Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 3 Performance Gets a Boost
jason writes "Mozilla has been working hard at making Firefox 3 faster than its predecessor, and it looks like they might be succeeding. They've recently added some significant JavaScript performance improvements that beat out all of the competition, including Opera 9.5 Beta. And it comes out to be about ten times faster than Internet Explorer 7! Things are really starting to fall into place for Firefox 3 Beta 4 which should be available in the next week or two."
Hopefully it can best Safari's Javascript performance. Firefox is pitifully slow compared to WebCore's javascript core.
One of the ways I usually demonstrate to people the advantage of Firefox 2 over IE7 is to show them the difference in time it takes to open multiple tabs. With Firefox, they open as fast as I can hit CTRL-T, but with IE it takes about a second for each one.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
To be honest, I hate it. WTF have they done with my handy URL bar? It used to be a place where I could type "slas" and get the slashdot URL come up. Even worse for "news", as it "handily suggests" all the pages in my history that have "slas" or "news" in my history.
Heads up for all those trying Firefox 3 is Oldbar. I suggest you get it if you don't like the new 'innovations' by Mozilla Corp.
The Safari team recently introduced some native javascript functions, which showed very impressive speed. It looks like the next release Safari will be up there as well (if not even faster still).
I'm off to download the latest Firefox to see how the two compare (on both Windows and OS X platforms).
The Mothership
Firefox 3 is going to include support for the new Java SE 6 runtime environment.
This is a new implementation of the Java Plug-In that features increased reliability, ability to specify large heap sizes, ability to select a specific JRE version to execute a particular applet, and support for signed applets on Windows Vista.
The New Plug-in is designed to work with: - Internet Explorer 6 and 7 on Windows XP and Windows Vista - Firefox 3 on Windows XP, Windows Vista, Solaris and Linux
Personally, I've been wanting to use the Firefox 3 beta for some time, primarily because of the performance and speed boosts over Firefox 2, but my favourite add-ons still aren't compatible.Note: The new Plug-in does not work with Firefox 2, and no support is planned for this browser with the New Plug-in.
http://gemal.dk/blog/2008/02/24/firefox_3_gets_a_new_java_plugin/?from=rss-category/Back up your Firefox Profile and start clean.
in this thread
The Mothership
Flash has more and more accessibility support, but PDF is the Page Description Format. It's meant for print output and says nothing about the meaning of the contents of the document, just how they are supposed to look on the screen and on the page.
The good thing about tag-based formats like HTML is that--provided someone's following the standard--they can be fairly easily parsed regardless of the output format. With XHTML, you can read stuff on your screen, the blind can use screen readers, and web developers can easily extract and transform elements from a given document things are good as they are.
Finally, why do you think PDF = lean and mean? Acrobat proves that a PDF reader can get hideously bloated.
It wasn't so much a memory leak issue as it was memory fragmentation.
The benchmark used in this article is a JavaScript benchmark, but PGO was enabled for most components of Firefox, not just the JavaScript engine. And even if only the JavaScript engine improved in speed, you'd see a speed boost despite having JavaScript disabled in web pages, since parts of Firefox itself are implemented in JavaScript.
The shareholder is always right.
Microsoft's biggest mistake was thinking people wouldn't write complicated apps in Javascript. They supported it, in their usual half broken style, but it created the only widely deployed cross-platform system for running code that Microsoft has ever implemented. Now, with Firefox 3 running so fast javascript might become THE platform. It's hilarious because Javascript started out as such a kludgy platform and now it is becoming a serious contender if only because it's the only cross-platform thing Microsoft ever supported.
No, recently the developers have found that few leaks are left, so that to reduce memory usage further they had to change their focus to reducing fragmentation. Originally, the problem was leaks, it's just that once the worst ones were fixed fragmentation became responsible for a larger fraction of the memory usage. This a continuation of people trying to find one single cause of high memory use. As I and others have been saying for years, there is no one cause. There is no "the memory leak" or "the memory issue", just as there is no "the crash problem" or "the security problem".
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I could have sworn that PDF was Portable Document Format. All your other points about it are correct though.
This sig is intentionally blank
Short answer, maybe Long answer: If FF3 isn't using a processor specific optimization, you can always Download your own build, I like pigfoot's (scroll down) build for windows.
Well someone had to, so I ran the numbers for OS X. All of the below were on OS X 10.5.2 running on a MacBook:
I guess if you're a Safari or Firefox person you can look forward to some really fast Javascript performance either way.
JSON, code decompression, and traversing XML are things that a browser does with JavaScript, some more often than others. Even in those cases, I wouldn't be surprised if browsers had parsers that 'helped' the common browser JavaScript tasks with faster native-library interfaces instead of purely native JavaScript interpretation.
Why is the parent comment marked as troll? It was reported a few weeks ago that the next version of Safari, 3.1, would see major JavaScript performance gains due to the latest WebKit builds. This article uses the beta Windows 3.0 version to compare to.
"Sufferin' succotash."
OS X proves that a PDF reader can be as fast as HTML. Faster in some cases -- no need to lay out and render large tables, complex CSS, etc.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I have. Still ass. doesn't go lighter when it's backgrounded, stays the same dark grey as if it were foregrounded.
Open-Source seems good for getting a job 90% finished and completely ignoring the 10% polish required to make it an app of the same quality as closed-source
and does a single tcp socket's stalling not cause the whole damn thing to seize up?
