Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2?

In article ,
"Drew D. Saur" wrote:

> I have been disappointed with the relative performance of Firefox 3 beta
> on the Mac

I guess nobody ever informed you that software developers often leave
debugging code that can have a detrimental effect on speed enabled in
beta releases?

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

In article ,
"Mr. Strat" wrote:

> In article ,
> Drew D. Saur wrote:
>
> > I have been disappointed with the relative performance of Firefox 3 beta
> > on the Mac, so I am running a poll on The Mac Orchard that asks the
> > question:
> >
> > "Despite all of the hoopla stating otherwise, Firefox 3 beta for seems
> > to be a big step backward in rendering performance when compared to
> > Firefox 2, which could be a bad thing for the Mac. What has your
> > experience been?"
>
> That's a great idea - compare a beta product to one that already
> shipping.

The betas and their release candidates have been open to performance
comparisons testing; it is widely claimed throughout the release notes
and literature that the performance of the beta well exceeds that of
2.0, yet this does not appear to be the case, at least on Mac OS X.

See:

<http://quality.mozilla.org/en/node/1288>

Drew

--
The Mac Orchard - http://www.macorchard.com/
Essential Internet Applications since 1995
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article ,
> "Drew D. Saur" wrote:
>
>> I have been disappointed with the relative performance of Firefox 3 beta
>> on the Mac
>
> I guess nobody ever informed you that software developers often leave
> debugging code that can have a detrimental effect on speed enabled in
> beta releases?
>


It may also depend on the computer system itself,i.e., processor type,
OS, etc.

VG
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

In article ,
VirtualGuy wrote:

> [ .. ]

I really don't think anyone should be speed testing FF. It is
absurd. It would be like testing a turtle for swiftness; turtles
are simply not about *swift* anything in spite of their many
other admirable qualities. It is rude and demeaning to turtles to
even suggest it. Please stop now.

--
dorayme
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

In article ,
"Mr. Strat" wrote:

> In article ,
> Drew D. Saur wrote:
>
> > I have been disappointed with the relative performance of Firefox 3 beta
> > on the Mac, so I am running a poll on The Mac Orchard that asks the
> > question:
> >
> > "Despite all of the hoopla stating otherwise, Firefox 3 beta for seems
> > to be a big step backward in rendering performance when compared to
> > Firefox 2, which could be a bad thing for the Mac. What has your
> > experience been?"
>
> That's a great idea - compare a beta product to one that already
> shipping.

Upon further experimentation, I found relief by going to about:config
and changing "network.dns.disableIPv6" to "true".

It seems that IPv6 DNS lookups are what is slowing Firefox 3 down!

Now Firefox 3 is much faster. Maybe even faster than Firefox 2...

Drew

--
The Mac Orchard - http://www.macorchard.com/
Essential Internet Applications since 1995
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

Unable to vote without going thru a long process of registering
with user name, password, etc, etc.
Why do you have to make it so hard to just make an opinion.
I will pass.
jeff

Drew D. Saur wrote:
> I have been disappointed with the relative performance of Firefox 3 beta
> on the Mac, so I am running a poll on The Mac Orchard that asks the
> question:
>
> "Despite all of the hoopla stating otherwise, Firefox 3 beta for seems
> to be a big step backward in rendering performance when compared to
> Firefox 2, which could be a bad thing for the Mac. What has your
> experience been?"
>
> Guests are invited to vote.
>
> Please see:
> <http://www.macorchard.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/themaco/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1202
> 725660>
>
> Drew
>
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

I rarely use FF 2 as is is much slower (imho) than Safari 3
jeff

Mr. Strat wrote:
> In article ,
> Drew D. Saur wrote:
>
>
>>I have been disappointed with the relative performance of Firefox 3 beta
>>on the Mac, so I am running a poll on The Mac Orchard that asks the
>>question:
>>
>>"Despite all of the hoopla stating otherwise, Firefox 3 beta for seems
>>to be a big step backward in rendering performance when compared to
>>Firefox 2, which could be a bad thing for the Mac. What has your
>>experience been?"
>
>
> That's a great idea - compare a beta product to one that already
> shipping.
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

In article , jeff wrote:

