64-bit Compat sfs loaded 212 Mbs RAM were used. Editing this post including uploading and viewing the below required the use of 493 Mbs according to Pupsys-Info.
Screenshot of xenialpup32 running palemoon64:Solved by updated 64-Compat SFS.

Screenshot.png (332.56 KiB) Viewed 794 times

[amethyst]

Checked Chromium instead of Palemoon. Attachments works with 32-bit Chromium running on 32-bit Bionic. So it must be be the 32-bit/64-bit bastardization causing the issue.

[bigpup]

@mikeslr

You already have a topic on this in the How-To ->Browsers section of the forum.
https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=7799

That is where this type of topic needs to be.

It is a how to do something info.

Do you want to combine the two topics into one?

Check your PM's

[mikewalsh]

@mikeslr

You already have a topic on this in the How-To ->Browsers section of the forum.
https://forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=7799

That is where this type of topic needs to be.

It is a how to do something info.

Do you want to combine the two topics into one?

Check your PM's

Mm.....I don't know so much.

This is one of those rare types of subject matter that CAN have a valid status in more than one section, y'know? Not everything CAN be neatly "pigeon-holed" into a single location, no matter HOW much of a "neat-freak" somebody may be.....and anyway, much of the time it boils down to the individual mod. We all have different ideas about where things belong..!

Mike.

[mikeslr]

You're right, bigpup. On January 13th I published about it in the 'Tips' Section here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 457#p78457. Thought that was the best location for it. The 'old' forum didn't have a 'Tips' Section as such. And I forget where that post was. Looked in the Additional Software Sections, here and elsewhere, found nothing and was annoyed thinking that for some reason my post was deleted. Consequently, on January 14th, I started this Thread, repeating much of what I wrote on the 13th.

Currently, my best guess is that the most use of peebee's 64-bit Compatibility SFS will be to run 64bit Web-browsers under a 32-bit Puppy. So I think this thread serves a useful purpose. On the other hand, there are other reasons why the 64-bit Compatibility SFS might be used. For example, I'm just about to test MikeWalsh's portable-wine Wine 5.11 under xenialpup32. That portable makes use of a 'multi-arch' AppImage. I don't think it could be used directly under a 32-bit OS. And if used should be able to support newer 64-bit Windows programs.

So I think the best arrangement is to leave both threads. I'll post to the 'Tips' thread providing a link here. I'll try to remember to post information relating to Web-browsers here and to any other aspect there.

[mikeslr]

During my exploration of the 64-bit Compatibility SFS under tahrpup reported here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 739#p78739 I wasn't sure about the figures pupsys-info was reporting about RAM usage by web-browsers. Had I forgotten to clear RAM?

So making certain that in each instance I had restarted-x and ran Clean-RAM before opening pupsys-info and a web-browser first I opened first vivaldi32-portable, then vivaldi64-portable.

Pupsys-Info reported the following:
Vivaldi32 RAM 632 MB
Vivaldi64 RAM: 418 MB

The results under your Puppy may differ. But at least under tahrpup32 on my computer, using vivaldi64 is more RAM-efficient than using vivaldi32,

[mikeslr]

I realized that amount of RAM use reported in my prior post might have been 'off'. LibreOffice 32-bit was being automatically loaded and Wine portable was registered. From prior experience, LibreOffice.sfs loaded but not used still 'consumes' about 50 Mbs of 'usable' RAM. And registering Wine portable maybe about 2 Mbs. Still, I wondered what would be reported in the absence of those testing errors.
So I SFS-(un)loaded Libreoffice and rebooted. Whatever RAM consumption wine-portable would have, it would have the same in all my tests.

I'll just report those relating to Slimjet. Other Web-browsers I tried revealed similar results.

Just opening the web-browser to Puppy Linux Discussion Forum, and opening Pupsys-Info to check RAM usage:

As Puppys efficiently moves information into and out of RAM-Cache, the below indicates what RAM is not available for other use.

With the 64-bit Compatibility SFS loaded:
Slimjet64 333 MB
Slimjet32 578 MB

After rebooting with the 64-bit Compatibility SFS NOT loaded:
Slimjet32 497 MB

This was under tahrpup32 on my computer. On your computer, running a different Puppy and running different Web-browsers your experience may differ.

I would be interesting to know if the above reflects a fluke, or a general condition.

FWIW, as I'm posting using slimjet 32 from the above system, I just checked PupSys-Info again.
With this post open 575 MB of RAM are unavailable for other activity.

[bigpup]

You're right, bigpup. On January 13th I published about it in the 'Tips' Section here, https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewto ... 457#p78457. Thought that was the best location for it. The 'old' forum didn't have a 'Tips' Section as such. And I forget where that post was. Looked in the Additional Software Sections, here and elsewhere, found nothing and was annoyed thinking that for some reason my post was deleted. Consequently, on January 14th, I started this Thread, repeating much of what I wrote on the 13th.

Check your PM's