Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: polonus on June 23, 2007, 02:03:31 PM
-
Hi malware fighters and users of the Mozilla type browsers like FF or Flock.
GetElementsbyId etc. slows down considerably, to have a more flexible working and faster page loading save the following file as SelectableElementsTable.js inside the components folder of your browser.
The download link for my javascript file is here:
http://www.4shared.com/file/18447141/4fd08f46/SelectableElementsTable.html
File size: 10835 bytes
MD5: 405c4b524f49c958c285bff1c58944c3
SHA1: c2cc25768d16a02d4db8b02e12cab4ae5dec5085
I got reports that the script makes the browser load pages considerably faster. But I like to get back info from you as well as how the script functions inside your FF or Flock browser.
Enjoy,
polonus
-
Have you had any experience yourself or just reports ?
As a dial-up user anything to try and speed page loading would be welcome, however, there are methods to pre-load links in the background, etc. that I have found to actually slow the original page load.
So it would be nice if this helped dial-up users.
Probably what I found strange is zero hits on the file name in google, breaking it down to Selectable Elements Table, returns many hits but most that I saw didn't seem related to this .js tool.
-
Hello DavidR,
For the google results you have to wait a bit because it was my invention, it is the darned first time you spotted this code online, and the name of the beast is mine too.
I would not have put it here, if I did not experience considerable faster loading myself. After posting the code at madamemmastent those that installed it from there reported faster page upload by "truckloads"as they say. The code is existing code, not particularly written for inside the Mozilla browser, I adopted three parts of this code as I found it, made my personal adaptation and compilation, tested the result security-wise, uploaded it to virustotal with full negatve results. After I had these favourite reactions of others I published the download link here. If it is generally accepted it is a leap forward, because everybody that is truely honest admits that FF or Flock browsers are known not to be "top horses" in these realms as compared to other browsers.
The workings of it as I grasp it is that the browser keeps the elements selected occupied too long to make it any faster when it gets more intricate or the browser gets older, the SelectableElementsTable JavaScript file does what it says it must do: making a selection on the elements table. You can almost instantly feel the results...
If you have a contrary experience, report that back to me, but I will doubt that.
polonus
-
save the following file as SelectableElementsTable.js inside the components folder of your browser.
I use FF Linux, it doesn't have "components folder" ???
-
Hi FastGame,
Then you have to download it in the folder where you have GetElementsById installed, you could also add GetElementsByClassname in that same folder. Put it in that particular folder, and it will work for you as well. Please report back to me how SelectableElementsTable.js works out for you.
polonus
-
I don't have "GetElementsById" anywhere, I have one named "prefs.js" and "sessionstore.js" so I put SelectableElementsTable.js in that folder..... :D. You saying I should make a blank file named "GetElementsByClassname" ?
-
I have copied it into my components folder now so we will see how it gets on and I will let you know.
It obviously won't be a scientific test with stop watch, etc. just a gut feeling.
Interestingly what FastGame mention about his not having a components folder (and now no GetElementsById file), you said to put it in the same folder with GetElementsById, guess what, I don't have GetElementsById in my components folder or any other folder for that matter ?
-
Hi FastGame,
That was not in Mozilla browsers either, later I put it on the Mozilla forum, and they made it available.
You can find it here: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=17043.msg216173#msg216173
Damian
-
Ok everything seems faster even with cache cleared, I need to do more testing and make sure I'm not suffering placebo effect :D
Will report back later..... 8)
[edit] maybe revise instructions to download both "SelectableElementsTable.js" and "GetElementsById" and install them in FF components folder. In Linux I installed them in /home/fastgame/.mozilla/firefox/6ys79xw6.default.
-
OK so now I have SelectableElementsTable.js and getElementsByClassName.js but not GetElementsById, is that essential to what we are trying to achieve here, e.g. speed up page loading ?
I only find the getElementsByClassName.js code (saved to file name given) at the link you gave, OK copied the code on the nwbox site for getElementsById.js
So lets see how we get on.
-
I don't have a GetElementsbyId in the component folder. should i still put the SelectableElementsTable in.
-
Hi JJ,
No problem. Tell me what it does to speed up the browser.
pol
-
Damien,
Is this code loaded with "Grease Lightning" ?
