firetune for firefox

[Lius]

any tried the above?
seems firefox fires up faster in my system

 

[elaich]

any tried the above?
seems firefox fires up faster in my system

Firefox Preloader is far better.

 

[Qwest]

Preloaded never worked for me as far as I could tell. I downloaded the file
and opened it. A DOS window showed up and disappeared. I never saw any
indication that the program did anything....

Does anybody have a tip how to make it work????

 

[123]

Preloaded never worked for me as far as I could tell

Never worked for me either, and I installed it correctly.
No noticable startup speedups at all, so I uninstalled it.

 

[Gert van der Kooij]

Never worked for me either, and I installed it correctly.
No noticable startup speedups at all, so I uninstalled it.

It works for me with Firefox 1.0.2 on Windows XP. Opening the first
page took about 4 seconds without Preloader and only takes halve a
second with Preloader.

 

[Conor Turton]

Preloaded never worked for me as far as I could tell. I downloaded the file
and opened it. A DOS window showed up and disappeared. I never saw any
indication that the program did anything....

Does anybody have a tip how to make it work????

WTF did you think the DOS window opening up was?

 

[mike555]

==== I'm using Firetune and think it's excellent -- on Windows XP
home-Firefox 1.0.3 ==========

 

[Zo]

Firefox Preloader is far better.

In what way is it better?

Zo

 

[elaich]

In what way is it better?

It loads Firefox into core memory at startup, just like IE. About 1/2
second to open it.

If it installed correctly, you should have a Firefox preloader icon in your
taskbar.

 

[Zo]

It loads Firefox into core memory at startup, just like IE. About 1/2
second to open it.

If it installed correctly, you should have a Firefox preloader icon in your
taskbar.

I know that it keeps Firefox in memory so that it starts faster, but Firetune
is intended to speed up page rendering and connection speed. Seems to me that
they would make a good combination in theory more so than one being better than
the other. ???????

Incidentally, I had it installed and it didn't work very well for me. Firefox
is a memory hog and with preloader it hogged even more, but each to his/her own
preferences.

Zo

 

[qwerty]

It works for me with Firefox 1.0.2 on Windows XP. Opening the first
page took about 4 seconds without Preloader and only takes halve a
second with Preloader.

Hmm, that's how Firefox v1.0.2 works for me WITHOUT preloader...

 

[Gert van der Kooij]

Hmm, that's how Firefox v1.0.2 works for me WITHOUT preloader...

Lucky bastard, your system must be 8 times faster than mine

 

[qwerty]

Lucky bastard, your system must be 8 times faster than mine

Doubt it; mine's just a PIII @ 667 mhz and 256/64 ADSL...

 

[fathom]

any tried the above?
seems firefox fires up faster in my system

I just got Firetune a week ago, and it seems to work well. On
the test site, the browser took 11.781 seconds to render the
page before applying Firetune, only 4.531 seconds after
Firetune.

 

[Lius]

there's an update on Firefox, just in case you are not aware

 

[Conor Turton]

there's an update on Firefox, just in case you are not aware

Just to say that its a RC, therefore BETA. Pukka 1.03 release in the
next few days.