Firefox & Images

[Selamat]

I just switched browsers from IE to Firefox, and it seems that firefox loads images alot slower than IE did. Is this commonplace?

[huhwhatwhere]

It shouldnt be. Firefox tends to be much faster.

You can actually teak firefox to load much faster,

open up the browser. and where you would normally type in the web address type in "about:config" (without the "). Then you should see a whole bunch of settings. What you need to do it type in "http" where it says filter.

you need to Change the value of network.http.pipelining to "true"

also change network.http.pipelining.maxrequest to say about 12-15 (don't do it any higher then this because certain sites will reject your connection)

Also change network.http.proxy.pipelining to true (just right click on the value part)

This should significantly increase the speed at which websites load at.

Hope that helps

W/s

[Lambo5688]

For me, FireFox is much faster.

[belal1]

could be a number of things. I heard of this before in mozillazine forum, but when I checked the link to see if it was loading images slow, I didn't have a problem. some user there mentioned it took 18 minutes to load the whole page, but I had loaded the page in about a minute or two. mind you, this page had hundreds and hundreds of images (literally).

Also i'm running (right now at parents house) on a cablevision/optimum online 10 Mbps connection (possibily faster since cablevision ups the speeds from time to time and doesn't tell you unless you watch their commercial on t.v and find out). I'm betting you're on DSL? Many DSL providers started offering deep discounts by limiting the bandwidth from the standard 1.5 Mbps (or 3 Mbps for some) downstread speed to a measely 786 Kbps.

I wonder, do you have ipv6 enabled? I remember having it a while back and it made certain websites slow even when I was on DSL.

You can also check if the page you're trying to view, is properly coded, maybe the site is coded badly? try http://validator.w3.org/ if you're interested. It's a good way to check if a site is conforming to standards. And if it is, then it shouldn't be taking too long to load since having a properly coded site means everything should be running smooth.

One thing you might try is tweaking firefox. I hear it helps greatly for some, so-so for others, and "not much" for everyone else. You can try just for the heck of it: http://www.tweakfirefox.com/tweaks.php

[.: Rashid :.]

woah jazakallah for that link bro

i saw that tweak guide ages ago when firefox was quite new an tried it, didnt get any noticeable difference (was on a 300k connection then)

on a 1mb connection now and its definitely noticeable! bros random thread loads like that! (well not properly...but i can click it, wait a 2 seconds, then hit end and ill be able to read the latest posts...which is what i do by habit anyway)

youtube is also much faster :D

-Rashid

[Selamat]

I tried the tweak and it's running alot faster, jazak for the info.

Oh, and Bro Belal, how would I know if I had ipv6 enabled?

[belal1]

I tried the tweak and it's running alot faster, jazak for the info.

Oh, and Bro Belal, how would I know if I had ipv6 enabled?

Click Start | Control Panels | Network Connections then right click on your local area connection and goto Properties. You should see it in the list if its installed. This is under XP sp2 though.

Here's a good read: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/network/ipv6/ipv6faq.mspx
It's kinda thorough on IPv6 questions. Incase you want to learn more about IPv6.

By the way, I kind of forgot to mention this in the other post. Here's a good rule that should come in handy for almost any computer issue. Have a linux Live CD around your computer. Whenever you need to test something, Pop in the CD and see how it runs under linux. So for example, this issue you have with images showing up too slowly, you could pop in ubuntu (or any other live cd that has firefox by default) and see whether the performance is the same under linux. If it's different, then you know its something that has to do with your environment or windows in general. If you get the same performance/load speed, then you know it's out of your control.

Check out http://shots.osdir.com/ , pick a linux distro (you will see screenshots of the distros and the applications they include) , then when you find one you like, just enter the name of the distro on google and goto the site and download the ISO. I recommend Ubuntu, Knoppix, Kanotix, MEPIS or anything else that's small and includes firefox. I stress that it should include firefox because that's what you want to test. you could ofcourse download any distro and if it doesn't include firefox then you can download it and install it even under the live cd, but I think that's just extra work for you.

anyway, hope that answered your question and helps in the future.

[.: Rashid :.]

is it just me or is firefox 2 a lot slower than 1.5? I dont mean rendering speed wise...but application wise.

If I have like 6 or more tabs open at once, switchin from tab to tab becomes a bit of a pain...

-Rashid

[belal1]

is it just me or is firefox 2 a lot slower than 1.5? I dont mean rendering speed wise...but application wise.

If I have like 6 or more tabs open at once, switchin from tab to tab becomes a bit of a pain...

