Page 2 of 5 [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

12 Nov 2010, 12:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
alex wrote:
it's an issue with firefox, not snow leopard. Try using Safari or Chrome. Both are superior alternatives to Firefox.

Safari on my Mac generally eats 600-700MB of memory. Chrome anywhere I use it is a massive memory hog.


Even so, Chrome is faster than Firefox these days. It was not always thus. Firefox used to be nimble.

ruveyn

I guess this is a YMMV situation, but I've been using Firefox for years and every subsequent version has been faster than the last. I've never seen any really impressive speed from Chrome.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Nov 2010, 12:46 pm

Orwell wrote:
I guess this is a YMMV situation, but I've been using Firefox for years and every subsequent version has been faster than the last. I've never seen any really impressive speed from Chrome.


I am running Firefox on Vista. My machine has 2 gigs of memory so there is plenty of memory. I really don't know why it slowed down so much. Maybe one add on too many.

On my system Chrome is up within two seconds where as Firefox takes 15 to 20 seconds to fire up.

ruveyn



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

12 Nov 2010, 3:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
I guess this is a YMMV situation, but I've been using Firefox for years and every subsequent version has been faster than the last. I've never seen any really impressive speed from Chrome.


I am running Firefox on Vista. My machine has 2 gigs of memory so there is plenty of memory. I really don't know why it slowed down so much. Maybe one add on too many.
....

I think that is exactly what your problem may be. I use very few add-ons (other than the essential Adblock Plus). Depending on what an add-on is doing, you potentially could have multiple add-ons, each scanning the whole text of every page you access... and using interpretive code to do so. That's not a recipe for speed.

So far as the time it takes for the browser (in my case, SeaMonkey) to start up... I really don't much care.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

12 Nov 2010, 6:33 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
I guess this is a YMMV situation, but I've been using Firefox for years and every subsequent version has been faster than the last. I've never seen any really impressive speed from Chrome.


I am running Firefox on Vista. My machine has 2 gigs of memory so there is plenty of memory. I really don't know why it slowed down so much. Maybe one add on too many.

On my system Chrome is up within two seconds where as Firefox takes 15 to 20 seconds to fire up.

ruveyn

It quite likely is poorly-written add-ons that are hurting performance on your system. Obviously Chrome has few to no add-ons, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Firefox for me starts in a second or two, plus the time to load all my tabs from the previous session. Chrome starts up fast, but page loading speed doesn't seem any better than Firefox, and after it's up for a while (with multiple tabs) it eats up all of my system's available 4GB of memory.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,224
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

12 Nov 2010, 6:49 pm

Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Orwell wrote:
alex wrote:
it's an issue with firefox, not snow leopard. Try using Safari or Chrome. Both are superior alternatives to Firefox.

Safari on my Mac generally eats 600-700MB of memory. Chrome anywhere I use it is a massive memory hog.


Even so, Chrome is faster than Firefox these days. It was not always thus. Firefox used to be nimble.

ruveyn

I guess this is a YMMV situation, but I've been using Firefox for years and every subsequent version has been faster than the last. I've never seen any really impressive speed from Chrome.


Anyone will tell you that Firefox has become more bloated with each new version.


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

12 Nov 2010, 9:25 pm

alex wrote:
Anyone will tell you that Firefox has become more bloated with each new version.

And anyone will tell you Windows is user-friendly. That doesn't make it so. FF has been faster at page loading for me with each new version. Perhaps it has been using more memory as well, but on that count it still beats Chrome and Safari.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,224
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

12 Nov 2010, 11:32 pm

Safari and chrome have consistently outperformed firefox in almost every benchmark. And don't get me starred on firefox's sluggishness in rendering JavaScript. Also its the only of the three not to have passed acid3 which is an incredibly important test for web standards. You can yak on and on about your personal opinion but it's clear that firefox is not up to par.


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


TheSpecialKid
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 432
Location: Denmark

13 Nov 2010, 8:49 am

alex wrote:
Safari and chrome have consistently outperformed firefox in almost every benchmark. And don't get me starred on firefox's sluggishness in rendering JavaScript. Also its the only of the three not to have passed acid3 which is an incredibly important test for web standards. You can yak on and on about your personal opinion but it's clear that firefox is not up to par.

I agree strongly, that firefox has becommed more bloated with each version (Note that I'm not saying slower).
But that's the way it goes with most software as it grows.

Firefox is still woth alot on Linux, but in my opinion it has becommed a pain when using Windows.
Still better than Internet Explorer though!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Nov 2010, 9:09 am

Orwell wrote:
It quite likely is poorly-written add-ons that are hurting performance on your system. Obviously Chrome has few to no add-ons, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Firefox for me starts in a second or two, plus the time to load all my tabs from the previous session. Chrome starts up fast, but page loading speed doesn't seem any better than Firefox, and after it's up for a while (with multiple tabs) it eats up all of my system's available 4GB of memory.


I am interested in getting to items on the web. Add ons are of secondary importance to that end.

The one deficiency of Chrome is bookmarking. I use Firefox to book mark sites of interest. When I have to retrieve something from my book marks I sometimes reference them using Chrome.

ruveyn



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

15 Nov 2010, 12:23 pm

Since upgrading to OS X 10.6.5, it's being much more efficient *touch wood*



LordoftheMonkeys
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 927
Location: A deep,dark hole in the ground

15 Nov 2010, 2:05 pm

Firefox 4 is supposed to be really fast. The beta is available for download from the Mozilla website.


_________________
I don't want a good life. I want an interesting one.


Mindslave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,034
Location: Where the wild things wish they were

17 Nov 2010, 5:14 pm

Now, I know nothing of this, since I'm not a tech guy, but I do know that often times, the new product is better, simply because it is newer. Back in the day, search engines didn't have a king. I used Dogpile, and we learned about all the different types of search engines in elementary school and what they are used for. Then Google came along, and rolled everything into one. Internet Explorer used to be the only game in town (not the only one, but the only one anyone knew about) and then Firefox came along. Now it's been a while, and people are using Google Chrome because it's better. And 10 years from now (assuming trends continue, which is hard to say) then maybe there will be a new browser that takes all the good from Firefox and Chrome, and expands on it, and learns from their mistakes. And so on and so forth. 40 years ago, a pair of wires could carry a dozen conversations. 20 years later, one cable carried 30 thousand conversations simultaneously. Today, a single laser beam carries over a million.



Science_Guy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 506

18 Nov 2010, 2:09 pm

LordoftheMonkeys wrote:
Firefox 4 is supposed to be really fast. The beta is available for download from the Mozilla website.

Beta 7 is really fast.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

18 Nov 2010, 2:10 pm

Note to self: never stream things in Chrome unless you like 100% CPU usage...



Science_Guy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 506

18 Nov 2010, 3:00 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Note to self: never stream things in Chrome unless you like 100% CPU usage...

I only get to 100% CPU usage when I have 10+ tabs open in Chrome. I might have to switch back to Firefox because of it.



TheSpecialKid
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 432
Location: Denmark

19 Nov 2010, 1:56 pm

Science_Guy wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Note to self: never stream things in Chrome unless you like 100% CPU usage...

I only get to 100% CPU usage when I have 10+ tabs open in Chrome. I might have to switch back to Firefox because of it.

Oh my... I'm using Firefox, and I'm sometimes having 60+ tabs open (Using multiple windows of course), with no problems at all.