Mark this as off-topic if you like. I'm responding partially to the parent comment, but mostly to its score and reason.
This is a discussion board. How can you mark someone's comment as redundant? Is this an attempt to invalidate their statement? Don't blame them when it's actually a limitation of the forum system. There is no simple way to increment an "I agree" or "I have the same problem" counter, there has to be a new comment for each person who agrees. There is no way of adding weight to a comment except by increasing child nodes, or adding as many individual argument nodes that are similar. Yes, there is already one branch in this thread that talks about the memory issues, but relax not everyone perfectly gets all their statements in exactly the right location in the discussion tree. Judge it simply on what it says, not the comments location.
For what it's worth, I agree. I also have problems with memory bloating with FF. I don't really care if they are memory leaks, or memory fragments, it's still a problem that I would like to see fixed. Unfortunately I cannot fix the problem, so I will patiently wait for the next great release of FF. I have no solution, but this is my informal bug report.
Increase in speed on JavaScript will be great. There are many times when my FF instance gets temporarily grayed out when it loads a page with lots of JavaScript. This is the window manager thinking that FF is locked up and not responding.
Or does a single tab still cause the entire browser to freeze up?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Luckily many pages don't need Javascript or at least not a lot of JS to render.
What I find more important are the lockups I get because of limitations to multi-threading in FF, at least under Linux. There are situations where one window locking up means all windows lock up. There are situations where some initial connection to a host being stuck means all of the browser locks up. One can only guess, because FF does not indicate what the problem is -- but more frequently than is funny, I have FF get unresponsive, not re-painting windows anymore and just eating up CPU and memory without reacting until I kill it.
This sucks and this doesn't seem to have changed in FF 3.
I always see these benchmarks and wonder "why does this matter?". The only time I ever see Javascript run too slow or tax my CPU is when it's buggy and then it'll probably throw up all sorts of warnings anyway. This is on any browser I've used and any system.
What matters to me is the imperfect implementation of Flash (it's not really their responsibility but it is their problem) which often eats up 100% CPU from random flash objects or causes firefox to freeze. Another annoyance is Firefox being frankly poor at displaying large HTML files (when you go on websites with insanely large lists for instance). Where as IE and Opera display these as the page is downloaded. Firefox, for me, freezes, much like notepad will when you open a 2meg+ file . Sometimes it'll recover and display the page after a minute or so, sometimes I have to ctrl+alt+delete.
I had these problems with Firefox 2 exactly running the default Ubuntu version. I downloaded the firefox 3 beta 3 from the website and it is so much better it is unbelievable.
- Where as before FF2 would use around 500 meg it now only uses around 50 meg
- Flash no longer crashes the browser
- Javascript no longer crashes the browser
- Those long pauses as it is doing something that stalls the browsers operation are gone.
I couldn't believe the difference.
There is no "the memory leak" or "the memory issue", just as there is no "the crash problem" or "the security problem"
Once upon a time there was this OS named Windows Millennium Edition, also known as "the" in your examples above.
Um, PDFs can be made just as accessible as HTML documents, and Adobe's PDF tools have good integrated support for assistive technologies built in.
PDF accessibility is a lot like HTML accessibility; you have to know what you're doing to make it happen, but you can make it happen.
Read my blog.
I've also known other people to complain about it - while others have no idea what they're talking about. You have to love sporadic issues.
I'm pretty sure it has to be a combination of minor flaws in Firefox (as not every program I run has this issue), Windows XP (with memory handling far better than previous versions, but still not exactly the gold standard of memory management), and all the myriad changes to my system's configuration over time.
It does it on both my work computer and my home computer. Then again, they're both XP Pro machines. They're very different in terms of hardware, which tentatively rules out a specific hardware config. The memory on my home machine is double that of my work machine, but the highpoint seems to be about the same - so I doubt it has much to do with total system memory. What sites I hit seems to have no relevance. The only other common factor I can think of is that I run NoScript on both - though if I remember right the problem predated my use of that (I first noticed it a while back, and had actually hoped 2 would fix it).
The main issue seems to be that a specific amount of memory is eaten up when you open a site in a tab - but closing that tab often doesn't clear up the space. I just now closed every tab except Slashdot - and it went from 157mb (when I had 14 tabs open) to a minuscule 153mb. From experience, waiting for it to dump cache is ineffective. If I close the program, the memory clears itself just fine - but only if there is no other Firefox window open. I'm guessing that multiple Firefox app windows share a footprint.
Then again, saying "all" of my memory was an exaggeration. I've rarely seen it hold on to much more than 150mb after closing all but one window, though if I go on for very long without at least shutting down firefox, that minimum can creep up - and on a few occasions really has taken more memory than I actually have on my machine (virtual cache trash time). It's also probably not a noticeable problem unless you're a heavy multitasker (in which case that footprint becomes painfully obvious).
I've noticed it doesn't happen on my fiance's Vista machine, or on any 2003 Server boxes I've run it on. It may be a problem that only occurs on XP, or it just doesn't like the way I smell.
However, if you are able to reproduce it, you'll see it happen whenever more than one tab has been opened. Opening one tab, then clearing it, seems to work - but once a second tab opens, clearing the original tab clears it's footprint, but any tab opened after that exhibits the problem.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".