FF 3.5 slower starting
Lou
minutes later.
Prior FF was a dog on first start-up upon returning from hibernation.
Any thoughts or reasons?
Lou
Bruce.
news:4A4CF3A1...@yahoo.com...
Nope, but it's the same here. I also Hibernate overnight and it took so
long for FF to load this morning I thought the system had locked up.
Bruce.
Tarkus
> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go back 10
> minutes later.
Why are you doing that? Does the term "minimize" mean anything to you?
The browser is arguably the most important program of any OS. I don't
understand why people feel the need to close it and restart it at will,
unless it becomes sluggish and/or has memory issues.
Lou
I figure shutting it down makes it harder for malware to get in.
Lou
PeeGee
> Lou wrote:
>> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go back
>> 10 minutes later.
>
> Why are you doing that? Does the term "minimize" mean anything to you?
>
Habit :-) and because:
a. I want to ensure any "secure site" data is expunged as early as
possible (even though I use openSuSE)
b. I use two profiles (no lectures, please) with very different settings
in user.js organised for the particular functional use.
> The browser is arguably the most important program of any OS. I don't
> understand why people feel the need to close it and restart it at will,
> unless it becomes sluggish and/or has memory issues.
--
PeeGee
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
Mickey Segal
See the "FF 3.5 won't start" thread here and
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=1326105&sid=fc4d96a47f161101410bc422a9a8d9c5
and http://www.crn.com/software/218400171
Tarkus
Can you point to ONE single instance of malware invading Firefox while
it's minimized?
Harry Rickards
Hash: SHA1
> _______________________________________________
> support-firefox mailing list
> support...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-firefox
> To unsubscribe, send an email to
> support-fir...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe
I know this reply is off-topic and I'm going to get shouted at, but I
was just told in ubuntu-uk that this mailing list had loads of flame
wars. The first post I get is an argument!
- --
Many thanks
Harry Rickards (GPG Key ID:58449F6F)
- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT/GCM/GCS/GCC/GIT/GM d? s: a? C++++ UL++++ P- L+++ E--- W+++ N o K+
w--- O- M- V- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t 5 X R tv-- b+++ DI D---- G e* h! !r y?
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iJwEAQECAAYFAkpOTLIACgkQ+9DWHFhEn2+ASAP/RDAe+3ajOWxeL/iXFnH8TaNU
8QaTuiB67QNqYdkAZVsR52Cfo8rYcCNjTrA8nFQF0f6vdxSJnRg3kF3WnnPJOncf
Y9drRg5GDXuAaQti9y2xg5qfPfOq8y610UF7O4zRmKViGEqcNduD0lFPfDXAW5uj
ZQsu52J5i45GmtzDkUQ=
=jsES
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tarkus
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tarkus wrote:
>> Lou wrote:
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go
>>>>> back 10 minutes later.
>>>> Why are you doing that? Does the term "minimize" mean anything to you?
>>>>
>>>> The browser is arguably the most important program of any OS. I
>>>> don't understand why people feel the need to close it and restart it
>>>> at will, unless it becomes sluggish and/or has memory issues.
>>> I figure shutting it down makes it harder for malware to get in.
>> Can you point to ONE single instance of malware invading Firefox while
>> it's minimized?
>
> was just told in ubuntu-uk that this mailing list had loads of flame
> wars. The first post I get is an argument!
What on earth are you talking about?
Ron Hunter
I always shut down the browser and email program when I am not using
them as both take quite a bit of memory, and, while they do represent a
theoretical threat as they are always on the internet (assuming you have
an 'always on' connection), I think the risk is minimal. I just don't
like restricting my other programs to less ram then they might like to
keep things loaded that I am not using. I only have 1GB of ram, but
even if I had 8GB, I doubt I would leave it running. Some things are
just a habit, with no really pressing reason to change them.
