SillyDog701

[Fulvio]

I have medium speed cable, perfectly good for most downloads (about 180Kbs).
My Firefox2.0.0.1 loads painfully slowly, taking about 75-80 sec. to be usable. It used to be slow, but this is getting worse. As for rendering pages, it is as good as ever.
I have less than 190Kb bookmarks file, I use three tabs, and ten addons, including two which come with the program. I used, at one time, Fasterfox, but it does not do anything.
Is there anything which can be done to speed up loading the program? Something a la Quick Launch?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Fulvio]

In all fairness, I did a recount, with FF2.0.0.1 started first after the computer was turned on. It took 2'10" to be able to open anything. I proceeded, then, to close it, and open the other browsers which I have, one after the other.
NS7.2 with Quick Launch took about 7 sec., all the others had no tricks. IE7, Seamonkey1.5a nightly, Seamonkey 1.1 and Firefox2.0.0.2RC2 took 22-25". Seamonkey1.0.7 and Netscape8.1.2 30", Opera9.1 16", and the winner was Kninja2.1 (a relative of Kmeleon) 10".
I did then a recount of Firefox2.0.0.1, and it was a lot faster, but still coming in last at 35".
The Seamonkeys have more Tabs, and, of course mail.
The moral of the story is that FF2.0.0.1 is a slowpoke, but it gets better if turned off, and then back on. It also takes more memory than 2.0.0.2RC2, at 53MB vs.35 MB. K-Ninja takes only 19MB.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[James]

Hi Fulvio

I'm not mirroring your numbers. To load FF so that a web page actually opens is about 10 seconds. As for memory, right now I'm running about 35 MB. I'm not sure what the problem is but it's not universal. I'll check my other browsers to see what sort of comparison they make.

btw: where on earth is the button to clear the history?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[James]

Opera: 18 seconds

IE 7: 16 seconds

Seamonkey 1.1: 12 seconds

FF 2.0.0.2: 10 seconds

This is from the time I click on the desktop icon to the time a web page is completely rendered.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Fulvio]

James,
I got cheap, and opted to get the medium speed Cable. That gives 170-180Kbs downloads which is more than enough, and costs me $26.95, instead of the high speed, which runs at least 50% faster, but costs me $39.95.
It depends on the webpage, and I always have a huge one to drag the browser. The tabs are fine, but only up to a point.
Anyway, I can click on the desktop icon of 2.0.0.1, and go two runs away, and get some coffee, and when I come back it has not finished loading. I don't know why it takes less time the second time around.
Good question about the button to clear History. It does not matter, since I work with Clear Private Data. At least, I have the Prefbar extention to clear my Cache, if I want to.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070208 Firefox/2.0.0.2

[James]

We have the medium speed cable (1500 kbs) but in effect receiving about 1100 kbs. I always start with no tabs so that could very well be a major part of the answer right there.

Maybe I should start my own thread on the history clearing button. Thanks.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Fulvio]

James,
I think that you hit it right in the nose, with the effect of the tabs. Even one extra tab seems to have profound effect with 2.0.0.1. I am using two tabs with 2.0.0.2RC2, instead of three, and it loads much faster. Seamonkeys, even with no Quick Launch seem to affected a lot less by Tabs. I am using six of them in 1.0.7 and 1.1.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070208 Firefox/2.0.0.2