Computer Hope
Software => Internet browsers => Topic started by: midwestguy on April 25, 2010, 04:58:40 PM
-
I've been having some reoccurring issues with Firefox. Slow, not as responsive as it used to be.
I use Vista.
I tried chrome and its like my computer has been reborn! Anyone give reasons not to switch?
-
Well, I love Firefox for its customization, but if speed is what you need (lol...i made a rhyme), then stick with chrome or opera. It will take a long time before google will be able to customize its browser to the extent Mozilla has.
-
Try starting Firefox inn the safe mode and see if it speeds up.
Start > all programs > Mozilla firefox > safe mode
That will disable all your add ons. It could be one of them is your problem. If it is you need to add them back on one at a time to figure out which on is the problem.
Chrome is slightly faster, but not by much.
-
I tried chrome ... Anyone give reasons not to switch?
No reason not to switch if find Chrome suits you OK. It's speed is most likely attributable to Chrome being a barebones browser.
I would try rthompson80819's suggestion if you would really rather use Firefox. His suggestion is a good troubleshooting approach.
-
What is the speed difference between Chrome and f.f . Is it something noticeable ::)
-
I don't see a noticeable difference between them on my Vista notebook PC. Keep in mind Firefox is very customizable and some users install many Add-ons for Firefox. I suspect that may slow Firefox down a bit for some users.
-
some users install many Add-ons for Firefox. I suspect that may slow Firefox down a bit for some users.
agree.
And I asked this question earlier.
Some Add-ons cause slow because they need time to work. Such as weather
-
Right. Also, some add-ons may not have been tested enough before being released and may have defects. A year or so ago, I tried a skin for Firefox; it was called Walnut. The add-on applied the skin's look to not only the main window but to other panels such as the small panel that opens when you add a bookmark. It seemed to work fine for the main Firefox window but I discovered it slowed Firefox when working with Bookmarks. I removed it. Now, I have a "Persona" installed. Personas are like skins but they only apply to the main Firefox window, not to other panels that open from the main menu, as did Walnut.
-
It's speed is most likely attributable to Chrome being a barebones browser.
For extremely loose definitions of "barebones".
IMO a "barebones" browser is something like Lynx- which is faster then either IE, Firefox, or Chrome.
Re: addons: if I install the latest Flash 10 plugin, Firefox crashes every 20 minutes. So I just reverted back to the flash 8 plugin and use IE if I encounter a site that needs version 10.
-
For extremely loose definitions of "barebones".
IMO a "barebones" browser is something like Lynx- which is faster then either IE, Firefox, or Chrome.
Actually, I saw Firefox described as "barebones" by someone else. It made some sense so I used it here. I've also see the term minimalist used in describing it. I haven't used something like Lynx, so I'll take your word on that. The point is that Chrome is minimalist compared to IE and Firefox and, IMO, Opera, too.
Re: addons: if I install the latest Flash 10 plugin, Firefox crashes every 20 minutes. So I just reverted back to the flash 8 plugin and use IE if I encounter a site that needs version 10.
Hmm, I haven't had the problem. But, I've noticed some sites that are heavy-laden with Flash content can make CPU usage shoot upward, regardless of what browser I'm using. Example: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/. The large scrolling display of books on the upper part of the page seems to be the culprit. If I click the pause button not to stop the scrolling display of books, CPU usage quickly drops. Resume scrolling and CPU usage jumps up again. And, it's the same with IE, Firefox, and Chrome.
-
Actually, I saw Firefox described as "barebones" by someone else. It made some sense so I used it here. I've also see the term minimalist used in describing it. I haven't used something like Lynx, so I'll take your word on that. The point is that Chrome is minimalist compared to IE and Firefox and, IMO, Opera, too.
Lynx browses just through text- perhaps, the word that should be used when describing Chrome is more along the lines of "no frills", or, to be precise, "No frills interface".
Personally, I avoid using any program that "customizes" the titlebar, as chrome does. the minimize, close, etc buttons are still there, but the control box (which nobody uses, for the most part) which would normally be represented by an icon is not... it's a tad disallusioning and is a trait usually only held by dialog boxes.
The first <major> streamlining by ANY Web browser was actually made by Internet Explorer- I believe it was version 3; this was the actual use of "windowless" controls, for things like text boxes. I suppose this bears some explanation.
This comes as a surprise to many, but a "window" isn't simply the windows you can move around, maximize, etc, but also includes all the things on a window, such as a command button, text boxes, etc.
