Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Avastfan1 on October 06, 2009, 01:37:29 PM
-
Dear Forum,
How slow does your Firefox run and how much CPU and 'mem usage' does it take up?
Firefox 3.5.3 runs at around 209k mem usage on my task manager. It also runs very slowly.
A full boot-time scan with Avast, MBAM full scan and SAS scan show no malware or viruses. HJT log is also clean. Secunia also shows no unsecured applications. All Window$ updates have also been applied.
Does anyone have any suggestions or tips they have tried which could increase the speed?
Thanks in advance.
Avastfan1
I am running Firefox 3.5.3 on an IBM T43 with 1.86GHz and 1GB Ram. My setup is as follows:
- Window$ XP Pro SP3
- Avast Pro 4.8.1356
- ZoneAlarm Pro 9.0.114.000
- MBAM 1.41 (resident protection module enabled)
- NoScript 1.9.9.07
- Adblock Plus 1.1.1
- Dr. Web anti-virus link checker 1.0.20
- Finjan secure browsing 1.314
-
It was naturally heavy and some tweaks may lighten it up, only a little. As far as I could say, portable firefox would be the lightest version of it.
-
Hi L'Arc,
Thanks for your post. Do you mean that my setup or the latest version of Firefox is heavy?
Thanks,
Avastfan1
-
I use the Fx 3.5.3, and on the task manager it consumes memories about 158K. And to open this page on 64kbps connection's speed, only took time about 5 seconds :)
-
try speedyfox (http://www.crystalidea.com/speedyfox)
-
Mine is 89K with 3 tabs open, including this one^^
Maximum launch time: about 4 secs or something like that^^
Net speed: Ultra slow, slower than 56kbps...:(
-AnimeLover^^
-
Around 80-90 something k memory usage with 11 addons. Avastfan1 mentioned memory usage but memory usage of Firefox has been greatly improved since Firefox 3. I think somebody has already posted this but here (http://lifehacker.com/5352195/browser-speed-tests-chrome-40-and-opera-10-take-on-all-challengers) is a browser speed comparison tests by Lifehacker. Firefox seems to be not as good as Webkit based browsers, which also clears Acid3 test as well as Opera, in dealing with java scripts but other test results are pretty good. In my environment, the test result is very convincing and FF is performing well. Try SpeedyFox, which nmb recommended since it optimizes the database of Firefox. Also, it seems underpowered computers cannot handle FF 3.5.
-
cold start launch time is way too long with many extensions loading at the same time, but yeah new launches on a same session doesn't take more than 5 seconds, but that's still too much. I've been a Firefox freak for years now, and I'm slowly switching to Chrome, for both application start and browsing speed. Chrome's just amazing. I refused to use it for a while because of its current lack of extensions (there are some, but nothing worth yet), and I use many in FF, but the difference of speed when browsing is such that I use Chrome more and more now. Browsing the web with it is sometimes as fast as browsing files in Windows Explorer.
-
I second, Firefox is pretty hoggy for middle road PCs. Cold start in mine takes 3 minutes, not including the time it take to be fully responsive, with no lags. I'd say Google Chrome and Opera would be the best move if you want a browser as fast (or faster when referring to Chrome) as Firefox.
BTW, probably a little late, Google Chrome 4 is said to be a version that will support add-ons. I enjoy using one now.
-
I second, Firefox is pretty hoggy for middle road PCs. Cold start in mine takes 3 minutes, not including the time it take to be fully responsive, with no lags. I'd say Google Chrome and Opera would be the best move if you want a browser as fast (or faster when referring to Chrome) as Firefox.
BTW, probably a little late, Google Chrome 4 is said to be a version that will support add-ons. I enjoy using one now.
3 minutes ??? you must be going nuts :o yeah Chrome 4 (dev channel for now) supports add ons. I'm on it but as said there's not much to add for now ;D there was an adblocker (adsweep), it's been already discontinued and didn't work very well anyway.
-
I don't think that google will allow anyone to develop the ad blocker.
-
I don't think that google will allow anyone to develop the ad blocker.
it's already been done, and there will most likely be a new one. The first one was discontinued because the developer was asking for help and feedback and he didn't get any. I read before about this theory that Google making a living from ads, they wouldn't let such an extension run. They just can't prevent it. It's "mainly" OpenSource after all.
And here's a new one already (I'm not saying that it's good, I haven't tried it, and probably won't )
http://www.mark8t.com/2009/09/22/adblock-extension-for-google-chrome/
-
I think google will do that a bit later. now extensions are still in budding stage.
