Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
I *do* understand exactly what ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE means. I chose those words deliberately and with malice aforethought ... There's nothing wrong with the computer, it's just old. I was using the older version of Firefox because I didn't want all the added overhead processing that comes with feature creep in the newer version. On 7/27/2013 12:01 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, John wrote: I finally gave in to the badgering installed the latest version of Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower to load anything than the previous version I was using. One order of magnitude would be ten times slower. Orders plural means at least two orders of magnitude or more than a hundred times slower. Unless you're being figurative, there's something seriously wrong with your computer that you need to diagnose. (Firefox has been roughly speed-stable for me since 2.0, maybe even a bit faster over time, but it's hard to separate out varying network effects.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013, John wrote: On 7/27/2013 12:01 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, John wrote: I finally gave in to the badgering installed the latest version of Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower to load anything than the previous version I was using. One order of magnitude would be ten times slower. Orders plural means at least two orders of magnitude or more than a hundred times slower. Unless you're being figurative, there's something seriously wrong with your computer that you need to diagnose. (Firefox has been roughly speed-stable for me since 2.0, maybe even a bit faster over time, but it's hard to separate out varying network effects.) I *do* understand exactly what ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE means. I chose those words deliberately and with malice aforethought ... There's nothing wrong with the computer, it's just old. I was using the older version of Firefox because I didn't want all the added overhead processing that comes with feature creep in the newer version. You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is, that's essentially irrelevant.) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. --Bob Newhart -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote: You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is, that's essentially irrelevant.) I switched to Chrome a year or two ago because a Firefox upgrade made tab-switching dramatically slower. From imperceptible to perhaps 0.5-1.0 second to draw the tab I switched to. I'm talking about UI responsiveness for tabs that were already loaded, so it wasn't a network issue. It happened on both my home computer and my work-issued laptop. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
John, Are you old enough to remember the cartoon 'Little Abner'. I think that's where I met Chief Rain-in-the-Face, always followed around by his own rain clouds. You need to make yourself a sunnier climate. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I *do* understand exactly what ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE means. I chose those words deliberately and with malice aforethought ... There's nothing wrong with the computer, it's just old. I was using the older version of Firefox because I didn't want all the added overhead processing that comes with feature creep in the newer version. On 7/27/2013 12:01 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, John wrote: I finally gave in to the badgering installed the latest version of Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower to load anything than the previous version I was using. One order of magnitude would be ten times slower. Orders plural means at least two orders of magnitude or more than a hundred times slower. Unless you're being figurative, there's something seriously wrong with your computer that you need to diagnose. (Firefox has been roughly speed-stable for me since 2.0, maybe even a bit faster over time, but it's hard to separate out varying network effects.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is, that's essentially irrelevant.) Unless, of course, you run out of physical memory, and start thrashing. Needing more memory than the machine currently has available can easily cause a particular program to run a hundred times slower. The older a machine is, the less memory is likely to have been configured on it (memory gets significantly cheaper every year). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013, John Francis wrote: On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is, that's essentially irrelevant.) Unless, of course, you run out of physical memory, and start thrashing. Needing more memory than the machine currently has available can easily cause a particular program to run a hundred times slower. The older a machine is, the less memory is likely to have been configured on it (memory gets significantly cheaper every year). All true, and I wrote something about that but decided to delete it. From my POV, that's still something wrong, even if semi-expected under certain circumstances. Thing is, I loaded up five tabs in Firefox (each a different site), and it's using 250MB. I can't imagine someone seriously into digital photography using a machine so underpowered that thrashing would show up with that usage. (Of course, I'm using Linux, Firefox could be more of a memory hog under Windows.) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: OT: Firefox - a follow up
1 tab 120mb, 7 tabs with lots of graphics on Chrome on Windows 8, 150mb. Netscape was crap, Firefox continues that tradition. The 'Linux is great' is really tiring. Gerrit -Original Message- From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Aahz Maruch Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:14 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up On Sat, Jul 27, 2013, John Francis wrote: On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is, that's essentially irrelevant.) Unless, of course, you run out of physical memory, and start thrashing. Needing more memory than the machine currently has available can easily cause a particular program to run a hundred times slower. The older a machine is, the less memory is likely to have been configured on it (memory gets significantly cheaper every year). All true, and I wrote something about that but decided to delete it. From my POV, that's still something wrong, even if semi-expected under certain circumstances. Thing is, I loaded up five tabs in Firefox (each a different site), and it's using 250MB. I can't imagine someone seriously into digital photography using a machine so underpowered that thrashing would show up with that usage. (Of course, I'm using Linux, Firefox could be more of a memory hog under Windows.) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
I think you're confusing Joe Btfspik with Lonesome Polecat. Actually, I had let the subject go until someone told me I didn't know what the words mean. I may be wrong on a subject, but I do know what my words mean. On 7/27/2013 1:00 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: John, Are you old enough to remember the cartoon 'Little Abner'. I think that's where I met Chief Rain-in-the-Face, always followed around by his own rain clouds. You need to make yourself a sunnier climate. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I *do* understand exactly what ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE means. I chose those words deliberately and with malice aforethought ... There's nothing wrong with the computer, it's just old. I was using the older version of Firefox because I didn't want all the added overhead processing that comes with feature creep in the newer version. On 7/27/2013 12:01 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, John wrote: I finally gave in to the badgering installed the latest version of Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower to load anything than the previous version I was using. One order of magnitude would be ten times slower. Orders plural means at least two orders of magnitude or more than a hundred times slower. Unless you're being figurative, there's something seriously wrong with your computer that you need to diagnose. (Firefox has been roughly speed-stable for me since 2.0, maybe even a bit faster over time, but it's hard to separate out varying network effects.) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
On 7/27/2013 3:47 PM, John Francis wrote: On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 09:20:05AM -0700, Aahz Maruch wrote: You still haven't answered the implied question: are you being literal or figurative? The only way you could be literally accurate is if there is something wrong, there's just no way for an upgraded Firefox to be a hundred times slower otherwise. (I don't care how old your computer is, that's essentially irrelevant.) Unless, of course, you run out of physical memory, and start thrashing. Needing more memory than the machine currently has available can easily cause a particular program to run a hundred times slower. The older a machine is, the less memory is likely to have been configured on it (memory gets significantly cheaper every year). The current motherboard in this one is somewhere 5 - 7 years old (maybe older). It's old enough it's got an AGP video slot. The board maxes out at 2GB RAM that's what is installed. I had a problem with the system locking up that appeared to be memory related (particularly to how Windoze leaks memory over time) so I went ahead and replaced all the memory, upgrading to max at that time. I recently added an AGP video card (figured I'd better do that while AGP cards were still available) and that's helped a tiny bit. Bottom line is I had a version of FireFox that ran efficiently on THIS machine until Mozilla started badgering me to upgrade. The upgrade is NOT! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Firefox - a follow up
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013, John wrote: I finally gave in to the badgering installed the latest version of Firefox. Got rid of the nag tab, but it ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE slower to load anything than the previous version I was using. One order of magnitude would be ten times slower. Orders plural means at least two orders of magnitude or more than a hundred times slower. Unless you're being figurative, there's something seriously wrong with your computer that you need to diagnose. (Firefox has been roughly speed-stable for me since 2.0, maybe even a bit faster over time, but it's hard to separate out varying network effects.) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