-Rashid

i haven't noticed anything of that sort. but then again, i don't keep alot of tabs open. usually I have a maximum of 3 tabs open, but that's very rare. normally I just keep more firefox sessions open (i'm kinda used to pressing ctrl-n )...

hey but if you want, u can try swiftFox. i hear that's some tweaked up version of firefox... i used it once, and didnt see any improvements though. but who knows..maybe u have a better eye =]

[nami]

If only windows users could experience swiftfox! :D

[.: Rashid :.]

nah akhi i tried swiftfox and it didnt make any difference for me...im on an intel p4 2.8ghz machine here

-Rashid

[nami]

make a difference for me, i got an athlon 64.

[.: Rashid :.]

yeah i think swiftfox actually makes use of the power of 64 bit...

makes no difference for us 32 bit users :(

whats the difference between i386 and i686? have any of you bruthas using i686 kernel noticed any difference?

btw nami have you tried installing linux-k7? if swiftfox made a difference linux-k7 package should make a notceable boot speedup too. try it :up:

-Rashid

[belal1]

yeah i think swiftfox actually makes use of the power of 64 bit...

makes no difference for us 32 bit users :(

whats the difference between i386 and i686? have any of you bruthas using i686 kernel noticed any difference?

btw nami have you tried installing linux-k7? if swiftfox made a difference linux-k7 package should make a notceable boot speedup too. try it :up:

-Rashid

ur actually running i686 arch. see, that's what's more optimized for your arch. however most distros default to i386 for compatibility reasons. so ubuntu for example will use kernel i386 even though a p4 should be recognized as i686. all in all, it's not that much of a difference hence why many distros just default to i386.

for amd64 bit processors, they use linux-k7? i coulda sworn I saw linux-amd64 or linux-emt64 or something....

my bro's new laptop is a amd 64bit processor running at 3200 or 3400 (not sure which). he was telling me everything was working fine xcept he couldn't get someplugins for 64 bit processors like flash and that kinda restricted him from using linux on the new laptop. u get any of that prob bro nami?

[.: Rashid :.]

i dunno you might be right actually...i just knew k7 was for amd cpus so assumed 64bit was k7 also or something

yeah i heard the ubuntu devs stopped providing i686 kernels in the repos to save bandwidth and space because apparently it made next to no difference...

-Rashid

[belal1]

i dunno you might be right actually...i just knew k7 was for amd cpus so assumed 64bit was k7 also or something

yeah i heard the ubuntu devs stopped providing i686 kernels in the repos to save bandwidth and space because apparently it made next to no difference...

-Rashid

k7 is athlon processors. ever heard of k6? that was the competitor to pentium. i remember themd ays when I had a AMD K6-2 which was the competitor to pentium 2. they were not too bad, but when althon's came out (k7 arch), they ROCKED.

i686 stopped? i guess it was inevitable. i heard similar things regarding performance advantage.

[.: Rashid :.]

k7 is athlon processors. ever heard of k6? that was the competitor to pentium. i remember themd ays when I had a AMD K6-2 which was the competitor to pentium 2. they were not too bad, but when althon's came out (k7 arch), they ROCKED.

i686 stopped? i guess it was inevitable. i heard similar things regarding performance advantage.

jazakallah khayr

i feel like doin some bench markin... :D

I got a Intel P4, 256mb PC2700 RAM (and aPCI FX5500 if it makes any difference)

Total boot time: (from when I hit enter on BIOS password to KDM login screen)
38.44

Thats including the GRUB delay of i-dunno seconds

Total KDE login: (from hitting enter on password to playing of tasmiyah/K icon stops bouncing)
19:56

What kinda performance you brothers get?

-Rashid

[Selamat]

:rubeyes: :rubeyes:

I'm sorry, I don't speak South Asian :D :D

[belal1]

jazakallah khayr

i feel like doin some bench markin... :D

I got a Intel P4, 256mb PC2700 RAM (and aPCI FX5500 if it makes any difference)

Total boot time: (from when I hit enter on BIOS password to KDM login screen)
38.44

Thats including the GRUB delay of i-dunno seconds

Total KDE login: (from hitting enter on password to playing of tasmiyah/K icon stops bouncing)
19:56

What kinda performance you brothers get?

-Rashid

well, i'm not running linux, but i'll tell you my "estimated" benchmark

from boot to windows 2k pro desktop: like 8 minutes (7:40-something to be exact). loading into windows is fine, its just I have to have a few apps like Outlook 2003, Virus Scan and Palm HotSync load up on boot, so that adds to the delay.

i'm running this laptop (which is only for ummah, muslimglobe, and typing office documents) on a 2.0 Ghz Celeron, 256 MB PC100 RAM, Radeon 7500 w/ Dedicated 64MB RAM, and a 4200 RPM 20GB drive.

without the antivirus, palm hotsync and outlook loading up, the system boots into windows desktop in a little less than 20 seconds.

