Can anyone suggest reasons NOT to follow these instructions?

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by Tom Betz, Jan 4, 2005.

  1. Tom Betz

    Tom Betz Guest

    A friend sent me this URL:

    http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php

    .... with instructions to speed up Firefox.

    I followed them, with remarkably good results. I'm surprised they aren't
    default settings already.

    Could someone here suggest why they might not be universally beneficial
    settings?

    --
    George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
    Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
    disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
    and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
    The more you know, the less likely you were to vote for Bush.
    <http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>
    For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
    I'm not the one who invented reality. Reality invented me.
     
    Tom Betz, Jan 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tom Betz

    Dirk Feytons Guest

    Tom Betz wrote:

    > A friend sent me this URL:
    >
    > http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php
    >
    > ... with instructions to speed up Firefox.
    >
    > I followed them, with remarkably good results. I'm surprised they aren't
    > default settings already.
    >
    > Could someone here suggest why they might not be universally beneficial
    > settings?


    See Asa's comments on this:
    http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007164.html

    In short: the defaults are what they are for a reason.

    --
    Dirk

    (PGP keyID: 0x448BC5DD - http://www.gnupg.org - http://www.pgp.com)

    ..oO° "Wake up! Time to die!" -- Blade Runner °Oo.
     
    Dirk Feytons, Jan 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tom Betz wrote:
    > A friend sent me this URL:
    >
    > http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php
    >
    > ... with instructions to speed up Firefox.
    >
    > I followed them, with remarkably good results. I'm surprised they aren't
    > default settings already.
    >
    > Could someone here suggest why they might not be universally beneficial
    > settings?
    >


    I've never used pipelining and never saw the need for it. There was
    time when people were connecting its use with memory leakage, though I
    haven't heard that one in a while.

    I have also heard that not all servers support pipelining, and that it
    can cause page layout problems. Again, I don't use it, so I can't say.
    Most pages come up so fast on broadband that I can't see why I would
    need it. Most of the people I know who do swear by it are actually
    dialup users.

    I think its better that it off by default, but what is lacking, which
    the Suite has, is a simple enable/disable pref, no need to muck around
    in about:config. The main problem most diehard suite users have with FF
    is the severely truncated set of setable options. In fact, I always add
    in TTLO and COnfiguration Mania extensions, both of which bring back the
    checkbox for pipelining.

    Lee
     
    Leonidas Jones, Jan 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Tom Betz

    Tom Betz Guest

    Dirk Feytons <> wrote in
    news::

    > See Asa's comments on this:
    > http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007164.html
    >
    > In short: the defaults are what they are for a reason.


    Thanks.

    --
    George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
    Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
    disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
    and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
    The more you know, the less likely you were to vote for Bush.
    <http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>
    For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
    I'm not the one who invented reality. Reality invented me.
     
    Tom Betz, Jan 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Tom Betz

    Ed Mullen Guest

    Leonidas Jones wrote:

    > Tom Betz wrote:
    >
    >> A friend sent me this URL:
    >>
    >> http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php
    >>
    >> ... with instructions to speed up Firefox.
    >>
    >> I followed them, with remarkably good results. I'm surprised they
    >> aren't default settings already.
    >>
    >> Could someone here suggest why they might not be universally
    >> beneficial settings?
    >>

    >
    > I've never used pipelining and never saw the need for it. There was
    > time when people were connecting its use with memory leakage, though I
    > haven't heard that one in a while.
    >
    > I have also heard that not all servers support pipelining, and that it
    > can cause page layout problems. Again, I don't use it, so I can't say.
    > Most pages come up so fast on broadband that I can't see why I would
    > need it. Most of the people I know who do swear by it are actually
    > dialup users.
    >
    > I think its better that it off by default, but what is lacking, which
    > the Suite has, is a simple enable/disable pref, no need to muck around
    > in about:config. The main problem most diehard suite users have with FF
    > is the severely truncated set of setable options. In fact, I always add
    > in TTLO and COnfiguration Mania extensions, both of which bring back the
    > checkbox for pipelining.
    >
    > Lee


    Yet another "feature" they stripped out of FF in the quest to slim it
    down. Great, it's a smaller install file. And needlessly crippled.
    It's all the little stuff that, IMHO, that makes Mozilla so superior.
    Too much of which has been torn out of FF, only to increase its size by
    having folks here referred to extension after extension to bring it back
    to the level of the suite. Huh? Logic? No, marketing without any
    sense to it.

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://edmullen.net/moz.html
    I always take life with a grain of salt, plus a slice of lemon and a
    shot of tequila.
     
    Ed Mullen, Jan 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Tom Betz

    Ant Guest

    On 1/4/2005 12:04 PM PT, Tom Betz wrote:

    > A friend sent me this URL:
    >
    > http://forevergeek.com/open_source/make_firefox_faster.php
    >
    > ... with instructions to speed up Firefox.
    >
    > I followed them, with remarkably good results. I'm surprised they aren't
    > default settings already.
    >
    > Could someone here suggest why they might not be universally beneficial
    > settings?


    I noticed opening multiple Web pages with tabs get stalled and no loaded
    Web pages. :(
    --
    "The ant has made himself illustrious; Through constant industry
    industrious.; So what? Would you be calm and placid; If you were full of
    formic acid?" --Ogden Nash (The Ant)
    /\___/\
    / /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx & http://aqfl.net
    | |o o| | E-mail (nuke ANT if replying privately to a newsgroup
    \ _ / post): NT or
    ( )
    Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
     
    Ant, Jan 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Tom Betz

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Ed Mullen complained:
    > Yet another "feature" they stripped out of FF in the quest to slim it
    > down. Great, it's a smaller install file. And needlessly crippled.
    > It's all the little stuff that, IMHO, that makes Mozilla so superior.
    > Too much of which has been torn out of FF, only to increase its size by
    > having folks here referred to extension after extension to bring it back
    > to the level of the suite. Huh? Logic? No, marketing without any
    > sense to it.


