SillyDog701

[Andrew T.]

I've just installed Mozilla Firefox 1.0PR on a (workplace) PC running Windows NT4. Looking at the entry
for Mozilla Firefox in the - Start - Programs - menu, there's an entry for "Mozilla Firefox (Safe Mode)".

I've noticed this entry present in Mozilla Firefox's Start Menu folder on Win95 since version 0.9. I surmise that it loads Firefox without extensions.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[Edward]

Something I hoped would happen, happened.

Firefox 1.0 now launches Mozilla Thunderbird when the Mail icon is selected, even if MT is not the default mail client.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[Edward]

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

0.10???

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[Andrew T.]

The internal version number chosen for Mozilla Firefox 1.0 Preview Release is "0.10." It was the next number available after "0.9."

Now, I see how this could cause confusion as the software's version is being advertised as "1.0 Preview Release" or "1.0 PR" rather than "0.10," and people can easily interpret "0.10" as meaning the same thing as "0.1," rather than being higher than "0.9."

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[beanboy89]

I noticed somthing that looked a little different in Mozilla 1.7.3 when I visit an encripted page, the little lock icon in the corner that shows a site's security information now has a yellow highlight behind it.

Lock icon with classic theme.


Lock icon with modern theme.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

[Alice]

The internal version number chosen for Mozilla Firefox 1.0 Preview Release is "0.10." It was the next number available after "0.9."

Now, I see how this could cause confusion as the software's version is being advertised as "1.0 Preview Release" or "1.0 PR" rather than "0.10," and people can easily interpret "0.10" as meaning the same thing as "0.1," rather than being higher than "0.9."

I was wondering about that also, since, in decimals, 0.9 is the same number as 0.90 (or 0.9000000 for that matter) and the number after 0.9 is not 0.10 - after 0.9 comes 0.91, 0.92.....0.99 and then..... 1.00, or 1.0

Here's the explanation:

The version numbers are not decimal fractions but rather integers separated by periods. In other words, the versions that follow 0.9 might be designated 0.9.1 or 0.9.2 or 0.10 and after 0.10 might come 0.10.1 etc.

See http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=5070

by mlefevre

Monday July 26th, 2004 8:38 AM

Yes, but it wasn't 0.90, it was 0.9.0 - 0.10 is higher than 0.9.

It is not supposed to be a decimal number, it's a version number - integers separated with periods, not digits and a decimal point. Otherwise 0.9.1 wouldn't make a lot of sense, would it?

That may be confusing to some, but that scheme is only used internally - externally the release will be labelled "1.0 Preview Release".

Faster they get to 1.0 the better, then the numbers will be "readable" as decimals as well...

Hopefully most people pay more attention to the Mozilla version (rv:1.7.3) and build date (Gecko/20040913)and not the Firefox/0.10 version number that follows.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[Edward]

Is there an ideal cache size for both Mozilla 1.7.3 and Firefox 1.0?

Both ran a little slow on the default cache sizes (50 Mb). I reduced both of them down to 3 Mb, and they slowed down to a crawl. I increased the size to 150 Mb in each, and they are running better.

Thoughts?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[Alice]

I use a disk cache of 20 MB (20,480 kb) on some profiles and the default 50MB on others and don't notice a difference. I tried a "tiny" cache of 3 MB and it made no difference either... but then, I have 512MB of ram on this system and my memory cache is based on this amount of physical ram. From what I've gathered you can disable disk cache altogether if you have enough of a memory cache.

Checking about:cache I see:

Memory cache device

Number of entries: 300
Maximum storage size: 21504 KiB
Storage in use: 16293 KiB
Inactive storage: 14747 KiB

Under Disk cache device I see:

Number of entries: 2303
Maximum storage size: 20480 KiB
Storage in use: 20437 KiB

If you see a Memory Cache Maximum storage size number that seems very small , such as 1024 (1 MB) or 4096 (4 MB) based on your physical ram (see chart below) then you may have set your own user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity" to a small number as was recommended awhile back for the Netscape 7.1/Mozilla 1.4 resource bug.... If so, go to about:config, find the setting and right-click, "reset". Remove the line from the profile's user.js file also, if necessary.

See:
http://home.att.net/~cherokee67/ns71resrcleak.html
and
http://home.att.net/~cherokee67/ns71res ... fault.html

.... from my notes:

From: Michael Lefevre (news+06.nospam@michaellefevre.com)
Subject: Re: Resource leak ideas
Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.general
Date: 2004-01-18 17:35:41 PST

On 2004-01-18, Clover <stolenclover@yahoo.com.tw> wrote:
> andrewkennedy1@ev1.net wrote:
>> I tried this to fix resource leaks with no effects.
>> Any more ideas. Thanks.
>>
>> # If the preference isn't listed, then:
>> # Right click on any blank space on the page
>> # Select: NEW
>> # Select: INTEGER
>> # Type in: browser.cache.memory.capacity
>> # Click OK
>> # Type in 1024
>> # Click OK
>> # Restart Netscape (or Mozilla)
>
> I believe pref for memory cache has been removed. memory cache now
> depends on the total memory on the client computer

The pref is still there, and still works if it is set to, for example,
1024. If the pref is set to -1 (which is now the default), then the cache
size depends on the RAM of the computer.


