Firefox Performance Declining

[Neovalen]

You do? I've never had to clean out my browser for any reason. Maybe I'm just neat and tidy by default.

[CovertSlinky]

Yeah cleaning out yer browser is a good regular maintenance. I myself am a neat freak, and clean it out about once or twice a month, buttt, I also surf for alot of porn  so lots of things like to try and find there way on my PC.

[phazer11]

I don't have that problem with my portable version.

[TechAngel85]

I've noticed over the years of using FF that it helps a lot to refresh it after 6mo to a year. I think through the multiple updates things just get messy. After a refresh it seems to be nice and speedy...similar to refreshing your OS. I used to do that yearly as well.

[GrantSP]

Maybe Chrome should re-examined as the browser of choice for all you FF users.

[TechAngel85]

FF has a new "refresh" option that I took advantage of that is basically like a fresh install. Usage went up to 1.1GBs. I think this is just FF being FF.

[z929669]

Doesn't Chrome have lots processes running in the task manager just so it can be fast to start? I don't have it installed so I can't check this, but I seem to remember that.

Yes, it does. It has at least 2 services running in the background and 2 scheduled tasks for updates. When you open Chrome, it triggers 10 processes! This is reduced to 3 processes after about 30 seconds ... that is without invoking any new tabs. I don't like any of this behavior, so that's why I stopped using Chrome in favor of FF standard version (installed/updated using Ninite).

 

Sync works great with standard FF. Pale Moon sync was not working correctly a while back, so that's why I stopped using it as well. FF also has the best support for wev dev right out of the box. Many great plugins also enhance web dev (e.g., Rainbow, Greasemonkey, Stylish).

[stoppingby4now]

Also check out Waterfox. 64 bit browser based on Firefox (currently my default browser). Consumes more memory than the 32 bit Firefox (Firefox: 140MB single default tab, Waterfox: 175MB single default tab), but there is a noticeable improvement in page load speed and responsiveness.

 

All Firefox extensions work in it, and it loads from the same profile that you have been using with Firefox.

[hishutup]

Yes, it does. It has at least 2 services running in the background and 2 scheduled tasks for updates. When you open Chrome, it triggers 10 processes! This is reduced to 3 processes after about 30 seconds ... that is without invoking any new tabs. I don't like any of this behavior, so that's why I stopped using Chrome in favor of FF standard version (installed/updated using Ninite).

 

Sync works great with standard FF. Pale Moon sync was not working correctly a while back, so that's why I stopped using it as well. FF also has the best support for wev dev right out of the box. Many great plugins also enhance web dev (e.g., Rainbow, Greasemonkey, Stylish).

Chrome spawns separate instances for every page to keep the pages running smoothly.

 

The waterfox front page is mildly entertaining.

[Spock]

Yes, it does. It has at least 2 services running in the background and 2 scheduled tasks for updates. When you open Chrome, it triggers 10 processes! This is reduced to 3 processes after about 30 seconds ... that is without invoking any new tabs. I don't like any of this behavior, so that's why I stopped using Chrome in favor of FF standard version (installed/updated using Ninite).

 

Sync works great with standard FF. Pale Moon sync was not working correctly a while back, so that's why I stopped using it as well. FF also has the best support for wev dev right out of the box. Many great plugins also enhance web dev (e.g., Rainbow, Greasemonkey, Stylish).

From what a friend who has way more knowledge then I do told me, that is exactly the advantage of Chrome. It is better optimized for multi threading then FF.

Afaik, FF has an update background service too.

[z929669]

Also check out Waterfox. 64 bit browser based on Firefox (currently my default browser). Consumes more memory than the 32 bit Firefox (Firefox: 140MB single default tab, Waterfox: 175MB single default tab), but there is a noticeable improvement in page load speed and responsiveness.

 

All Firefox extensions work in it, and it loads from the same profile that you have been using with Firefox.

Does WaterFox use FF sync or independent? Wonder if that works, because bookmark sync is a must for me.

[TechAngel85]

Does WaterFox use FF sync or independent? Wonder if that works, because bookmark sync is a must for me.

Yes, I've been running it to test it out. As far as I can tell it is an exact copy of FF, but in 64bit. It'll even use you FF profile so it'll open up your last tabs from FF when it runs.

[z929669]

Sounds like a winner to me ...

[EssArrBee]

If there any old Opera 12 power users still around then try out Vivaldi. Public Beta should come out soon but the current preview is quite stable. Tons of customization and features to play with. I pretty much use it for the tab stacking.

 

Extensions are usable but you'll need to apply them manually or just wait till the beta opens it up a bit more. Good browser to keep an eye on.

 

Also, if you really care that much about performance then get Marathon cloud browser. It's come a long way in just a few years.

[phazer11]

Cyberfox uses a separate profile than normal FF so they can run in parallel if you wish unlike cyberfox, it has a profile migration tool to make things easier and it does have the sync feature native to standard FF. The only issue I have with waterfox is the developer dissapears for a while sometimes and while you're unlikely to need support at least cyberfox has a forum that isn't reddit.