> Mr. Strat wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Drew D. Saur wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have been disappointed with the relative performance of Firefox 3 beta
> >>on the Mac, so I am running a poll on The Mac Orchard that asks the
> >>question:
> >>
> >>"Despite all of the hoopla stating otherwise, Firefox 3 beta for seems
> >>to be a big step backward in rendering performance when compared to
> >>Firefox 2, which could be a bad thing for the Mac. What has your
> >>experience been?"
> >
> >
> > That's a great idea - compare a beta product to one that already
> > shipping.
>
> I rarely use FF 2 as is is much slower (imho) than Safari 3

Firefox is certainly *not* much slower with AdBlock Plus loaded!!!
Firefox + AdBlock Plus means the browser no longer waits for 99.9% of
ads to load.

Safari has no equivalent, so every page you load causes you to wait for
ads to load as well.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

Jolly Roger wrote:

> In article , jeff wrote:

> > I rarely use FF 2 as is is much slower (imho) than Safari 3
>
> Firefox is certainly *not* much slower with AdBlock Plus loaded!!!
> Firefox + AdBlock Plus means the browser no longer waits for 99.9% of
> ads to load.

Amen. You mean there are actually people who use Firefox without AdBlock
Plus? I thought AdBlock Plus was the whole point of Firefox. :-)

I might even say that running FireFox without AdBlock Plus is a lot like
running Linux on a Mac. Makes one wonder why, as you've lost the biggest
benefit. Yes, I have known people to run Linux on a Mac. And I've run
Linux myself on other boxes, but they were boxes with a lot better
cost/performance than a Mac; if you are running Linux on the Mac anyway,
you've eliminated the other factors of the Mac's value.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

In article ,
nospam.TakeThisOut@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > In article , jeff wrote:
>
> > > I rarely use FF 2 as is is much slower (imho) than Safari 3
> >
> > Firefox is certainly *not* much slower with AdBlock Plus loaded!!!
> > Firefox + AdBlock Plus means the browser no longer waits for 99.9% of
> > ads to load.
>
> Amen. You mean there are actually people who use Firefox without AdBlock
> Plus? I thought AdBlock Plus was the whole point of Firefox. :-)
>
> I might even say that running FireFox without AdBlock Plus is a lot like
> running Linux on a Mac. Makes one wonder why, as you've lost the biggest
> benefit. Yes, I have known people to run Linux on a Mac. And I've run
> Linux myself on other boxes, but they were boxes with a lot better
> cost/performance than a Mac; if you are running Linux on the Mac anyway,
> you've eliminated the other factors of the Mac's value.

Same here! : ) Firefox is just an AdBlock Plus enabler for me. I
won't browse without it anymore!

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Firefox is certainly *not* much slower with AdBlock Plus loaded!!!
> Firefox + AdBlock Plus means the browser no longer waits for 99.9% of
> ads to load.
>
> Safari has no equivalent..

So, when PithHelmet is preventing most ads from loading in Safari, how
exactly isn't that an equivalent?

--
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

In article ,
mikePOST.RemoveThis@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > Firefox is certainly *not* much slower with AdBlock Plus loaded!!!
> > Firefox + AdBlock Plus means the browser no longer waits for 99.9% of
> > ads to load.
> >
> > Safari has no equivalent..
>
> So, when PithHelmet is preventing most ads from loading in Safari, how
> exactly isn't that an equivalent?

AFAIK, PithHelmet must download ads to block them. AdBlock Plus is
designed in such a way that it blocks them *without* downloading them.
The result is faster and more secure (ad block image tracking is
impossible) web browsing.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2? 

mikePOST.DeleteThis@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) writes:

[to AdBlock+]
> > Safari has no equivalent..

> So, when PithHelmet is preventing most ads from loading in Safari, how
> exactly isn't that an equivalent?

AdBlock may subscribe to automatically updated blocking lists.
The interface for adding new things to block to AdBlock+ is
vastly better.

But in my personal use, that's only half the story.
Toss in FlashBlock and FF is astoundingly efficient.
(Or, perhaps better stated, it's astoundingly better
at keeping unfortunate web design from being as
inefficient as the designers built it to be...)

Now if only someone would fire all those folks who
build flash-only sites...

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
 >> Stay informed about: Poll: Firefox 3 Beta slower than Firefox 2?