[belal1]

:rubeyes: :rubeyes:

I'm sorry, I don't speak South Asian :D :D

that's okay, check out the "learn thai" thread in the language section. you'll learn our lingo :coolbro:

[nami]

I have tried the 64bit version of linux but some programs were a little buggy when I tried it.

I wasn't happy about that so I am currently using a 32bit linux distro on a 64bit processor...

Performance difference? I dunno, I didn't try it long enough to notice.

I think I was trying to get a part of xgl/compiz to work and as you know those are still VERY much still in development.

Anyway, I will let you know how long it takes to boot up my computer when I get home insha'allah.

I don't think it's as fast as your's akhi Rashid786 as I am using a seagate barracuda harddrive. They are not that fast.

and I doubt it can beat your 20 seconds akhi belal!

[Selamat]

that's okay, check out the "learn thai" thread in the language section. you'll learn our lingo :coolbro:

Honestly, I have no idea what you all are talking about. I only know how to use to internet and type, that's it.

[.: Rashid :.]

well, i'm not running linux, but i'll tell you my "estimated" benchmark

from boot to windows 2k pro desktop: like 8 minutes (7:40-something to be exact). loading into windows is fine, its just I have to have a few apps like Outlook 2003, Virus Scan and Palm HotSync load up on boot, so that adds to the delay.

i'm running this laptop (which is only for ummah, muslimglobe, and typing office documents) on a 2.0 Ghz Celeron, 256 MB PC100 RAM, Radeon 7500 w/ Dedicated 64MB RAM, and a 4200 RPM 20GB drive.

without the antivirus, palm hotsync and outlook loading up, the system boots into windows desktop in a little less than 20 seconds.

Subhanallah, under 20 seconds!?? :rubeyes:

Ima try using sysv-rc-conf to optimise the bootup a lil...i dont really boot my computer much anyway, its left on 24/7 but id like a fast bootup just...cos :D

I have tried the 64bit version of linux but some programs were a little buggy when I tried it.

I wasn't happy about that so I am currently using a 32bit linux distro on a 64bit processor...

Performance difference? I dunno, I didn't try it long enough to notice.

I think I was trying to get a part of xgl/compiz to work and as you know those are still VERY much still in development.

Anyway, I will let you know how long it takes to boot up my computer when I get home insha'allah.

I don't think it's as fast as your's akhi Rashid786 as I am using a seagate barracuda harddrive. They are not that fast.

and I doubt it can beat your 20 seconds akhi belal!

try the 64bit kernel if not an entire 64bit os (or is it the exact asme thing? i dont really know...jsut guessing)

oh an im using a samsung sp0-somethig hard drive...cant really remember :o i think its 7200rpm not sure :S

lol selamat :p sorry for hijacking your thread :o

-Rashid

[nami]

Subhanallah, under 20 seconds!?? :rubeyes:

Ima try using sysv-rc-conf to optimise the bootup a lil...i dont really boot my computer much anyway, its left on 24/7 but id like a fast bootup just...cos :D



try the 64bit kernel if not an entire 64bit os (or is it the exact asme thing? i dont really know...jsut guessing)

oh an im using a samsung sp0-somethig hard drive...cant really remember :o i think its 7200rpm not sure :S

lol selamat :p sorry for hijacking your thread :o

-Rashid

Visually its the same, I just found that 32bit alpha and beta releases still get priority over 64bit releases.

And I couldn't wait...

[.: Rashid :.]

Visually its the same, I just found that 32bit alpha and beta releases still get priority over 64bit releases.

And I couldn't wait...

fair enough :p

EDIT: i just used sysv-rc-conf to remove some bootup stuff that i dont need (e.g. cupsys, i ran outta toner on my printer so never use it now) and it seems to have improved the actual boot time but not the whole boot time, if ynat i mean... :S

the actual booting is done in 27 seconds now, but the xserver and kdm takes an extra 11 seconds! :mad:

-Rashid

[nami]

fair enough :p

EDIT: i just used sysv-rc-conf to remove some bootup stuff that i dont need (e.g. cupsys, i ran outta toner on my printer so never use it now) and it seems to have improved the actual boot time but not the whole boot time, if ynat i mean... :S

the actual booting is done in 27 seconds now, but the xserver and kdm takes an extra 11 seconds! :mad:

-Rashid

you need to switch to gnome, its faster! :p

[.: Rashid :.]

lol a minor difference at startup doesnt make up for how much faster kde is than gnome for general use ;)

kword starts up for me in 4 seconds flat. how long does openoffice take? :p

EDIT: did a couple times its closer to 5-6 seconds :(

...still trumps ooo by miles though :D

-Rashid

[nami]

lol a minor difference at startup doesnt make up for how much faster kde is than gnome for general use ;)

kword starts up for me in 4 seconds flat. how long does openoffice take? :p

EDIT: did a couple times its closer to 5-6 seconds :(

...still trumps ooo by miles though :D

-Rashid

your computer must be faster than mine, i dont think openoffice takes 4 seconds :(

but will let you know when i get home insha'allah.

