Re: Firefox 3.5
- From: bonomi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Bonomi)
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:24:39 -0500
In article <000d07f7$0$14549$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Frank Howell <fphowell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article <09h45551uht7uabi8a6iau57mo6pitd846@xxxxxxx>,
Bob Giddings <bobgiddings0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:39:21 -0400, bill horne <redydog@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
bill horne wrote:
Bob Giddings wrote:
When I first upgraded to Firefox 3.5 last week, I was pleased
with the speed with which it loaded web pages. But it takes a
LONG time to load in the first place, compared to the previous
version.
Is this something peculiar to my setup, or do others have this
problem? Seems like the program takes two or three times as long
to load.
I just timed it. 3.5 took 30 seconds to load and present my home
page. Said like that, it doesn't sound so long. But in
subjective terms, it seems like forever.
Bob
It takes me 8 seconds to load 3.5 (homepage is Google) - but I
think previous versions loaded about twice as fast.
Maybe later I'll go back to a previous version and actually time
it.
Correction/update:
Only the first time after a computer reboot does it take a long time
to load. Subsequent startups take about 2 seconds. This is from the
desktop icon, which requires a doubleclick.
Well, damn. I don't know what's the matter. The old version
took about 5 seconds on my laptop. The new one takes 30. I
haven't changed anything else.
Once up, it is quite speedy at loading new pages.
Is the disk mostly full? run the disk optimizer (defragmenter).
Get and run a registry cleaner. "Eusing Free Registry Cleaner"
recommended. Tell it to load a blank page on startup.
Did his disk get full after upgrade? I doubt it.
Did the upgrade defrag his disk? I doubt it.
If disk is mostly full, and badly fragmented, then the _new_ executable may
well be in many fragments, rather than a single contiguous section.
This fragmentation happens as a result of things that have occurred AT ANY
TIME since the install of the _prior_ version.
Did the upgrade make his registry dirty? I doubt it.
_Lots_ of strange things go on with the registry. All it takes is for 3.5
to decide to use a single new key, that got added way at the end of a search
chain, and the look-up for that key, which the prior version *doesn't* do,
adds significantly to the load time. cleaning the registry of obsolete/unused
keys, and rebuilding the hash-tables/re-balancing the trees can make significant
difference as far as speeding up the start-up of -everything-.
Check how much memory you have on the machine. 3.5 _is_ bigger than
the
prior version. If you've got other stuff running, or are 'quick
launch'ing things you don't use, this _can_ make a significant
difference.
Did 3.5 give his machine amnesia? I doubt it.
What the hell does 'amnesia' have to do with a bigger executable causing
a machine to start thrashing from virtual-memory contention?
Things that people 'doubt' make a difference, really can, and often *DO* make
a difference. <grin>
What he's seeing is some quirkiness more-or-less specific to _his_ machine,
so one is looking for things in the environment the application is running
in that vary from installation to installation, and that can affect
performance. Disk fragmentation, memory thrashing, and registry issues
_are_ (far and away!) the most common source for those kinds of problems.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Firefox 3.5
- From: Bob Giddings
- Re: Firefox 3.5
- References:
- Firefox 3.5
- From: Bob Giddings
- Re: Firefox 3.5
- From: Bob Giddings
- Re: Firefox 3.5
- From: Robert Bonomi
- Re: Firefox 3.5
- From: Frank Howell
- Firefox 3.5
- Prev by Date: who versus whom
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Spring is no more
- Previous by thread: Re: Firefox 3.5
- Next by thread: Re: Firefox 3.5
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
