I'm using XP with FFx 52.9.0 32 bit. I also have MyPal 29.1.1 which
works quickly and smoothly, while my FFx takes forever to load a page
fully. It creaks away and waits between my trying to scroll down the
page.

I thought at first that maybe I had too many bookmarks in FFx. But
after loading all my bookmarks into MyPal, MyPal still is quick and
easy to use.

There are a few reasons I'd like to keep using FFx, but I'm at the
point where I'm thinking of dumping it.

I do wish MyPal had a 'reader' view setting. I use that a lot to save
FFx pages in text instead of HTML.

What is the problem with FFx?

On 1/16/2022 7:17 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> I'm using XP with FFx 52.9.0 32 bit. I also have MyPal 29.1.1 which
> works quickly and smoothly, while my FFx takes forever to load a page
> fully. It creaks away and waits between my trying to scroll down the
> page.
>
> I thought at first that maybe I had too many bookmarks in FFx. But
> after loading all my bookmarks into MyPal, MyPal still is quick and
> easy to use.
>
> There are a few reasons I'd like to keep using FFx, but I'm at the
> point where I'm thinking of dumping it.
>
> I do wish MyPal had a 'reader' view setting. I use that a lot to save
> FFx pages in text instead of HTML.
>
> What is the problem with FFx?
>

Check your RAM and page file usage. Look in Task Manager to see just how
dire the consumption is.

An old WinXP machine that used to be quite happy with 512MB RAM,
could be quite unhappy with bloated modern browsers. As soon as
the first web page opens, the RAM usage will balloon. For example,
at one time the Yahoo News page used 1GB of RAM, because of all the
video panes placed on the same web page.

Paul

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 11:53:04 -0500
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 1/16/2022 7:17 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > I'm using XP with FFx 52.9.0 32 bit. I also have MyPal 29.1.1 which
> > works quickly and smoothly, while my FFx takes forever to load a page
> > fully. It creaks away and waits between my trying to scroll down the
> > page.
> >
> > I thought at first that maybe I had too many bookmarks in FFx. But
> > after loading all my bookmarks into MyPal, MyPal still is quick and
> > easy to use.
> >
> > There are a few reasons I'd like to keep using FFx, but I'm at the
> > point where I'm thinking of dumping it.
> >
> > I do wish MyPal had a 'reader' view setting. I use that a lot to save
> > FFx pages in text instead of HTML.
> >
> > What is the problem with FFx?
> >
>
> Check your RAM and page file usage. Look in Task Manager to see just how
> dire the consumption is.
>
> An old WinXP machine that used to be quite happy with 512MB RAM,
> could be quite unhappy with bloated modern browsers. As soon as
> the first web page opens, the RAM usage will balloon. For example,
> at one time the Yahoo News page used 1GB of RAM, because of all the
> video panes placed on the same web page.
>
> Paul

This question made me check Firefox and Chromium on my Linux Mint system.
I think the latter is marginally faster.

I also have Firefox on an XP virtual machine hosted via VirtualBox on Mint.
I have 4GB allocated to XP. I ran up firefox and to my surprise it was easily as fast.

So how much RAM does your machine have?

Alan

--
Mint 20.3, kernel 5.4.0-95-generic, Cinnamon 5.2.7
running on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition processor with 16GB of DRAM.

On 1/21/2022 5:37 PM, pinnerite wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 11:53:04 -0500
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2022 7:17 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> I'm using XP with FFx 52.9.0 32 bit. I also have MyPal 29.1.1 which
>>> works quickly and smoothly, while my FFx takes forever to load a page
>>> fully. It creaks away and waits between my trying to scroll down the
>>> page.
>>>
>>> I thought at first that maybe I had too many bookmarks in FFx. But
>>> after loading all my bookmarks into MyPal, MyPal still is quick and
>>> easy to use.
>>>
>>> There are a few reasons I'd like to keep using FFx, but I'm at the
>>> point where I'm thinking of dumping it.
>>>
>>> I do wish MyPal had a 'reader' view setting. I use that a lot to save
>>> FFx pages in text instead of HTML.
>>>
>>> What is the problem with FFx?
>>>
>>
>> Check your RAM and page file usage. Look in Task Manager to see just how
>> dire the consumption is.
>>
>> An old WinXP machine that used to be quite happy with 512MB RAM,
>> could be quite unhappy with bloated modern browsers. As soon as
>> the first web page opens, the RAM usage will balloon. For example,
>> at one time the Yahoo News page used 1GB of RAM, because of all the
>> video panes placed on the same web page.
>>
>> Paul
>
> This question made me check Firefox and Chromium on my Linux Mint system.
> I think the latter is marginally faster.
>
> I also have Firefox on an XP virtual machine hosted via VirtualBox on Mint.
> I have 4GB allocated to XP. I ran up firefox and to my surprise it was easily as fast.
>
> So how much RAM does your machine have?
>
> Alan

My point is, you have to do a bit of checking with Task Manager,
to see what the problem might be.

I had an event on an 8GB setup, where the machine ran out of RAM,
and that was the browser doing it. And that's a 64-bit OS.

And it doesn't really matter how much RAM you've got, the runaway
behavior is plenty fast to exhaust desktop setups. It's one reason
for people on 64-bit OSes, to be using 32-bit browsers in defense.
Because the 32-bit browser, a single process should not go past
1.8GB of RAM usage. That helps cap the behavior. A kind of
natural quota, for an OS that doesn't have a memory quota.

Since the browser companies don't seem interested in describing
the kinds of web pages, or conditions, causing this to happen,
we can only guess it is based on some profit motive. It could be
the web page design, that is doing it, a new "trick" being used.