Even a dummy like me can notice an immediate difference. :)
Thanks
-
This is getting confusing, SelectableElementsTable.js, getElementsByClassName.js, getElementsById.js....what exactly are we to have in our folder ?
All three ?
-
Hi FastGame,
It would not hurt you if you had all three there. But SelectableElementsTable.js is making the difference.
And Bob3160, thank you for confirming, what was obvious to me before I shared it with others.
polonus
-
Hi FastGame,
It would not hurt you if you had all three there. But SelectableElementsTable.js is making the difference.
And Bob3160, thank you for confirming, what was obvious to me before I shared it with others.
polonus
Thanks polonus
Just wanted to know if things will break without all three files. If I only have SelectableElementsTable.js in the folder I notice a speed increase. If I have all the files in the folder then I don't think I notice much difference.
-
Hi FastGame,
Why the small piece of code a.k.a. GetElementsByClassname. It was brought into Mozilla browsers quite recently, and helps you especially for those web developer's creations with IE7 in mind, because that is the way that type browser handles it, where FF or Flock used GetElementsById mainly. I started to get interested in the workings of the Flock browser code and web browser security, after becoming one of the earlier adopters of the Flock browser. Like to analyze what comes along on the Burning Edge, new developments for FF 3.0 that are in the pipeline, and sometimes I come up with some personal contributions, but they are not always that successful as this one. It took me by surprise actually, so that was why I shared it with my friends here. I learned so much being active on this forum, you would not believe,
greets,
Damian aka polonus
-
Ok polonus I put all 3 files in folder, it truly does seem to work rather well. I'm on dialup so of coarse the images won't load faster but everything else is fast and I like fast.....I'm redlining ;D
I'm off to tell the world and help make you more famous 8)
Thanks !
-
Hi FastGame,
If you interested in the FF Linux version:
http://www.seehowitruns.org/pages/viewdetails.php?choice=497
There you can see what it supports, and what is it's hierarchy outlay.
getElementById property
Object document
Description Method enabling any page element to be referenced by its 'id' attribute value
Example code document.getElementById("message").style.color="red";
Compatibility W3C-friendly browsers
The code is now posted at the Mozilla forum as well:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2938671#2938671
polonus
-
Thanks for sharing this Polonus ;) im impressed with how it works and congratulate you for your efforts.
will this need to be reloaded when FF gets updated ?
Also how does running ABP and scipt block affect it , as I run both at the moment im wondering if a different configuration might work better ?
-
Hi Clouseau,
As I have posted the code also in a Mozilla forum, I hope that it will be adopted soon as people find it helpful. Else you have to put it there again after a new version has installed.
Well do not worry, because I have tested it out with ABP + various lists, and with NoScript enabled, Stealther on (accepting no cookies), Locationbar 2 (without flavicon). So all the visors were down, as I spotted the workings of this particular script, and then I hurried to publish it. From my experiences with analyzing Mem leaks, and how GetElementsByTagName and GetElementsById and GetElementsByClassName could slow the page load, I creatively sought the solution we have at hand here, and it was a lucky strike as many now attest.
So help me spread this code where you are, and greet the Black Swans from me...
your co-malware fighting friend,
polonus
-
I don't think thee would be a problem on an update as I believe the contents of the component folder would remain or would be overwritten. Since these are non standard they should remain, it would only be a problem if you uninstalled, rebooted and then reinstalled, so it would be worth keeping a copy in your backup folder, etc.
-
Hi Clousseau and DavidR,
They noticed it already: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=560802
But keep a back-up copy of the code.
I have brought it in as a solution to a bug, that was advised to get it into the official browser code, if they approve of it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14869#c13
polonus
-
Hi polonus, just happened to spot this now, browsing the forum, so downloaded it, closed Firefox (2.0.0.4) re-opened, I reckon the pages are loading in less than half the usual time. Especially noticeable with large webpages. Thanks a heap!
-
I don't have GetElementsById in my components folder or any other folder for that matter ?
Me neither...
I'm testing the speed but it's being inconclusive... maybe I'm just familiarized with the *new* one...
OK so now I have SelectableElementsTable.js
Me too.
getElementsByClassName.js
Don't have this one ???
I put all 3 files in folder
Where did you get them? Should I put them, polonus, or let as I'm now, with only one?