Early versions of Internet Browsers on Windows would often use, for example, the windows textbox control for textarea and input items. This makes sense- however, when you consider how many of these "windows" might be on a given page it becomes very slow. The internet Explorer team re-implemented all the controls used in HTML, such as textarea, option buttons, buttons, etc as Windowless controls, which essentially means they are simply drawn onto the web page, much as text would be; the actual clicking and other actions are interpreted by the browser window, which checks manually to see if any of the windowless controls had been clicked.
This made IE5 nearly twice as fast as Navigator 5 or whatever the competition was at the time.
Nowadays, all the browsers make use of windowless controls, so it's not really as important.
Personally, I've found the whole concept of "browser speed" to make absolutely no sense. the speed of browsing between pages is entirely dependent on internet connection speed- and apparent speed is hardly a smart metric to go by (for example, a browser could take 10 seconds to render a page entirely and still be considered slower then one that takes 5 seconds- if the first one starts displaying the incomplete page right away, and the 5 second one waits until it has all the information it needs before drawing anything.
Apparent speed comparisons are so personal and based entirely on placebo it's ridiculous to even pretend there is any way of measuring them. and the speed of the browser itself usually corresponds to system speed, and even the slowest machine I've ran it on (350Mhz) was able to run FF at a reasonable speed, so the only reason FF would ever be "apparently" slower then chrome, or any other browser would be due to plugins.
-
What is the speed difference between Chrome and f.f . Is it something noticeable ::)
For me and my computer, Chrome is way faster than FF. Even with FF in safemode
-
I prefer Chrome. It isn't perfect yet, but it is a fast browser. It also has built in protection that will steer you away from "unsafe" sites before you unintentionally pick up a virus!
-
for me... Firefox is better then chrome.. Its slow due to the addons which we use... but overall I work properly with Firefox.... With Firefox 3.1, you know you'll have a powerful library of add-ons.....
-
I tried chrome and its like my computer has been reborn! Anyone give reasons not to switch?
There are no reasons not to switch. I've switched many times (firefox to chrome & opera, Outlook to thunderbird, Digsby to Pidgin, MS office to openoffice).
In fact if you're feeling real brave you can even switch from Windows to Linux.
As for speed I find chrome a tad faster but not much. Chrome and Opera do come out a bit faster in the benchmarks.
-
One of the things that hasn't been stressed on this thread is that you don't need to chose only one browser. I use Firefox most of the time, but for some sites I'll use Chrome.
For sites that have a lot of links to other sites, for me it seems like Chrome is slightly faster. When I'm done with site, I'll close Chrome and go back to Firefox.
-
One of the things that hasn't been stressed on this thread is that you don't need to chose only one browser.
True. I use mainly Chrome but sometimes Firefox or Opera. Some browsers have features that others don't. Opera has IRC chat built in, so when I want IRC I use Opera.
-
Opera has IRC chat built in, so when I want IRC I use Opera.
basing a browser choice on the number of satellite features it provides is a tad silly. The application is called a Web browser because it's designed for browsing the web, not IRC chats. an IRC chat program can be used for that purpose, and those "seperate programs" can be used just as seamlessly as any built-in IRC support, since they can be set to handle irc:// links.
-
basing a browser choice on the number of satellite features it provides is a tad silly. The application is called a Web browser because it's designed for browsing the web, not IRC chats. an IRC chat program can be used for that purpose
But I say: why have separate programs for everything when you can have programs that do multiple tasks.
For example: there would be no point in having one program for importing pictures from a camera, one for cropping the pictures, one for rotating them, one for editing them, one for organizing them, one for emailing them and so on. It would be much better to have a single program like Picasa for example to do many different tasks.
Same with a web browser. Chrome can't open PDF website pages. Opera can do it and it can also sync bookmarks, chat IRC, contain sticky notes, keep a contact list and more. Sure you may need all the features but they sure come in handy when you do. 8)
-
Chrome can't open PDF website pages.
Do you mean open PDF documents within the browser? I find that it can. I just visited irs.gov and opened a tax form, which is a PDF, in Chrome. This is on my laptop running Vista and Adobe Reader 8.
-
But I say: why have separate programs for everything when you can have programs that do multiple tasks.
For example: there would be no point in having one program for importing pictures from a camera, one for cropping the pictures, one for rotating them, one for editing them, one for organizing them, one for emailing them and so on. It would be much better to have a single program like Picasa for example to do many different tasks.
Same with a web browser. Chrome can't open PDF website pages. Opera can do it and it can also sync bookmarks, chat IRC, contain sticky notes, keep a contact list and more. Sure you may need all the features but they sure come in handy when you do. 8)
Ahh,
I see.
