Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Firefox > nglayout.initialpaint.delay

Reply
Thread Tools

nglayout.initialpaint.delay

 
 
Herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2005
Firefox: Anyone know what this is?==> nglayout.initialpaint.delay

Was told it could be added under about:config by right-clicking there
and selecting
1) New -> Integer., and then
2) Name it “nglayout.initialpaint.delay” and set its value to “0”. This
value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on
information it receives.


Is this wise to do? Asking cuz not sure if it is, or what it may get me
in terms of increased speed, etc?

Thanx, Herb
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Z
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2005
Herb wrote:
> Firefox: Anyone know what this is?==> nglayout.initialpaint.delay


The time delay before FF/Mozilla begins "painting" the display.

> Was told it could be added under about:config by right-clicking there
> and selecting
> 1) New -> Integer., and then
> 2) Name it “nglayout.initialpaint.delay” and set its value to “0”. This
> value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on
> information it receives.
>
>
> Is this wise to do? Asking cuz not sure if it is, or what it may get me
> in terms of increased speed, etc?


Your images will begin displaying slightly faster but, on a page with
many images, the entire page will take longer to display.

Is that wise? Some people say yes, others say no.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2005
Z wrote:

> Herb wrote:
>
>> Firefox: Anyone know what this is?==> nglayout.initialpaint.delay

>
>
> The time delay before FF/Mozilla begins "painting" the display.
>
>>
>>
>> Is this wise to do? Asking cuz not sure if it is, or what it may get
>> me in terms of increased speed, etc?

>
>
> Your images will begin displaying slightly faster but, on a page with
> many images, the entire page will take longer to display.
>

===================

Z, Concerning last statement above, it is true of any page with more
images... that it'll take longer to display them, than one with less
images. My concern about doing this is:

Is the bang for the buck worth it ?
vs.
The risk of making this change and fudging up how FF works overall.

My thinning is that if doing this is such a good thing to do, why isn't
it in the default FF settings?

--
Herb
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leonidas Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2005
Herb wrote:
> Z wrote:
>
>> Herb wrote:
>>
>>> Firefox: Anyone know what this is?==> nglayout.initialpaint.delay

>>
>>
>>
>> The time delay before FF/Mozilla begins "painting" the display.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this wise to do? Asking cuz not sure if it is, or what it may get
>>> me in terms of increased speed, etc?

>>
>>
>>
>> Your images will begin displaying slightly faster but, on a page with
>> many images, the entire page will take longer to display.
>>

> ===================
>
> Z, Concerning last statement above, it is true of any page with more
> images... that it'll take longer to display them, than one with less
> images. My concern about doing this is:
> Is the bang for the buck worth it ?
> vs.
> The risk of making this change and fudging up how FF works overall.
>
> My thinning is that if doing this is such a good thing to do, why isn't
> it in the default FF settings?
>


http://www.mozilla.org/support/firef...#oth_rendering

Lee
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Raven
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2005
Leonidas Jones wrote:
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/support/firef...#oth_rendering
>


I've been trying it out over the last couple of weeks and so far I've
not experienced any problems with it. YMMV

Tony


 
Reply With Quote
 
Z
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2005
Herb wrote:
>> Your images will begin displaying slightly faster but, on a page with
>> many images, the entire page will take longer to display.


> Z, Concerning last statement above, it is true of any page with more
> images... that it'll take longer to display them, than one with less
> images.


In general, yes. The advantage to waiting a short time before you start
painting is that you end up with more display information for each paint
cycle so the entire page paints faster (fewer paint cycles) even though
it starts painting later.

The disadvantage of waiting before you start painting is that for simple
pages with few images, you may have all the display information before
the initial waiting period expires, so that page would take longer to
display.


> My concern about doing this is: Is the bang for the buck worth it ?


I don't think so.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Z
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2005
Tony Raven wrote:
>> http://www.mozilla.org/support/firef...#oth_rendering


> I've been trying it out over the last couple of weeks and so far I've
> not experienced any problems with it. YMMV


Does it help? Can you actually feel the extra 1/4 of a second before
initial painting that it buys you?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Raven
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2005
Z wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>> http://www.mozilla.org/support/firef...#oth_rendering

>
>
>> I've been trying it out over the last couple of weeks and so far I've
>> not experienced any problems with it. YMMV

>
>
> Does it help? Can you actually feel the extra 1/4 of a second before
> initial painting that it buys you?


I get the impression it loads faster but whether it does or not I
haven't really tested. Did it more out of curiosity than for speed.

Tony
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments