MozillaZine


FF 1.0.3 - 22,828K on first start!

User Help for Mozilla Firefox
Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted April 15th, 2005, 11:28 pm

Seems every new version this gets worse and worse!
I did a COMPLETE cleaning of cookies and cache.
Then I rebooted.
I then oped up FF and the start page is the FF Google page.
After I did that I did nothing but ctrl-alt-del and saw it was running at 22,828K !

I know that the developers want to take care of security risks and all that and for that I praise them.Much more than what you ask from MS on IE security issues.
But come on.......

I almost feel like going back to PR as so far that was the 'lightest' one in the 1.0 range.

ONLY extension I have going is Ad-Block

Now if someone is going to say that it is because of extensions or this particular one,then why would they allow them to be released if all they do is slow things down?

A bit upsetting as all I ever do is promote FF to others including IE fan boys and then when they see this,you wonder why there are so many that dog FF and say they rather use IE or OPERA.

I will never go back to IE nor will I use Opera.
I can only hope that this RAM issue is taken care of so FF can be the top browser it is praised to be.Right now it isnt looking that way.

jameshkong

User avatar
 
Posts: 184
Joined: January 1st, 2005, 10:00 pm

Post Posted April 15th, 2005, 11:44 pm

Three things to keep in mind when looking at FFx ram usage:

1: Internet Explorer opening the same webpage uses 18mb ram according to windows task manager for the same webpage that FFx uses 24mb. Because IE is an integral part of windows, some of it is loaded with windows so the ram usage is actually more than 18mb. The exact number is hard to tell because I don't know which process are required only by IE and which only by Windows.

2: Opening 6 IE windows to 6 different websites will typically use more ram than opening 1 FFx window with 6 tabs. There are some issues with FFx and memory leaks which in most cases are fixed by minimizing and restoring the window or restarting FFx. Search the forum for those topics.

3: Unless you have 64mb of ram, 24mb on current computers is very little.
Last edited by jameshkong on April 15th, 2005, 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

:-(
Guest
 

Post Posted April 15th, 2005, 11:45 pm

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree. I ran 1.0PR for a while on friends' and relatives' systems after upgrading to 1.0 and 1.0.1 myself. In fact, I installed 1.0PR on their systems in preference to 1.0. It seemed that 1.0PR was faster, and 1.0PR seemed to work in places 1.0 didn't. I've kept myself up to date with 1.0.2, and had just upgraded clients' systems to 1.0.2. I was considering going to 1.0.3 on multiple systems, but now I think I'll wait a bit. I've found that FF 1.0.2 is loading slower than either IE 5.5 or 6.0 on our systems, I'm sad to say.

Terrible thing to say, but FF needs to get back to its smaller, better, faster roots. It's not faster. It may still be smaller, but it's getting bigger. I'm hoping it's still better, which is why I'll probably upgrade to 1.0.3 for myself, at least on a trial basis. I hope 1.0.3 isn't slower than 1.0.2 or 1.0. Make things as fast as 1.0PR seemed to be.

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted April 15th, 2005, 11:51 pm

I made the first post:
I have noticed that since 1.0,FF is getting slower in loading time and using much more RAM that before ( PR and earlier )
I remember using versions like 0.8 - 0.9 and PR and windows task manager was showing much less than it does today.
The only reason I dont want to go back to earlier version is because of security issues.If this were not the case,I would be using PR until a 'lite' version of FF came around.

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted April 15th, 2005, 11:54 pm

:-( wrote: I hope 1.0.3 isn't slower than 1.0.2 or 1.0. Make things as fast as 1.0PR seemed to be.


How do you determine its 'slower'...or is it just your personal perception?

When 1.1 comes out, you will notice its much faster than what your using today. Is it lighter? I dunno, seems to me that the download size has been like 4.5meg for like as far back as I can remember, and I started with .9

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted April 15th, 2005, 11:54 pm

3: Unless you have 64mb of ram, 24mb on current computers is very little.

