Firefox startup time

3 no

>>57475259
4
no

>>57475259
4.3 no

What a thread!

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-11 at 15.54.15.png (179KB, 1239x746px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1239x746px

just go to about:healthreport
baka

>>57475405
>Data Sharing ON
botnet

>>57475259
lol poorfag OP

3, no

>>57475259
four, and yes

>>57475259
3 seconds, no SSD

>>57475259
I counted to 1 and Firefox fully launched. On Windows 7 with an SSD

File: Untitled.png (667KB, 1919x909px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 1919x909px

>>57475259
Why would we just take your word for it when you can post actual proof?

So either OP's Firefox is bloated as fuck or he needs a new computer

File: 2016-11-11-140649_717x344_scrot.png (91KB, 717x344px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 717x344px

profile is on a HDD
I usually have at least 200 tabs open.
Only twice has it taken more then 10 secs

>>57475522
kek, opie didnt see the thread going like this

>>57475522
>he
did you just assume OP's gender?

>>57475602
Yea

Work computer #1 (Win 7):
>4.5
>Yes

Work computer #2 (Win 10):
>2
>Yes

>>57475259
until window appears:1 yes
until start page is rendered: 3 yes

4 for window
10 for startpage/full load
no ssd

>>57475896
Nice times, but whats with you font?

>>57475938
Yeah.. I'm using remote desktop with minimal settings at the moment.. I guess it kills font smoothing and whatever else that doesn't actually matter

File: Capture.png (151KB, 740x346px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 740x346px

On a SSD and loads my previous session (usually around 5 to 10 tabs) on startup.

1.4 yes

what are you trying to prove anon?

>>57476014
That he's a sad poorfag

13 no
On windows it's 6 however

I do have ssd
firefox 1,7s
chrome 1,5s

the difference mostly comes from reaction time with stopping the stopwatch on my phone

dunno what you were trying to proove but it failed

<2 yes

healthreport is fucked up because I fucked around with extensions and it took 2min to start once kek

File: cap.png (125KB, 694x298px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 694x298px

OP here
there you go fellas

>my firefox is literal trash confirmed

will reset seeing this thread senpai, ty

>>57476532
I seriously hope that's fake. Are you using a 10 year old failing hard drive? You should reinstall the OS if it's this slow, unless it's a hardware problem. But Firefox shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to launch even on a shit 8 year-old PC (speaking from experience).

>>57476573
i can provide any info if you are interested

everything else works without a hitch... i think it might be a plugins situation

other than that, i have my config and extensions synced to other computers, and there it takes sub 5 seconds

warm, 1~2
cold, 4~5
SSD

>>57476573
now that i think about it, maybe it has to do with the helper service being delayed on launch

0,5 yes

>>57476583
hold shift and start firefox in safe mode, see how long it takes

>>57475259
3 no

>>57476635
literally less than a second

an extension is fucking me up hard
this thread is going to change my life forever

thank you goys

>>57476656
it's goyim

>>57476675
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/goys

>>57476675
goyim is the proper way to say it
you can't out-jew the Jews if you can't even Jew properly m88

>>57476698
>>57476687
goyim is literally the same as goys

>>57476723
my grandpa survived 27 holocausts so I think I know better than you

1
yes

5, SSD=yes

1~2, ssd yes

File: init.png (175KB, 815x347px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 815x347px

no SSD, no reinstalls

>>57476958
wtf this guy times are as cucked as mine
see:
>>57476532

One question? Cold boot or not?

If cached, then
>6 seconds
>no SSD
>Firefox ESR
>9 year old laptop
>addons: ublock, umatrix, https everywhere

File: file.png (57KB, 1078x684px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1078x684px

What to do?

>>57477015
And after a system reboot (so it will be an absolute cold start) I got 8 seconds.

Confirmed both by my watch and about:healthreport page

>>57477053
Fix your certificate store

File: Capture.jpg (32KB, 741x340px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 741x340px

Firefox has always worked fine in my machines

File: file.png (139KB, 1090x465px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1090x465px

>>57477118
plz elaborate

File: file.png (103KB, 1010x687px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1010x687px

>>57477118
>>57477167
Wait wtf is this?

how to stop adobe from blocking access to sites??