-
Hello Tech,
The GetElementsById or GetElementsByTagName or GetElementsByClassName do not alter pageload, the latter just renders pages better that were created with other browsers in mind The considerable gain only come upon installing SelectableElementsTable.js in the components folder of the Firefox or Flock browser.
Also on Mozilla general Firefox forum I got affirmations of speed gains. A lot of people for which this aspect is important like in Australia and New-Zealand because of their broadband infrastructure problems are very enthusiastic. I went and posted it as a new bug together with the solution, and now I wait for the reaction of the Firefox developers, it was posted as bug 385641.
polonus
-
I have to admit to some confusion here, primarily because I'm not seeing any major (noticeable) differences in page loading (on dial-up). Perhaps the dial-up is a bottleneck to improved page loading or if it is the combination of some layout .js killing any page load improvements of the SelectableElementsTable.js ?
From my experiences with analyzing Mem leaks, and how GetElementsByTagName and GetElementsById and GetElementsByClassName could slow the page load, I creatively sought the solution we have at hand here, and it was a lucky strike as many now attest.
I don't know if it is advisable to have all 3 or 4 .js files, GetElementsById or GetElementsByTagName (I don't have this one) or GetElementsByClassName and SelectableElementsTable.js in the component folder because of what you said about page slowing ?
So I'm going to remove the GetElementsById.js, GetElementsByClassName.js leaving only the SelectableElementsTable.js file and see if there is any difference.
-
Hi DavidR,
I do not know how it does with/through the old "copper" there at your place, but I get a lot of encouraging reports from "down under". The bug has now officially been taken, and it is now for the developers at Firefox to work further on it, or declare it fixed. Also various people at madamemmastent and the general firefox Mozilla forum, including the admin there were very supportive, and also affirmations from the States of speed gains...
polonus
-
I agree DavidR, I think its actually slower with all three files. But this type of thing is hard to test with any consistency....
I'm on dialup and with just "SelectableElementsTable.js " installed and I can honestly say that some sites I visit daily are noticeably faster. On sites you don't visit often or for first time there's no way of telling if its fast or not......
Any way you look at it dialup suks :(
IMO there's still something unclear, in all threads there's mention of the other two files (one or the other). Is SelectableElementsTable.js a standalone, a bug fix for one of the other files ?
-
Hi FastGame,
The thing that is reported to work is SelectableTableElements.js. But there was an American on Mozilla forum that put the javascript file on his desktop, and he could not understand why it did not work that way, his FF was not faster.
polonus
-
American on Mozilla forum that put the javascript file on his desktop, and he could not understand why it did not work that way, his FF was not faster.
:D :D :D :D :D
Well this American looked in his FF folder for a place to put his "standalone" :P
-
I've had the file in the component folder for 1 day. I'm not sure if there has been an improvement, however my browser was fast without it therefore it is hard to tell. i think there has been a slight improvement though.
-
>:(I have FIREFOX 2.0.0.4, CYBERHAWK, PREVX. I followed the instructions but found my browser going a bit slower (downloading the firefox google page took twice as much time...) so I deleted the file from my component folder. I use the freeware FINETUNE for firefox.
-
By the way I use an internet speed connection of about 639 Kpbs which is intermediary internet. I think that cyberhawk and Prevx are slowing my surfing on the web.
-
Hi gdliloren,
Could well be, browsers are complex beasts. The code now has been tried by 71 users that downloaded and adopted my code, but it now is available elsewhere as well. Your actual webpage load is also depending on various other factors. The SelectionableElementsTable has to do with selecting elements.
I do not know what GetElements type of file is active inside your browser. It is particular for particular web pages that render better and faster, it does not do much for your Internet speed as such I am afraid. But some report 50% improvement in browser speed. We just have to wait and see, and how the Mozilla developers are gonna respond. Maybe it works better in combination with Locationbar2 that I have installed. I spotted the improvement at once, then came out with the code. If we do not do these things we never get anywhere. Thanks for your evaluated report, stay secure...
malware fighter,
polonus
-
Maybe it works better in combination with Locationbar2 that I have installed.
What does it do?
