Anyone else notice that FirFox 1.0 is slower than .8 and .9?

Anyone else notice that FirFox 1.0 is slower than .8 and .9? I've seen it
whenever I click "Back". It takes longer for it to retrieve that page that
it just visited! That's one thing that pissed me off about Internet
Explorer! I could never figure out why it took so long to bring up a
previous page when it "should" be instintaneous!

So what's up with FireFox 1.0? Is there setting somewhere I can change?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

Don't notice a difference here. Do you have an "older" computer, or a
"newer" one?

 

I don't notice this at all. What are your cache settings?

Lee

 

Newer I suppose. It's a Dell Dimension 4500, 2.8 Ghz Pentium IV, 768MB Ram,
36 Gig WD Raptor (10,000 RPM) is the system drive, Maxtor 200 gig w/ 16mb
cache. is the second drive. Speed shouldn't be a problem.

I've got FireFox 1.0,.9, and .8 installed in different directories on the
system (FAST) drive.. I can easily switch to either of the older browsers
(I have an icon on my desktop for each browser) and immediately notice the
difference. I've never changed any cache settings for any of the browsers.
I even noticed this problem before I reloaded my system. Now I have a fresh
clean install of XP, all service packs up to but excluding Service Pack 2.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

The default of 50000 KB, I've never gone in and changed it for any of the
versions.

Thanks,

Jeff

 

Hi Jeff,

Have a look at the cache setting in about:config

browser.cache.check_doc_frequency

0 = Once per session
1 = Every time
2 = Never
3 = When the page is out of date - /DEFAULT/

If you have it set to 2 then pressing 'back' should be instantaneous.

Maybe you have it set to one of the other options?

HTH,

Tomas

 

A setting of 1 or Everytime will compare the page on the web to the one
in the cache everytime, resulting in a slowness (contacting the site
again to see if any content changed)

A setting of 0 or Once per session will negate this. As the cache is
used exclusively once the page has been loaded once after restarting the
program

A setting of 2 or Never will exclusively load the cache image (if one
exists) for the page, but can result in you using very old pages (the
page is never fetched from the server if a cache copy exists)

A setting of 3 or When out of date relies on the page itself to set a
refresh, this is the default setting. If the page is set to refresh
itself on a short time period this can cause delays (once again the data
has to be compared)

The default setting of 3 (out of date) or 1 (everytime) can cause a
delay dependent on the page being viewed. My preference is to use a 0
or Once per session setting, which loads the page data the first time
(after restart) a page is accessed, but then doesnt compare it
thereafter until the next restart.

 

Have a look at the cache setting in about:config
Ummmm, where would I find that?

Thanks,

Jeff

 

I just set mine to "0" and backtracking is instantaneous, at least with DSL.
This is how I had IE set and it eliminated the delay there too.

--
Steve Franklin
http://www.lordbalto.com/
: The Displacer wrote:
:
: > : >
: >>Anyone else notice that FirFox 1.0 is slower than .8 and .9? I've seen it
: >>whenever I click "Back". It takes longer for it to retrieve that page
: >
: > that
: >
: >>it just visited! That's one thing that pissed me off about Internet
: >>Explorer! I could never figure out why it took so long to bring up a
: >>previous page when it "should" be instintaneous!
: >>
: >>So what's up with FireFox 1.0? Is there setting somewhere I can change?
: >>
: >>Thanks,
: >>
: >>Jeff
: >>
: >>
: >
: >
: > Hi Jeff,
: >
: > Have a look at the cache setting in about:config
: >
: > browser.cache.check_doc_frequency
: >
: > 0 = Once per session
: > 1 = Every time
: > 2 = Never
: > 3 = When the page is out of date - /DEFAULT/
: >
: > If you have it set to 2 then pressing 'back' should be instantaneous.
: >
: > Maybe you have it set to one of the other options?
: >
: > HTH,
: >
: > Tomas
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:
:
: A setting of 1 or Everytime will compare the page on the web to the one
: in the cache everytime, resulting in a slowness (contacting the site
: again to see if any content changed)
:
: A setting of 0 or Once per session will negate this. As the cache is
: used exclusively once the page has been loaded once after restarting the
: program
:
: A setting of 2 or Never will exclusively load the cache image (if one
: exists) for the page, but can result in you using very old pages (the
: page is never fetched from the server if a cache copy exists)
:
: A setting of 3 or When out of date relies on the page itself to set a
: refresh, this is the default setting. If the page is set to refresh
: itself on a short time period this can cause delays (once again the data
: has to be compared)
:
: The default setting of 3 (out of date) or 1 (everytime) can cause a
: delay dependent on the page being viewed. My preference is to use a 0
: or Once per session setting, which loads the page data the first time
: (after restart) a page is accessed, but then doesnt compare it
: thereafter until the next restart.
:
: --
: Mozilla Champion
: UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
: Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
: Mozilla Manual - http://mozmanual.mozdev.org/