-
I use Sware Iron, which is based on Chrome, but it is not as stable as Firefox 3 and crashes a lot in my envrionment. In FF3's case, warm start is quite fast, which is good enough for me...even cold start is decent...no way near 3 minutes...I'm sorry to hear that.
I don't think that google will allow anyone to develop the ad blocker.
it's already been done, and there will most likely be a new one. The first one was discontinued because the developer was asking for help and feedback and he didn't get any. I read before about this theory that Google making a living from ads, they wouldn't let such an extension run. They just can't prevent it. It's "mainly" OpenSource after all.
And here's a new one already (I'm not saying that it's good, I haven't tried it, and probably won't )
http://www.mark8t.com/2009/09/22/adblock-extension-for-google-chrome/
True...I use adblock.ini with Sware Iron.
I think google will do that a bit later. now extensions are still in budding stage.
What we know is that Google still didn't do it. Google seems to have bigger plans with Chrome OS and Android.
-
How slow does your Firefox run and how much CPU and 'mem usage' does it take up?
Firefox 3.5.3 runs at around 209k mem usage on my task manager. It also runs very slowly.
Does anyone have any suggestions or tips they have tried which could increase the speed?
Hi, Avastfan1. I am running Firefox 3.5.3 on a 600 MHz PIII with 1GB RAM. Windows XP SP3. I use the default theme and have 59 extensions installed.
I started this instance of Firefox up about twelve hours ago, after booting my computer and waiting a few minutes for all the startup programs to finish. Right now, with six tabs open, Firefox is using 192MB of physical memory. Process Explorer also shows that it used a maximum of 248MB of memory at sometime since it was started. This is normal. Firefox doesn't have any problem utilizing my max Internet speed of 256kbps (slow but cheap DSL) or maxing out one of my dual cpus when necessary. (Which is quite often. Only a 600 MHz CPU after all.)
First start up after boot takes about a minute, but that's not a problem since I do it only once every day or so. Restarting it takes 24 seconds. Restarting Firefox without any extensions takes only six seconds. Normal browsing is slowed down a lot by my slow PC. It's slowed down a little more by some of my extensions, but that's an acceptable price for the additional functionality.
Since you have 1GB RAM, the memory usage you report should not be the cause of any slowdown you experience. Your poor performance may be caused by one or more of your extensions or by a conflict between them. Does your Firefox perform much better if you start it with "firefox.exe -safe-mode"? (Don't check any of the boxes in the popup which appears. Just click "Continue in Safe Mode".
Hope this helps. I recommend the following resources:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Safe_mode
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=38
-
59 extensions? :o ::)
-
OK, just try not to close browser for more what 24 hours, as my notebook is on almost 24/7. I have 3 tabs open now, 11 ad-ons installed and 131.780K memory usage ;D
-
I second, Firefox is pretty hoggy for middle road PCs. Cold start in mine takes 3 minutes, not including the time it take to be fully responsive, with no lags. I'd say Google Chrome and Opera would be the best move if you want a browser as fast (or faster when referring to Chrome) as Firefox.
BTW, probably a little late, Google Chrome 4 is said to be a version that will support add-ons. I enjoy using one now.
I have no idea of your specs or add-ons you have running, etc. but mine loads in around 10 seconds, from clicking the icon in my quick launch area.
I wait for windows to completely load which is about a minute so nothing else would be interfering with the firefox load. I have 29 add-ons, some default pages load right away, like the forums, but I don't include time it takes these to load being on dial-up that would skew and times. Once started it stays loaded until I shutdown my system for the night.
SpeedyFox as mentioned should help some by optimising the various files used to load firefox settings, etc. Note my load times have never been slow so don't expect this kind of increase just by running SpeedyFox once a month or so.
-
I use 9 add-ons.
guys davidr + alan baxter, why do you use so much of add-ons?? ??? :o
It takes around 2 seconds on my system to load up if i have turned on the system now. but if i close and start again, it loads in a wink of the eye.
-
I use 9 add-ons.
guys davidr + alan baxter, why do you use so much of add-ons?? ???
Each of them is carefully selected to add functionality that I actually use. I advise people not to use any more add-ons than they need. For some of my friends and family members that's zero. They seem to have zero problems too.
-
All of my add-ons help me in the way I work using firefox, many of them I use in relation to the forums also, speeding up how much I can do. Many are also security based so for absolutely essential, I have carefully selected my add-ons, no fripperies or bells and whistles style add-ons.