-
Hi Tech,
Locationbar2, read here: http://en.design-noir.de/mozilla/locationbar2/
It helps against re-directs, and is an improvement over the common default url bar. The favicons are rendered in tabs, and not in locationbar2 because of a security risk in chrome, but if you favicons is your hang up you can override that. I found it also speeds up page rendering. If you like to try it get it at the Mozilla add-on page, because that has https, it is not advisable to download add-ons and extensions from third parties. There are two extensions that are better then the ones that come standard with FF or Flock that is this one Locationbar2, and Console2 a better version of the Error Console, the developer of JSView on his forum said it was coded very strictly and sharply and had some functions that make it an excellent add-on for FF or Flock, and I consider Ron an expert in this respect. Why this was not brought into the Mozilla browsers by default is beyond me. The browser you download as default is not the optimal browser you like to have, that is why I do so much postings about making Mozilla browsers better and more secure.
polonus
-
Thanks Polonus, now I remember that we have tried this before while studying redirection.
I don't want another bar, I think I can live with my 'bloated' firefox as it is now.
But thanks again.
-
Hi Tech,
You got me totally wrong here, you will NOT get another bar, not an extra one, just a better url bar where your web addresses normally appear. There is no extras, just an extension, and a better more secure rendering of URL addresses. It just changes something what is in your browser now for something much more secure. Why you thought about an added bar? The only bar I have in my Mozilla browser is the Netcraft toolbar, because of a lack of a decent anti-phishing solution, and I do not want to wait for FF 3.0 to bring that in. Capito?
polonus
-
Thanks Polonus. I'll give a try on Locationbar 8)
If anybody else wants... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4014
-
Alas I just use IE7 now, with the occasional foray on Safari . In fact I don't think I have used it since I had problems with the initial 2.0
-
The download link for my javascript file is here:
http://www.4shared.com/file/18447141/4fd08f46/SelectableElementsTable.html
Instructions, endorsement and an alternate download site are available from here:
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/firefoxspeedup/FirefoxSpeedup.html (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/firefoxspeedup/FirefoxSpeedup.html)
-
Hi bob3160,
Thanks for the mirror-link with the additional instructions.
And I hope all that download will benefit from it.
polonus
-
And I hope all that download will benefit from it.
I already have. My FF is faster and more responsive. :)
-
Hi Bob,
I know you're a respected old Avast Forum member but upon clicking to your link I get a red alert for phishing site from NETCRAFT FF extension. What to think? :(
-
I think that is a failing of the netcraft ff extension. The problem is that the file is on Bob's computer and the no-ip.org acts as a go between so that it redirects the request to Bob's server/shared files.
Under normal circumstances you would have to have a fixed IP address to be able to have a server set-up for normal internet traffic, the no-ip.ogr gives that fixed IP stability and the sub domain mysharedfiles handles the connect to Bobs computer.
At least that is my limited understanding of what is going on, so that may be confusing the anti-phishing extension.
-
Hi gdiloren,
David is correct. no-ip.org allows me to use the same website name regardless of the actual IP address.
When my IP changes, I simply apply the change at my account at no-ip.org but keep the same address.
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ is the same as http://67.164.152.193:4445/
However, if my routing# changes, then the latter would no longer work.
Both McAfee SiteAdvisor and finjan consider http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ SAFE
Hope that clears things up. :)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/bob3160/ShellFTP/MSF.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/bob3160/ShellFTP/MSF-finjan.png)
-
sure does...the netcraft toolbar gives you a risk rating of a 7(installed just to see)but i know it's safe and so does finjan and siteadvisor and WOT https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456 gives your site Bob a green(OK)must be a what's that famous saying FALSE POSITIVE ::) 8) are as davidr metioned above being the problem ;)
-
I've just written to Netcraft and will post their reply once it's received.
Till then you'll just have to take my word for the fact that it's a false positive on their part.
-
Till then you'll just have to take my word for the fact that it's a false positive on their part.
already figured that or knew that bob ;D
-
I have dial up in USA. This tweak makes a noticeable difference in my page loading, especially on sites that are cached.
-
Well so far I haven't noticed an appreciable difference having removed the GetElementsById.js, GetElementsByClassName.js leaving only the SelectableElementsTable.js file.
Whilst there are times when I 'think' it might be quicker, there are other times when I can get the same slow page load. Which appears to indicate normal browsing for me on dial-up prior to this change.
