Love Firefox but sorry it's slower!


Recommended Posts

Seeing as the majority of people do not depend on such features, I think the trade off between speed and such features is acceptable.

Well, as I was careful to point out in my post, different people have different needs, and that my assessment that the tradeoff doesn't work is mine. The goal of my post was to (1) nit about multiprocessing and (2) point out what the tradeoffs are. As for whether the majority of people need such things... well, the majority of people don't really care which browser they use and will be happy to use whatever they are given, so yes, I would say that the majority of people don't care about such things or about what anyone has to say in this thread, for that matter. :D

Well, as I was careful to point out in my post, different people have different needs, and that my assessment that the tradeoff doesn't work is mine. The goal of my post was to (1) nit about multiprocessing and (2) point out what the tradeoffs are. As for whether the majority of people need such things... well, the majority of people don't really care which browser they use and will be happy to use whatever they are given, so yes, I would say that the majority of people don't care about such things or about what anyone has to say in this thread, for that matter. :D

Yeah that's true also. The majority of people are fine with IE, whether due to ignorance, apathy, convenience, preference or whatever. But if we go by the majority of people who use Firefox (and therefore are likely know the advantages Firefox brings), most will (eventually, hopefully) be able to find an equivalent extension for google chrome to those they depend on through greasemonkey alone.

And I hope we shall never see such a dark day. :p A web browser made by Microsoft Version 2 powered by an engine made by Apple is not my idea of a rosy future, even if they are nominally open-source.

Well it is true that the motive of Mozilla is much more noble that Google. Mozilla is non-profit while Google isnt. I'm sure this influences some people to use one or the other. But I think the majority of us are more concerned with the product itself. Same goes for the engine they use. People who prefer Mozilla over Apple may disapprove of the use of webkit instead of gecko for that reason alone, while others may only care about the engine itself. Same goes for the SDK used too, I guess.

Once Firefox add 1 process per tab (they said they will for 4.0 or before), it will be better, for now minor updates should fix little regressions. If you don't remember guys, the same thing have been said with 2.0 to 3.0 and if you try them now, 3.0 is faster than 2.0. But having a 200mb history DB like mine does not help, but I love the AwesomeBar completion so more entry I get better it is.

Once Firefox add 1 process per tab (they said they will for 4.0 or before), it will be better, for now minor updates should fix little regressions. If you don't remember guys, the same thing have been said with 2.0 to 3.0 and if you try them now, 3.0 is faster than 2.0. But having a 200mb history DB like mine does not help, but I love the AwesomeBar completion so more entry I get better it is.

I thought Firefox and Chrome (and IE) all had similar functionality with their address bars now. What are the differences?

I never said that they don't, I was just pointing that it work like a charm with a 200mb database, but it slow down the browser (SQLite is a slow beast). And every browser have variant. Chrome integrate Google in the main address bar, not Firefox and so on. I did not test IE8 that much yet, I just used it to install Firefox and Chrome (I am not a Windows user).

  • 3 weeks later...

What's this about creating a new profile? How do you do it?

I've tried clearing my cache, but it's still slow. I don't remember FF ever being this slow (I'm using FF 2.0.0.20).

I used to have 20-30 tabs open and whizzing through, opening and closing tabs without so much as a hiccup. Lately (past few months) I've noticed a serious lag.

A friend suggested I update to FF 3, but then I'm afraid that some of my add-ons will no longer be supported, and from what I've heard - it's a real PITA to go back to FF 2.

Even some Youtube videos load extra slow. I've resorted to having to use IE 8 *blegh* to open some text and graphic "heavy" pages, such as eBay.

I've read this thread: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=634949

and I'm willing to give Tencent traveler a whirl for tab intensive sessions. I'd rather get FF 2 back on its feet though. I've shut down a lot of non-essential add-ons, but haven't noticed an improvement. 15 tabs open, using a steady 188mb,

This machine's specs:

Intel core 2 duo x6800 2.93ghz

3.25gb ram

512mb video ram

winxp sp2

Creating a new profile:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_new_F...file_on_Windows

Also backing up a profile:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Backing_up_your_...s,_and_settings

and FWIW, Firefox 3.x has greatly improved in memory usage and IMO is faster (especially 3.5).

