I've got Firefox 3.0.1 installed on an 8-year old Windows 2000
computer with a 1.0 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. Sometimes when typing
into fields, I notice that Firefox is a little sluggish - there might
be a one second lag between when I type letters and when the letters
appear in the field. This doesn't happen all the time, but I have
noticed it frequently. It never happened with Firefox 2. I just
noticed it a couple times, and Firefox is the only program that I am
running.

Anyone else notice this on an old computer?

void.no.spam.com@gmail.com wrote:
> I've got Firefox 3.0.1 installed on an 8-year old Windows 2000
> computer with a 1.0 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. Sometimes when typing
> into fields, I notice that Firefox is a little sluggish - there might
> be a one second lag between when I type letters and when the letters
> appear in the field. This doesn't happen all the time, but I have
> noticed it frequently. It never happened with Firefox 2. I just
> noticed it a couple times, and Firefox is the only program that I am
> running.
>
> Anyone else notice this on an old computer?
Firefox may be the only application you are running, but a LOT of
processes work in the background (check your Task Manager 'processes'
display). It is likely that on the slow machine another running process
is stealing CPU cycles from your application.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Ron Hunter wrote:
> void.no.spam.com@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've got Firefox 3.0.1 installed on an 8-year old Windows 2000
>> computer with a 1.0 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. Sometimes when typing
>> into fields, I notice that Firefox is a little sluggish - there might
>> be a one second lag between when I type letters and when the letters
>> appear in the field. This doesn't happen all the time, but I have
>> noticed it frequently. It never happened with Firefox 2. I just
>> noticed it a couple times, and Firefox is the only program that I am
>> running.
>>
>> Anyone else notice this on an old computer?
> Firefox may be the only application you are running, but a LOT of
> processes work in the background (check your Task Manager 'processes'
> display). It is likely that on the slow machine another running process
> is stealing CPU cycles from your application.
>
>
But if the guy just recently switched to FF3 he should have had the same
background tasks running when working with FF2. Isn't simply the slower
FF3 a good demonstration of May’s Law: "Software efficiency halves every
18 months, compensating Moore’s Law". See also
http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~dave/benhpc.pdf.

Are there any evidence that FF3 is faster than FF2 on the same machine?
The following is quoted from the FF3 release notes:
"Improved Performance

* Speed: improvements to our JavaScript engine as well as
profile guided optimizations have resulted in continued improvements in
performance. Compared to Firefox 2, web applications like Google Mail
and Zoho Office run twice as fast in Firefox 3, and the popular
SunSpider test from Apple shows improvements over previous releases.
* Memory usage: Several new technologies work together to
reduce the amount of memory used by Firefox 3 over a web browsing
session. Memory cycles are broken and collected by an automated cycle
collector, a new memory allocator reduces fragmentation, hundreds of
leaks have been fixed, and caching strategies have been tuned.
* Reliability: A user's bookmarks, history, cookies, and
preferences are now stored in a transactionally secure database format
which will prevent data loss even if their system crashes."

This only gives performance improvements for Java scripts. What about
the overall FF3 performance, are there any objective measurements that
the overall performance is better than FF2? Other sources like
http://commetrics.com/?p=79 claims that in real usage there was no real
measurable difference between FF3B4 and FF2.0.0.12 for the SunSpider test.

Tried it myself on FF3: 4226.6ms and IE7: 35552.4ms!!!!