 

Speaking of slower--> I notice that when I click on either the Firefox
(v 1.0) or T-bird (v 0.9) desktop icon, the programs are rather
slow-loading, There is a considerable time (at least 10 seconds)
before the user profile window pops up to begin. Is there a setting
which can be changed to make this start-up quicker?

I have hi-speed Internet and a pretty fast 'puter.

Thanx, Herb

 

Bottom posting is appreciatted here

The writer told you, type about:config into the locaton bar and scroll
down the list to find
browser.cache.check_doc_frequency

 

Bottom posting is appreciatted here

Um, thats exactly what I said.

 

Bottom posting appreciatted here

Slow? Compared to what?
IE for example is preloaded with the system, so startup is going to be
much quicker. Of course, thats what makes IE so vulnerable to exploits
as well, its integration with the system.

Mozilla (suite) with its Quick Load feature takes some of the time away,
by preloading (at startup) some elements of the program

The above is for Windows machines of course

 

Bottom posting is appreciatted here

As is snipping, when appropriate.

Unless I was paying close attention to this thread, I'd have no idea what
the heck you were actually replying to.

And FWIW, I appreciate your knowledge and ability to help others in this NG.
Much appreciated.

 

Thats because the writer top posted.
Go back to either my post or the post I replied to and look at the very
top, you will see what my post refers to.

Snipping, in technical support groups (such as this is) is illogical and
creates more problems than it solves. By editing out material, the
original question, or subsequent questions and answers are removed.

For example, according to YOUR post, there is NO reply from me
whatsoever, so what the heck are you talking about? <g> While it may
seem simple to you to go back and recheck previoius messages, if you
attempt to read them all (and have them make sense), it would mean
re-reading each and every thread everyday (because of snipping). You can
do that if you wish, I dont have the time to re-read thousands of
messages per day (this is not the only group I subscribe to)

 

For example, according to YOUR post, there is NO reply from me whatsoever,

To the contrary, I absolutely included the part of your post to which I was
replying. So your contention that there was no reply from you is incorrect.
I quoted it and responded to it. I don't recheck every message in a
particular thread, only the new ones. "In many cases", the comments in the
previous post of the thread that are being responded to are quoted. I can
understand your reasoning for wanting to include the entire thread in your
reply, but IMHO it was not necessary in this instance.

Depending on how you look at it, there are hundreds of "etiquette"
techniques on Usenet. Top posting, bottom posting, snipping, no snipping.
It varies from ng to ng. You can't please everyone. My comments, which
were also injected with thanks to you for your involvement in this ng, were
specific to a thread that was so long that it was barely recognizable from
the OP's question. My OP was not intended to flame or reprimand anyone.
Just my opinion, which I felt would have made your valuable answer easier to
read.

 

No, you did not include my message at all. The only reason anyone knew
what you were talkiing about was because they had just read the previous
message. Now think about it. What if someone came in and read JUST your
message? They would have no idea of what you were talking about whatsoever.

Fine, if YOU think its not neccessary, then thats great for you, but if
I had come back tomorrow and replied to your post (and my previous was
NOT fresh in my mind) then your answer would be


HUH? What the heck are you talking about?

 

No, you did not include my message at all. The only reason anyone knew

Hint: The little symbols that represent "greater than", notated as >,
denote a quote from the passage of the previous quote that being responded
to. Please look at my post again and tell me I didn't quote the part of
your post that I was replying to.

Thought so.

Sheesh.

 

Modern newsreaders, such as Thunderbird, do not use the >> carets in
displaying quoted material, unless you jump through a couple of hoops to
get it to do so. Colored lines are used instead, which, to me at least,
makes following quotes much easier. Don't make the easy mistake of
assuming that everyone sees posts in exactly the way you do.

By the way, I agree with Dan about the efficacy of minimal or no
snipping in the narrow context of tech support threads.

Lee