Post by T
I have a secret weapon to speed up Chrome and Firefox. It
is an extension called "ublock orgin". Makes a YUGE difference.
Actually you get both speedup and slowdown. I have both uBlock Origin
and uMatrix. I configured uMatrix to only block off-domain scripts but
it is much more handy than NoScript.
The adblockers have to update themselves. No, I'm not talking about
code updates. I'm talking about those blacklist updates. They have to
connect to their DNSBL source to retrieve a newer version of the
blacklists. The more blacklists you have, the more source to which they
have to connect to get more blacklists. The downloads are quick but
they will impede the loading of the web browser.
I went to uBlock Origin because Adblock Plus was slower to load. That
was awhile ago. Adblock was slow because of some fault is design by
Mozilla in Firefox. When Mozilla made a change, Adblock Plus got a lot
faster to load itself (but the blacklists still take time).
While have a page not connect to external sources for ads, the purpose
of adblockers is to break the code in the page. This can result in the
content that you do want to see getting screwed up. It takes time for
you to decide what off-domain or restricted content to allow and which
scripts to allow at a minimum to get a page to work. So all the small
time you saved to load the unwanted content is offset by all the time
you spent configuring the adblocker. I suspect if someone were to
measure how much time we spend configuring the adblocker versus how much
time we wait for a page to render, we adblocking users are probably
losing time. However, for those of use willing to expend the effort, we
get better privacy and less noise to bother with in the pages.
There is time to load the adblocker. There is time for it to get
updated blacklists. Even in parallel, your CPU and network can only do
so much. The breakage caused by adblockers and users having to
configure the adblocker to minimally unbreak a page overshadows the time
spent loading a site many many times. But getting rid of the noise
isn't the only reason to use an adblocker.
The more add-ons you install, the more memory you consume. With
multi-process web browsers, each add-on has another instance loaded in
the tab process. If you open 10 tabs and have 10 processes for each
tab, you load 10 instances of add-on 1, 10 instances of add-on 2, and so
on. You can end up consuming so much memory with a deluge of add-ons
that your web browser will get slow and sometimes very slow. You may
even end up having to use the slow pagefile. I try to keep my add-ons
to a minimum but still have about half a dozen in each web browser.
Some users have a dozen add-ons or even a lot more. Some add-ons are
small (there is a minimum size under which an add-on will not consume
less) but some are large. Think of like having to drag more luggage at
the airport: the more bags you have to drag along the more you get
fatigued with the added weight.
Post by T
I haven't noticed Firefox slowing down, but then again I
am using the Linux version. The first start of the day is
slow, but then it caches up in memory and starts in about
1-1/2 seconds after that.
Firefox has not gotten slow only to load it. It is also slower to
render web pages. Folks that load Firefox and leave it loaded and spend
most of their time at one site (and even on one page even if dynamic),
like for webmail, won't notice the slowdown. Loading Firefox, using it,
and unloading it when you do other work (yes, there is more than the
web) and doing so over and over during the day will make you realize
Firefox loads slower. If you bounce between LOTS of sites or load lots
of pages from each during each Firefox session, you'll notice it takes
longer than with Chrome.
There is also the considering of HTML5 compatibility. They've all been
grandually improving but Chrome still leads. That doesn't mean us users
really appreciate everything new in HTML5 but maybe something we want
that requires HTML5 won't work in Firefox or behave odd. Try going to
speedtest.net and do a test while watching the dial hands move around.
With Chrome, the hands are smooth and there are no remnants. In
Firefox, you'll see fragments of prior screen paints so the dial arms
look jagged and there are remnant stubs of it left in the display.
Note: This was before that site switched to the beta site which is now
forced on Chrome visitors (the link to their legacy site just bounces me
back to the beta site, probably due to some boob there using
meta-refresh or the location header incorrectly). Their legacy site
used Flash. You would think the same Flash content in Chrome would show
the same as in Firefox. Some web browsers are better at rendering
content than others. Chrome is better than Firefox.
Post by T
My Windows customer usually start Firefox (and Chrome) and
leave it running all day, so not much of an issue.
The search bar is a pain in my ass. You would never believe how
many of my customers do not know what the address bar is.
They search for 100% of everything. And since the address
bar can also be used as a search bar, I remove the address
So you render the web browser useless to customers that want to specify
where they go rather than have to rely on bookmarks or hyperlinks.
If someone tells them over the phone to go to, say, forum.avast.com then
how are they going to get there?
Post by T
Tip: have then press f6 a bunch of times and see what flashes
I don't use hotkeys to then have an address bar into which I can
manually input a URL. Just like I, like you, keep the menu bar
displayed so I don't have to use the Alt key to see it.
Post by T
"enter 'fastsupport.com' into the address bar"
"which one do you want me to pick? There are hundred of
Just one for me. The address bar does not have to be an omnibox (i.e.,
include searches). Just turn that off in options. In Firefox, uncheck
the Options -> Search category -> Provide search suggestions. In Google
Chrome, I think it's the chrome://settings -> Advanced link -> Privacy
section -> Use a prediction service to help complete searches and URLs
in the address bar.
Post by T
Had a lady using Chrome with a 70 MBit/sec Cable modem
complaining of a slow Internet connection. She was looking
up interior decorating items: tiling, flooring, curtains,
the whole nine yards. I got suspicious and installed
uBlock Orgin. I blew her away. I noticed that one
of the sites she had to using had something
like 240 hits on uBlock. Geez, no wonder she was so slow.
Yes, there are extreme sites with off-domain content. In this case,
blocking the unwanted content sped up the page faster than the time to
load the add-on and update its blacklist(s).
Post by T
Running junkware removers also helps.
Not installing helps more. But then you would make less money.