-
Hi DavidR,
The following extensions works now in SRWare's Iron also. That is nice, very nice: http://www.mark8t.com/2009/09/22/adblock-extension-for-google-chrome/
polonus
-
I was never enamoured with Chrome and not really concerned with any possible google privacy issues, so I never tried SRWare's Iron.
I'm still in the 'If it isn't broken don't fix it' camp and I'm comfortable with firefox, so virtually all my add-ons would have to work not just a handful.
That is why my trial with an early version of Chrome was so short, fast but without function, as I said never tried SRWare Iron, couldn't see the point when it was based on Chrome without the privacy issue...
-
Firefox 3.5.3 AdblockPlus,KeyScrambler.
59,404 K with four open tabs.
5-8 seconds to open with forced Sandboxie.
Something that is really surprising is how much overhead certain Themes can add
to memory use.
For years,because of failing eyesight,I used "Aeon Big".
I was shocked how much memory I was able to save just by using the
default theme,and increasing the icon size.
-
Dear Forum,
Thank you all for the responses. They are all very much appreciated.
Best regards,
Avastfan1
-
Dear Forum,
Thank you all for the responses. They are all very much appreciated.
Best regards,
Avastfan1
Avastfan1, it's nice of you to post comments like this but it may help the others with the same issue if you post how your issues turned out.
I was never enamoured with Chrome and not really concerned with any possible google privacy issues, so I never tried SRWare's Iron.
I'm still in the 'If it isn't broken don't fix it' camp and I'm comfortable with firefox, so virtually all my add-ons would have to work not just a handful.
That is why my trial with an early version of Chrome was so short, fast but without function, as I said never tried SRWare Iron, couldn't see the point when it was based on Chrome without the privacy issue...
In 1984, the organization which gathers information through a device set in each home was a totalitarian government. Nowadays, it's a private company which is rapidly increasing its power. Oddly, while I'm bit worried about relying on Google too much, I'm also interested in how things would turn out since Google is doing what nobody has done before.
Chrome or Iron, these are still no comparison to the abandance of the addons of Firefox. Combined with the stablity issue, I think there is time for them to become the defalut browser of my choice.
-
Hi Rumpel,
Thanks for the post and a very valid point indeed.
The startup speed for Firefox was never an issue for me. It takes around 7 seconds on my computer. I can live with that time. My main concern was the large amount of 'mem usage' Firefox was using. In addition, the random significant decrease in speed whilst browsing the web.
I downloaded and ran Speedyfox which slightly improved startup time. I also ran Firefox in safe mode which resulted in a significant drop in mem usage. It ran at around 30 to 40k. So I am unsure whether:
1. It is my extensions or themes which are causing this
2. If so, whether it is safe to surf in safe mode with extensions like NoScript disabled
These are my results so far. I am still thinking about what to do :-)
Hope this helps others and please keep the suggestions and comments coming in!
Best regards,
Avastfan1
-
Really,Avastfan1,try to check your memory use with the default theme.
No-Script is a very fine add-on,but I really prefer to use "toggle Java Script",
which is one of the "buttons" of the add-on "toolbar Buttons"
I know that Java Scripts are not the only thing No-Script" protects against,
and I know you can get the same functionality from Firefox by going to tools+options+Content+disable/enable Java Script,but to me this is much easier,and it is Java Script that allows most of the fake anti-Virus scans to Hi-Jack a browser session.
In the long run,since no two people use a machine the same way,it is down
to trail and error to find what works best/lightest/most secure for you.
best wishes,
normishmael
-
1. It is my extensions or themes which are causing this
2. If so, whether it is safe to surf in safe mode with extensions like NoScript disabled
No. Contrary to what the name "Safe Mode" may suggest, it is not guaranteed safe to browse with safe mode...it's simply for trouble-shooting. You can read the rest here (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Safe_mode).
Considering the result of your safe mode session and Speedyfox, how about try disabling all the themes and extensions and turning them on one by one, starting from security enhancement addons? If you don't have as many addons as DavidR or Alan Baxter, it won't take so much time.
In the long run,since no two people use a machine the same way,it is down
to trail and error to find what works best/lightest/most secure for you.
Agreed.
-
Thanks for the tip.
There was no noticeable difference after first starting with no extensions and then enabling them each individually.
I don't use any theme, only the default theme.
I did notice that the more tabs you have open, and the more things you do inside Firefox, the higher the memory usage.
In conclusion, we will have to wait for Firefox 3.6 (or later) and hope this is improved.
Avastfan1
PS: That's what I love about this board! The level of debate, the friendly advice and the collegial atmosphere! Keep up the sterling work lads!