Firefox FAST u want?

[MJK]

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/...browser-speed/

I just made these simple changes and MAN what a difference!!! Tweak firefox to be lightning quick!

[jayocal]

Seems to make a difference!

[HOOT]

Wow I actually notice a difference!

[csnarpy]

seriously fast

[I_H8_Crawford]

Holy crap that's awesome

[HotHotHeat]

Why is the world wouldn't they just do this to begin with? Awesome.

[SebC]

How would the RAM tweaks help speed? Wouldn't that mean it either has to reload stuff more often or dump data to the page file? I could see the point of it if you're short of RAM, but I've got all the RAM I need, especially when browsing. So should I do it, or just stick with point 2 only?

[REDVAN]

seems faster

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by SebC

How would the RAM tweaks help speed? Wouldn't that mean it either has to reload stuff more often or dump data to the page file? I could see the point of it if you're short of RAM, but I've got all the RAM I need, especially when browsing. So should I do it, or just stick with point 2 only?

Try it both ways....

[J pold]

Awesome!

[Rathji]

The first one only makes sense if you never go back to a page you have been to recently. Loading from your RAM is much faster than reloading the page from the site directly (or an online cache). This is especially true since Firefox automatically reloads any page you go back to, unlike Opera which will just let you go back to your cached page. If anyone is aware of how to set Firefox so it doesn't refresh on 'Back' I would love to hear it.

The third also only makes sense if you only use your browser independently of other programs. If you use Firefox and switch in and out alot, I can't see paging in and out from your HDD a good thing, for the drive or the speed of the browser loading. If you are short on RAM and love to have a lot open in your browser, then I can see it being useful.

The second one is the only one that I cannot having a big negative effect, other than you would be loading your background pages in addition to your foreground pages. Which can be beneficial if you are trying load multiple pages and your foreground page is done, but it makes me wonder if it wouldn't slow down the loading of your foreground page.

I will try the second one for sure, but for my usage the other 2 seem like a bad idea, unless someone knows a way to stop Firefox from refreshing when you hit 'Back'.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by SebC

How would the RAM tweaks help speed? Wouldn't that mean it either has to reload stuff more often or dump data to the page file? I could see the point of it if you're short of RAM, but I've got all the RAM I need, especially when browsing. So should I do it, or just stick with point 2 only?

Originally Posted by Rathji

The first one only makes sense if you never go back to a page you have been to recently. Loading from your RAM is much faster than reloading the page from the site directly (or an online cache). This is especially true since Firefox automatically reloads any page you go back to, unlike Opera which will just let you go back to your cached page.

Here's what a quick google search on browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer turned up:

About the Firefox "memory leak"

For those who remain concerned, here's how the feature works. Firefox has a preference browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers which by default is set to -1. When set to this value, Firefox calculates the amount of memory in the system, according to this breakdown:

RAM ............. # of Cached Pages
32MB ............ 0
64MB ............ 1
128MB .......... 2
256MB .......... 3
512MB .......... 5
1GB .............. 8
2GB .............. 8
4GB .............. 8

(reference: nsSHistory.cpp)

No more than 8 pages are ever cached in this fashion, by default. If you set this preference to another value, e.g. 25, 25 pages will be cached. You can set it to 0 to disable the feature, but your page load performance will suffer. (add: when using your Back button)

That seems like an awful lot of RAM for 8 pages of cached history. It's worth noting, however, that you don't have to disable the feature altogether. For example, you can enter the number "5" instead, which should (theoretically) cap the amount of RAM Firefox reserves for this feature at 512MB.

Here's what Mozilla has to say about it:

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/High+memory+usage

Personally, I very rarely use the back button. When I'm at a page with a few links and I know I'm going to want to come back to it, I just open the links in new tabs and then flip between my tabs, rather than back and forth between cached page views. Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer to "0" is perfect for me. It allows me to use my machine's resources for my tabs and pages I'm moving forward to, not for caching pages I'll never see (because I rarely use "Back").

[Russic]

Wow ... that is quite a bit faster! Awesome stuff.

[llama64]

The Pipelining and Max requests tweak definitely boosted FF... wow.

I wonder if they are still testing these features? Seems a no brainer to enable them... there must be some drawback.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by llama64

The Pipelining and Max requests tweak definitely boosted FF... wow.

I wonder if they are still testing these features? Seems a no brainer to enable them... there must be some drawback.

According to user "Asa Dotzler" in the comments section below the article...

"Not everyone has the same set-up as boygeniusreport.

Let’s take a look at just one of these settings, initial paint delay.

(I’m obviously over-simplifying, but I think it still reflects reality.)

Think about two of the basic bottlenecks to you seeing a Web page, the time it takes to download the page content and the time it takes to “paint” that content onto your screen so that you can see it. Both depend on the resources you have available. The first resource is bandwidth and the second is CPU.

By waiting for a half second, Firefox can download 1/2 a second of data before it makes its first “paint”. If your connection is fast enough, that first paint gets enough of the data onto the screen that you can start reading the page right away and it may not matter how many more paints it needs to make because you’re already engaged with a somewhat functional page, not waiting.

For people with fast connections, setting the initial paint delay to a smaller number often works just fine because they get enough data downloaded and even if that means that the total time it takes to complete loading the page (because it requires more time-consuming paintings) is a tad longer, it’s all OK.

But for people with slower connections (and or slower CPUs) changing that initial paint delay number lower usually means that the first paint doesn’t get enough of the page data painted onto the screen for it to be usable and it might take several paints before the page becomes usable.

Because painting actually takes time, the more of those Firefox has to do, the longer it is before the page becomes usable and before the page is completely finished displaying.

For some people on really slow connections, dial-up, for example, or with slower CPUs, setting the initial paint delay up to half a second or even a full second might actually make the browser feel a lot faster.

So, a setting that works for one user may not work for another. Firefox’s default settings are optimized to work for the largest number of users.

That means that some people on both ends of the spectrum could benefit by tweaking a particular setting but most people will have a good experience with the default settings."

...he then follows up with this...

"To illustrate a bit more and add to the complexity, take a look at these visualizations of Firefox taking the data it has, building up the document, moving the parts around as it gets more and more data, and finally painting the page.

Gecko Visualizations

Now imagine you go in and change the settings that control what pieces of the work Firefox does and in what order, and you can see that there’s a lot more to this than just tweaking a parameter or two and “making Firefox faster” for all or even most users."


So, in short, it's because there still exists a substantial group of Firefox users on slow connections. In Mr. Dotzler's estimation, at least.

[MickMcGeough]

Nice! Thanks!

[csnarpy]

Anyone know what command actually speeds up the browsing through your bookmarks? thats one i think i like to slow down. Talk about flashing through your links!

[CaptainCrunch]

But does it make streaming video's go faster

[MJK]

For some people on really slow connections, dial-up, for example, or with slower CPUs, setting the initial paint delay up to half a second or even a full second might actually make the browser feel a lot faster.

Well this is me right here. I am on satellite internet that is SLOW...these tweaks have made a massive difference for me. Enough to notice it right away.

[Swayze11]

Wow, what a difference. Thanks for posting that link.