On the point, I haven't noticed 3.5 being slower to load than 3.0.11. I
have noticed that checking for extension/theme updates seems to take a
bit longer sometimes, probably because of extra activity due to the
update and people looking for updated extensions.
Lou
Of course I can, I have special software that constantly checks for
malware activity. I got it from Bettersafethansorry.com.
I also lock my door at night and have never even had someone try to
break in.
Lou
Lou
Thanks
Lou
Harry Rickards
The ubuntu-uk mailing list used this as an example of a mailing list/
newsgroup with frequent flame wars and arguments. The first post I get
seems to be part of a mild argument about whether to close or
minimise, proving them right.
G. R. Woodring
> On 3 Jul 2009, at 21:22, Tarkus <karn...@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>
>> Harry Rickards wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>>>> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go
>>>>>>> back 10 minutes later.
>>>>>> Why are you doing that? Does the term "minimize" mean anything to
>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The browser is arguably the most important program of any OS. I
>>>>>> don't understand why people feel the need to close it and restart it
>>>>>> at will, unless it becomes sluggish and/or has memory issues.
>>>>> I figure shutting it down makes it harder for malware to get in.
>>>> Can you point to ONE single instance of malware invading Firefox while
>>>> it's minimized?
>>> I know this reply is off-topic and I'm going to get shouted at, but I
>>> was just told in ubuntu-uk that this mailing list had loads of flame
>>> wars. The first post I get is an argument!
>>
>> What on earth are you talking about?
>
> The ubuntu-uk mailing list used this as an example of a mailing
> minimise, proving them right.
I see fairly frequent disagreements on features, functions, and usage but not
much that I'd characterize as flames. I would describe flames as criticism that
gets personal and completely off-topic especially when a poster is set upon by
several others. Different users have wildly different needs and expectations so
disagreements are inevitable. Unfortunately, sometimes the most knowledgeable
reply to a post may not be from the most congenial respondent. Such is life.
--
G. R. Woodring
Tarkus
> Tarkus wrote:
>> Lou wrote:
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go
>>>>> back 10 minutes later.
>>>> Why are you doing that? Does the term "minimize" mean anything to you?
>>>>
>>>> The browser is arguably the most important program of any OS. I
>>>> don't understand why people feel the need to close it and restart it
>>>> at will, unless it becomes sluggish and/or has memory issues.
>>> I figure shutting it down makes it harder for malware to get in.
>>
>> Can you point to ONE single instance of malware invading Firefox while
>> it's minimized?
>
> I always shut down the browser and email program when I am not using
> them as both take quite a bit of memory, and, while they do represent a
> theoretical threat as they are always on the internet (assuming you have
> an 'always on' connection), I think the risk is minimal. I just don't
> like restricting my other programs to less ram then they might like to
> keep things loaded that I am not using. I only have 1GB of ram, but
> even if I had 8GB, I doubt I would leave it running. Some things are
> just a habit, with no really pressing reason to change them.
That's fine. Obviously, you're free to run it how you see fit.
However, if FF is minimized, assuming you're using Windows, its memory
consumption will be moved to disk, as needed, so that's not really a factor.
Tarkus
> Tarkus wrote:
>> Lou wrote:
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go
>>>>> back 10 minutes later.
>>>>
>>>> Why are you doing that? Does the term "minimize" mean anything to you?
>>>>
>>>> The browser is arguably the most important program of any OS. I
>>>> don't understand why people feel the need to close it and restart it
>>>> at will, unless it becomes sluggish and/or has memory issues.
>>>
>>> I figure shutting it down makes it harder for malware to get in.
>>
>> Can you point to ONE single instance of malware invading Firefox while
>> it's minimized?
>
> Of course I can, I have special software that constantly checks for
> malware activity. I got it from Bettersafethansorry.com.
Okay, so let's hear it. I'm talking about a real world situation, not a
theoretical one.
