New Firefox beta even faster than FF3

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Franklin, Oct 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    CNet Article
     
  2. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    And K-Meleon is even faster, and lighter on resources.... :thumb:

    http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/

    I was a FF fan back in the day when the project started, now it's to much bloat and still a memory hog....

    K-Meleon smokes FF for a simpler browser, for those that don't need, or care about a gazillion addons...
     
  3. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    You could say the same bout Opera I think, but this thread would appear to be about Firefox, no? ;)
     
  4. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    Yes it's about FF, sorry Franklin, don't mean to be hijacking your thread. Just that when I hear about FF I like to spread the word about K-Meleon for users that aren't aware of it.

    PEACE
     
  5. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    I too like K-Meleon, it is one fast and light browser indeed.... :)

    <ok, our hijacking is over>
     
  6. Hiker

    Hiker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Posts:
    268
    Years ago memory was limited and expensive.
     
  7. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    Installed the beta here and seems ok atm.

    Lost a couple of addons but that's livable and as for speed I would say it seems be a bit faster but it's hard to judge on this highish end machine and I ain't about to try and measure a half blink here or there.
     
  8. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    SORRY Franklin, ONE last hijack, I can't refuse.

    Hiker that is one lame ass excuse a lot of people throw out there, and you don't pick up the slack for crap software and buy more memory, because then that just defeats the idea of ----> PERFORMANCE! ;)

    That was one of the biggest bitches/gripes about Vista, all the memory it took over XP that steered them clear.

    As a tech I'd never suggest crap software to a consumer and tell them in order to run it the way they like it, you need to spend money.

    I don't know if you're a tech or not, but I've never seen anyone really happy to learn they needed to spend more, no matter how fat their wallet was, everyone I know really smiles when you tell them how cheap or less it is.

    Wasting money is not acceptable to me as a PC Tech, no matter how little.

    One last thing I want to say here, I find this type of mentality very prevalent amongst Windows users, but is certainly not the order of the day in the Unix/Linux world, and Windows isn't the only OS out there...

    OK NO MORE HIJACKING OR FRANKLIN IS GOING TO KICK OUR ASSES! :)
     
  9. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    One tab open using 35 meg.

    12 tabs open using 101 meg.

    Close all but one, dropped to 65 meg and on posting this has dropped further to 54 meg.
     
  10. DasFox

    DasFox Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,825
    I'll be happy if the memory leak is gone, but that damm thing has been around since v2... :thumbd:
     
  11. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    Thanks for the update, Franklin. I must say that I've been waiting for Mozilla to release the beta with TraceMonkey enabled. I'll give it a try when I get home.

    @DasFox:

    With all due respect, Firefox is not as bad as you're making it out to be. It's true that it can be slow when launching it cold; however, that is not really as important as the performance when browsing, which Firefox is not so bad at. I've never had any problems, be it CPU or memory usage, when browsing with Firefox (with add-ons too). In fact, I find the memory usage to be excellent, compared to FF 2. I interface heavily with web applications everyday, so the performance of the browser is important to me. That is why I can't wait to test out Firefox 3.1.

    K-Meleon is nice and fast, however, it is not as customizable as Firefox. Also, it still uses the Gecko 1.8 engine, which is not standards compliant as Gecko 1.9.
     
  12. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Agreed. You complain a program is slowing down your computer and you get "buy more memory, its cheap!!!!"

    You know what else is cheaper than memory? Supporting a child in poor countries but why do that when your computer could open a program seconds faster :).

    Avira has a lot less requirements than norton but that didn't stop norton from creating something just as light. Same applies for opera, firefox, any other browser. Opera has 1000x more features than firefox but that doesn't stop it from opening 1000x as fast and using less memory per tab.
     
  13. rolarocka

    rolarocka Guest

    In javascripttests ff3.1 is as fast or faster than Chrome. But ff still feels slower than Chrome or Opera because it needs more time to display the actual content of the webpage. Chrome and Opera display everything faster. Interesting read on how Chrome displays webpages faster: http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/io-in-google-chrome.html
     
  14. Trespasser

    Trespasser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,194
    Location:
    Virginia - Appalachian Mtns
    I like 3.1 beta 1. I liked it so much I uninstalled 3.0.3. My three extensions (NoScript, Adblock Plus, and Permit Cookies) were compatible. It seems a bit faster. Nice.
     
  15. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    Man, you're leaving yourself open for it there... What does more memory have to do with performance?! That makes no sense at all...

    From your comments here and in the Vista thread, I think you'd be happiest with the old MSDOS days where every byte counted. I was a programmer back then and loved it, but those days are long gone my friend... Gone forever....
     
  16. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    I installed it earlier today and enabled the tweak. I didnt notice any difference in speed loading any web pages at all. It all felt exactly the same. Maybe they will adopt Googles V8 Java engine.
     
  17. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    You are able to force install of your extensions by using the nightly tester tools extension.

    My Secure Login and Stumbleupon toolbar were incompatible with the latest beta but on forcing they seem to work fine.
    Nightly Tester Tools
     
  18. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Memory used right is fine by me, memory leaked or not released when not in use is a sure sign of bad programming.
     
  19. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    TraceMonkey is an optimization to SpiderMonkey, the Javascript engine of Firefox. As such, it will not significantly improve the performance of page rendering, rather it will improve the Javascript performance. If you use lots of web applications, you will surely notice the difference.
     
  20. Hiker

    Hiker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Posts:
    268
    I'm not a tech but an everyday user. Firefox 3 with numerous add-ons has added functionality without suffering a loss in performance.
     
  21. rookieman

    rookieman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Posts:
    409
    Right now i'm running the 3.0.1 version.Is this beta 3.1 beta 1 that much faster than my version?I'm guessing that if I wanted to give that beta a run i'd have to delete the version i'm using now?
     
  22. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,794
    Location:
    Texas
    Beta 3.1 installs in a separate folder in Program files. You can give it a try and if you don't like it, use the Control Panel to uninstall the beta.
     
  23. rookieman

    rookieman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Posts:
    409
    Thanks ronjor:thumb:
     
  24. ThunderZ

    ThunderZ Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,459
    Location:
    North central Ohio, U.S.A.
    Running the beta portable on a flash drive. 2 extensions, NoScript and trying out Ubiquity. Though not a true comparison. It is noticeably faster. Your mileage may vary.
     
  25. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    I just hope that they reduce memory usage
    untitled.JPG
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.