--
th

th wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> void.no.spam.com@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I've got Firefox 3.0.1 installed on an 8-year old Windows 2000
>>> computer with a 1.0 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. Sometimes when typing
>>> into fields, I notice that Firefox is a little sluggish - there might
>>> be a one second lag between when I type letters and when the letters
>>> appear in the field. This doesn't happen all the time, but I have
>>> noticed it frequently. It never happened with Firefox 2. I just
>>> noticed it a couple times, and Firefox is the only program that I am
>>> running.
>>>
>>> Anyone else notice this on an old computer?
>> Firefox may be the only application you are running, but a LOT of
>> processes work in the background (check your Task Manager 'processes'
>> display). It is likely that on the slow machine another running
>> process is stealing CPU cycles from your application.
>>
>>
> But if the guy just recently switched to FF3 he should have had the same
> background tasks running when working with FF2. Isn't simply the slower
> FF3 a good demonstration of May’s Law: "Software efficiency halves every
> 18 months, compensating Moore’s Law". See also
> http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~dave/benhpc.pdf.
>
> Are there any evidence that FF3 is faster than FF2 on the same machine?
> The following is quoted from the FF3 release notes:
> "Improved Performance
>
> * Speed: improvements to our JavaScript engine as well as
> profile guided optimizations have resulted in continued improvements in
> performance. Compared to Firefox 2, web applications like Google Mail
> and Zoho Office run twice as fast in Firefox 3, and the popular
> SunSpider test from Apple shows improvements over previous releases.
> * Memory usage: Several new technologies work together to reduce
> the amount of memory used by Firefox 3 over a web browsing session.
> Memory cycles are broken and collected by an automated cycle collector,
> a new memory allocator reduces fragmentation, hundreds of leaks have
> been fixed, and caching strategies have been tuned.
> * Reliability: A user's bookmarks, history, cookies, and
> preferences are now stored in a transactionally secure database format
> which will prevent data loss even if their system crashes."
>
> This only gives performance improvements for Java scripts. What about
> the overall FF3 performance, are there any objective measurements that
> the overall performance is better than FF2? Other sources like
> http://commetrics.com/?p=79 claims that in real usage there was no real
> measurable difference between FF3B4 and FF2.0.0.12 for the SunSpider test.
>
> Tried it myself on FF3: 4226.6ms and IE7: 35552.4ms!!!!
>
>
There were some 15,000 changes. Many of them were to streamline the
code, which should have improved the speed somewhat. Some things
Firefox does faster, some slower (as compared with IE). Even if it were
markedly slower, I would still prefer it as I really don't like the IE
user interface, and I don't trust IE to not do things I don't want it to
do. Altogether too many things happen without my approval.

void.no.spam.com@gmail.com wrote:
> I've got Firefox 3.0.1 installed on an 8-year old Windows 2000
> computer with a 1.0 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. Sometimes when typing
> into fields, I notice that Firefox is a little sluggish - there might
> be a one second lag between when I type letters and when the letters
> appear in the field. This doesn't happen all the time, but I have
> noticed it frequently. It never happened with Firefox 2. I just
> noticed it a couple times, and Firefox is the only program that I am
> running.
>
> Anyone else notice this on an old computer?
I'm running Firefox 3.01 on win2000 with 260MB of RAM and a 600mhz cpu.
It does take about 30 seconds to open up, but unless I have flash
running in the page I'm viewing, Firefox isn't slow.

On 22.07.2008 07:16, th wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> This only gives performance improvements for Java scripts. What about
> the overall FF3 performance, are there any objective measurements that
> the overall performance is better than FF2? Other sources like
> http://commetrics.com/?p=79 claims that in real usage there was no real
> measurable difference between FF3B4 and FF2.0.0.12 for the SunSpider test.
>
> Tried it myself on FF3: 4226.6ms and IE7: 35552.4ms!!!!

Something to be said "any system is only as fast as the slowest
component" and that slowest component is the computer itself.

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape/Flock Champion
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Flock - Firefox - Thunderbird - Seamonkey Support

Ron Hunter wrote:
> th wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> void.no.spam.com@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I've got Firefox 3.0.1 installed on an 8-year old Windows 2000
>>>> computer with a 1.0 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. Sometimes when typing
>>>> into fields, I notice that Firefox is a little sluggish - there might
>>>> be a one second lag between when I type letters and when the letters
>>>> appear in the field. This doesn't happen all the time, but I have
>>>> noticed it frequently. It never happened with Firefox 2. I just
>>>> noticed it a couple times, and Firefox is the only program that I am
>>>> running.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else notice this on an old computer?
>>> Firefox may be the only application you are running, but a LOT of
>>> processes work in the background (check your Task Manager 'processes'
>>> display). It is likely that on the slow machine another running
>>> process is stealing CPU cycles from your application.
>>>
>>>
>> But if the guy just recently switched to FF3 he should have had the
>> same background tasks running when working with FF2. Isn't simply the
>> slower FF3 a good demonstration of May’s Law: "Software efficiency
>> halves every 18 months, compensating Moore’s Law". See also
>> http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~dave/benhpc.pdf.
>>
>> Are there any evidence that FF3 is faster than FF2 on the same
>> machine? The following is quoted from the FF3 release notes:
>> "Improved Performance
>>
>> * Speed: improvements to our JavaScript engine as well as
>> profile guided optimizations have resulted in continued improvements
>> in performance. Compared to Firefox 2, web applications like Google
>> Mail and Zoho Office run twice as fast in Firefox 3, and the popular
>> SunSpider test from Apple shows improvements over previous releases.
>> * Memory usage: Several new technologies work together to
>> reduce the amount of memory used by Firefox 3 over a web browsing
>> session. Memory cycles are broken and collected by an automated cycle
>> collector, a new memory allocator reduces fragmentation, hundreds of
>> leaks have been fixed, and caching strategies have been tuned.
>> * Reliability: A user's bookmarks, history, cookies, and
>> preferences are now stored in a transactionally secure database format
>> which will prevent data loss even if their system crashes."
>>
>> This only gives performance improvements for Java scripts. What about
>> the overall FF3 performance, are there any objective measurements that
>> the overall performance is better than FF2? Other sources like
>> http://commetrics.com/?p=79 claims that in real usage there was no
>> real measurable difference between FF3B4 and FF2.0.0.12 for the
>> SunSpider test.
>>
>> Tried it myself on FF3: 4226.6ms and IE7: 35552.4ms!!!!
>>
>>
> There were some 15,000 changes. Many of them were to streamline the
> code, which should have improved the speed somewhat. Some things
> Firefox does faster, some slower (as compared with IE). Even if it were
> markedly slower, I would still prefer it as I really don't like the IE
> user interface, and I don't trust IE to not do things I don't want it to
> do. Altogether too many things happen without my approval.