I know it is very little.But when a browser opens for the first time at 4,000K and then a few versions later it is up to 22,000K,something is wrong.
The fact that it takes that much is slowing down the browser.Even if I had 1gig of RAM,it would still be taking far too much than it really needs and making it's processes slower than usual.

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 12:04 am

Depending on what your viewing, heavy graphics, java heavy pages, flash loaded pages, you mileage will vary, but its quite normal for my browsing to run in 50-60meg range and I notice no slow-downs with Fx or anything else on my old 650Mhz/512Meg Gateway, upgraded from Win98se to XP SP2...

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 12:20 am

Perhaps a fresh install is needed.
Since PR,I have only over-written old versions.
That really shouldnt matter though.
And as I said in the first post,I was only viewing the FireFox start page by google
http://www.google.com/firefox?client=fi ... S:official

I dont think that is heavy in graphics,java,or flash.

:-( --> :-) ???
Guest
 

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 12:57 am

Anonymous wrote:
:-( wrote: I hope 1.0.3 isn't slower than 1.0.2 or 1.0. Make things as fast as 1.0PR seemed to be.


How do you determine its 'slower'...or is it just your personal perception?

When 1.1 comes out, you will notice its much faster than what your using today. Is it lighter? I dunno, seems to me that the download size has been like 4.5meg for like as far back as I can remember, and I started with .9


Yes it is personal perception, which is why I said "1.0PR seemed faster." I've been using FF since 0.8. I agree with others, 1.0PR was definitely smaller (and, IMHO, noticeably faster) than 0.8 or 0.9.2. (1.0.[1-3] still are smaller.) I was disappointed in the speed of 1.0 vis-a-vis 1.0PR.

I will greatly look forward to 1.1, if it will be much faster as you say it will be. I've got lots of memory, so if it gets a little bigger, that's OK. Speed and security concern me more. So far, 1.0PR seems to have been the fastest FF to me.

But IE 5.5 and 6.0 are loading noticeably faster on initial opening of a browser window. Maybe it is due to what someone else pointed out -- that IE 5/6 is so intertwined with the Windoze OS that a large portion of it is already in RAM before you click the IE icon. I haven't tried multiple windows of IE in a very long time, not since I discovered tabbed browsing in FF, so I can't testify to a slow down of IE there; I was only talking about 1 initial window. As I recall, multiple IE windows used to cause crashes, like when too many pop-unders appeared.

Security and speed are my major concerns. RAM used is 3rd on my list, since RAM is cheap. Just so long as FF doesn't turn into another bloatware package, I'm fine with FF. I only rarely use IE now, and only for things that insist on ActiveX that I actually want to pay attention to, like a certain on-line virus scanner.

Interesting to note that Mr. Bill is now saying IE 7 will be a separate tool, not intimately intertwined with Windows as are IE 5 and 6. Maybe he finally realizes the IE 5/6 model can't be secured. Maybe when he releases IE 7 as a separate tool, the true nature of IE v. FF speed and size will be exposed.
(Kind of interesting that Mr. Bill now says IE 7 will be separated from the Windows OS, but during the anti-trust case he insisted that IE was deeply intertwined in Windows as part of micro$oft's "innovation" that the court was allegedly trying to impede. Hmm...)

Old enrgy21
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 1:10 am

Anonymous wrote:Seems every new version this gets worse and worse!
I did a COMPLETE cleaning of cookies and cache.
Then I rebooted.
I then oped up FF and the start page is the FF Google page.
After I did that I did nothing but ctrl-alt-del and saw it was running at 22,828K !

I know that the developers want to take care of security risks and all that and for that I praise them.Much more than what you ask from MS on IE security issues.
But come on.......

I almost feel like going back to PR as so far that was the 'lightest' one in the 1.0 range.

