Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Why is Firefox running so slow?
I don't understand why is happening but why is Firefox running so slow? My computer isn't as advanced as the newest ones but it was able to use Firefox just fine until recently where it cannot even load even least Java heavy of sites. I think I need to add more memory but I am not sure but did anyone else have problems with Firefox? I don't use another browser as some of my favorite apps can only be used in Firefox.
Comments
Because Firefox sucks for your purposes.
As it does mine.
Which version of Firefox are you running?
Firefox has running speeds that are not "slow"?
Is it set to automatically update? Firefox updates seem to always make it require .25% more memory and that adds up.
I think I am running version 27.
I turned off the automatic updates hpwever I could see that it may be a bad thing.
Maybe you have something running in the background?
Do you have a lot of browser extensions running?
Did this correspond to a major change on any website you frequently visit, such as Youtube?
^^ & ^ Well I do I have some extensions on and I cannot see any of the flash videos in any of the sites.
Edit: I am running a previous version of Firefox and it is working well but I am trying to avoid updating it. I know it is dangerous but I am taking any chances. I don't want it to slow down on me.
Their last few versions have had some really nasty memory leaks.
As much as I'm more comfortable with Firefox than other browsers (for one, it's the only mainstream browser whose latest version allows vertical tabs, even if it requires a third-party extension), it always has been to memory as Pac-Man is to dots.
I could have sworn that it was only a few years ago that Firefox wasn't so slow...
Ooh...vertical tabs...that's something I haven't thought of before. And it seems like a great idea. Thanks!
Vertical tabs always made sense to me on a widescreen display, honestly.
(I've long found the trend toward widescreen displays irritating...we should have made movies taller so they fit 4:3 without letterboxing, not made everything else wider to match movies!)
I disagree completely, 16:9 is way more similar to the way we see things than 4:3.
Widescreen displays are probably better for things like games and movies, and worse for reading documents.
For documents, you preferably want a full page to be displayed at once. Widescreens only become useful at about 1600x900 and higher resolutions since then you can actuallly fit two pages side by side. Thing with text is that many people have multiple columns running down a page, and if you want to be able to skim text quickly, you want to be able to see lots of text (at reasonable size) and see entire columns without having to scroll.
Web pages are also built similarly -- they rarely use the entire span of widescreen width, even at 1366x768. So you basically get a bunch of wasted space on the left and right sides of the screen, when you use widescreen. Some websites fill this with advertising or background images, but it's still kinda wasted.
So yeah, being able to stick the tabs bar over on the right is very nice.
But yeah, so now, instead of getting Tree-Style Tabs, I got Vertical Tabs, which seems to work for me just fine. (And without restarting Firefox too!)
Though now I suddenly want to fill this big white space that is my new tab bar with something like a background image or something. Too bad I don't know jack about scripting...
Also better for reading comics, since they kind of require being able to see two entire pages side-by-side. Worse for playing games if they happen to be on the DS or are a vertical arcade shmup.
For websites, I think wider screens would be fine if we had more horizontal websites. Since we're probably going to end up with most displays being 2.35:1 in the not-so-distant future (only reason we currently use 16:9 is because we couldn't make wider CRTs, but now that everything is LCD/LED it doesn't really matter so we'll probably get 2.35:1 screens eventually to support movies better), I kind of hope we end up going in this direction since otherwise the web will be unreadable on PCs. I think the only thing really standing in the way of that right now is lack of horizontal scrolling support on most mice, so hopefully horizontal scrolling becomes standard sooner or later (though five-button mice are still not standard, so I don't really know when this could happen).
I've had a mouse with horizontal scrolling since 2009. It irritates me that so many programs still don't support it properly.
Windows 8's Start screen, in particular, scrolls horizontally but only responds to my mouse if I use the vertical scroll wheel. How does that make any sense?
There was a time when Firefox wasn't so slow, right?
Well, if you take "slow" to be a relative term, there was a time when Chrome didn't exist...
Mostly I just use Chrome for Google services and Ingress, and Opera when I'm tethering or on a slow connection.
I work in web development, so I have to be intimately familiar with all three.
Chrome is generally all-around good and stable but occasionally whiffs some styling. The dev tools are really good for stack tracing and tracking event listeners.
Firefox is nice to prototype in, because Firebug has a more robust variable watchlist, its same-origin policy allows locally-stored web pages to access locally-stored files so you don't have to rig the server for a while (of course that also makes it a hilariously huge security risk), and its CSS sandbox is probably better.
Usually when chasing a bug, I'll use Chrome to snag the listener and track it to the correct function, then use Firefox for a deep inspection.
IE is, on all counts, the slow kid you have to drag around at the expense of the rest of the class. About 2/3 of what I work on is holding IE's hand so it doesn't clamp tables to the wrong size, default to compatibility and/or Quirks in idiotic places, or fire events in idiotic places. More than once I've caught it running in Quirks after having explicitly set it to Edge. Fun fact: if IE8 (which you usually have to support because businesses don't like downloading stable browsers) falls into compatibility mode, it defaults to a Javascript interpreter over half as old as I am that doesn't know what any functions more recent than 2000 are. And its dev tools are laggy, terrible, the CSS sandbox makes you jump through a million hoops just to try something, the console log doesn't display object hierarchy and only tells you "{ . . . }" if you log anything that isn't a primitive, you have to refresh the page every time you want to trace script, and half the time it crashes the browser when you stop the script debugger.