How to load Firefox faster?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Howard Schwartz
  • Start date Start date
SELECT * FROM alt.comp.freeware WHERE AUTHOR = Kerodo:
No real argument there. But it IS slow... :)
Click to expand...

Here it takes a few seconds to load, mainly because I have lots of
extensions and themes.
 
don'[email protected] said:
I don't get this. Do you have a lot of extensions installed? I've
used FF since it was Firebird and it has /never/ loaded "slowly" on
any system I've used. Slower than IE? Yes. Slow? What is your
definition of "slow?"
Click to expand...

I am on a rather old 1 gig cpu here. Firefox takes 7 seconds to load.
IE takes 1. K-Meleon takes about 1 also. So Firefox's 7 second load
time is my definition of 'slow'. :) Btw, I only use 1 extension.
Mouse Gestures by Optimoz, but I doubt that has anything to do with it.
Fresh clean Win2k install less than 1 week old, fresh clean Firefox
1.5.0.1 install, few days old also. It's slow here...
 
I am on a rather old 1 gig cpu here. Firefox takes 7 seconds to
load. IE takes 1. K-Meleon takes about 1 also. So Firefox's 7
second load time is my definition of 'slow'. :) Btw, I only use
1 extension. Mouse Gestures by Optimoz, but I doubt that has
anything to do with it. Fresh clean Win2k install less than 1
week old, fresh clean Firefox 1.5.0.1 install, few days old also.
It's slow here...
Click to expand...
There's a problem somewhere. When I have lots of stuff running, it
/maybe/ takes 3-4 seconds...and that's /without/ the preloader
running. My system is 3 ghz, but it shouldn't make that much of a
difference. I also have a 500 mhz win98 system and FF 1.5 loads in
about 3 seconds.

--
Mike

Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one
is peeling patatoes...Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes.
-Alan Watts
 
don'[email protected] said:
There's a problem somewhere. When I have lots of stuff running, it
/maybe/ takes 3-4 seconds...and that's /without/ the preloader
running. My system is 3 ghz, but it shouldn't make that much of a
difference. I also have a 500 mhz win98 system and FF 1.5 loads in
about 3 seconds.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I noticed just now that after a reboot, the first time
I load it, it does take about 7 seconds. After that, next time I load
it and from then on, it takes about 3-4 seconds, so it is better after
the first load. I assume that it's something to do with the system
loading dll's or whatnot, who knows. So there's no problem as such.
Still, you must admit that 3 or 4 seconds is slower than 1 second. I
have the new SeaMonkey 1.0 installed here also, and with the Quick
Launch loader it preloads about 16.5mb worth of stuff into memory at
boot time, so that SeaMonkey loads in about 1.5 seconds also. Not too
bad.

I don't much care about the load times anyway, since most of the time I
run my browser minimized when not in use, so it's not an issue for me.
 
No real argument there. But it IS slow... :)
Click to expand...

Yeah. Maybe 10 seconds, while we wait 1:30 for Ramen to cook in the
microwave. Have we gotten so impatient that we can't wait 10 seconds for
the best browser in the world to load? How in the world can anyone call 10
seconds "slow."
 
elaich said:
Yeah. Maybe 10 seconds, while we wait 1:30 for Ramen to cook in
the microwave. Have we gotten so impatient that we can't wait 10
seconds for the best browser in the world to load? How in the
world can anyone call 10 seconds "slow."
Click to expand...
Everything is relative.

--
Mike

Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose
sight of the shore.
- Andre Gide
 
The difference on my system is not noticeable. Neither IE nor FF
loads as fast as K-Meleon on my system. IE = 2 seconds, FF = 2
seconds, KM = 0.5 seconds.
Click to expand...

Well I do hope you use that saved 1.5 seconds wisely. ;)
I have always found it amusing that people would spend a lot of time
trying to reduce the boot time of their OS, or the time it takes for a
browser to start.
I push the power button, then go and make a coffee, when
I come back everything is ready.
 
Well I do hope you use that saved 1.5 seconds wisely. ;)
I have always found it amusing that people would spend a lot of
time trying to reduce the boot time of their OS, or the time it
takes for a browser to start.
I push the power button, then go and make a coffee, when
I come back everything is ready.
Click to expand...
I'm happy for you, but I've not spent "a lot of time trying to reduce
the boot time" of my OS or "the time it takes for a browser to
start." Unless you consider a few seconds of reconfiguring "a lot of
time."
 