>>57477204
uninstall this garbage, you don't need flash player

>>57477053
check the PC time

File: image.jpg (46KB, 766x460px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 766x460px

>>57477204
>adobe flash player now in charge of being antivirus software

File: file.png (96KB, 974x667px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 974x667px

>>57477364
>>57477286
>>57477230
WTF it's still here. I uninstalled all adobe products.

This is opera btw, firefox still displays this>>57477053

>>57477410
>using opera
>having adobe shit
>using windows 10

just gtfo already

File: Untitled.png (652KB, 1920x720px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 1920x720px

ssd but not a particularly fast one, have had around 1.5-2 seconds opening time on average for well over a year

>>57475522

some older addons (pre webextensions) severely affect firefox performance, adblock or its forks would add a solid second to startup time with ssds for instance

it's not that every extension that predates webextensions is bloated however, noscript for the most part has almost no performance hit compared to with it disabled so going from noscript to umatrix won't improve performance at all but going from adblock to ublock will remove a solid second from the startup time due to how bloated adblock is

a lot of the performance issues in firefox really come down to older 32-bit only builds for windows (64bit windows builds have been available for a couple of months now) and slow bloated addons rather than firefox itself

so it's definitely a case of op having an older bloated profile

>>57476532
>>57476656

glad you learned something, the people going from old bloated firefox profiles to brand new unused chrome profiles being amazed at chrome's speed are really dragging firefox's reputation into the dirt, firefox is objectively slower but it shouldn't be too noticeable on modern pc hardware

>>57477053
>>57477410

click advanced so we can see the cert error, as far as >>57477118 >>57477167 goes you need to go to firefox options then advanced then certificates but it's probably way over your head and you should reinstall firefox

That's your own fault for using an OS that quits applications when their windows are getting closed.

Windows aren't applications. Get that in your head.

>>57477428
It's not my laptop it's my mums. She ends up doing insanely stupid things by "accident" like uninstalling office while trying to change the default language to British English.

>>57477466
I did, it's a sec_error_unkown_issuer

Looks like my mum installed something or did something, so some program is trying to redirect youtube and facebook urls to this>>57477410
to """"""update flash player"""""""

>>57477611
>not having his own laptop

>>57477623
I do have a laptop, i'm trying to fix her laptop right now.

>>57477660
Then what are you doing here?

>>57477691
he's too dumb to use google

File: pic.png (3KB, 728x386px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 728x386px

>>57475259
Here you go. The first one is the start up time completely anew (after reboot).
And the second number is when the firefox closed, the process deceased, and then started again.

13 no

Using Linux Mint on Sandy Bridge i3 with 8GB RAM

File: Screenshot_2016-11-11_19-26-02.png (188KB, 1399x643px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1399x643px

Werks for me.

>>57477466
i literally started using edge because of the horrible boot times

will trash and resync my profile tomorrow

thanks for the info

8 seconds until the window is actually usable
yes

>>57477763

if you can, check the health report after creating the new profile then again every few addons

unfortunately some addons are ridiculous for it, as well as adblock (it genuinely may be better now but ublock origin is far superior) I've experienced a user agent swapper that was horrendous for boot times

it's a real pain in the ass finding a useful extension only to realise it makes the browser shit the bed

File: 1477403315771.jpg (26KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x359px

>chromium
>2 no
fucking firefags never learn

>>57478053
I want to switch to Chromium but there are so few add-ons. Do you know any good ones I can sideload like YouTube Center?

>>57475259
1.5, no

you need to lrn 2 computer

>>57475259
Would completely depend on which add-on's extensions you had

File: That Okt 24.png (151KB, 753x341px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 753x341px

Too bad I can't adjust the scale.
Yes. samsung evo 850.

>>57478470
>>57478053
R E K T
E
K
T

File: healthreport.png (182KB, 755x394px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 755x394px

life is pain

>>57478643
>>57476958
>>57476532
What in the fuck?

File: about_healthreport.png (57KB, 696x297px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 696x297px

>>57475259
I am so fucked...

File: 1448402711140.jpg (88KB, 1340x650px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1340x650px

>>57475259
>>57475405
Thanks for pointing out the obvious

>>57475983
If you're on SSD why is it so slow?
>>57478801

>>57478470
I'm still sitting on a couple EVO 850 500Gb to install on my one machine. Glad to see confirmation of their greatness as well as price.