  • 3 weeks later...
I hate how Mozilla is moving aware form what Firefox was, barebones and very quick(compared to the competition). They keep ADDING things.

Features != slowdown

and 3.5 was a major performance improving release as was 3., firefox has been improving speed every release. Comments like this make no sense.

Features != slowdown

and 3.5 was a major performance improving release as was 3., firefox has been improving speed every release. Comments like this make no sense.

I suggest you take a look at mozillazine or support.mozilla.com forums. You'll see that tons of people are having speed problems. In fact, FF 3.5.1 was released to fix the "sluggish" performance that everyone said wasn't there.

I love firefox.. my favorite browser.. and it's always been some what speedy to me.. but the 3.5 release just seems very slow and some what laggy(slow loading menu's, start up/exit). Has anyone else noticed things like this? Also I'm not running any Extensions.

mines running super fast in windows 7 rtm. go under "about:config" in your browser setting and disable ipv6, should speed things up a bit.

mines running super fast in windows 7 rtm. go under "about:config" in your browser setting and disable ipv6, should speed things up a bit.

Only if you're behind a router that has bad IPv6 support (if you aren't there won't be any difference)

I love firefox.. my favorite browser.. and it's always been some what speedy to me.. but the 3.5 release just seems very slow and some what laggy(slow loading menu's, start up/exit). Has anyone else noticed things like this? Also I'm not running any Extensions.

I totally agree with you, love Firefox :) but it ain't that fast. I've compared it against IE8, Chrome, Safari 4 and Opera (on my personal computers) and Firefox was one of the slowest (with Chrome and Safari being the fastest). Don't get me wrong, Firefox is still my default browser but it just isn't blazing fast for me like many others claim it is.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
    • I’m still using an Xbox One S, so time for an upgrade to play this but as much as I hate Sony, I think I’ll get the ps5 pro
    • I bought this game. Played it for an hour, and then got a refund from Steam. Not a fun game at all.
    • Nothing Ear buds with active noise cancellation are at their lowest price ever with 51% off by Fiza Ali Amazon is currently offering the Nothing Ear wireless earbuds at their lowest price ever with 51% off limited prime deal. The earbuds feature an 11mm dynamic drivers with a ceramic diaphragm, and support high-resolution audio codecs including AAC, SBC, LDAC, and LHDC 5.0. They support active noise cancellation of up to 45dB across a frequency range of up to 5000Hz, and include a smart ANC algorithm, adaptive noise cancellation, and a transparency mode that allows surrounding sounds to be heard when needed. Connectivity is provided via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for multiple profiles including HFP, A2DP, AVRCP, and others. The earbuds also support dual connection, allowing them to be paired with two devices at the same time. Additional features include IP54 water and dust resistance for the earbuds and IP55 for the charging case, in-ear detection, pinch controls, low-latency mode, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, and a three-microphone system per earbud for clearer voice calls. The Nothing X app, available on Android and iOS, provides access to custom EQ settings, bass enhancement, personal sound profiles, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, customisable controls, dual-device management, and a find-my-earbuds feature. In terms of battery performance, each earbud has a 46mAh battery and the charging case has a 500mAh capacity. With active noise cancellation (ANC) turned off, the earbuds should offer up to 8.5 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 40.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, playback should last up to 5.2 hours on the earbuds and up to 24 hours with the case. For calls, talk time should reach up to 5 hours on the earbuds and 23 hours with the case when ANC is off, while ANC on should provide up to 4 hours on the earbuds and 18 hours with the case. Finally, fast charging should deliver up to 10 hours of playback from 10 minutes of charging when ANC is disabled. Nothing Ear Wireless Earbuds Bluetooth: $73.15 (Amazon US) - 51% off Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      572
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      173
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!