learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
I literally just did a fresh install & it is still so slow. Google Chrome is way faster 
Whats with firefox?
- Thread starter learninmypc
- Start date
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
I found this "
To do so:
To do so:
- Enter about:config into Firefox's address bar and press Enter.
- Search for the browser.cache.use_new_backend flag and double-click on it.
- Change its value from 0 to 1 to enable the new cache. ...
- Close about:config and continue browsing—no need to restart or anything.
D
DelJo63
Indeed, FF input from the keyboard is terrible, every key stroke is massively delayed.
Using Chrome to the same site (aka TS) and this was post in a rational, normal way, so it's not a keylogger, but I'll scan the system to be sure...
Using Chrome to the same site (aka TS) and this was post in a rational, normal way, so it's not a keylogger, but I'll scan the system to be sure...
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
I do use Google chrome most of the time because of the ff slowness. I've run scans but come up clean. Totally confused, used to love ff.
D
DelJo63
Avast! Free found nothing
MalwareBytes found only PUP junk (no virus')
BTW: TS has it's own issues, aka clipping of the Signature line
MalwareBytes found only PUP junk (no virus')
BTW: TS has it's own issues, aka clipping of the Signature line
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
Thanks
D
DelJo63
Try running in Safe Mode; click Options-> '?' the help system -> restart safe mode
Performance is vastly improved, Conclusion:- it's an Add-on problem :sigh:
Performance is vastly improved, Conclusion:- it's an Add-on problem :sigh:
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
I know nothing about the FF hot fix & I just disabled avira but that is after the fact.
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
I couldn't find that exactly, but I did get it in safe mode but X'd out for a bit & it came back up in normal mode.
Perhaps I'm just used to Chrome too much? I apreciate your patience
batsdude
Posts: 52 +20
Search for the browser.cache.use_new_backend flag and double-click on it
It's there, just leave out 'flag'.
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
Will give it a shot in a bit, thanks
captaincranky
Posts: 19,688 +8,829
Couple of points. If you still have Flash installed, and it's running in the "protected mode", that will sometimes lock up the browser prematurely.
That "Video Download Helper" has become pretty much poop..
Try an extension called, "Download YouTube Videos as MP4". (Yes really, that's its name). It's much better. (IMHO, of course). It pretty much grabs everything without an argument.
I simply don't use "Ad Block Plus". IMHO, "NoScript" kills more cross site scripting threats than ABP, and just about as many ads. Especially with the people at ABP now selling white listing for ads.
That "Video Download Helper" has become pretty much poop..
Try an extension called, "Download YouTube Videos as MP4". (Yes really, that's its name). It's much better. (IMHO, of course). It pretty much grabs everything without an argument.
I simply don't use "Ad Block Plus". IMHO, "NoScript" kills more cross site scripting threats than ABP, and just about as many ads. Especially with the people at ABP now selling white listing for ads.
Last edited:
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
I have tried other downloaders but am sticking with the one I have, thank you.
If noscript is easier to configure , fine. I tried it years ago but was too confusing.
If noscript is easier to configure , fine. I tried it years ago but was too confusing.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,688 +8,829
Well, I've had "Video Download Helper" installed. The reason I removed it, is because it now require a paid extension which re-combines the audio & video streams. From where I'm sitting, that's a big "no thank you" to its publishers.
If a bit of intuitive guess work being required to figure out which scripts are required to allow a site to load, is too much for you, then I guess you should stick with ABP. If FF loads too slow for all the obviously very important browsing you need to do, then I suppose you should stick with Google Chrome as well.
Then, this thread will have the typical outcome of most of your pleas for help, whereupon you dismiss everyone's suggestion, and continue to do things exactly as you were before any responses you might receive.
This has probably made me sick, sore, and tired enough, to finally discourage me from even entering any of your future discussions. "You're welcome".
After all, "insanity" is described as, "doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different outcome"...
From where I sit, that would make both of us "crazy".
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
Perhaps I should of gone thru those past threads to announce whether they've been fixed or dumped & for that I'm human & sorry.Well, I've had "Video Download Helper" installed. The reason I removed it, is because it now require a paid extension which re-combines the audio & video streams. From where I'm sitting, that's a big "no thank you" to its publishers.
If a bit of intuitive guess work being required to figure out which scripts are required to allow a site to load, is too much for you, then I guess you should stick with ABP. If FF loads too slow for all the obviously very important browsing you need to do, then I suppose you should stick with Google Chrome as well.
Then, this thread will have the typical outcome of most of your pleas for help, whereupon you dismiss everyone's suggestion, and continue to do things exactly as you were before any responses you might receive.
This has probably made me sick, sore, and tired enough, to finally discourage me from even entering any of your future discussions. "You're welcome".
