SLUGGISH LOADING AT FIREFOX STARTUP

[randyandy]

Hello again. I'm still a Windows 7 devotee . I'm on the Firefox beta channel. Current version...79 0 beta 7.

My problem for the past number of updates is the extremely slow time it takes to load Firefox and get the Google page in place and ready to go to work.

20- to 35 seconds. Sometimes it stops on 'new tab'. In truth, Firefox has never been as fast as the two other browsers installed.

I have three extensions onboard. Web of Trust, Adblock and View Image.

I have the same three extensions installed on my Chrome browser. Loading time, 8-9 seconds, regularly.

Internet Explorer with no extensions, 4 seconds.

Any thoughts from the 'Firefox Brain Bank'...and I say that respectfully?

Thanks, Randyandy.

[malliz]

Ditch WOT swap out adblock for Ublock
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... ck-origin/

[randyandy]

Malliz, is this the best advice you can suggest.? I happen to like WOT and Adblock. Firefox Extensions give Adblock a 4.3 star rating. Web of Trust gets a 3.9 stars review. So Firefox obviously stands by both extensions. I've been using WOT and Adbock as Firefox extensions for years. No problem. Firefox has never been quick to load compared to my
other two browsers...only a few seconds difference and I could live with that. But now...20 to 35 seconds to get past 'new tab' waiting for the Google page. The time delay seemed to coincide
with the start of the 79 beta version series. Maybe the 78. FIREFOX HAS BEEN MY DEFAULT BROWSER SINCE DAY ONE.

I hope my inquiry will get input more to my liking from other members. Cheers.

[malliz]

What do you want good advice or something that soothes your ego? Ublock is much easier resource wise than Adblock and is as good an adblocker. If you choose to let a company sell your information for profit then use WOT no skin of my nose. Funnily enough I have been testing Firefox since it was Phoenix 0.2 and remember when WOT was removed from the Mozilla addons site for illegal dealings so run along I doubt too many people are going to give you any different advice especially with your attitude

[DanRaisch]

Malliz, is this the best advice you can suggest?

I doubt you'll find anyone responding to this thread on these forums that will take exception to malliz's response to you.

Adblock was widely recommended quite some time ago but as other, less resource intensive extensions were introduced, the guidance here was switched to Ublock or Ublock Origin as equally effective while causing less problems for the user.

As for WOT, that has not been considered a worthwhile option for at least four years, since this article and others like it came out -- https://lifehacker.com/web-of-trust-sel ... 1788667989

Consider that the browser (and probably the extensions) have been updated repeatedly since you first started using the particular combination. Every update may introduce potential compatibility issues. If you don't want to accept our advice, test things for yourself instead of assuming that those extensions are not at fault:

Try starting Firefox in Mozilla Safe Mode, which will temporarily disable the installed extensions? http://kb.mozillazine.org/Safe_mode
If no improvement using Safe Mode, see if you have the same problem if you create a new profile and test it with no extensions or non-default themes installed?
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_Manager
and
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_ne ... on_Windows

[James]

Malliz, is this the best advice you can suggest.? I happen to like WOT and Adblock. Firefox Extensions give Adblock a 4.3 star rating. Web of Trust gets a 3.9 stars review. So Firefox obviously stands by both extensions. FIREFOX HAS BEEN MY DEFAULT BROWSER SINCE DAY ONE.

The ratings for extensions at addons.mozilla.org are due to ratings made by the extension users and not from the company Mozilla nor the Firefox web browser.

You claim to have use Firefox since beginning as in either Phoenix 0.1 or perhaps you ma later when it got to 1.0 version. Yet you say "Firefox obviously stands by both extensions" as if Firefox was a company or such hmm.

WOT as said has had serious Privacy concerns in the past and are you really gong to trust the opinions of random people who can get easy details of a site wrong due to not bothering to search a little.

For example many of the wot idiots reviewing the forums.mozillaZine.org think the mozillaZine.org site is owned by Mozilla Corporation or Mozilla Foundation when it has been independent from the start in 1998 http://www.mozillazine.org/about/. Yes the reviews still up are old now but If people got this simple thing wrong then can you really trust WOT.