As I said previously this isn't a scientific test, no stopwatch, purging cache, same pages and sites, etc. just my gut feeling, but it isn't telling me that this is 'noticeable' faster. I don't know if this is because of the fact that I also use the FasterFox extension and I have Pipelining enabled, increased Max connections, so that may leave little in the way of perceived improvement.
I will leave the SelectableElementsTable.js in situ as there is also no perceived reduction in page load.
-
8)Sorry, but I'm sceptic! I don't like it. Putting a file I don't know from a PC I don't know in my main browser folder with all the risks for Trojans and privacy upon a real "candy" (getting an already fast browser getting faster) is pure non-sense. Why not wait Mozilla? After all anybody can register to the Avast forum, even crooks, not to insult anybody. Everything is so confused, we are talking of three files in the component folder, then two are to be removed (they are non-existent in my component folder), then only one should or could be. Still, I'm getting good tips from surfing on the Avast forum about FINJAN, SUPERANTISPYWARE, SPYWARETERMINATOR, which I consider good tips for my security. But downloading files in my browser structure (SSL, internet banking) is too much a trust I can give for now.
Thanks :)
-
Well if you go back to the start of the thread you will see it is offered by one of the senior forum members and you can be assured it would be fully checked out first if you have an idea of polonus. It is also on the Mozilla forum, http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2938671#2938671 (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2938671#2938671), if there was anything malicious, iffy, etc. you can bet it would have been ferreted out.
You don't have to download it, your system your choice, so I suggest you check out the facts before implying someone would do this maliciously without checking out their history. The fact that you don't name names is immaterial as it is only one person offering the file at the start of the topic.
Anyone might well be able to register but they are hardly about to wait for 3790+ posts to try it on.
-
Sorry, but I'm sceptic!
That is your right. It's your computer and your choice.
Putting a file I don't know from a PC I don't know in my main browser folder with all the risks for Trojans and privacy upon a real "candy" (getting an already fast browser getting faster) is pure non-sense.
The first 2 parts of this statement are again up to you. You aren't being forced to do anything.
Calling it pure nonsense without trying it, is being totally unfair and judgmental.
polonus has almost 4000 post and twice that many. If we had an ulterior motive, we either wouldn't be
on this forum any more or, as David said, we would have shown our other (darker) side long before this.
Remember, the final choice is still yours. :)
-
8)Sorry, but I'm sceptic! I don't like it. Putting a file I don't know from a PC I don't know in my main browser folder with all the risks for Trojans and privacy upon a real "candy" (getting an already fast browser getting faster) is pure non-sense. Why not wait Mozilla? After all anybody can register to the Avast forum, even crooks, not to insult anybody. Everything is so confused, we are talking of three files in the component folder, then two are to be removed (they are non-existent in my component folder), then only one should or could be. Still, I'm getting good tips from surfing on the Avast forum about FINJAN, SUPERANTISPYWARE, SPYWARETERMINATOR, which I consider good tips for my security. But downloading files in my browser structure (SSL, internet banking) is too much a trust I can give for now.
Thanks :)
When you have used or observed this forum a bit longer,I think you will realise,your comments to be naive and unecessary. :o There are lots of clever people, who go out of their way, to help others,on this forum.Polonus being one of the best known.I hope he is not too offended,by your innuendoes
-
Hi DavidR,
The only reason I did not put the code out here as code is because of its length.
I updated the code to virustotal, I tested the code on various debuggers,
it is out on https on the Mozilla bugsite, and they would tolerate anything dubious,
would they?
I would advise those that download this from the sites that it was made available from,
mine and bob3160 for instance, to scan it online before downloading.
I did leave the check hashes in the posting so everyone can check-up they got the code as I uploaded it there.
Not every piece of code that you can get from the Internet has these to checks,
so you know absolutely 100% that later you have downloaded the real thing.
Here are the results from DrWeb's online check:
File size: 20500 bytes
SelectableElementsTable.html - archive HTML
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.0 - OK
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.1 - OK
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.2 - OK
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.3 - OK
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.4 - OK
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.5 - OK
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.6 - OK
>SelectableElementsTable.html/Script.7 - OK
SelectableElementsTable.html - OK
Being paranoid like polonus is OK, trust no one, but sometimes you can overreact.