Well I do hope you use that saved 1.5 seconds wisely. ;)
I have always found it amusing that people would spend a lot of time
trying to reduce the boot time of their OS, or the time it takes for a
browser to start.
I push the power button, then go and make a coffee, when
I come back everything is ready.
Click to expand...

And it's great when you can do that. But if I'm running out the door and
just want to check googlemaps to make sure I know where I'm going, it
would be nice if the computer and firefox booted up more quickly.
Instant-on would be a great help then.

It's not a make-or-break sort of wish, just a wishlist sort of wish, you
know?

Chak

--
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples
might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal
time in physics classrooms.
--Stephen Jay Gould
 
elaich said:
Yeah. Maybe 10 seconds, while we wait 1:30 for Ramen to cook in the
microwave. Have we gotten so impatient that we can't wait 10 seconds for
the best browser in the world to load? How in the world can anyone call 10
seconds "slow."
Click to expand...
Easy. It's slow.
 
From bambam to alt.comp.freeware:
I have always found it amusing that people would spend a lot of time
trying to reduce the boot time of their OS, or the time it takes for a
browser to start.
I push the power button, then go and make a coffee, when
I come back everything is ready.
Click to expand...

I use hibernation. This way, the system comes up in ~25 seconds instead
of ~1:30 minute.
 
Kerodo said:
Well, to be fair, I noticed just now that after a reboot, the first time
I load it, it does take about 7 seconds. After that, next time I load
it and from then on, it takes about 3-4 seconds, so it is better after
the first load. I assume that it's something to do with the system
loading dll's or whatnot, who knows. So there's no problem as such.
Still, you must admit that 3 or 4 seconds is slower than 1 second. I
have the new SeaMonkey 1.0 installed here also, and with the Quick
Launch loader it preloads about 16.5mb worth of stuff into memory at
boot time, so that SeaMonkey loads in about 1.5 seconds also. Not too
bad.

I don't much care about the load times anyway, since most of the time I
run my browser minimized when not in use, so it's not an issue for me.
Click to expand...

In W98SE, I run 1.0.5 on a P166 with only 96 MB RAM. Including earlier versions,
FF always loads in about 2 seconds, even while Thunderbird loads. I only use the
Prefbar extension, no preloader. Being on DUN, I am on/off line several times
during the day.

Awhile ago, I tried Kmeleon 6, it was very slow to load. YMMV

Mike Sa
 
ms said:
Kerodo wrote:>>

In W98SE, I run 1.0.5 on a P166 with only 96 MB RAM. Including earlier
versions, FF always loads in about 2 seconds, even while Thunderbird
loads. I only use the Prefbar extension, no preloader. Being on DUN, I
am on/off line several times during the day.

Awhile ago, I tried Kmeleon 6, it was very slow to load. YMMV

Mike Sa
Click to expand...

Sorry, perception is different from measurements. It does take 11-12 seconds to
load for me. That's fine for me, but YMMV.

Mike Sa
 
Microcrap have been lying to us for years.

IE loads very fast. :-) with a preload of its dll's

If you want the fastest loading programs then I suggest you stay with
MIcrojunk.
Click to expand...

The only reason I retain IE on my windows OS is to view those darn html
help files or chm files. I looked, but there seems to be no decent
alternative to reading help files in this microsoft format, and lots
of freeware authors use the format. All that can be done is to decompile
files back to html format, and kludge some kind of contents page oneself.

I consider the tradoff of loading a browser fast, by preloading its library
files to memory to be a serious one: I would turn down the fast load, if I
had to take up megs of memory with files that are otherwise useless.

Does anyone know how much ram IE related files take up? Are these files
otherwise of no use to most programs? If so, I may delete IE and somehow
deal wit the chm help file mess.
 
Howard Schwartz escreveu no grupo alt.comp.freeware:
Does anyone know how much ram IE related files take up? Are these files
otherwise of no use to most programs? If so, I may delete IE and somehow
deal wit the chm help file mess.
Click to expand...

Don't bother with deleting IE files; if you do this, you WILL end up
having to reinstall Windows.
 
Back
Top