ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| [FireFox] I only care about one thing: Initial Load speed.
Meaning, when I try to open the browser, how long does it take to bring up a window and allow me to type?
IE8 is currently the reigning champion at a smooth 3 seconds.
Firefox3 pales in comparison, hovering around the ~6-7 second mark - doubly slow as its direct competitor.
Chrome is about the same as IE8 but lacks any semblance of customization, which limits my usability.
The reason I prefer Firefox to others is the types of extensions and addons I can use. Things that make it easier for me to navigate the web, like NoScript, ProxyButton, Redirect Remover, and AdBlock Plus. I'll keep using Firefox no doubt, but I'm going to stop upgrading until Mozilla fixes the load up speed. Even if I disable all addons it's still just as slow.
So....
Did 3.5 address my concern, or no?
Thanks. |
|
GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| You realize that MS will almost certainly win this battle because of the hooks into the OS they can make use of in IE?
6-7 seconds isn't that bad for a third party application.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
With 67 extensions and 4 themes my load time is about 3 seconds on Vista64.
As GILXA1226 said IE is part of the OS and you may as well say IE is always preloaded because pretty much that is what it is.
Opera opens maybe one second slower but seriously even at 6-7 seconds that you are seeing is it going to change the big scheme of life?
Hell I have wasted numerous seconds just know and am none the worse for wear. 
--
"Facts not FUD!" |
|
goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
 ·Knology
·Comcast
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
I only care about one thing: Initial Load speed. That's the least of my worries. I deal with it once. What matters to me is functionality and speed once the browser's open, and FF wins that hands down.
If that's all you care about, stick with IE. |
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | I used to worry about load speed, until I realized I only had to do it once a week.
--
Every Kurt has his Courtney. You need a Yoko to do it right.
|
|
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY | reply to ReVeLaTeD
IE2 opens with about the same speed as notepad. |
|
Traxless
Premium
join:2005-02-16
USA | reply to ReVeLaTeD
Could be time for a new computer! |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| said by Traxless  :Could be time for a new computer! Not likely.
»www.gateway.com/systems/product/···8231.php
The only difference is that my version has a 1920x1200 screen. But it's a beast well capable of handling anything I throw at it.
Any browser works fantastic when it's already open. What matters to me is that it's efficient when it's first opened. If Chrome can open nearly as fast as IE8 and it's also a third party browser, it tells me that Firefox *could* open that fast. IN fact, the old Mozilla browser that Firefox morphed from used to be nice and fast. I don't buy the argument that "IE has hooks in the OS so it's always faster" - that might be true IF Chrome were also 6-7 seconds. It's not. Neither are the older offshoots like GreenBrowser and whatnot. Firefox seems like the slowest of the bunch.
I just don't want bloat on my browser - 7 seconds may not seem like much, but when you're constantly working on the web, it adds up. I also do not leave my computer on for weeks at a time, it's a laptop, it needs periods of rest every so often, so when I start it up I need to know that the browser is up with me.
It's disheartening to hear that they haven't resolved that. Maybe next time. I'm going to try the 64 bit version and see if there's any noticeable improvement. |
|
GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| said by ReVeLaTeD :said by Traxless :Could be time for a new computer! Not likely. » www.gateway.com/systems/product/···8231.phpThe only difference is that my version has a 1920x1200 screen. But it's a beast well capable of handling anything I throw at it. Any browser works fantastic when it's already open. What matters to me is that it's efficient when it's first opened. If Chrome can open nearly as fast as IE8 and it's also a third party browser, it tells me that Firefox *could* open that fast. IN fact, the old Mozilla browser that Firefox morphed from used to be nice and fast. I don't buy the argument that "IE has hooks in the OS so it's always faster" - that might be true IF Chrome were also 6-7 seconds. It's not. Neither are the older offshoots like GreenBrowser and whatnot. Firefox seems like the slowest of the bunch. I just don't want bloat on my browser - 7 seconds may not seem like much, but when you're constantly working on the web, it adds up. I also do not leave my computer on for weeks at a time, it's a laptop, it needs periods of rest every so often, so when I start it up I need to know that the browser is up with me. It's disheartening to hear that they haven't resolved that. Maybe next time. I'm going to try the 64 bit version and see if there's any noticeable improvement. Other thing to take into account is size... chrome is a fairly light browser. Firefox on the other hand has a lot more stuff built into it. The bookmarks are managed by a sqlite database IIRC... not that I'm knocking on firefox it's my browser of choice, but seriously, you need a full on database to do bookmarks!?!
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! |
|
goalieskates
join:2004-09-12
Knoxville, TN
·Knology
·Comcast
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD :7 seconds may not seem like much, but when you're constantly working on the web, it adds up. Adds up how? The only way I see that happening is constantly opening and closing the browser.
