Gizmo's Freeware Forum

Gizmo's Freeware Forum (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/)
-   Internet, Web Apps and Networking (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/internet-web-apps-and-networking/)
-   -   Firefox 3.6.3 released (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/internet-web-apps-and-networking/3757-firefox-3-6-3-released.html)

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 05:58 AM

I have the "advantage" of a slow internet connection on one PC. The advantage comes from being able to see in the status bar many of the various steps that occur after one clicks on a link :D.

One other observation I made with Firefox 3.6.3 (and I'm not sure this is not applicable to older versions or other browsers), was this:

I had about 5 tabs open of a newspaper site (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/). I wanted to save the content of all the tabs for offline reading. The default names were not too helpful so I entered my own.

I expected the saving to be instantaneous. But there was a perceptible time for each tab as I saved. It was as though the browser was checking with the original site all over again although nothing appeared in the status bar. So why the lag? Any clues?

These are all relatively tiny files together taking up a total 961 KB.

I also saw a very quick checking for viruses. What does Firefox 3.6.3 use? Does it call upon the resident AV, Avira, in my case?.

If I check a file with Avira, it is more time-consuming. So how does Firefox do it quickly and without any "splash screen"?

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 08:55 AM

You have a slow internet connection, and that's why the saving of webpage took time. It can't be instantaneous, because the data on the webpage has to be saved. As you said, it was 961 Kb. On a slow connection, even that amount of data will take some time to save. You cannot blame Firefox for that.

I have a 128 Kbps internet... with download speed of 9-14 kbps... so even 961 Kb of data saving takes time.

Don't know about how Firefox checks the downloaded files for virus.

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26315)
You have a slow internet connection, and that's why the saving of webpage took time. It can't be instantaneous, because the data on the webpage has to be saved. As you said, it was 961 Kb. On a slow connection, even that amount of data will take some time to save. You cannot blame Firefox for that.

I have a 128 Kbps internet... with download speed of 9-14 kbps... so even 961 Kb of data saving takes time.

Don't know about how Firefox checks the downloaded files for virus.

1. I'm not blaming FF in anyway. What I meant to say was that a slow connection let me see things that I otherwise wouldn't notice. Nothing more was implied.

So my question remains: let's say we view a page and the FF status bar indicates done. Now I want to save that page to my hard disk. I would imagine that since the information contained in that page is already on the PC, it would be immediate (irrespective of the speed of the connection).

2. Re. the virus checking, here's a link but I don't know how reliable it is:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.do...r.scanWhenDone

Quote:

In Firefox 3, if a Windows user has an antivirus program installed, it is launched to scan files when they finish downloading. During testing of the feature, concerns about delays and double-scanning files surfaced. As a result, this preference—controlling whether the virus scan is automatically triggered—was created.

Starting in Firefox 3.7 (3.7a3pre nightly builds since 2010-03-06) this preference also controls whether or not the Windows security policy checks are applied for downloading and launching executable files.

sa1 04. Apr 2010 09:19 AM

I would expect a browser to save whatever it has already downloaded though I'm not sure about the behaviour of browsers. Does checking "Work offline" and then saving work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26315)
I have a 128 Kbps internet... with download speed of 9-14 kbps... so even 961 Kb of data saving takes time.

P.S Whenever you try Opera don't forget to try Opera Turbo. It is intended entirely for people like you because it can compress data 2-5 times. In fact I switched conclusively to Opera after rotating browsers for a while only after this appeared as a feature in a beta build.

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26320)
I would expect a browser to save whatever it has already downloaded though I'm not sure about the behaviour of browsers. Does checking "Work offline" and then saving work?


P.S Whenever you try Opera don't forget to try Opera Turbo. It is intended entirely for people like you because it can compress data 2-5 times. In fact I switched conclusively to Opera after rotating browsers for a while only after this appeared as a feature in a beta build.

1. I haven't tried that :o

2. Yes, the Turbo really works but the great thing about FF is that I can change the background colour overriding page colours whereas I couldn't see how to do that in Opera.

In Firefox, it is in Tools > Options > Content > Colors. I find it useful (less strain on the eyes) to have a light grey background as opposed to pure white.

Some functionality is lost in some pages so I turn on this feature when I know my way about the site and have a lot of reading to do there.

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26320)
I would expect a browser to save whatever it has already downloaded though I'm not sure about the behaviour of browsers. Does checking "Work offline" and then saving work?...

Very interesting! It gave a couple of download failed messages when I saved in Work Offline mode. But I got what I wanted and will remember this trick :)

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vasa1 (Post 26306)
I expected the saving to be instantaneous. But there was a perceptible time for each tab as I saved. It was as though the browser was checking with the original site all over again although nothing appeared in the status bar. So why the lag? Any clues?