[randyandy]

Thanks one and all. For Malliz and and his juvenile slap at my ego.Oh my. I obviously scratched your thin skin. I appreciate your input regardless, and please consider your two cents reply exhausted on my topic.
Correct me if I'm wrong good forum friends but I opened this dialogue to ask about the very slow start up of Firefox ending with the Google page filling my screen and ready for action. . 45 seconds this time. A fairly recent occurrence (two weeks) as I mentioned. I expect discrepancies being on the beta channel. I mentioned the extensions merely to bring to your attention my Chrome browser
has the same extensions but with an opening speed of roughly 8-9 seconds. Instead, my speed inquiry turned into combative shootout about the extensions I use. You don't like WOT, so you don't use it. I'm one of the WOT idiots who find it valuable and another safety factor when surfing the web. I'm well aware of the 2016 controversy. I deleted it at the time. When Firefox and others invited WOT back into the extension family, so to speak....I trust Firefox and Chrome and welcomed back the extension. Is there anything we do on the web where someone somewhere is not getting a nibble of our activities? I misspoke when I stated I'd been with Firefox since day one. Nope. I didn't get my first computer until 2007...the Tech gentleman who helped set me up insisted Firefox be my default browser. Version 2.0.0.11? I've been loyal to this day. Until the speed factor with my current version of Firefox improves I'll turn to Chrome when I'm in a hurry.
Btw, thanks to Malliz and others who recommended I replace Adblock with uBlock. I've yet to test it to see if there is an improvement in start up speeds.
The Mozilla forum has provided invaluable help in the past. I'll be back when I have another problem. Kind regards one and all....

[Frank Lion]

I mentioned the extensions merely to bring to your attention my Chrome browser
has the same extensions but with an opening speed of roughly 8-9 seconds. Instead, my speed inquiry turned into combative shootout about the extensions I use.

The 'combative shootout' is all in your mind.

You came for advice about your slow startup problem, so it's pretty obvious someone is going to point out slow startup extensions!

Windows 7 also has a false startup period after booting when the desktop appears - start any program then (like a default browser) and program booting takes ages.

Either way, how about less of this pig ignorant rudeness from you of just ignoring advice given -

Try starting Firefox in Mozilla Safe Mode, which will temporarily disable the installed extensions? http://kb.mozillazine.org/Safe_mode
If no improvement using Safe Mode, see if you have the same problem if you create a new profile and test it with no extensions or non-default themes installed?
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_Manager
and
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_ne ... on_Windows

I'll be back when I have another problem..

Until you can learn to control your temper and fragile ego then please do not return here.

[DanRaisch]

I mentioned the extensions merely to bring to your attention my Chrome browser has the same extensions but with an opening speed of roughly 8-9 seconds.

Are those the same extensions only by name or have they been obtained from Google and then properly converted for use in Firefox. If the former, then they are not "the same extensins".

[randyandy]

Pig ignorant rudeness? All the insults. This gets sadder and sadder. My initial request was followed by insults. I'll be the bigger man here and offer apologies to those of you who feel offended
who participated in this discussion. I'm sure I can count on your support next time I turn to the Forum for help.

Dan, re the extensions. I just Google with Firefox browser 'WOT FOR FIREFOX' and after opening the link to a Firefox extension page follow the directions..'.add to Firefox' .Same for Adblock. With Chrome.Google its pretty much the same procedure only WOT FOR CHROME or Adblock for Chrome. I assumed the extensions were taylor-made for each browser. I've got a lot to learn and if these procedures I use are correct I'd appreciate your 'yes or no'.

Toodles, and stay in the good light.

[DanRaisch]

Your procedures for getting the extensions were correct but perhaps you were a bit off (if I understood you correctly) in your assumptions. WOT for Firefox and WOT for Chrome may have significant differences in coding (I say may as I haven't made any real effort to determine if that is true) but any such differences could have huge impact on performance. Combine that with the fact that there are three extensions in play so there may be different interactions between those different extension versions for each browser.
Experience here tells me that performance issues can be traced back to extensions more often than to the bare bones browser. IF that were not the case, inherent performance issues would be likely to show up for everyone using the particular version of the program. We have not seen reports of such issues with Firefox 79 on these forums. The logical way to start is with Mozilla Safe mode to see if the same long start up occurs with zero extensions active.

[randyandy]

Thanks a million Dan Raisch. I finally followed your earlier advice. I didn't go with Mozilla Safe Mode...but simply disabled the three extensions, WOT, uBlock and Image Viewer. At startup Firefox sprang to life and the Google page was
fully loaded in 8-9 seconds as opposed to the 30-plus seconds with the extensions engaged.

Strange that Chrome achieves the same 8-9 seconds start up time with ad-ons enabled but that's a discussion for another time. Maybe.

All''s well that ends well. I have the answer to my original question. Nice to end on a civil note, right Frank?

Cheers to the Forum team...good lads one and all.

For me this dialogue is closed.

[DanRaisch]

For me this dialogue is closed.

Agreed. Locking.