Robert Lindsay | 10 Aug 20:03 2005
Picon

Re: Firefox speed

What's in a Name? wrote:
> P.M.Weilbacher <at> durham.ac.uk wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:50:58 UTC, "Kre8again" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't have to wait until Firefox finally does something.
>>
>>
>>
>> If this isn't just some random Firefox bashing why don't you give some 
>> examples of what exactly is so slow about it?
>>    P.
> 
> Don't get me wrong,I use firefox all the time(only use IE for M$ sites)
> 1.Firefox takes more time to start up (40sec,IE takes 15sec)

85% of IE is already loaded in memory.

> 2.My Geocities page takes twice as long to load as IE
> http://www.geocities.com/maxpro4u/madmax.html
> My platform (older but hey, still works)-
> W2Ksp4,233mz/192mb/scsi hard drive

Way too slow for Win 2000 and way too slow for Firefox. I have 550 MHZ 
CPU. You need at least 550MZ and I would reccomend 512 MB memory for Win 
2000 AND for Firefox.
Robert Lindsay | 10 Aug 20:06 2005
Picon

Re: Firefox speed

Jiri Znamenacek wrote:

> What's in a Name? wrote:
> 
>> 1.Firefox takes more time to start up (40sec,IE takes 15sec)
> 
> On my two configurations (1.4GHz & 2.4GHz, both 512MB RAM) Firefox is 
> roughly 3x slower in startup then IE, so it supports your numbers. But 
> IE on my desktop starts in 1-1.5s so it's not that terrible difference. 
> (And I'm not counting the fact that IE is sort of preloaded by the start 
> of Windows.

Sort of? 85% loaded is sort of?

  In fact you can make Firefox behave the same way and let it
> be preloaded too, this probably could speed it up significantly but will 
> take some 10-20MB of RAM out from the Windows start. Just guess since 
> I've never used preloading. Someone other can share the light?)
> 
>> My platform (older but hey, still works)-
>> W2Ksp4,233mz/192mb/scsi hard drive
> 
> I'm not sure how dependant on CPU clock this all is but 192MB RAM are 
> low for any serious work on W2k.

Win 2000 will barely work at all on 233 mHZ. 512 MB RAM is very nice.

  Two three middle weighted program and
> you'll out of luck with running not only Firefox (except for OS/IE of 
> course ;). On the other hand - how quick can be swapping on SCSI 
(Continue reading)

Robert Lindsay | 10 Aug 20:14 2005
Picon

Re: Firefox speed

Petr Vacek wrote:

> as long as start-up time and rendering speed is your concern, try to
> download
> a fresh snapshot of Firefox 1.1 ,it's not stable or intended as release yet,
> but for me I've had
> the same feelings about Firefox as you do (and was using Mozilla suite
> browser, which rendered faster),
> but 1.1 version trunk is much faster by my opinion.
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/ , be aware that it
> might just crash with your machine
> and don't worry the release code won't.
> 
> btw my startup time is about 3 secs from memory and 5 secs from disk ,
> my specs : athlon 2.3 GHz, 1792 MB ram

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have a ton of RAM or what? I have never heard 
of anyone with that much RAM my god.
Robert Lindsay | 10 Aug 20:21 2005
Picon

Re: Q Firefox memory usage?

sj wrote:

> I'm using firefox 1.0 on Fedora 2 system. If I have firefox up a few days it
> starts eating inordinate amounts of swap space. This results is in
> painfully slow application window switching. My system is a bit short on
> RAM (250M)

You need 512.

  and exessive with swap space (1G)

Excessive swap file is not possible.

  but I dont recall having
> similer problems with the Mozilla browser in the past. Any way to limit how
> much space firefox utilizes?

Not really. Limit cache to 10 MB as opposed to 50 MB.
Robert Lindsay | 11 Aug 09:32 2005
Picon

Moz 1.8 performance dramatically improved

I must say, the performance of Moz 1.8 Beta 1 over Moz 1.7.2 is really 
dramatic. It was getting to the point where Moz 1.7x was truly unusable. 
Is the Moz 1.8 trunk identical to the FF 1.1 trunk? I have no idea what 
they have done to make this app work better but it will really put a 
smile on your face. If you are having problems with Moz 1.7x slowness, 
bloatedness, freezing, refusing to respond, Windows offering to kill Moz 
"program is not responding", Moz slowing all other apps to a crawl, 
painfully slow redraws with Moz, and all of these problems seemingly 
having no possible solution, pls consider upgrading to Moz 1.8x. 
Although it is a beta, I have had no problems at all with it so far; in 
fact, it works much better than Moz 1.7x.

The news is also much better. On Moz 1.7x, typing was quite slow in a 
compose window, so slow it was painful and frustrating. News/mail speed 
seems much improved in Moz 1.8x. Also, Messenger and Navigator can both 
be run in Moz 1.8x without slowing the machine to molasses. As a 
sidenote, Moz 1.7x Messenger was the first Moz Messenger I have 
considered usable for news at all. Prior, I was still on Netscape 4.79, 
which, though widely reviled, is fast as lightning for news and is also 
fairly stable. Despite its problems, I have considered N 4.79 to be 
superior to any Moz Messenger but the latest, which is a very depressing 
statement, let's face it.

