PDA

View Full Version : OT:Firefox browser?



wierdscience
10-28-2007, 08:33 PM
I just downloaded Firefox and set it as my default browser.

Is it something I did or is it suppsed to be azz draggingly slow?????:confused:

tattoomike68
10-28-2007, 08:44 PM
It should be fast but its known to have memory leaks so you have to reboot it ever 30 minutes or so.

I use IE 7. I can keep the same browser open for days.

Open windows task manager and see.. Control alt delete.

J Tiers
10-28-2007, 09:00 PM
I have never had any problems with it OTHER than the last major upgrade dumped all my favorites.... good thing I had a backup from not too long before. Only lost a little.

Never had ANY sign of memory leaks or other issues requiring reboots or re-starts. I can keep it open as long as I want.

It's faster than my DSL......

DSL is fast, but sometimes SBC doesn't respond, and I see the modem with all red light lit up...... THAT can be pretty slow until modem auto-reboots.

matador
10-28-2007, 09:00 PM
The slow performance must be your ip's server.I'm more than happy with firefox.Previously I had many unexplained crashes with IE,never gone back.
Mind you,I'm on broadband,although only 100Mbps.

dp
10-28-2007, 09:00 PM
Slow in what way? But to answer your question, no, it isn't supposed to be slow. There are rumors that Microsoft websites will take their bleeding time responding to Firefox browsers. Anyone think The Bill would really do that?

I use Safari because the Firefox browser on the Mac was fuggered up in strange ways. I liked it so much I installed it in Windows, too.

MTNGUN
10-28-2007, 09:01 PM
My fox is faster than IE6.

As Evan has discussed before, the "fasterfox" extension may speed up loading of new pages considerably, depending on your ISP.

The "adblock plus" extension will also speed up loading new pages by turning many of the annoying adds.

A little off the subject, but another good extension is "foxmarks", which stores your bookmarks on the web. Handy if you run multiple PCs, and also a handy way to back up your bookmarks.

I haven't noticed any memory leaks. In general, the Mozilla products use less resources than their Microbloat counterparts.

gmatov
10-28-2007, 09:06 PM
That's funny.

My FF browser has been opened for 23 days, now, and it's sometimes so fast that it says it "can't open the page", that in an eyeblink of a click. Click "Try again", the page opens in a semi-flash.

For about 15 days it has popped up an "upgrade available" that I hit "later" on. Don't know if it will help to install, probably should, sometime soon.

I know that except for MS Update and a site or 2 that require IE, all I use is FF.

Cheers,

George

Edit: Click Post and find 4 replies ahead of me.

JTiers, I didn't know about the Bookmark thing. Mine are about a mile deep. Must make sure to back them up before I do update.

Thanks for the heads up.

tattoomike68
10-28-2007, 09:15 PM
Seriously open IE and FF load 5 tabs in each then open windows task manager and hit the peocesses tab.

firefox hogs the CPU and the ram.

wierdscience
10-28-2007, 09:26 PM
When I installed FF it gave me the option of importing my bookmarks from IE which I did,so it should know where things are at I assume.

IE on dialup loads this page in about 4 seconds,FF is taking 10-12 seconds to get a response,then amother 5-6 to complete.

If FF is a RAM hog,then that might be the culprit,this machine is maxed out at 512mb.

Evan
10-28-2007, 09:43 PM
Firefox is definitely a ram hog. I have 15 instances open right now and it is using 205 megs of ram!!! That's ridiculous. It's plenty fast enough although it does exhibit some amount-of-time-in-use problems that resemble memory leak behaviour. I don't think that is Firefox itself but more likely one of the plugins for it acting up. Firefox also doesn't always deal well with unsuccessful attempts to connect to a web site.

However, it is still better and safer than the alternative. For myself it allows me to completely customize the way the browser works and that is very important on a satellite link.

The main settings for EVERYTHING are instantly available by typing in the address about:config and pressing enter. Of course it makes some assumptions about your level of knowledge and it isn't a good idea to randomly change settings to see what happens. You CAN break the browser that way.

If you want more tweaking info mozilla.org has plenty of good help information on every aspect of the system.

See here: http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq

JRouche
10-28-2007, 09:58 PM
Mind you,I'm on broadband,although only 100Mbps.

What!! That is a fast connection. I have a fiber optic connect with 15Mbps and it is screamin. 100Mbps? What service offers that?

I use FF. No problems for me. It may be a memory hog but so what. At least it can utilize the memory put in boxes these days. A gig of memory is common so not an issue really. JRouche

AZSORT
10-29-2007, 12:08 AM
I installed Firefox just so I could get the automatic reload plugin. No more waiting for investment - er I mean, machinist forums to be up to date. If this gets to be common though won't it clog up the net?

MTNGUN
10-29-2007, 09:34 AM
Time to load http://rawstory.com/

FF = 26 seconds (worst of several tries), uses 72.7 meg RAM

IE6 = 50 seconds, uses 32.8 meg RAM

FF is faster for that particular site because the adblock-plus extension is earning its keep. This is typical for news sites that have lots of ads.

As another poster mentioned, FF has been known to lose your bookmarks, however, the foxmarks extension backs up the bookmarks on the web. Even if you loose your hard drive, your bookmarks are still out there.

tony ennis
10-29-2007, 10:28 AM
99% Firefox user for a couple of years now. No issues at all. Not slow, no hangs, no memory leaks, run it for days and days at a time.

ckelloug
10-29-2007, 10:52 AM
Firefox has a stupid cache feature to make the back button work quickly that sucks ram like there is no tomorrow. Here's a FAQ about disabling it:

http://howto.helpero.com/howto/Disable-Back-Forward-Cache-In-Firefox_96.html

--Cameron

Rif
10-29-2007, 10:55 AM
I have found there is the occasional problem running Firefox on Windows. But, running Firefox on Linux is the way to go. It is fast, stable, and works great.

