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

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by Jeff Ingram, Nov 30, 2004.

  1. Jeff Ingram

    Jeff Ingram Guest

    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
     
    Jeff Ingram, Nov 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jeff Ingram

    :: BRIAN :: Guest

    Don't notice a difference here. Do you have an "older" computer, or a
    "newer" one?
     
    :: BRIAN ::, Nov 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

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

    Lee
     
    Leonidas Jones, Nov 30, 2004
    #3
  4. Jeff Ingram

    Jeff Ingram Guest

    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
     
    Jeff Ingram, Nov 30, 2004
    #4
  5. Jeff Ingram

    Jeff Ingram Guest

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

    Thanks,

    Jeff
     
    Jeff Ingram, Nov 30, 2004
    #5
  6. 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    3 = When the page is out of date - /DEFAULT/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
     
    The Displacer, Nov 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Jeff Ingram

    Moz Champion Guest



    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.
     
    Moz Champion, Nov 30, 2004
    #7
  8. Jeff Ingram

    Jeff Ingram Guest

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

    Thanks,

    Jeff
     
    Jeff Ingram, Nov 30, 2004
    #8
  9. 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/
     
    Steve Franklin, Nov 30, 2004
    #9
  10. Jeff Ingram

    Herb Guest

    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
     
    Herb, Dec 1, 2004
    #10
  11. Jeff Ingram

    Moz Champion Guest

    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
     
    Moz Champion, Dec 1, 2004
    #11
  12. Jeff Ingram

    Moz Champion Guest

    Bottom posting is appreciatted here

    Um, thats exactly what I said.
     
    Moz Champion, Dec 1, 2004
    #12
  13. Jeff Ingram

    Moz Champion Guest

    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
     
    Moz Champion, Dec 1, 2004
    #13
  14. Jeff Ingram

    Chuck Guest

    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.
     
    Chuck, Dec 1, 2004
    #14
  15. Jeff Ingram

    Moz Champion Guest

    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)
     
    Moz Champion, Dec 1, 2004
    #15
  16. Jeff Ingram

    Chuck Guest

    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.
     
    Chuck, Dec 1, 2004
    #16
  17. Jeff Ingram

    Moz Champion Guest

    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?
     
    Moz Champion, Dec 1, 2004
    #17
  18. Jeff Ingram

    Chuck Guest

    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.
     
    Chuck, Dec 1, 2004
    #18
  19. 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
     
    Leonidas Jones, Dec 1, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.