If this posting was not 'kosher', it would have been my last posting here, no one would accept
or trust my postings in the future. So why do that?
And I feel real sad, when someone is accusing me without a reason.
polonus
-
just like tech helped me out on another thread-i valued all your opinions on this forum and i know you guys would NOT post something or do something that is not right or not tested or unsound or not good for our computer...my dollars worth(http://i10.tinypic.com/6430pxd.gif) note..that is not me 8)
Being paranoid like polonus is OK, trust no one, but sometimes you can overreact.
If this posting was not 'kosher', it would have been my last posting here, no one would accept
or trust my postings in the future. So why do that?
And I feel real sad, when someone is accusing me without a reason.
-
Just one more item on Netcraft's erroneous information and then I'll shut my mouth
till I receive their actual reply.
Click the pic. to enlarge
-
Hello forum members,
The best reply for me, is this link:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385641
Do you see next to CC? Would they be interested in dubious code?
And as far as bob3160 is concerned here, he has helped me out on various occasions once enabling me to install USB 2.0 on an old Win98 platform, etc. He shares his files for ages now, and he is a responsible chap, I'll eat my hat if he is not. He was the first out here to make me resize my avatar, do you remember Bob? I had that dancing monkey, then?
There was a test report from greenknight: "Don't jump to conclusions, this should be tested objectively. I just did a small test; I went to a site with that file in place and timed how long it took to load, returned to my home page, closed Firefox, and ran CCleaner to clear the cache, cookies, etc. Then I disabled the file by renaming it .txt, and did it again.
I repeated this, alternately with the file enabled and disabled, until I had loaded the page five times each way. When I was done, it averaged out exactly the same either way!
There was one noticeable difference - there was more variation when the test file was enabled than when it wasn't. With the file, it took from 4-16 seconds - without it, 7-9 seconds. But the average was 8.4 seconds, either way.
This doesn't really prove anything; it would take many more tests, with different pages varying in content. But it demonstrates that there is so much variability in page loading speed that it's very hard to judge based on your impression of loading time - it could be just a coincidence that it's faster or slower at any given time.
That this test came out exactly even is wildly coincidental, considering how much the results varied. Like I said, this test isn't big enough to prove anything - except that it's a difficult thing to test."
polonus
-
After perceiving a definite difference on my own computer after downloading SelectableElementsTable.js, I also tried it on my mother's (even slower) computer, on a slow dial-up connection. My unscientific test on that computer, which seemed to benefit considerably, consisted of observing the amount of clean laundry I could fold as each page loaded. Before SelectableElementsTable.js, each page took from 4 to 15 items, usually 6 to 10 (shirts, jeans, etc.--this is what I normally do while using my mother's computer, so I know this represents a wide variety of pages and connection speeds ::) ). After SelectableElementsTable.js, each page took from 2 to 8 items, usually 4 to 6. I would have done more testing "after," but I ran out of clean laundry to fold.
Both computers have NoScript, AdBlock Plus, and McAfee SiteAdvisor; also FlashBlock (for a few necessary sites that do not function correctly if scripting is not allowed). They do not have GetElementsBy*. They also did not have Locationbar2. I'm not sure how I missed that one.
Having read many posts before I decided to try avast, and many more since, I believe I might as well unplug my computer if I can't trust Polonus and bob3160, among others who have all been very helpful to me and very generous with their time and knowledge. But I scanned the file anyway, because I have learned that being a bit paranoid is good. (Thank you again, Polonus, for that too.)
Terry
-
I value polonus and Bob tips and I don't want to distrust them. The header first interested me yesterday because FF was recently being slower and there was a delay. I don't know if it's linked but I found 3 Trojan downloaders in my System Restore Volume with Dr. Web Cure it thorough scanning, and that's after downloading the file. Last time I scanned was a month ago. False positive? I don't know. It was cleaned, Avast didn't detect it, and I erased my System restore. I worked all day on this issue and discovered that taking out the Crawler and Yahoo toolbar was the solution. My browsers IE and FF are a truckload faster. To me, it's a thousandfold better than having to download a file you don't know (even Avast can fail to detect it...!) from even say the Pope! I would say no thanks! Too risky! It's not paranoia! It's common sense. Now, the file may be safe and the forum users can do what they want. My advice is try all other avenues, work that around, FF is build originally to go fast. Don't be a doctor if you're not and as an Avast user avoid or don't even think to try downloading a script in your folder browser even if they say it's safe to avoid trouble. Avoid toolbars especially. Then you're on your own, of course ;D
-
gdiloren,
I'm usually a very calm person except when someone attacks my integrity.