I can spare 7 seconds a day/week.  |
|
AZinOH
join:2007-04-25
Swanton, OH
·Windstream
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
"I only care about one thing: Initial Load speed."
"The reason I prefer Firefox to others is the types of extensions and addons I can use."
Make up your mind...which is it? If it's the former-stick with IE. If it's the latter-don't get bent out of shape about a few extra seconds. Patience is a virtue.
If that just doesn't work for you, you could always build a better browser yourself. |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD :...I just don't want bloat on my browser - 7 seconds may not seem like much, but when you're constantly working on the web, it adds up. I also do not leave my computer on for weeks at a time, it's a laptop, it needs periods of rest every so often, so when I start it up I need to know that the browser is up with me.... How many times a day are you opening and closing the browser? I find FF is a bit slower when I start it for the first time after a reboot. If I restart it after that it comes up much faster, but I don't spend the day opening and closing it or timing the seconds. I'm not in that much of a hurry to have a heart attack, so I don't let these insignificant things bother me.
Secondly, where did you get the idea that a laptop "needs periods of rest..."? 
If FF WAS just like IE (as in hooked into the OS) it would probably open much faster but thankfully, it isn't like IE.
People get grumpy about such minor things.
--
You can chain my body to the earth, but still my spirit flies!
13,498 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
I run 3 or 4 instances of Fx 3.0.nn at a time and 1 or 2 of 3.5(rc)--haven't noticed much of a difference yet; 3.5 may be a little faster (meh). I always start up with a blank page; I have one instance that takes, maybe, 7 or 8 seconds (lots of history items, different mix of extensions) on average, but the others mostly take 3 to 5 seconds. (My primary PC is several years old, running XP.) So, it seldom seems slow to me, and I haven't noticed much difference with 3.5 over earlier 3.x releases. YMMV (obviously) |
|
ZPurpleHippo
join:2009-05-28
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD :IE8 is currently the reigning champion at a smooth 3 seconds. The reason IE opens so fast is because its preloaded with windows. Have you ever noticed why windows takes so long loading on a start up? Its because its loading a bunch of programs, such as IE. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| said by ZPurpleHippo :said by ReVeLaTeD :IE8 is currently the reigning champion at a smooth 3 seconds. The reason IE opens so fast is because its preloaded with windows. Have you ever noticed why windows takes so long loading on a start up? Its because its loading a bunch of programs, such as IE. My Windows boots to usability nearly instantly.
Look, it should not be a matter of "choose crap speed or crap functionality". Firefox should strive to be the best of both worlds instead of forcing me to choose. I say again - I LIKE FIREFOX, I can't imagine the web without it. Just because you don't think that the 7 second open time is a big deal, doesn't mean it isn't. It's a big deal because there's no real valid reason for a browser to take that long to open up. If the bookmarks are using a database (I was under the impression they were just stored in a simple HTML file), that's ridiculous. Stupid decisions like that hinder the browser experience.
And I say again, your argument that IE is preloaded with Windows is rendered null and void by the other fact I stated which nobody has yet refuted: CHROME LOADS JUST AS FAST AS IE. Yes, it's a lighter browser, which is what I want Firefox to be because I know it can be!! Why is this hard for folks?
If I disable every plugin I have in Firefox, it should open just as fast as Chrome or GreenBrowser or IE8. It doesn't. It should. That's a problem. It needs to be addressed. Stop trying to throw more features into the browser and actually improve its performance. That's all I'm asking. Either that or make the plugins all work on Chrome and I'll just switch to that, as much as I can't stand that browser's look and feel. |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
Some possible solutions (and there may be a bug that is causing some people to have this problem):
»forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic···=1326475 |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | reply to ReVeLaTeD
K-Meleon ... the true speed-demon of the Gecko family. |
|
imtim83
You All Deserve The Economic Meltdown
Premium
join:2001-06-03
Kenner, LA |  reply to ReVeLaTeD
Glad someone is finally standing up! |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
I have 3 seconds on mine running Windows XP Pro and that is to type like you said. I guess it depends on the computer but my FireFox always launched as fast if not faster then my IE.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
stev32k
Premium
join:2000-04-27
Mobile, AL
·Mediacom
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
I was having a problem with slow loading to the point that I almost quit using firefox. It was taking 15 - 20 seconds sometimes longer to be able to type. I had another problem with ebay listings not displaying correctly and out of desperation I uninstalled and removed all firefox and mozilla files and folders from my computer.
I reinstalled Fx 3.5 and the load speed is now about 2 - 4 seconds. Which is about the same as IE. |
|