So.............good news on the bloat front!
CBFalconer | 11 Aug 12:10 2005
Picon

Re: Moz 1.8 performance dramatically improved

Robert Lindsay wrote:
> 
> I must say, the performance of Moz 1.8 Beta 1 over Moz 1.7.2 is really
> dramatic. It was getting to the point where Moz 1.7x was truly unusable.
... snip ...
> Although it is a beta, I have had no problems at all with it so far; in
> fact, it works much better than Moz 1.7x.
> 
> The news is also much better. On Moz 1.7x, typing was quite slow in a
> compose window, so slow it was painful and frustrating. News/mail speed
> seems much improved in Moz 1.8x. Also, Messenger and Navigator can both
> be run in Moz 1.8x without slowing the machine to molasses. As a
> sidenote, Moz 1.7x Messenger was the first Moz Messenger I have
> considered usable for news at all. Prior, I was still on Netscape 4.79,
> which, though widely reviled, is fast as lightning for news and is also
> fairly stable. Despite its problems, I have considered N 4.79 to be
> superior to any Moz Messenger but the latest, which is a very depressing
> statement, let's face it.

I agree about the news - I am using NS 4.75 for news and email. 
Unfortunately it appears that Moz 1.8 is never to be finished.  

--

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Peter Weilbacher | 11 Aug 12:22 2005

Re: Moz 1.8 performance dramatically improved

CBFalconer wrote:

> Unfortunately it appears that Moz 1.8 is never to be finished.  

Yes, it is. As SeaMonkey 1.0, see
   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
for details.
--

-- 
Grüße von
   Peter.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | 11 Aug 18:40 2005

Re: Moz 1.8 performance dramatically improved

Robert Lindsay <lindsay.robert <at> gmail.com> writes:
> I must say, the performance of Moz 1.8 Beta 1 over Moz 1.7.2 is
> really dramatic. It was getting to the point where Moz 1.7x was
> truly unusable. Is the Moz 1.8 trunk identical to the FF 1.1 trunk?
> I have no idea what they have done to make this app work better but
> it will really put a smile on your face. If you are having problems
> with Moz 1.7x slowness, bloatedness, freezing, refusing to respond,
> Windows offering to kill Moz "program is not responding", Moz
> slowing all other apps to a crawl, painfully slow redraws with Moz,
> and all of these problems seemingly having no possible solution, pls
> consider upgrading to Moz 1.8x. Although it is a beta, I have had no
> problems at all with it so far; in fact, it works much better than
> Moz 1.7x.

i've been using a tab folder bookmark of 125 or so URLs ... 

with 1.8 (and seamonkey, up thru yesterday's nightly build) I've been
able to click on the bookmark folder and then possibly click on
another 100-150 URLs (250-300 tabs total) before I start seeing
significant slowdown ... aka clicking on an additional background tab
URL will start locking up the foreground window for several seconds
... also perioically getting a popup complianing about some script
being hung/non-responding.

with 1.7 (thru 1.7.11) can start seeing the slowdown after only 10-15
additional background tab URLs ... after bringing up the tab folder
bookmark (130-140 background tabs).

also the initial browser "lockup" processing the 125 background tabs
at once is shorter with 1.8 than 1.7.
(Continue reading)

Matt Nordhoff | 11 Aug 19:51 2005
Picon

Re: Moz 1.8 performance dramatically improved

On 08/11/05 12:40, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> Robert Lindsay <lindsay.robert <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> I must say, the performance of Moz 1.8 Beta 1 over Moz 1.7.2 is
>> really dramatic. It was getting to the point where Moz 1.7x was
>> truly unusable. Is the Moz 1.8 trunk identical to the FF 1.1 trunk?
>> I have no idea what they have done to make this app work better but
>> it will really put a smile on your face. If you are having problems
>> with Moz 1.7x slowness, bloatedness, freezing, refusing to respond,
>> Windows offering to kill Moz "program is not responding", Moz
>> slowing all other apps to a crawl, painfully slow redraws with Moz,
>> and all of these problems seemingly having no possible solution, pls
>> consider upgrading to Moz 1.8x. Although it is a beta, I have had no
>> problems at all with it so far; in fact, it works much better than
>> Moz 1.7x.
> 
> i've been using a tab folder bookmark of 125 or so URLs ... 
> 
> with 1.8 (and seamonkey, up thru yesterday's nightly build) I've been
> able to click on the bookmark folder and then possibly click on
> another 100-150 URLs (250-300 tabs total) before I start seeing
> significant slowdown ... aka clicking on an additional background tab
> URL will start locking up the foreground window for several seconds
> ... also perioically getting a popup complianing about some script
> being hung/non-responding.
> 
> with 1.7 (thru 1.7.11) can start seeing the slowdown after only 10-15
> additional background tab URLs ... after bringing up the tab folder
> bookmark (130-140 background tabs).
> 
> also the initial browser "lockup" processing the 125 background tabs
(Continue reading)

Old Gringo | 13 Aug 17:50 2005
Picon

Re: Images Problems

Chris wrote:
> I went to a site that for some reason wouldn't allow any images to be
> displayed.  I looked at it with my Mozilla Thunderbird and Firefox
> browsers with the same effect.  A friend of mine looked at it with his
> browser and didn't have any problem.  When I right clicked and 'viewed
> image', I received this screen that showed 'forbidden'.  I'm using
> XPpro and both browsers are set to view all images so... any ideas
> anyone?  
> 
> Another issue - since downloading and installing the latest version of
> Firefox, some of the ebay buttons don't open up new windows as they
> used to (yet my Internet Explorer does, albeit so slowly).  
> 
> A couple of issues I've been living with though they are a bit of a
> hassle...  TIA for any pointers.
In Thunderbird, Tools, Options, Advanced tab.  You will find options 
that will help there.  Good Luck

--

-- 
Old Gringo George
Magic Weaver Of Life
Enjoy Life And Live It To Its Fullest
Freedom For The World <http://www.nuboy-Industries.com>

Gmane