You've been a member of this forum for a little over a month and are trying
through innuendos and half truth's imply that either polonus or I or both of us
have infected your computer. >:(
Please present your proof. If you have none, then kindly retract your accusations.
Thanks
-
No, no. I was surprised to get infected but haven't used DrWebCureIt tool since a month or so since I already have Avast web Shield. But as you may already know Avast detects only known viruses and DrWeb I think (I have no proofs, only guesses...) false positives. Anyway, better getting paranoid than infected. Today, I learnt TOOLBARS were like parasites (energy eaters) and that pratically explained why my browsers were so slow. Now, I've surfed on the Mozillazine forum and on this forum and found that half the users that installed the SELECTEDELEMENT.js file in their component folder are like me and had little or no effect on their speed and had to remove it. I think the speed problem is linked to the frivolous extensions and toolbars we add to our browsers. I don't want to reply anymore having expressed myself enough and I ask you to excuse me if I'm not 100% on this procedure but we are un democracy and this is my view.
Thanks
-
Hi gdilorem,
As the verdict fell, the bug is UNRESOLVED. The code is not endorsed for this purpose, it is harmless.
The experimental code has been claimed as redone from some other source. So we point to that resource for further evaluation. Apparently you do not need it inside the browser.
polonus
-
Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but this does not work.
Mozilla has just rejected the patch, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385641#c11 . There is no way in hell this would speed up anything. It seems to be a bunch of copy-paste code from god knows where (including pieces that were copyright by Erik Arvidsson), some times are even pasted multiple times, but it doesn't do anything. Sorry Polonus, but you didn't even gave an explanation of what it was supposed to do. Are you the author ?
It's completely harmless though. "Snake oil", just like you said yourself.
-
oh, by the way,
>The best reply for me, is this link:
>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385641
>Do you see next to CC? Would they be interested in dubious code?
This has no value whatsoever. Polonus posted the bug-report himself, the existence of it is no merit. If people CC themselves to the bug, it's because they're interested in the discussion, not a proof that it's reliable.
Hell, my name is even mentioned in real malware reports on bugzilla.mozilla.org.
-
sorry to prick your bubble bluesy but it works for me.
I cant(be bothered to) give specific comparisons or irrefutable evidence but for what its worth, my pages have loaded considerably faster since adding this enhancement .
Go figure?
-
Hi Clousseau,
That is what you get for all your efforts, one says it cannot work, the other says there are flards of existing code re-tinkered, the other one says it is viral (not proven, alas). It is a lesson learned the hard way, you don't get a pat on the back not even for trying. Sad times really, as you come to think of it.
polonus
-
Polonus, I contribute for mozilla, but I'm not not an official developer. Nor do I speak in their name. But I know my way around the mozilla code, but I can't see how this code would benefit Firefox at all. It's not even correct JavaScript (contains pieces of code for ColdFusion). I tried it when I first saw it on mozillazine (before you filed the bug), but it didn't do anything for me.
If you are the author, can you give at least an explanation of why you think it should work ? An explanation of "it works for many people" isn't good enough, sorry.
If people are happy to stuff in their components directory, and if they're happy with it, then they can do that. But that's not enough to include it in the distribution.