From: doug robbins (dr@labradorstraits.net)
Subject: Re: Cache Considerations
Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.general
Date: 2003-11-21 16:44:42 PST

On 21-Nov-2003 02:51 PM Bob wrote...

> Someone suggested making the size of the disk cache zero so Mozilla
> would have to rely solely on memory cache. That way Mozilla would not
> bog down when the disk cache gets filled.
>
> 1. There is no reference to the size of memory cache, so how does one
> set it manually - or does Mozilla use as much memory as it needs to
> maintain a cache?

user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity", 25000);

Specify a size in kb.

> 2. Is removing the disk cache in this manner a good practice or will
> it cause Mozilla to act flakey?

Does not act flakey in my experience running with disk cache disabled.

> 3. Is setting the size to zero the only way to disable the disk cache,
> or is there a pref for that?

user_pref("browser.cache.disk.enable", false);

--
Doug



From: Jay Garcia (Mozilla@Netscape.KIDDINGJayGarcia.com)
Subject: Re: Cache Considerations
Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.general
Date: 2003-11-22 06:55:29 PST

On 21.11.03 23:33, Bob wrote:

--- Original Message ---


> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:17:01 GMT, spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:06:45 -0330, doug robbins
>><dr@labradorstraits.net> wrote:
>>
>>>user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity", 25000);
>>>Specify a size in kb.
>>
>>Is there a recommended size? Or is 25000 that size?
>>
>>I have Win2K/SP4 with 384 MB RAM and use about 256 MB according to
>>Task Manager.
>>
>>>user_pref("browser.cache.disk.enable", false);
>>
>>Thanks for the info. I will try it.
>
> I just gave the disk-cacheless Mozilla a thorough workout. I upped the
> memory cache size to 50000. I watched Task Manager as I reloaded a
> large and very busy tabgroup several times. I have the cache set to
> compare the page every time. I am a bit surprised at how efficient the
> cache management actually is.
>
> I should point out that I have a proxy filter (InterMute's AdSubtract)
> so I do not have to put up with a lot of nuisance content. That helps
> speed things up since bullcrap ad images are not loaded.
>
> Mozilla appears to run faster, especially when refreshing large
> tabgroups involving lots of graphics, so maybe this is the way to go.
> At least now I know the cache will be empty when I close the last
> Mozilla window.
>
>

Memory cache plays a more important role than most people realize.
Michael Lefevre posted a chart containing parameters for setting memory
cache in relation to installed ram. Don't know what I did with it but on
this particular machine with 256 Meg ram, my mem cache is set at 14000
and it WORKS.

Michael, where are you and that chart ??? !!!


=============Memory Cache Chart===================
From https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105344
Memory cache pref should be a percentage of physical RAM

------- Additional Comment #26 From gordon 2003-04-18 16:14 PDT [reply] -------
<snip>
Rather than simply take a percentage of physical RAM, this patch uses a formula
that grows less than linearly as follows:

RAM Cache
--- -----
32 Mb 2 Mb
64 Mb 4 Mb
128 Mb 8 Mb
256 Mb 14 Mb
512 Mb 22 Mb
1024 Mb 32 Mb
2048 Mb 44 Mb
4096 Mb 58 Mb

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

[Edward]

With the cache cleared in Firefox 1.0.1 PR, about:cache displays...

Memory cache device

Number of entries: 0
Maximum storage size: 21504 KiB
Storage in use: 4194303 KiB
Inactive storage: 0 KiB

This is also on a 512 Mb RAM system, but the CPU is somewhat slow by today's standards: an AMD K6-2 (with 3D Now) at 500 MHz. I'm not sure if XP Home (SP1) is bogging down the system, even though this setup exceeds the minimum system requirements for XP.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1

[goGecko]

I noticed somthing that looked a little different in Mozilla 1.7.3 when I visit an encripted page, the little lock icon in the corner that shows a site's security information now has a yellow highlight behind it.

Lock icon with classic theme.


Lock icon with modern theme.

I have Netscape 7.2 and the glowing padlock is there too. So it was introduced in Mozilla 1.7.2 or earlier. The yellow highlighting is not new to 1.7.3.

In fact, I fired up Netscape 6.23 and it even has the yellow highlighting around the padlock item.

Back in Communicator there was even some small yellow highlighting around the padlock as of 4.77.

I don't know about IE but I gather that it doesn't have the yellow highlighting and thus the OP's confusion.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

[beanboy89]

I noticed somthing that looked a little different in Mozilla 1.7.3 when I visit an encripted page, the little lock icon in the corner that shows a site's security information now has a yellow highlight behind it.

Lock icon with classic theme.


Lock icon with modern theme.

I have Netscape 7.2 and the glowing padlock is there too. So it was introduced in Mozilla 1.7.2 or earlier. The yellow highlighting is not new to 1.7.3.