Additionally, LInux doesn't have the virus problems.

Brian

Evan
10-29-2007, 11:43 AM
Time to load http://rawstory.com/
FF took 30 seconds until page display and 52 until "DONE". Not bad considering the 700 -1000 millescond latency of my satellite connection.

IE7 took 50 seconds until page display and 3 more until done.

The difference is in the settings for FF. When it displays the main portion of the page is highly configurable. Also, even just moving the mouse during a page load alters the time it takes. If the mouse is moving the page load is given a lower priority so that mouse events won't be missed.


Additionally, LInux doesn't have the virus problems.

Neither does my copy of Windows. I use no virus scanners or spyware scanners either.

dan s
10-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Firefox is definitely a ram hog. I have 15 instances open right now and it is using 205 megs of ram!!! That's ridiculous.

Evan,

You’re opening multiple tabs within the same instance, and not multiple instances of FF correct?

If you’re opening multiple instances, FF will use more ram as you indicated. However FF really shines when you open multiple tabs within the same instance.

For example:
One tab uses 28MB (on my machine).
18 tabs (everything in one of my bookmark folders) uses 74MB
If I open the first 9 sites from the same folder in IE6 it uses 88MB

As someone else mentioned, you have to be careful with some of the plug-ins designed to speed up page loading, because they sacrifice Ram for speed of loading.

Evan
10-29-2007, 11:50 AM
I open multiple instances. I hate tabbed browsing. I rely on having items open that I can find in the task bar. I keep the task bar on autohide and 3 to 4 rows deep. When I decide I don't need something I close it without looking at the page. If you have tabs open that causes an alert. Also, I may not wish to close all the items in a tabbed page. It's a PITA to use tabs.

kendall
10-29-2007, 12:54 PM
I normally have three or four browser windows open, each with several tabs.

boards are on tabs in one window, email and such are in another, while searches for info/parts etc are done in thier own window with tabs opened for each result that looks promising.
For me it works better than having a lot of seperate windows.

Seems that firefox and seamonkey are both highly configurable, but FF has too many of the features I don't like in IE, so I tend to run seamonkey.
I've run it since the first incarnation, and have never noticed any major issues, have hit a few sites that claim to only work with IE7, but haven't had any problems viewing.

Ken.

dan s
10-29-2007, 01:02 PM
Evan,

The closing multiple tabs warning can be turned off by going to tools > options > Tabs, and un-checking “warn me when closing multiple tabs”.


You might also find these two properties in about:config helpful.

browser.tabs.tabclipWidth [Integer] - Determines the minimum width of a non-active tab in pixels before a red 'x' close button appears. The default is 140, and raising this value increases the likelihood that a close button won't appaer on the tab.

browser.tabs.tabminWidth [Integer] - As more tabs are opened, Firefox shrinks each tab's width. This setting controls the minimum width a tab can be, with the default being 100 pixels.

I have tabclipWidth=10 and tabminWidth=200 this insures that I see a good chunk of the page title, and the close “X” no matter how many tabs are open.

MTNGUN
10-30-2007, 04:06 PM
I downloaded IE7 and repeated the comparison tests.

With only one tab open, FF would use roughly 20 meg more RAM than IE7, however, as more tabs were opened, the difference narrowed, until IE7 had only a 1 - 2 meg advantage with 5 tabs.

FF took 3.9 seconds to refresh http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/ , IE7 took 4 - 5 seconds (just counting outloud, since IE doesn't have the built in timer like the fasterfox).

FF averaged 34 seconds to download my eBay page, vs. 36 seconds for IE7.

When I attempted speed comparisons on ad-heavy news sites, IE7 kept interrupting the download with pop-up notices about plug-ins, a warning about phishing, and reminding me to look at a certain bar. If I clicked off the annoying notices as fast as I could, then IE7 took about twice as long about to download the page.

To sum things up, FF seems to have a speed advantage on pages that have lots of ads and photos, thanks mainly to the "adblock plus" and "fasterfox" extensions. There doesn't seem to be a significant speed difference on smaller pages.

Recently I have been playing with Ubuntu Linux, using FF and T-bird, of course. It's nice to be able to use the same browser and email on both Linux and Windows, plus extensions allow me to synchronize the bookmarks and address book so that they are all the same no matter what machine or operating system I am using.

Bill Gates will eventually catch up, but he'll always charge money for his products. And god forbid if you need to reinstall your legitimate copy of Windows, because the activation key only works one time.

Unbuntu, FF, and T-bird are free, and the home user can install them on numerous machines, numerous times, for free.

And yes, this is an on-topic post, because I've got PCs in my machine shop and literally can't run the shop without them.

jrl
10-30-2007, 05:20 PM
Because IE is so highly integrated with the Windows operating system, IE isn't "charged" for all the code it is actually using. That is also why it starts new instances faster.

As for memory leaks, I've never seen any signs of 'em with Firefox on either Windows or Linux. On the other hand, Windows 2000 had horrible memory leaks, and was doing unusually good if it ran all day without having to re-boot.

As for me, I figure IE has way too many security leaks to use on the internet. I only use IE to test applications which live behind the firewall. Of course I am also sufficiently paranoid to run an anti-virus program on Linux, for which there are VERY few viruses and has a much higher inherent level of security than Chairman Bill has yet to consider putting into Windows. Yes, there are critical bugs which need patching in Linux, just like there are in Windows, but security has always been an afterthought in Windows, while it was designed in from the very beginning for Unix/Linux systems.