I was replying to this question of yours. Maybe you were talking of the lag, before the actual download began?

Anupam 04. Apr 2010 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26320)
P.S Whenever you try Opera don't forget to try Opera Turbo. It is intended entirely for people like you because it can compress data 2-5 times. In fact I switched conclusively to Opera after rotating browsers for a while only after this appeared as a feature in a beta build.

I have tried Opera, and used the turbo feature, and its good. But, I don't use Opera that much. I like the new look of Opera. It has been inspired by Google Chrome... they did away with the menu bar. Should have tried something original. The color combination looks good though. They were claiming it to be fast, but I really could not feel the difference. In fact, it still feels slow to me compared to FF 3.6 or Chrome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26283)
About your second point I have to say that increased memory usage on Firefox always seems to come with a slowdown.(Memory leak by some extension? perhaps). However on Chrome/Opera I have to say that high periods of memory usage have not corresponded to a slowdown.
Also in Chrome a tab being closed reclaims that memory unlike in Firefox. So that's better memory management on the whole.

I have not experienced slowdown with Firefox anytime. I have experienced this on K-Meleon and Iron though.

Well, for the same number of tabs open, Chrome does take high memory. Your point is correct though. But, I think in Firefox too, if a tab is closed, the overall memory that Firefox is taking, should go down too.

sa1 04. Apr 2010 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 26326)
I was replying to this question of yours. Maybe you were talking of the lag, before the actual download began?

He is saying that since he is already viewing the page, downloading the page is done at least once so why do that again? The transfer on saving should be from cache to hard-disk. not from web to hard-disk.

Quote:

It has been inspired by Google Chrome... they did away with the menu bar. Should have tried something original.
You have never fiddled around with old versions of Opera, have you? The Show menu bar option has been there for long, but it became enabled by default in 10.5 . I don't think suddenly enabling that option is a radical change from their skin earlier prompted by a new browser.
The only thing Chrome brought was removal of title-bar.
Both Firefox and Opera people maintained earlier that removal of title-bar should be a preference for the Window-manager(WM) and not the application. On both forums you would find people pointing out to options on the Window-manager to disable the titlebar. (The default WM on Windows doesn't have this option, but all linux WMs and other Windows WMs have this.). Seems like both Opera and Firefox have changed that stance now.

Quote:

In Firefox, it is in Tools > Options > Content > Colors. I find it useful (less strain on the eyes) to have a light grey background as opposed to pure white.
Are you sure preferences>web pages>background color is not what you want?

Quote:

Very interesting! It gave a couple of download failed messages when I saved in Work Offline mode. But I got what I wanted and will remember this trick
Nice to know it worked.

Quote:

But, I think in Firefox too, if a tab is closed, the overall memory that Firefox is taking, should go down too.
Its complicated. Let me try and enumerate different browsers and their behaviour as I have understood it.
In Opera, memory is not instantly reclaimed when tabs are closed. There are two benefits and two disadvantages. Page content can be cached in memory so next time page will load faster and will use less bandwidth. Javascript compiling can also be cached in memory so next time you open the web page the javascript will run directly as native code.
However the benefits of sandboxing are missing and the memory usage is high.
(Garbage collection is done when Opera is minimized if you want to use another app with Opera.)

In Chrome, memory is instantly reclaimed when tabs are closed. Page content however cannot be cached in memory and will be fully redownloaded next time. The benefits of sandboxing are there. Memory usage remains high due to sandboxing. Javascript is compiled in Chrome. However compiling cannot be cached as it is incompatible with sandboxing. So every time you run the web page the javascript has to be recompiled.

In Firefox, memory is not instantly reclaimed. Page content can be cached so pages load faster the next time and with less bandwidth. Memory usage(assuming no extensions) is still lower than Opera or Chrome. Benefits of sandboxing are missing. Also Firefox doesn't yet have a full Javascript compiler but only a interpreter with minimal JIT so a discussion about cached javascript compiling is void here.

I am not an expert and this is what I have learnt by reading about these engines on the web. So it can be slightly inaccurate.

Edit: The effect of Javascript compilation caching is not visible on benchmarks that run the javascript once like Sunspider and Peacekeeper but is visible on Mozilla's Dromaeo which runs the same code 5 times and there is a talk to increase this to correctly reflect real-world webpages.
(see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Dromaeo )

vasa1 04. Apr 2010 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa1 (Post 26363)
...
Are you sure preferences>web pages>background color is not what you want?
...

I tried that this way:
Tools > Preferences > Web pages:

Unfortunately it says "Choose preferred fonts and colors for pages without specific styles".


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.