    Hmmm. I have to say that one of the things I really like about FF is
    that I know exactly what features it has, because I've deliberately
    installed most of them as extensions.

    --
    Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
    <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
     
    Danny Colyer, Jan 5, 2005
    #7
  8. Tom Betz

    Guest

    On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:36:57 +0000, Danny Colyer
    <> wrote:

    >Ed Mullen complained:
    >> Yet another "feature" they stripped out of FF in the quest to slim it
    >> down. Great, it's a smaller install file. And needlessly crippled.
    >> It's all the little stuff that, IMHO, that makes Mozilla so superior.
    >> Too much of which has been torn out of FF, only to increase its size by
    >> having folks here referred to extension after extension to bring it back
    >> to the level of the suite. Huh? Logic? No, marketing without any
    >> sense to it.

    >
    >Hmmm. I have to say that one of the things I really like about FF is
    >that I know exactly what features it has, because I've deliberately
    >installed most of them as extensions.



    I was very disappointed with firefox at first, but I warmed up to the
    whole extensions thing. I like the fact that people can input new
    functionality at random.

    Unfortunately it's a geek program, not something your grandmother
    could install and run easily.

    On the plus side, so what ? It's nice to see some diversity in the
    marketplace.
     
    , Jan 6, 2005
    #8
  9. Tom Betz

    joy beeson Guest

    On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:53:10 -0800,
    wrote:

    > Unfortunately it's a geek program, not something your grandmother
    > could install and run easily.


    Mozilla 1.0.1 was recommended to me by a grandmother, and it
    work quite nicely for other little old ladies. (Actually,
    she recommended 1.0; the website told me that I wanted 1.0.1
    instead.) Took a little hand-holding from the resident geek
    to get up the nerve to unzip it and install it, but it's
    worked with no trouble at all -- except when I visit
    badly-designed sites, and no browser can do anything about
    that.

    Anybody working on a browser that will let me whap a web
    designer with my umbrella?

    Joy Beeson
    --
    http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
    http://home.earthlink.net/~dbeeson594/ROUGHSEW/ROUGH.HTM
    http://home.earthlink.net/~beeson_n3f/ -- Writers' Exchange
    joy beeson at earthlink dot net
     
    joy beeson, Jan 9, 2005
    #9
  10. Tom Betz

    Ed Mullen Guest

    wrote:

    > On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:36:57 +0000, Danny Colyer
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Ed Mullen complained:
    >>
    >>>Yet another "feature" they stripped out of FF in the quest to slim it
    >>>down. Great, it's a smaller install file. And needlessly crippled.
    >>>It's all the little stuff that, IMHO, that makes Mozilla so superior.
    >>>Too much of which has been torn out of FF, only to increase its size by
    >>>having folks here referred to extension after extension to bring it back
    >>>to the level of the suite. Huh? Logic? No, marketing without any
    >>>sense to it.

    >>
    >>Hmmm. I have to say that one of the things I really like about FF is
    >>that I know exactly what features it has, because I've deliberately
    >>installed most of them as extensions.

    >
    >
    >
    > I was very disappointed with firefox at first, but I warmed up to the
    > whole extensions thing. I like the fact that people can input new
    > functionality at random.
    >
    > Unfortunately it's a geek program, not something your grandmother
    > could install and run easily.
    >
    > On the plus side, so what ? It's nice to see some diversity in the
    > marketplace.
    >
    >


    Most "grandmothers" couldn't spell "computer" without assistance. Lame
    comment. I help many friends and relatives (no grandmothers but a
    70-year-old aunt and other "techno-challenged" post-60 persons) with
    their computers. Patience is a virtue. And with it I've been able to
    talk everyone through installing and using both Mozilla and FF/TB.

    --
    Ed Mullen
    http://edmullen.net
    http://edmullen.net/moz.html
    Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.
     
    Ed Mullen, Jan 10, 2005
    #10
  11. Tom Betz

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Tom Betz wrote:
    > Dirk Feytons <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >
    >>See Asa's comments on this:
    >>http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007164.html
    >>
    >>In short: the defaults are what they are for a reason.

    >
    >
    > Thanks.
    >

    Can we have the posts without the political commentary? This is not a
    political newsgroup.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Tom Betz

    Tom Betz Guest

    Quoth Ron Hunter <> in news:cs1jp0$h1v1
    @ripley.netscape.com:

    > Tom Betz wrote:
    >> Dirk Feytons <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>
    >>>See Asa's comments on this:
    >>>http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/007164.html
    >>>
    >>>In short: the defaults are what they are for a reason.

    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>

    > Can we have the posts without the political commentary? This is
    > not a political newsgroup.


    Please killfile me if you are offended.


    --
    George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
    Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
    disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
    and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
    The more you know, the less likely you were to vote for Bush.
    <http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>
    Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
    For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
     
    Tom Betz, Jan 12, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. NewMoney
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    486
    NewMoney
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. postexpert
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    509
    postexpert
    Jul 25, 2003
  3. cadking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    415
    William Poaster
    Sep 25, 2003
  4. Steven M. Scharf

    25 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10 (was 15 Reasons to Aviod the SD-10)

    Steven M. Scharf, May 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    823
    Views:
    10,326
    George Preddy
    Jul 2, 2004
  5. LJMecca
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    603
    LJMecca
    Jun 23, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page