Q4OS Forum

Aidan1970

Member

From: Near the boarder of Canada an

Registered: 2023-08-31

Posts: 12

Falkon vs Google Chrome

I have installed Q4OS with the Trinity Desktop Environment. And it performed better with the Falkon web browser than Google Chrome. It's an extremely good lightweight browser based on KDE. Older computers would benefit greatly from having an internet browser that doesn't demand such a huge amount of resources as Google Chrome.

Can we PLEASE have the Falkon web browser pre-installed in the TDE version instead of Google Chrome?

q4osteam

Q4OS Team

Registered: 2015-12-06

Posts: 4,516

Website

Re: Falkon vs Google Chrome

Good point, we will check the Falkon option.

Aidan1970

Member

From: Near the boarder of Canada an

Registered: 2023-08-31

Posts: 12

Re: Falkon vs Google Chrome

Thanks so much for everything you guys do

I

seb3773

Member

Registered: 2023-11-01

Posts: 147

Re: Falkon vs Google Chrome

It's fast indeed and don't use as much ram than chrome but it performs very bad on youtube videos for example, maybe only on the particular system I'm now, I will try on another install. Even on old computers I noticed the last chrome versions doesn't performs so bad...

---

My Q4OS scripts: win10/osx theming, perfs optimisation, laptop configuration, ...  for trinity users -->  https://github.com/seb3773/q4osXpack

Senas Komunistas

Member

From: Lithuania

Registered: 2016-04-17

Posts: 52

Re: Falkon vs Google Chrome

Palemoon is worth to check.

Aidan1970

Member

From: Near the boarder of Canada an

Registered: 2023-08-31

Posts: 12

Re: Falkon vs Google Chrome

PaleMoon is a great alternative to Mozilla Firefox.

But what I want is to have a lightweight KDE browser pre-installed in the 32-bit Trinity version.

Palemoon is worth to check.

bin

Member

From: U.K.

Registered: 2016-01-28

Posts: 1,337

Re: Falkon vs Google Chrome

Does Falkon exist in a 32 bit version?
It also brings in a shed load of kde5 and qt5 dependencies

The following NEW packages will be installed:
  falkon kded5 kio kpackagetool5 libaccounts-glib0 libaccounts-qt5-1 libdbusmenu-qt5-2 libfam0
  libgpgmepp6 libkaccounts2 libkf5archive5 libkf5auth-data libkf5authcore5 libkf5bluezqt-data
  libkf5bluezqt6 libkf5codecs-data libkf5codecs5 libkf5completion-data libkf5completion5
  libkf5config-data libkf5configcore5 libkf5configgui5 libkf5configwidgets-data
  libkf5configwidgets5 libkf5coreaddons-data libkf5coreaddons5 libkf5crash5 libkf5dbusaddons-data
  libkf5dbusaddons5 libkf5declarative-data libkf5declarative5 libkf5doctools5 libkf5guiaddons5
  libkf5i18n-data libkf5i18n5 libkf5iconthemes-data libkf5iconthemes5 libkf5itemviews-data
  libkf5itemviews5 libkf5jobwidgets-data libkf5jobwidgets5 libkf5kiocore5 libkf5kiogui5
  libkf5kiontlm5 libkf5kiowidgets5 libkf5notifications-data libkf5notifications5
  libkf5package-data libkf5package5 libkf5purpose-bin libkf5purpose5 libkf5quickaddons5
  libkf5service-bin libkf5service-data libkf5service5 libkf5solid5 libkf5solid5-data
  libkf5sonnet5-data libkf5sonnetcore5 libkf5sonnetui5 libkf5textwidgets-data libkf5textwidgets5
  libkf5wallet-bin libkf5wallet-data libkf5wallet5 libkf5widgetsaddons-data libkf5widgetsaddons5
  libkf5windowsystem-data libkf5windowsystem5 libkwalletbackend5-5 libphonon4qt5-4
  libphonon4qt5-data libpolkit-qt5-1-1 libqt5texttospeech5 libqt5waylandclient5 libqt5webengine5
  libsignon-qt5-1 libsvtav1enc1 libxcb-res0 phonon4qt5 phonon4qt5-backend-vlc
  qml-module-org-kde-bluezqt qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrolsaddons qml-module-qtwebengine
  qtchooser qtwebengine5-dev-tools
0 upgraded, 86 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 18.2 MB of archives.
After this operation, 97.0 MB of additional disk space will be used.

Now the actual space taken up by this lot is substantially less than any of the bigger browsers, you are also relying on all these being available in 32 bit.

How have you got on investigating that?

Aidan1970

Member

From: Near the boarder of Canada an

Registered: 2023-08-31

Posts: 12

Re: Falkon vs Google Chrome

Does Falkon exist in a 32 bit version?
It also brings in a shed load of kde5 and qt5 dependencies

The following NEW packages will be installed:
  falkon kded5 kio kpackagetool5 libaccounts-glib0 libaccounts-qt5-1 libdbusmenu-qt5-2 libfam0
  libgpgmepp6 libkaccounts2 libkf5archive5 libkf5auth-data libkf5authcore5 libkf5bluezqt-data
  libkf5bluezqt6 libkf5codecs-data libkf5codecs5 libkf5completion-data libkf5completion5
  libkf5config-data libkf5configcore5 libkf5configgui5 libkf5configwidgets-data
  libkf5configwidgets5 libkf5coreaddons-data libkf5coreaddons5 libkf5crash5 libkf5dbusaddons-data
  libkf5dbusaddons5 libkf5declarative-data libkf5declarative5 libkf5doctools5 libkf5guiaddons5
  libkf5i18n-data libkf5i18n5 libkf5iconthemes-data libkf5iconthemes5 libkf5itemviews-data
  libkf5itemviews5 libkf5jobwidgets-data libkf5jobwidgets5 libkf5kiocore5 libkf5kiogui5
  libkf5kiontlm5 libkf5kiowidgets5 libkf5notifications-data libkf5notifications5
  libkf5package-data libkf5package5 libkf5purpose-bin libkf5purpose5 libkf5quickaddons5
  libkf5service-bin libkf5service-data libkf5service5 libkf5solid5 libkf5solid5-data
  libkf5sonnet5-data libkf5sonnetcore5 libkf5sonnetui5 libkf5textwidgets-data libkf5textwidgets5
  libkf5wallet-bin libkf5wallet-data libkf5wallet5 libkf5widgetsaddons-data libkf5widgetsaddons5
  libkf5windowsystem-data libkf5windowsystem5 libkwalletbackend5-5 libphonon4qt5-4
  libphonon4qt5-data libpolkit-qt5-1-1 libqt5texttospeech5 libqt5waylandclient5 libqt5webengine5
  libsignon-qt5-1 libsvtav1enc1 libxcb-res0 phonon4qt5 phonon4qt5-backend-vlc
  qml-module-org-kde-bluezqt qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrolsaddons qml-module-qtwebengine
  qtchooser qtwebengine5-dev-tools
0 upgraded, 86 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 18.2 MB of archives.
After this operation, 97.0 MB of additional disk space will be used.

Now the actual space taken up by this lot is substantially less than any of the bigger browsers

Anything is better than any of the bigger browsers. Especially, if your computer has low specs.

Now, the question about 32-bit versus 64-bit is the only valid point that I can see. Because it has almost begun to be an ancient thing nowadays to have a 32-bit computer.