>>57477053
I get that at work, since they issue their own certs.
Firefox doesn't use the Windows Cert Store (there is a BETA option for it in Firefox 49, though), which is why that happens.

>>57478818
I also built a fresh system and everything. I guess that this might help with the low loading times.

>>57475259
all browsers are slow to start.

any that aren't are daemonized and running in the background.

Browsers are pretty much more complex than fucking operating systems. it's not all that surprising loading about 100+ MB of libs into memory is slow.

2.1 yes

>>57478872
Mine is using an OCZ Vertex 3 60Gb and has been running Winbaby7 since 2011 or so 2500k i5 16Gb Ram (pictured in >>57478801). It's not fresh by any measure kek. My other rig is 4690k with my other vertex 3 60Gb but waiting to install the 850's. Same startups but running Manjaro w/ Xfce. FF is pretty gud. Chrome is hot garbage.

File: 1458116876465.png (195KB, 748x414px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 748x414px

On a cheap and relatively old laptop

Operating System
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1
CPU
Intel Core i7 2620M @ 2.70GHz 55 °C
Sandy Bridge 32nm Technology
RAM
8.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 665MHz (9-9-9-24)
Motherboard
Hewlett-Packard 161C (CPU 1) 53 °C
Graphics
Generic PnP Monitor (1600x900@60Hz)
1024MB ATI AMD Radeon HD 7400M Series (HP) 53 °C
Storage
149GB INTEL SSDSA2M160G2LE ATA Device (SSD)

I also have like 15 addons, 30 userstyles, 10 userscripts.

>>57475259
Near instant, Intel 530 SSD

>>57478809
Did you even read his post?

Quick question, it's just me or changing the "highlight all" from "Alt + A" to "Alt + L" makes everything more uncomfortable?

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435326
Already landed on nightly.

>>57479200
Considering most folks should be used to performing these keyboard shortcuts with their left hand already I can say no you're not alone. Copy, paste, cut, and highlight all on one hand.

>>57479200
I've never used that before, I always use ^a. It that not possible on mac?
either way, it definitely is less comfortable because now you need two hands on the keyboard instead of one.

... they need to pause a few seconds before doing this kind of shit.

If someone needs me I'll be practicing moving the mouse with my elbow while maintaining both hands on the keyboard.

Maybe i should try vimperator now that firefox has become full retard with the hotkeys too.

>>57479354
It's the highlight hotkey, dude. Not select-all.
If you really use the highlight feature that much you might as well keep it on and never turn it off. Then you don't have to worry about the hotkey for it.

File: 842a88b.png (501KB, 1564x603px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1564x603px

Better than I expected. ~2 seconds on FX 8350, 850 evo ssd

2 no

File: 1470629970989.jpg (35KB, 484x510px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 484x510px

starts up in 4 but it's not usable for like 10-15 seconds

>>57479418
Have to toggle it sometimes cause it works like shit since they introduced modal highlighting on nightly.

Anyway how hard It's to take a few seconds to think if the change is making things harder to use before landing a patch?

It remembers me to tab groups (panorama) the hotkey was Ctrl + Space then changed to Ctrl + E both pretty comfy but then they changed it again to Ctrl + Shift + E that was slightly uncomfortable compared to the previous hotkeys.

whys firefox so shit at running multiple windows each streaming a different video, also i downloaded chrome and tried again and it runs fine ;o

File: Untitled.png (591KB, 1882x666px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1882x666px

>>57475259

File: nongmoveganfatfreefortifiedfirefox.png (2MB, 3200x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3200x1080px

>>57475259

>>57481194
Weird. For me Firefox runs shit with streams in one window but when I put them in multiple windows they run gr8. I usually open a window if I'm gonna run a page that I know is intensive but I don't want to fuck up the performance of my other shit.

>watch webms on stock firefox
>silky smooth
>watch webms on nightly
>frames noticeably skip/drop

Anyone know why?

>>57481330
Linux?

>>57481340
Nope, Botnet 10

>>57475259
1 second
SSD

4, SSD, 25 extensions.

File: Capture.png (170KB, 815x342px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 815x342px

yes

1
4200 RPM HDD

>>57475259
Switch to palemoon lad. Firefox is a piece of shite for mobile and desktop browsing.

>>57475259
9 no