In fact, I fired up Netscape 6.23 and it even has the yellow highlighting around the padlock item.

Back in Communicator there was even some small yellow highlighting around the padlock as of 4.77.

I don't know about IE but I gather that it doesn't have the yellow highlighting and thus the OP's confusion.

Oh, sorry, I must have overlooked that in eariler versions, I just noticed it in Mozilla 1.7.3, and thought it was new. My mistake...

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

[Alice]

With the cache cleared in Firefox 1.0.1 PR, about:cache displays...

Memory cache device

Number of entries: 0
Maximum storage size: 21504 KiB
Storage in use: 4194303 KiB
Inactive storage: 0 KiB

This is also on a 512 Mb RAM system, but the CPU is somewhat slow by today's standards: an AMD K6-2 (with 3D Now) at 500 MHz. I'm not sure if XP Home (SP1) is bogging down the system, even though this setup exceeds the minimum system requirements for XP.

I see the same "Storage in use: 4194303" number when I clear the cache in Firefox so it's apparently just a quirk. After you browse awhile you should see something more reasonable, for example:
Memory cache device

Number of entries: 86
Maximum storage size: 21504 KiB
Storage in use: 2247 KiB
Inactive storage: 1774 KiB


I don't know why you are seeing a slowdown (in both Mozilla 1.7.3 AND Firefox 1.0?) when you reduce the disk cache to 3,000 kb. I've been running it that way for a while now today and see no slowdown at all.

My system is a 6-month old Dell Dimension 8300, WinXP pro SP1a, 3Ghz Pentium 4, by the way, and I keep it running lean, reduced automatic startups to a minimum, got rid of Norton Internet security and put on eTrust EZ antivurus, no firewall to bog me down except for WinXP's built-in firewall, and I cleanup and defrag regularly.

Maybe this mozillazine thread will give you some ideas:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=127738
Firefox 1.0 Official Build - slow and will not close
'

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10

[OneVoice]

I'm running Netscape 7.2 and I have Mozilla 1.8a4 installed for voluntary testing.

I love firefox 1.0 PR. I sort of use NS7.2 and Firefox a lot. No problems with them so far.

Thunderbird 0.8 installed over my previous version with no issues.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

[Edward]

I don't know why you are seeing a slowdown (in both Mozilla 1.7.3 AND Firefox 1.0?) when you reduce the disk cache to 3,000 kb. I've been running it that way for a while now today and see no slowdown at all.

My system is a 6-month old Dell Dimension 8300, WinXP pro SP1a, 3Ghz Pentium 4, by the way, and I keep it running lean, reduced automatic startups to a minimum, got rid of Norton Internet security and put on eTrust EZ antivurus, no firewall to bog me down except for WinXP's built-in firewall, and I cleanup and defrag regularly.

Maybe this mozillazine thread will give you some ideas:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=127738
Firefox 1.0 Official Build - slow and will not close
'

I will check that thread, thanks.

What I've done tonight is remove Windows Update and Messenger from the startup. The only icons next to the clock are McAfee Security Center and Exif Launcher (Fujifilm digital camera software).

I have not rebooted the system since removing WU and Messenger, but I will do this to see how the system comes back up.
I am behind a NAT firewall (router) now, but have kept the McAfee firewall active, since there have been attempts by Yahoo and MSN to circumvent the firewall and try to connect ports on the PC. These attempts were stopped by McAfee.

EDIT:

After removing Windows Update and Messenger then rebooting, the system came up faster. I then launched Firefox, the cache was set to the default 50 Mb. I also read in a different MozillaZine thread, about unchecking "use autoscrolling" and "use smooth scrolling". One of these was checked by default, it was unchecked.

Firefox was then restarted and the pages are now loading/appearing a lot faster than before.

UserAgent: Opera/7.54 (Windows NT 5.1; U) [en]

[Alice]

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 8&start=30
Firefox 1.0 Official Build - slow and will not close
Posted: Thu 30th Sep 2004 10:49am

Hmmm,

took a closer look at my home system and only diff was that my home

system didn't have "use auto scrolling" & "use smooth scrollin" enabled

where as my work system did.

With these 2 options removed from my work system, it's been 4 hours

without a glitch. Maybe this isn't a proxy problem.

I looked at my own preferences:

Use autoscrolling was checked
Use smooth scrolling was UNchecked

Both are the default settings (per about:config)

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/help-vi ... prefs.html

Browsing

<snip>

Use autoscrolling
Autoscrolling is a useful feature which allows you to scroll the page by

just holding down the middle mouse button (usually the scroll wheel) and

move the mouse up or down. Some people find this annoying so here's the

option for it.

Use smooth scrolling]
Smooth scrolling is still somewhat experimental in Firefox, but it

can be very useful if you read a lot of long pages. Normally, when you

press the Page Down key, the view jumps directly down one page. With

Smooth Scrolling, it slides down more smoothly, so you are actually able

to see how much it scrolls. This makes it easier to resume reading from

where you were before.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10.1