If it's an open source program, it's innovative and new, but if it's a Microsoft product, it's bloat.
-
If it's an open source program, it's innovative and new, but if it's a Microsoft product, it's bloat.
How did you get this from what I wrote!? I didn't mention anything about open source. Opera isn't even open source and Chrome is only based on a open source project. So how did you come up with this open source thing. Furthermore the average user will not give a #$%@& if software is open source or not. Open source is good but many closed source apps are great too. And not all of Microsoft stuff is bloated, there are some Microsoft products which I like quite a bit even better than open source ones, for example I use MS Paint on my Ubuntu system instead of GIMP. I find it does a better job for my purposes.
-
I use MS Paint on my Ubuntu system instead of GIMP. I find it does a better job for my purposes.
whaaaaaa? You run mspaint through WINE on Ubuntu? That's just... crazy. Well, unless you mean Paint.NET.
Perhaps, I was erroneous. In either case, the whole "browser with all sorts of extras" thing was tried already with Netscape. Didn't work so well.
But I say: why have separate programs for everything when you can have programs that do multiple tasks.
Because each program is now a specific unit that performs that specific set of tasks. The "features" you list are simply symptoms of a larger "illness" called "gold-plating syndrome" it's a rather serious problem nowadays.
For example: there would be no point in having one program for importing pictures from a camera, one for cropping the pictures, one for rotating them, one for editing them, one for organizing them, one for emailing them and so on. It would be much better to have a single program like Picasa for example to do many different tasks.
This is where I lose you. an image editor edits images and can import them from a camera, and do other various things of that nature.
But E-mail should be handled by something else. when I use the "Send" command in Paint Shop Pro, for example, it uses my default E-mail handler, thunderbird.
Additionally, having your E-mail settings as part of the configuration of yet another program, and needing to change those settings in a dozen or so different programs when you change it quickly makes one realize the flaw in having these features built into the program rather then having the program rely on <another> program whose <main> function (that is, not a "hey, that would be a neat feature to have" thing) is to send E-mail. If a text editor needs to provide a way to edit an image, why should it need to re-implement all sorts of image editing tasks? the only reason is Programmer Hubris. THe IRC chat provided in Opera only exists because somebody over there thought "hey, this would be a "neat" feature. it's a back-burner feature-the people responsible for it write it because they think it's "cool", not because they can see any solid reason in the context of the application to add it.
-
Recently I switched from FF to Google Chrom as the FF took so much RAM :/ so far im very happy with it and its also very easy to use.
-
I prefer Chrome, after using FireFox for about 3 years.
I feel that Chrome runs lighter on the system. But chrome runs independent processes (when you look at task manager), which is kinda weird. I do think it loads faster on my laptop, not page loading, but the actual program loads much quicker. But I like how basic it is.
-
Chrome lasted less than 10 days on my machine...
I'll take a browser customised how i want it to be anyday...
But this is why it's always good to have choices.
-
Chrome lasted less than 10 days on my machine...
I'll take a browser customised how i want it to be anyday...
But this is why it's always good to have choices.
Anybody who doesn't like having choices should buy a mac anyway. :-X
-
Just tried the new BETA...won't connect anywhere but Google's homepage.
Man it's good.
Both FireFox and IE have sites connected...
-
I have 4.1.249.1064 (45376)
Goes WAYYYYY slower then FF. I thought it might have been a cache issue, so I loaded my web page a few times in a row in Chrome.
FF took about 3 seconds to completely load my page- Chrome took about 10, every time.
My PHP code only has a specific change for Internet Explorer; both FF and Chrome are receiving the same HTML. For some reason FF displays it faster.
"but! Don't worry, it's lightweight, and doesn't use as much memory as Firefox" chrome advocates might say.
True. I have 6 tabs open in each browser, and Chrome is using 100MB (combining the memory use of all of it's processes, which is another caveat I should discuss), while FF is using a little less then 200. Considering I have 8GB of RAM, I really don't care wether the 20 or so add ons I have installed in Firefox are consuming 100 megabytes of RAM, since the 20 addons I have installed in FF don't exist for Chrome at all. (tabmixplus is a rather "heavy" addon, as well, I would imagine if I was to disable it my mem usage would be around 50MB.
Another point of note is that Firefox has been open for over 2 weeks without being closed. No joke. I just opened chrome. Evidently Firefox doesn't have any memory leaks as people like to claim. (at least, not anymore).