Paul

"pinnerite" <pinnerite@gmail.com> wrote

| This question made me check Firefox and Chromium on my Linux Mint system.
| I think the latter is marginally faster.
| | I also have Firefox on an XP virtual machine hosted via VirtualBox on
Mint.
| I have 4GB allocated to XP. I ran up firefox and to my surprise it was
easily as fast.
| | So how much RAM does your machine have?
|

I'm on XP-32 with a bit more than 3 GB RAM usable. It never
gets anywhere near being used up. FF uses 200 MB just to sit
there, and it takes a couple of seconds to get up off its fat
ass when I start it. But it never eats up a lot of memory.

The first thing to think of is good housekeeping. Don't leave
100 pages open because you can't be bothered to clean up.
Don't allow things to re-load by themselves. Don't allow video
to load. Use a HOSTS file or extension to block unrelated
crap and ads. Use NoScript to block any script that's not
absolutely necessary.

A typical page at a news website might have 6 videos running
and up to 20 MB of junk, mostly script, coming from all sorts
of spyware/ad sources. So maybe that's taking 100 MB of RAM?
Maybe a lot more. But the real page, with CSS and a few images,
probably needs more like 3 MB RAM.

So you can debate which browser is more efficient, but if
it's taking 4 GB RAM to do web browsing then the problem is not
the browser. That's like driving an 18-wheeler full of garbage,
for no reason, and complaining about bad gas mileage.

Nomen,

> What is the problem with FFx?

I do not see anything about you having tried a new profile. Who knows,
maybe you changed a bit to much in about:config or have got a plugin which
causes problems.

I myself am running FF 52 on a machine with 3GByte of ram. Can't say it
runs slow.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 22/01/2022 15:52, R.Wieser wrote:

>
> I myself am running FF 52 on a machine with 3GByte of ram. Can't say it
> runs slow.
>

3GB on a XP machine? I used to get by on 512MB. What is this world
getting up to?

On 1/22/2022 1:43 PM, Pepsi Cola wrote:
> On 22/01/2022 15:52, R.Wieser wrote:
>
>>
>> I myself am running FF 52 on a machine with 3GByte of ram.  Can't say it
>> runs slow.
>>
>
> 3GB on a XP machine? I used to get by on 512MB. What is this world getting up to?
>

I had 8GB on a WinXP machine.

The other 4GB occupied by a DataRAM RAMDisk, where it uses
a Ring0 driver to access the excess RAM. The purpose of stopping
at 4GB for the RAMDisk, is that is the limit of the free version.
(The limit has since been dropped to 1GB on other versions.)

You can use more than 4GB on Windows XP, if you use Ring0 to get
there. Ring3 is where the applications live, and they can't cheat like
that.

Paul

On 1/16/2022 7:17 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> I'm using XP with FFx 52.9.0 32 bit. I also have MyPal 29.1.1 which
> works quickly and smoothly, while my FFx takes forever to load a page
> fully. It creaks away and waits between my trying to scroll down the
> page.
>
> I thought at first that maybe I had too many bookmarks in FFx. But
> after loading all my bookmarks into MyPal, MyPal still is quick and
> easy to use.
>
> There are a few reasons I'd like to keep using FFx, but I'm at the
> point where I'm thinking of dumping it.
>
> I do wish MyPal had a 'reader' view setting. I use that a lot to save
> FFx pages in text instead of HTML.
>
> What is the problem with FFx?
>

One thing to check, is how much material is in cache2 folder.

Paul

On 22.01.22 19:43, Pepsi Cola wrote:
> On 22/01/2022 15:52, R.Wieser wrote:
>
>>
>> I myself am running FF 52 on a machine with 3GByte of ram. Can't say it
>> runs slow.
>>
>
> 3GB on a XP machine? I used to get by on 512MB. What is this world
> getting up to?
>
XP PRO 1GB Celeron 2.8 GHZ. Single core.
Working fine.

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| I had 8GB on a WinXP machine.
| | The other 4GB occupied by a DataRAM RAMDisk, where it uses
| a Ring0 driver to access the excess RAM. The purpose of stopping
| at 4GB for the RAMDisk, is that is the limit of the free version.
| (The limit has since been dropped to 1GB on other versions.)
| | You can use more than 4GB on Windows XP, if you use Ring0 to get
| there. Ring3 is where the applications live, and they can't cheat like
| that.
|

I tried that for awhile. But I just never actually needed
more than the 3.3 GB RAM.

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 22:37:24 +0000, pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com>
wrote:

>So how much RAM does your machine have?

That is the question, and that the answer is that Firfox has become
bloatware, and the more bloated it becomes, the slower it runs.

Perhaps someone eneds to produce a "Firefox Lite" without "pockets"
and all the other bells and whistles that demand more memory.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> on Tue, 25 Jan 2022 08:57:34 +0200
typed in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 22:37:24 +0000, pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So how much RAM does your machine have?
>
>That is the question, and that the answer is that Firfox has become
>bloatware, and the more bloated it becomes, the slower it runs.
>
>Perhaps someone eneds to produce a "Firefox Lite" without "pockets"
>and all the other bells and whistles that demand more memory.

Amen and preach it.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

"pyotr filipivich" <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote

| >Perhaps someone eneds to produce a "Firefox Lite" without "pockets"
| >and all the other bells and whistles that demand more memory.
| | Amen and preach it.

Pale Moon. New Moon. Waterfox. As I understand it, most or all
alternatives are lighter weight, leaving out things like parental
controls that most people have no use for. New Moon starts
more quickly on my XP than FF does.