Tommy Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 I'm just adding a "me too" to this thread, with the following caveats -- I don't use Windows so I can't compare with Internet Explorer, but I can say that for the past couple of days and especially early this afternoon, spamcop webmail got REALLY slow in Firefox 1.07 and 1.5x. At the same time it worked quite snappily in Opera 8.51. Now it's doing much better (an hour ago it had been "stuck" with just two icons at the top for about 15 minutes, so I closed the window). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcurzon Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Just started using Firefox "part time" due to some internal corporate issues using IE. I was watching for the alledged slowness, but didn't notice anything much, FF seemed acceptable for speed. Until I try spamcop webmail. Just roughly measured IE vs FF, seconds to display inbox after login, IE=11 and FF=30. Is that a known issue?? thanks Richard <Moderator edit: this post was merged here from a former separate thread. Poster notified via PM.> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 I just did some testing using IE then Firefox, then IE, then Firefox (to make sure that they both got a chance to "cache" any images), and was not seeing any difference, with each one taking about 3 seconds. (platform: WinXP, FF v. 1.5.0.6, IE v 6.0.2900.etc, cable broadband) DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Just started using Firefox "part time" due to some internal corporate issues using IE. I was watching for the alledged slowness, but didn't notice anything much, FF seemed acceptable for speed. Until I try spamcop webmail. Just roughly measured IE vs FF, seconds to display inbox after login, IE=11 and FF=30. Is that a known issue?? thanks Richard <Moderator edit: this post was merged here from a former separate thread. Poster notified via PM.> I just did some testing using IE then Firefox, then IE, then Firefox (to make sure that they both got a chance to "cache" any images), and was not seeing any difference, with each one taking about 3 seconds. (platform: WinXP, FF v. 1.5.0.6, IE v 6.0.2900.etc, cable broadband) DT ...Might the sizes of your respective Inboxes be relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 ...Might the sizes of your respective Inboxes be relevant? Also, size of trash follder will matter of it is the frst login of the day as it purges out the old stuff and runs and filters in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 ...Might the sizes of your respective Inboxes be relevant? Also, size of trash follder will matter of it is the frst login of the day as it purges out the old stuff and runs and filters in place. What would any of that have to do with the actual rendering of the visual elements by the two browsers in question? The processing of trash and filters all happens on the server end, not on the receiving end, n'est-ce pas? Sure, the loading of an inbox screen full of messages vs. no messages will differ slightly, but that's mostly text display, as opposed to the graphics that are common to both screens, whether there are lots of messages or not. There are slight differences between the two browsers in how fast they "interpret" all the style info sent to them, but nothing as dramatic as the differences reported recently by rcurzon. Here's a site with some detailed testing of how fast various browsers render different page elements: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html From what I see there, it looks that on Windows, IE is *slightly* faster than FF on various tasks. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 What would any of that have to do with the actual rendering of the visual elements by the two browsers in question? The processing of trash and filters all happens on the server end, not on the receiving end, n'est-ce pas?If you log in with FF first, the server goes through all it's processing before displaying the screen, making FF look slow. You then login to IE, all that processing is done, so the IE window server process completes quicker, making IE look faster. If this is what is happening, reversing the order you open the applications will affect your tests. However, if you start your testing after the first login, you should get good results for the tests. I don't doubt that there is some speed issue with FF, but am just trying to get good test results to see how bad the issue is. This was exactly what was happening in the "SpamCop locks up after login" problems we saw a while back before hardware upgrades. The login would go through and the server would start its processes (deleting old messages from Trash and Held Mail) which would not complete before the browser timed out. A second login would often work because the server process had completed by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 If you log in with FF first, the server goes through all it's processing before displaying the screen, making FF look slow. You then login to IE, all that processing is done, so the IE window server process completes quicker, making IE look faster. Ah....yes, that makes a lot of sense. That's why I did multiple tests, in alternation. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcurzon Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Further things I noticed: in the corporate env, behind proxy and firewall and who knows what... FF is much slower than IE. The proxy settings were "auto detect" for both browsers. At home, ordinary DSL setup with wireless router, FF and IE are pretty much the same. java scri_pt was enabled in all cases. Maybe the auto-detect is simply inefficient in FF?? whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Good point about the firewall...you might do a little web searching with that angle in mind and see if there are reports about slowness in FF when using those proxy settings. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.