Now. While everybody else is focussing on memory usage between Chrome and Firefox, they seem to forget that Chrome starts a new process for every single tab. Not only does this mean that Chrome essentially "forces" itself to have more CPU time, it means that any use of the chrome browser outside of the browser content invokes cross-process calls to the other Chrome instances, additionally, it means that task manager is not actually telling us the whole story- the default memory display is "private working set" however, we have to take into account that each process is given resources for their shared resources- such as their resources within the EXE;
By changing the tabs to "working set", I notice that my Firefox browser is using a little over 310MB. Chrome, adding up each process, combines to 450MB.
On to the "multiple processes" concept that has been heralded as "magical" and useful.
First off- I'd like to say this:
using a new process for every single tab is the most ridiculous, and even stupid concept I have ever heard of. What? Is there something wrong with creating a new thread? Or is that too complicated? Now every single Chrome tab get's it's very own process with the memory consumption that goes along side every process that you cannot see (things like the thread information block, allocated process-private structures created by user,gdi, and other windows dlls in their DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH, as well as OLE/COM, which no doubt is being used for cross-process communication in the Windows version of Chrome. These memory allocations are not reflected <anywhere> in task manager, but each process has a "base" amount of memory that is consumed.
Not to mention the fact that every single chrome process has the same priority, so now, in effect, Chrome is taking up n times as much processor time as Firefox or internet explorer, where n is the number of tabs open. No wonder it would be more responsive, it has more CPU time.
Seriously, WHY DID THEY USE MULTIPLE PROCESSES? unless they think their javascript engine is likely to crash completely, they should have just used multiple threads.
-
Well after wrestling with the connect issue for an hour and a half chrome is headed to the trash once again...
All existing browsers on this machine had live active connections...
When i went to Tools/Options it wanted a connection set up......WHY ? ?
It's a freakin browser fer cryin out loud.
After jumping thru those hoops for 5 minutes or so the setup window (looks like IE to me )...locked up.
It's gone once again...and i'm remembering why it didn't last long the first 2 times.
-
Goes WAYYYYY slower then FF. I thought it might have been a cache issue, so I loaded my web page a few times in a row in Chrome.
Well, that's not the typical experience people have with Chrome. If it was, they wouldn't be using it ... it's just that simple. I have Chrome and Firefox installed on my notebook PC. I have no inclination to defend Chrome. I've mainly used Firefox for the last two years or longer. In the last 2 or 3 months, I've been using Chrome - and Opera on another computer - just to get familiar with them in anticipation of a discussion on browsers as a topic at a monthly meeting of a computer users' group to which I belong. Believe me, my use of Chrome would have ended quickly if it were noticeably slower than Firefox, but it isn't. I find it generally quite responsive and definitely not slower than Firefox.
I have no idea why Chrome generates instances of tasks in Task Manager each time an additional tab is opened unless it's a technique that's they found improves speed. But, based on my observation, the sum of the CPU usage shown in Task Manager for Chrome is not greater than what Firefox uses to display the same websites. So, I don't see this as a serious negative point regarding Chrome.
-
Seriously, WHY DID THEY USE MULTIPLE PROCESSES? unless they think their javascript engine is likely to crash completely, they should have just used multiple threads.
Read this: http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models
-
Read this: http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-models
I'm well aware of why they did it. And it's still stupid. There is no reason not to use threads. It's complete nonsense.
But, based on my observation, the sum of the CPU usage shown in Task Manager for Chrome is not greater than what Firefox uses to display the same websites. So, I don't see this as a serious negative point regarding Chrome.
Your missing my point. every process is scheduled based on their priority- Each process is given a specific slice of processor time.
IF chrome has 2 processes- it will get twice as many timeslices as say, IE, since IE is a single process. This balloons with each "new process" it spawns. It doesn't matter wether that timeslice is used- you still lose the CPU time required to context switch to and from the processes.
-
whaaaaaa? You run mspaint through WINE on Ubuntu? That's just... crazy. Well, unless you mean Paint.NET.
No I meant MS Paint. I used it when I was on Windows and it did everything I needed. So when I switched to Ubuntu I just continued using it. But now that I've just installed Ubuntu I don't think I'll be using MS Paint anymore. I'll be using mtPaint or Krita.
But E-mail should be handled by something else. when I use the "Send" command in Paint Shop Pro, for example, it uses my default E-mail handler, thunderbird.
I fully agree here. Actually integrated email was tried with Netscape/Mozilla and it was not so successful. Then Mozilla decided to create a new browser (called Pheonix, later Firebird & Firefox) which offered all these extra's in the form of addons. And guess what, it was successful. I personally like the addons idea to add things to a browser because not everyone will want say IRC chat.
-
well chromes not as secire but heck its blazing fast