Tarkus
> On 3 Jul 2009, at 21:22, Tarkus <karn...@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>
>> Harry Rickards wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>> Tarkus wrote:
>>>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>>>> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go
>>>>>>> back 10 minutes later.
>>>>>> Why are you doing that? Does the term "minimize" mean anything to
>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The browser is arguably the most important program of any OS. I
>>>>>> don't understand why people feel the need to close it and restart it
>>>>>> at will, unless it becomes sluggish and/or has memory issues.
>>>>> I figure shutting it down makes it harder for malware to get in.
>>>> Can you point to ONE single instance of malware invading Firefox while
>>>> it's minimized?
>>> I know this reply is off-topic and I'm going to get shouted at, but I
>>> was just told in ubuntu-uk that this mailing list had loads of flame
>>> wars. The first post I get is an argument!
>>
>> What on earth are you talking about?
>
> The ubuntu-uk mailing list used this as an example of a mailing
> minimise, proving them right.
It's hardly an argument, mild or otherwise. It's a discussion about
different points of view. If you're looking for everyone cheerfully
agreeing on everything, no, you won't find that here. You probably
won't find it anywhere else either, though.
David McRitchie
I think there are some configuration options involved in what Firefox does
when minimized, and think that there is/was more work in that area to be
done. As far as viruses goes good judgment and a good antivirus helps
a lot. And by all means get rid of third party ads they don't care about you
at all and many have malware and viruses. They may not be much percentage
wise, but you will certainly get the bad one if not careful. I've only had my
anti-virus find a virus once, makes a lot of noise and a nasty
looking bug shows up on the screen so you won't miss it. I'm not counting
the first time I used, I verified that an email actually had a virus then deleted
it -- next morning it was found in the trash by AVG, but I learned later that a
lot of viruses do actually run out of the trash.
Anyway those would be very low possibilities for browser slowing down just
after updating to a newer version of Firefox.
Lou
You may need to lighten up:-))
And I am minimizing more often.
Lou
Ron Hunter
the swapfile without much delay. Should the site you leave FF set on
when you minimize it be one that refreshes periodically, it may never
get swapped out because it remains active too often. In any case,
minimizing the program does NOT stop it from actively running and using
cpu resources, or ram. If you have several gigabytes of ram, and a fast
processor, you wouldn't likely notice the activity, or ram usage.
Ron Hunter
David McRitchie
> David McRitchie wrote:
>> it -- next morning it was found in the trash by AVG, but I learned later that a
>> lot of viruses do actually run out of the trash.
> Your trash on TB is a file, and NOTHING WILL RUN FROM THERE.
Talking about a file extracted from email that was tested then deleted (into
Windows trash) not the email itself. While you can't run anything in Windows
trash viruses (system level control) have control and can do anything they want.
Ron Hunter
A virus in a data file can do NOTHING. ONLY if you somehow execute the
virus file at some time can it have any effect on your system.
Thunderbird is very safe in how it handles such data. It will not
execute the file unless the user specifically does it, unlike OE which
can, and will, execute attachments in email.
Tarkus
Are you sure OE still executes attachments without user intervention? I
thought they cleaned that up years ago.
David McRitchie
> Are you sure OE still executes attachments without user intervention? I
> thought they cleaned that up years ago.
I don't think it ever did, except that preview opens the mail
and that was the default. I always looked at the source of
anything suspicious first. I was actually thinking of viruses
that stored themselves in the trash and operated from there.
I never had to deal with one. My brother with teenagers had
to deal with it a lot. My solution when there was to include
neopets in blocked site.
Ron Hunter
I haven't used it in some years. As I understand it, it will still allow
that to happen with HTML messages, IF the user doesn't change the settings.
Roy Reed
> FF 3.5 feels slower starting even when I recently used it and go back 10
> minutes later.
>
> Any thoughts or reasons?
As well as any previous thoughts, this might help:
http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2009/07/vacuum-your-firefox-databases-for-better-performance/
Roy
Lou
THANK YOU!!
Lou