ONLY extension I have going is Ad-Block

Now if someone is going to say that it is because of extensions or this particular one,then why would they allow them to be released if all they do is slow things down?

A bit upsetting as all I ever do is promote FF to others including IE fan boys and then when they see this,you wonder why there are so many that dog FF and say they rather use IE or OPERA.

I will never go back to IE nor will I use Opera.
I can only hope that this RAM issue is taken care of so FF can be the top browser it is praised to be.Right now it isnt looking that way.


With or without my Ram XPpro freeing ram (auto mode) every 10 min 1.0.3, for me, is noticeably faster. Did you install 1.0.3 without uninstalling an older version. Just curious.

WDGC
 
Posts: 299
Joined: March 11th, 2004, 9:05 pm

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 1:58 am

I have found 1.0.2 to be better, in all respects mentioned, to any earlier versions - so much so that I am reluctant to install 1.0.3.

Guest
Guest
 

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 2:11 am

WDGC wrote:I have found 1.0.2 to be better, in all respects mentioned, to any earlier versions - so much so that I am reluctant to install 1.0.3.


I agree. My experience with 1.0.3 unfortnately was a nightmare so I went back to 1.0.2

Old enrgy21
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 6:00 am

Anonymous wrote:
WDGC wrote:I have found 1.0.2 to be better, in all respects mentioned, to any earlier versions - so much so that I am reluctant to install 1.0.3.


I agree. My experience with 1.0.3 unfortnately was a nightmare so I went back to 1.0.2


You may have already seen this but: "We (Mozilla) recommend that all users upgrade to this latest version." Just regroup and when you're ready- make a new profile. You may have simply corrupted your old profile http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_Folder

If you haven't seen this post, it might help:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 5&start=15
Firefox 1.03 update completly broke my Firefox! - MozillaZine Forums

A firewall and/or extension(s) could also be a problem but installing properly and carefully reviewing your extensions if you have any, first.

OlStinky
Guest
 

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 6:22 am

Don't know what to say except, I guess I have enough juice on this laptop and its my smaller one, Pentium3... 1.13GHz...512MB of Ram, and its everybit as fast as my bigger laptop Pentium4 with the new 1.03. In fact 1.03 is faster yet.....

JeremyWW

User avatar
 
Posts: 143
Joined: December 17th, 2004, 1:19 pm

Post Posted April 16th, 2005, 6:45 am

I am absolutely fascinated by all the groaning about how FF has slowed down, uses more RAM etc etc etc etc...I run 1.03 and have no complaints whatsoever at the moment, speed related or otherwise.

The best piece of advice from the above thread and from Mozilla concerns re-installing. It is fundamentally good practice in the industry as a whole to perform clean installs otherwise, frankly, you can never be sure how much crap you inherited from the previous install / configuration. Before making judgements on the perfromance of the latest FF relesase, do the following (especially if you've been 'overwriting installs' for some time):

1. Back up your bookmarks (and things like custom block lists in AdBlock)
2. WRITE down the extensions you have.
3. Completely uninstall FF and REMOVE ALL directories, INCLUDING your old profile.
4. Install the latest build and configure the basics, plugins etc...
5. Re-install your fave extensions, MAKING SURE (as best you can) that you are not installing conflicting or 'overlapping' ones.
6. DO NOT INSTALL TBE!!!!!!

Now, try again and see how FF performs. All the above might seem like a pain but in all honesty is doesn't take long and the result is a totally clean, fresh install that you can pretty safely bet is not going to CAUSE major problems. As always, troubleshooting is all down to a process of elimination. Also, once done, come the next FF upgrade you can probably reliably hang on to your profile (as long as you haven't been screwing with it TOO much) and perform a clean uninstall / reinstall which will leave all the essentials in place, whilst replacing the important stuff.

I'm sharing this because the above is my 'script' for upgrading. It takes a bit longer but it's worth it - IT WORKS!!

Have fun :)

Return to Firefox Support


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests