You can make Firefox even faster with Finetune Firefox...:-)
www.totalidea.com/content/firetune/firetune-index....l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
|
You can make Firefox even faster with Finetune Firefox...:-)
Faster than what? Lets face it, where the only true diferentiator of browser speed is throuput and response of the network I dont see that one has to worry about choosing or tuning ones browser.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
Unless it tunes MTU and RWIN in whicvh case it is not really tuning the browser.
|
Both of which is a waste of time twiddling with on broadband.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
|
|
Hello Fullchat.
I am not an expert on Firefox, but I believe that Firefox may appear faster because it may not have all the features of IE.
The software company that writes the code for HonetJohn's web pages may know why or if this site loads faster on Firefox compared to IE6 or IE7.
I am led to believe that Firefox users have the option to add "plug-ins" to tailor the browser to their needs.
|
Hello Fullchat. I am not an expert on Firefox but I believe that Firefox may appear faster because it may not have all the features of IE.
Firefox, Opera, IE, and Safari all use different rendering engines and they deal with the code served up by websites in different ways. They also respond differently to various inputs so they can "feel" faster or slower, depending on what you're doing with them. Unless you run proper tests it's impossible to say which is faster just by using them. For instance, just because the page is all visible doesn't mean it will (yet) respond to clicks. In another case a page may be clickable before its visible elements have rendered. Which is faster?
|
Despite all the cynicism, even sarcastic comments, it's a well known fact that Firefox can be speeded up.
Using Finetune Firefox or similar FF add-ons merely makes it easier than doing it manually through about:config.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
|
I doubt its worth the effort. Why would you bother when even a badly tuned and usless IE 5 is fast enough on modern broadband?
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
|
Despite all the cynicism even sarcastic comments it's a well known fact that Firefox can be speeded up.
I agree with you that Firefox is the best browser out there. I use it all the time. I also agree that it can be made to appear to be speeded up (most of the tweaks involve pre-fetching webpages and some can be a real pain for webmasters). I also agree that with decent broadband speed the differences are very slight. Speed is not what makes FF my browser of choice. I like the appearance, the tweakability, the wide range of add-ons, the fact that it is cross-platform (Linux, Mac, Windows, and whatever), and (so far) the security. It's really a great piece of software.
Incidentally Opera, which is one of the most highly specified browsers in its default configuration, seems fastest to me on Linux and Mac.
|
I'm with ex-TVM on this I'm affraid.
I first started using the Internet in 1989 and had a fairly okay connection for the time. In 1992 I dowloaded and installed Linux via floppy disks!
Since having broadband at home about 7 years ago, using various versions of Windows/Unix/Linux:
- Originally on 512kbps and fast compared to me old dial-up
- Moved to 600kbps on no apparent speed-up
- Upgraded to 1.5Mbps and noticeabely faster to display web-pages but downgraded to 750kbps soon after
- Automatically upgraded to 2Mbps
- Now on 2Mbps
Do the browsers and operating make a real noticeable difference. Only if you want to believe they do. Going from 600kbps to 1.5Mbs was noticeable in so much as a page loaded twice as fast - i.e. like 0.5s vs 1.s. With faster download then you cannot time the difference. Also use for work VPN.
Regardless of boradband Internet browser not so relevant. Lost packets/poor ISP on the other hand can mae all the difference. Last week Virgin Media seemed to have DNS problem and so service was carp 20% of the time.
|
>>Since having broadband at home about 7 years ago>>
Originally on 512kbps and fast compared to me old dial-up>>
Perhaps my memory is playing tricks (late 2000 was the year when British Telecom (BT) launched its generic DSL products.), but I thought that 256kbps (or even 150kbps or less) was the original BB speed available?
Unless you had a cable service?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
|
150Kbps was ISDN
Correction ISDN was 128Kbps, I think 150 was what BT called "midband", IIRC broadband hit the streets at the asymetric 512/256.
|
IIRC, ISDN was originally 64kbps and, where I worked, two lines were used to get 128kbps (it was to send newspaper pages for printing purposes at the time).
I don't think most people really appreciate the work that BT did a few years back on getting speeds up on what was basically long standing infrastructure.
We used to send copy to the office using a laptop, 9.6kbps modem (double cup shaped to accept a telephone) and a wing and a prayer...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
|
|
>>It's really a great piece of software.>>
Which is why it's been my default browser for some considerable time, even though IE6 is available and kept fully updated. In fact I don't think IE6 is all that slow, but I do prefer the FF layout and its ability, for a while now, to use tabbed pages.
I wasn't all that taken with Opera when I tried it out, but it was some time ago.
Some other browser choices at:
www.majorgeeks.com/downloads5.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
|
Well, I use FF and IE7 on the PC. Can't say I notice a huge difference in them, they just seem to work.
On the Mac I use Camino, Safari (3 beta) and FF again. They're so similar that I never take much notice of which icon I pressed to get on the Internet. If you were to put a gun to my head, I'd go Camino but I understand this is a FF engine anyhow - although I stand to be corrected on this.
My Ubuntu install uses FF and that works alright.
Opera is on the Wii and the DS lite, seems to work OK although there are some functionality restrictions which are probably more to do with the hardware than the browser.
No idea what my Samsung phone uses but it gets me the footie scores - my iPaq 6515 - soon to be retired - also has a browser, some form of IE and again, is fine for bbc news and sport.
My (laboured) point really is that they all work adequately for me, despite being of a wide variety. Safari is apparently super quick at rendering pages, but it's the network connection that makes the difference so far as I can see. On my 6Mb ADSL line things whizz along, on the GPRS of the iPaq, less so.
You need a browser to get on the net, choose whichever tickles your fancy, there's not a whole lot in it these days.
Anyway, why bother with all these fancy graphics - why not just run with Lynx :- lynx.isc.org/ ;-)
|
Lee
Have you tried Quicksilver on the Mac? It's like a cross between Spotlight and some kind of weird psychic force that allows you to control everything from one place. There's nothing like it anywhere else, though others have tried. It's free:
quicksilver.blacktree.com/
|
Hi Bv,
I've seen it written about in the Apple blogs but haven't tried it. Might dig it out and give it a try, thanks for the tip.
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just one small point. You mean Firefox versus Internet Explorer. Outlook Express is an e-mail program. {Now corrected - DD}
More info. You can download IETab for use with Firefox from:
ietab.mozdev.org/installation.html
and Flash Player (non-IE) from:
www.filehippo.com/download_flashplayer_firefox/
IE version is:
www.filehippo.com/download_flashplayer_ie/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What's for you won't pass you by
|
|
|
|
