http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/ ... ing-660482



Let's hope so

Why is every software developer harping on about start-up times? Firefox starts in a couple of seconds on my machine and it is something that is generally done once a day... Surely improving loading/rendering and JavaScript performance and memory footprint are more important than shaving fractions of a second off of a once a day task?

On all of my Windows PCs the first time start up (i.e. when I have just turned my PC on) takes around 30 seconds to a minute. That is the same at work and home and my dad' house.

It is also the reason that several people I know don't use Firefox.

TBH it's the reason I always end up firing up Chrome instead.

+1

I wish they'd quit with the start-up time penis-gazing.

It needs better plugins for OS integration and OS look-and-feel.

oh and, erm......

Stop the leaks!

Would not improving memory footprint also improve the start up time? It usually takes about 45 seconds to open, depending how many tabs there are. I guess it's about 2 seconds per tab on average.

I have to restart FF several times a day because of the memory leaks, and just this second because it crashed yet again.

The Java implementation often causes it to crash when you have multiple applications. IE never crashes out like that, partly because it runs a separate instance for each application. I use Java a lot. Half the portals I use every day depend on it, as does Logmein - which is what just killed it yet again.

I would use Chrome, but it lacks many of the features I've come to depend on. And it's fugly. At work, I use IE for everything Java and FF for everything else.

Time wasted today waiting for FF to load, or bitching about it? Probably a good five minutes.

On my machine Firefox takes around 5 seconds to launch. Chrome takes less than 1.

On my machine FF loads in 7-8 seconds. And my machine's out of the ark.

What are the rest of you doing?

It takes like 4 seconds to load on my Pentium D machine, and opens in about the same time on my dad's Athlon 64 pc. Which is fast enough for me and him.

I wish they'd just release a browser that just works though. I've been noticing FF slowing down and becoming more bloated with the newer releases, which is worrying considering that FF3.5 was supposed to be the fastest yet. :/

I like TheWorld browser. It's based on IE's Trident Engine, but is unbelieveably lightweight, has loads of features and is very quick. Pair this with Common Sense 2010 anti-virus and it's safe enough for everyday use.

As a by-product, yes, it would probably save a bit of time.


I think retiring the 386 would be a better start.

Just rebooted my laptop (running in eco mode on batteries - using about 35% normal clock speed, according to the process monitor), it took just under 5 seconds and that was with all the add-ins enabled.


With the 2.n and 3.0, there were some pretty bad memory leaks, which required me to restart Firefox once or twice a week. With 3.5, it is much better, I generally restart it when I restart the machine - although I tend to switch the machines off these days when I am not using them.


I haven't experienced a Firefox crash in the last 5 years... I use Citrix a lot and Gotomeeting.


I use Firefox for everything, but I'd given Chrome a try, if NoScript ran on it.


I haven't lost any time due to FF today... IE on an old Pentium machine on the other desk, yes! But I was running a virus check at the time.

It's only since 3.5 that I've experienced frequent crashes.

As I stated previously, it primarily happens when I have multiple Java applications running. One at a time, there isn't usually a problem. I often have half a dozen or more of them.

*checks* actually, Logmein isn't Java - it's a plugin. I know the other most problematic applications are though, and in either case I guess it's a little unfair to blame FF. It's just that they all run flawlessly on IE.

Opening ff with lots of tabs as a best guess.

Support for Windows 7's jump lists should be in the next version.

I'm using Winfox to get round it.

Surely starting any browser with lots of tabs will provide a slow start-up?

Also, surely the FF start time is measured separately from the tab render time?