-
Hi bluezy,
I experimented a lot on my personal code for the Flock browser, everyone here around knows I was one of the first adopters when Flock came available. I posted on their security forum. When getting a lot of particular errors with the memory leak tool, I analyzed these, and went to koders as my source for code snippets and searched for x-javascipt to make the loading iof the page more variable, then I ran the code through online lint, script debuggers for security, bint scanned it, and put the code on a small webforum to give it a try. I had noticed myself that with it in the browser somehow loaded pages quicker, then I got various enthousiastic reactions from other users. Then I knew I had an old account at mozilla webforum, some reported advanced webpage loads, later some did not or called it fake, the admin there advised me to frame it as a bug to draw attention. Well I let it hang in the balance and asked just to report effects back to me. That is all. The only thing I did was seeing to it that it was absolutely benevolent. To make sure I put the hash keys with it, so it could not be tampered with. I only reacted on the favourite reactions that came back to me, Gable said it did something in his trunk, the Big Man there says it cannot do anything and declared the workings to be imaginairy snakeoil. My idea behind this all is that when you have GetElementsById, GetElementsByTagName (originally for Mozilla type browsers) and GetElementsByClassName (originally for IE, but now brought in for Flock as well), Mozilla does not release everything quickly enough, that is the crux of the remaining problems. That was what I was aiming at to relieve.
Do you have any solutions in that direction, Bluezy.??? Lets think positively, we do it for the good of the browser. Letting all the security extensions and adblocking etc. out of the browser is just a pseudo-solution. If you are a Mozilla coder we need you here as well, we all were built up here from scrap, we learned everything in the live theater, we need all sorts of know-how.
polonus
-
Hi polonus,
As I explained in my PM to you, all of this is like a movie review.
You can either listen to the critics or, you can watch the movie
and then form your own opinion.
I've gone to the movies and watched SelectableElementsTable.js (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/firefoxspeedup/FirefoxSpeedup.html) in action.
For me, it's sped up page rendering/loading in Firefox and your code will therefore remain a part of my Firefox. :)
I will also continue offering this tweak on MySharedFiles (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/) :)
-
For the doubting Thomas about the safety of MySharedFiles (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/bob3160/MySharedFiles/th_LinkScanner.png) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/bob3160/MySharedFiles/LinkScanner.png)
(Click picture to enlarge)
To verify this on your own, simply go here:
http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/checksite.asp?NS=ChkOnly&SRC=apps.ExpLabs.com&CS=http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ (http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/checksite.asp?NS=ChkOnly&SRC=apps.ExpLabs.com&CS=http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/)
-
I've learned -
that it takes years to build up trust,
and only seconds to destroy it.
To see what else I've learned and what I value take a look at the following.
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/I_Have_Learned.html
(http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/I_Have_Learned.html)
I received this many years ago and find that re-reading it every once in a while is very very
good for the sole. :)
-
What surprises me Bob is for someone that is so sceptical about putting an unknown file on their system from an unknown source, that they went ahead and did it anyway.
-
Hi bob3160.
You were right to hang on to this bit of code, see read down there:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=561171
So in the code <cfset var tmpHolder = " "> should be
<cfset var tmpHolder=" "> according to the Florida tester.
polonus
-
hi Polonus,
I just discovered your posting of a tweak for Firefox. I realize this is nearly 2 years old.
I am wondering if it could be applied to Firefox 3.05 in order to speed it up.
I have an AOL dialup connection. Do you think it would help?
-
Hi greyowl,
Try it out and report to me, what it does. I had good reports from Aussies then and these also are/were mainly on dial-up connections, the code resides here: http://tentdwellers.org/index.php?topic=1393.msg10606#msg10606
Damian
-
Instructions, endorsement and an alternate download site are available from here:
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/firefoxspeedup/FirefoxSpeedup.html (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/firefoxspeedup/FirefoxSpeedup.html)
-
Hi bob3160,
Thanks for keeping it there in your archives, bob 3160, for the mutual trust, and for the rest, the code was found to be for inside IE and this code is now also officially supported in the Mozilla's browsers, so what was unknown then has proven itself over these two years,
polonus
-
Hi greyowl,
Try it out and report to me, what it does. I had good reports from Aussies then and these also are/were mainly on dial-up connections, the code resides here: http://tentdwellers.org/index.php?topic=1393.msg10606#msg10606
Damian
hi Damian,
I tried the script on my dial up connection with Firefox 3.05 on XPsp3 computer.
I used www.numion.com/stopwatch to test the time to open www.neowin.net
The results are 1:17 without the script, and 1:25 with the script (min:sec).
So it does not appear to help with my situation.
I have already done some prior tweaking from suggestions on other websites.
Thanks for your efforts,
greyowl
-
The latest version of firefox is 3.0.6 so you are behind in the updates.
-
David R.
Thanks for the heads up.
-
You're welcome.