After all, "insanity" is described as, "doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different outcome"...
captaincranky
Posts: 19,688 +8,829
OK, Google has gone out of its way to make their browser fast, really fast. You pay the price for that, with perhaps more tracking items which can't be suppressed. I'm sort of the opinion that Google is also planting "super cookies", which can't be removed by normal methods such as CCleaner. (Which by the way has added, "monitoring" to its repertoire). In fact, it now installs itself a a "startup" entry. I yanked it, and still have older, passive version installers Which reminds me, I should put one of those in, if only to clean the browser cache, without loading a cmd terminal.
So, part of Chrome's speed is dependent on which scripts are loaded first. It's also alleged to be a memory hog. But from my experience, FF also uses more memory in Win 7, than it did/does in XP...
The "Flash suppression" methodology in FF can also cause issues, although I can't really say that's directly related to your complaint. However, on my web machine, using Flash in the "protected mode" generates some pretty bizarre symptoms
With those things said, I'm sort of upset with Google about how every minute update has become a "different version", and FF has been forced to go along with that. Under the old "update version terminology", you could tell how much work the browser (or any program) needed. Sic 1.01 (not much at all), 2.0 Whoa, now that is a major overhaul!.
At one point, someone wrote an add-on for FF to make it load as fast as Chrome. From what I gathered the script loading order was jumbled a bit, to match that of Chrome. But, the overall loading times of FF and Chrome are "supposed" to be very similar.
As far as configuring NoScript goes, IMHO, that's done very easily from the toolbar it adds to the browser Window.
It won't however, grant white listed permissions to anything other than the primary site while browsing in a private mode. In truth, you absolutely DO want it to forget many of the permissions you've granted, when you exit Firefox. It's another valuable safety feature.
I'd much rather take the extra time to re enter only permissions necessary to make a site work properly, even at sites which I visit frequently. You never know when someone might place a new malicious ad. In short, simply because a site was safe yesterday, doesn't guarantee it will be safe today.
But I suppose you kidz today are always in such a desperate hurry...
So, part of Chrome's speed is dependent on which scripts are loaded first. It's also alleged to be a memory hog. But from my experience, FF also uses more memory in Win 7, than it did/does in XP...
The "Flash suppression" methodology in FF can also cause issues, although I can't really say that's directly related to your complaint. However, on my web machine, using Flash in the "protected mode" generates some pretty bizarre symptoms
With those things said, I'm sort of upset with Google about how every minute update has become a "different version", and FF has been forced to go along with that. Under the old "update version terminology", you could tell how much work the browser (or any program) needed. Sic 1.01 (not much at all), 2.0 Whoa, now that is a major overhaul!.
At one point, someone wrote an add-on for FF to make it load as fast as Chrome. From what I gathered the script loading order was jumbled a bit, to match that of Chrome. But, the overall loading times of FF and Chrome are "supposed" to be very similar.
As far as configuring NoScript goes, IMHO, that's done very easily from the toolbar it adds to the browser Window.
It won't however, grant white listed permissions to anything other than the primary site while browsing in a private mode. In truth, you absolutely DO want it to forget many of the permissions you've granted, when you exit Firefox. It's another valuable safety feature.
I'd much rather take the extra time to re enter only permissions necessary to make a site work properly, even at sites which I visit frequently. You never know when someone might place a new malicious ad. In short, simply because a site was safe yesterday, doesn't guarantee it will be safe today.
But I suppose you kidz today are always in such a desperate hurry...
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
I'll re try no script to see if I can figure it out, thank you
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
NoScript is working, thank you
tomkaten
Posts: 304 +275
There is always the portable version of CCleaner. Scroll the main page all the way down, click on "builds" and get that one instead.
GirlDownunder
Posts: 126 +39
Runs zippy in Linux Mint, fyi.
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
Great, I don't have linix mint & know less about those OS's.
GirlDownunder
Posts: 126 +39
Was relaying that info so you know it's a Windows issue-- not Firefox, if it runs fine in another OS.
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
Ok, my apologies.
. As I launched FF this morning, it had been reset to factory excluding my bookmarks. I'm bout ready to dump it altogether or bytch to them in their forum.
D
DelJo63
I've been a loyal FF user for years, but suffered badly with the recent update.Ok, my apologies.
To regain performance, I have:
- disabled all add-ons
- edited my etc\hosts file
?huh? Hosts file? Yeah, that's been a tool of use for years also - - force 'bad domains' to look on 127.0.0.1 for data, which obviously is not present (ergo it defeats such things as ads.domnain.com).
Edit? The host file SHOULD accept lines beginning with # and empty lines (column 1 is crlf) as a comments - - but Windows DNS Client (the component that reads etc\hosts) goes nuts. So I stripped empty lines, saved and restarted DNS CLIENT and system performance has improved.
Just reporting my experience.
learninmypc
Posts: 9,679 +724
What happens if a hosts file gets incorrectly edited?
Similar threads
