63.0b quite slower than 62.0?

[harmand]

... how do you measure that 63 is slower as 62 on your system? ...

As I said in my first post, I did not precisely "measure" the difference.
I just couldn't help noticing that while in 62 (and previous Quantums) page loading/opening was almost immediate and sharply faster than in other browsers, in 63 there seems to be some... waiting before any page gets loaded. Every time I click on a bookmark or on a link, the dot in the tab title keeps moving back and forth for at least 8-10 seconds before the page gets displayed. So that now FF has become sharply slower than other browsers.
Such an "initial waiting" didn't (and doesn't) occur at all in 62, despite the environment (OS, portable version, hard disk, beta channel, extensions...) being exactly the same.
Moreover, using portable versions, I can perform quite simple and quick comparisons.

Maybe my system has some peculiarity which for some reason does not get along with FF63, while getting along well with 62, 61, 60...; I can't rule out this scenario, but I' think I'm allowed to consider it quite odd. :]

[harmand]

... Portable versions are slower than normally installed versions ...

That can be true in principle, as portable versions are not as much integrated with the OS (no registry entries, none or lower component sharing...).
The lower integration, however, can also result in lighter (and more stable, reliable, quick) OS, which can compensate, even largely sometimes. :]

[Brummelchen]

as portable versions are not as much integrated with the OS

with a quick view to firefox - only few differences. you can install any other build beside regulard used version without deeper settings. you also can put the used profile elsewhere, the portable starter is only using firefox command switches to perform this.

Portable versions are slower than normally installed versions

this is caused by windows because windows uses some pre-loading mechanisms which are not applicable to programs outside the windows partition. anyhow on a ss-drive this wont matter.

a portable is common used for traveling or testing newer versions (of firefox) or determine problems in the regular installed build & profile. it should not end regular habit to use portables, a special matter is security. firefox installed the common way to c:\programs\ is protected from all system protections, firefox portable outside is not. thats why there is no recommendation to use a portable for regular usage.

[harmand]

I'm aware of potential security issues concerning portables. I also know they tend to be somehow slower.
However I still prefer them, after all, because they allow me to keep my core system much more clean and stable, preventing typical and inevitable Windows gradual "clogging" related to installing/uninstalling programs with all their stuff (registry entries, dll files...) too often redundantly left behind, as not all programs are written as well as they should be.
Moreover, portables allow me to "backup" (and restore) quite simply all my programs and their settings, with no need of clones or system images and related software. In case of a breakdown (hardware failure, virus infection...) I can easily re-create my whole environment by just re-installing the bare OS and then copying the folder which contains all the portables.

I'm not saying, of course, this is THE right or best approach. I know it has it's downsides.
I'm just saying it's okay with me, with my own needs and habits. :]