djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
edit:
February 12th, @02:31PM
| reply to rms01
Re: I agree...
The thing that kills me about Firefox "speed", and is correctly identified in this nice article, is the cold start time. On the windows box, it took Firefox over twenty seconds to load the first time, vs. only 7 seconds for internet explorer.
I rarely notice rendering and script execution speed issues. I notice the load times more than anything else.
It does not surprise me at all that Opera is the speed demon of the group. It was extremely apparent how efficient their engine was a few years back when I was working with PDAs. Pocket IE on a Pocket PC was so slow, it was practically nearly useless with most real web pages, where Opera was able to render pages quite nicely on the Zaurus, despite it being a slower PDA. Unfortnately there aren't enough advantages and too many compatibility disadvantages for me to use it for my desktop.
At least the web standards are finally making it possible to create decent pages that work on all the browers. The popularity of third party browsers on a Windows is a great thing towards making the internet as a whole browser agnostic. It was a nightmare making nice sites that were compatible with IE 4 and Netscape 4. 
quote:
FireFox cuts my upload speed in half Compared to IE
Are you referring to the Java BBR speed tests? That's not really a browser issue but a Java JVM issue. You are probably using the Microsoft JVM under IE, which I have also noticed results in better speed tests. But, those are just tests. It's extremely rare in real everyday use that you would be uploading something using a java applet as the speed tests do.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
rbd1999
@midco.net
| quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that kills me about Firefox "speed", and is correctly identified in this nice article, is the cold start time. On the windows box, it took Firefox over twenty seconds to load the first time, vs. only 7 seconds for internet explorer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On my modest but well tuned system -
Windows XP Pro
Athlon 1600+
512MB of DDR 2100
cable modem Firefox COLD START is ~9 secs.
IE COLD START is ~7 secs.
The homepage for both is »www.google.com
The target of the shortcut I use to start Firefox -
"%ProgramFiles%\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" /Prefetch:1
I find the /Prefetch:1 parameter is important. |
|
Bananas
join:2004-08-18
Santa Barbara, CA
| reply to djrobx
Maybe it has not occurred to you that windows loads the IE shell script on boot, meaning that IE is already primed and ready to go. Of course you would get faster start times if half of it is already running in the background. But what price for speed and what price for security? Me, i choose security and waiting a few more seconds aint gonna ruin my life. |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by Bananas  :Maybe it has not occurred to you that windows loads the IE shell script on boot, meaning that IE is already primed and ready to go. Exactly.
It'd be interesting to see these tests run again, this time with firefox prefetched as well:
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" /prefetch:1
Speeds load time up for me...
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey
iPod Shuffle=iPos
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 2785 |
|