Well, the question was not FF vs IE but FF3 vs FF2. I agree with you
that FF is probably the preferred choice for most normal users. Except
from the general statements that FF3 should have improved the speed, are
there any tests that shows that this is the case? Is performance testing
part of the overall development process?

In general developers should use at least one or two generations old
computers for the development and final testing in order to ensure that
the final product is sufficiently performant when it reaches the end
user, that hopefully has faster hardware than the developers.

--
th

th wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> th wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> void.no.spam.com@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I've got Firefox 3.0.1 installed on an 8-year old Windows 2000
>>>>> computer with a 1.0 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. Sometimes when typing
>>>>> into fields, I notice that Firefox is a little sluggish - there might
>>>>> be a one second lag between when I type letters and when the letters
>>>>> appear in the field. This doesn't happen all the time, but I have
>>>>> noticed it frequently. It never happened with Firefox 2. I just
>>>>> noticed it a couple times, and Firefox is the only program that I am
>>>>> running.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else notice this on an old computer?
>>>> Firefox may be the only application you are running, but a LOT of
>>>> processes work in the background (check your Task Manager
>>>> 'processes' display). It is likely that on the slow machine another
>>>> running process is stealing CPU cycles from your application.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But if the guy just recently switched to FF3 he should have had the
>>> same background tasks running when working with FF2. Isn't simply the
>>> slower FF3 a good demonstration of May’s Law: "Software efficiency
>>> halves every 18 months, compensating Moore’s Law". See also
>>> http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~dave/benhpc.pdf.
>>>
>>> Are there any evidence that FF3 is faster than FF2 on the same
>>> machine? The following is quoted from the FF3 release notes:
>>> "Improved Performance
>>>
>>> * Speed: improvements to our JavaScript engine as well as
>>> profile guided optimizations have resulted in continued improvements
>>> in performance. Compared to Firefox 2, web applications like Google
>>> Mail and Zoho Office run twice as fast in Firefox 3, and the popular
>>> SunSpider test from Apple shows improvements over previous releases.
>>> * Memory usage: Several new technologies work together to
>>> reduce the amount of memory used by Firefox 3 over a web browsing
>>> session. Memory cycles are broken and collected by an automated cycle
>>> collector, a new memory allocator reduces fragmentation, hundreds of
>>> leaks have been fixed, and caching strategies have been tuned.
>>> * Reliability: A user's bookmarks, history, cookies, and
>>> preferences are now stored in a transactionally secure database
>>> format which will prevent data loss even if their system crashes."
>>>
>>> This only gives performance improvements for Java scripts. What about
>>> the overall FF3 performance, are there any objective measurements
>>> that the overall performance is better than FF2? Other sources like
>>> http://commetrics.com/?p=79 claims that in real usage there was no
>>> real measurable difference between FF3B4 and FF2.0.0.12 for the
>>> SunSpider test.
>>>
>>> Tried it myself on FF3: 4226.6ms and IE7: 35552.4ms!!!!
>>>
>>>
>> There were some 15,000 changes. Many of them were to streamline the
>> code, which should have improved the speed somewhat. Some things
>> Firefox does faster, some slower (as compared with IE). Even if it
>> were markedly slower, I would still prefer it as I really don't like
>> the IE user interface, and I don't trust IE to not do things I don't
>> want it to do. Altogether too many things happen without my approval.
>
> Well, the question was not FF vs IE but FF3 vs FF2. I agree with you
> that FF is probably the preferred choice for most normal users. Except
> from the general statements that FF3 should have improved the speed, are
> there any tests that shows that this is the case? Is performance testing
> part of the overall development process?
>
> In general developers should use at least one or two generations old
> computers for the development and final testing in order to ensure that
> the final product is sufficiently performant when it reaches the end
> user, that hopefully has faster hardware than the developers.
>
That is why there are beta testers.