[.: Rashid :.]

your computer must be faster than mine, i dont think openoffice takes 4 seconds :(

but will let you know when i get home insha'allah.

i gave my specs above...its not a very good computer. 3 years old... 256mb of ram :(

-Rashid

[nami]

i gave my specs above...its not a very good computer. 3 years old... 256mb of ram :(

-Rashid

yeah but it sounds like you know more about linux than me. i have a basic install and it has no optimisation done to it at all.

anyway here are the embarrassing timings :o

It takes almost exactly 1 minute from pressing the power button on the computer case to getting to the ubuntu desktop.

from bios hdd selection to ubuntu login screen takes 42 seconds

from pressing enter on the login screen to desktop takes 10 seconds

openoffice
1st attempt 6 seconds
2nd attempt 2 seconds
3rd attempt 2 seconds

[belal1]

I have tried the 64bit version of linux but some programs were a little buggy when I tried it.

I wasn't happy about that so I am currently using a 32bit linux distro on a 64bit processor...

Performance difference? I dunno, I didn't try it long enough to notice.

I think I was trying to get a part of xgl/compiz to work and as you know those are still VERY much still in development.

Anyway, I will let you know how long it takes to boot up my computer when I get home insha'allah.

I don't think it's as fast as your's akhi Rashid786 as I am using a seagate barracuda harddrive. They are not that fast.

and I doubt it can beat your 20 seconds akhi belal!

lol. i should've put an asterisk. this laptop I'm using doesn't really have any programs. it boots in 20 when I remove the other apps I installed which is basically just the fresh minimal install but with the drivers for ATI. Thats why it boots so fast. however the minute I installed office 2003 and put outlook 2003 to boot on start up, aswell as those other apps (AVG anti-virus and Palm HotSync), the system started crawling when it came to booting into the desktop. Mind you, windows loads, however what I'm talking about is after you get by the loading screen and you're into your desktop, but it's not totally loaded so you don't see ur icons or anything. that part takes like 8 minutes with these apps. or else, without any apps loading on boot, it flys. but i guess it's kinda expected since its only a celeron with 256MB of PC100 RAM.

Honestly, I have no idea what you all are talking about. I only know how to use to internet and type, that's it.

that's cool, i Kinda thought you were technical like us but that's fine. you'll learn just hanging around this section of the forum anyway. sorry to hijack your thread by the way. :coolbro:

[.: Rashid :.]

yeah but it sounds like you know more about linux than me. i have a basic install and it has no optimisation done to it at all.

anyway here are the embarrassing timings :o

It takes almost exactly 1 minute from pressing the power button on the computer case to getting to the ubuntu desktop.

from bios hdd selection to ubuntu login screen takes 42 seconds

from pressing enter on the login screen to desktop takes 10 seconds

openoffice
1st attempt 6 seconds
2nd attempt 2 seconds
3rd attempt 2 seconds

lol whys that embarassing? thats about the same as mine :up:

btw i was shocked by how fast openoffice loaded for you...i guess gnome loads the libs already, like how kword has kde's libs loaded already.

Bro to optimise your box try these 2 howtos:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=89491&highlight=bootup+speed
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=254263&highlight=bootup+speed

I havent tried the second one yet...insha'Allah tomorrow

-Rashid

[belal1]

lol a minor difference at startup doesnt make up for how much faster kde is than gnome for general use ;)

kword starts up for me in 4 seconds flat. how long does openoffice take? :p

EDIT: did a couple times its closer to 5-6 seconds :(

...still trumps ooo by miles though :D

-Rashid

FOR YOU! I found gnome to be much faster on all my systems.

but i'm tired of these 2 desktop environments..... i wanna use CDE or gnuStep or iceWM or something :coolbro:

get back to old skool, na mean?

[.: Rashid :.]

FOR YOU! I found gnome to be much faster on all my systems.

but i'm tired of these 2 desktop environments..... i wanna use CDE or gnuStep or iceWM or something :coolbro:

get back to old skool, na mean?

haha...i dont think i could stand something as ugly as cfe or gnustep :p icewm is supposed to be crazy fast though.

btw akhi, check the linux thread on muslimglobe ;) insha'Allah

-Rashid

[belal1]

haha...i dont think i could stand something as ugly as cfe or gnustep :p icewm is supposed to be crazy fast though.

btw akhi, check the linux thread on muslimglobe ;) insha'Allah

-Rashid

people posting there? i felt kinda lonely there for a while. it was just me and pheonix and then we both got kinda busy and I don't remember if anyone else posted there. I did check it from time to time, but haven't done so lately :(