Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Firefox .9
Firefox .9
« previous page 1
2
3 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Crono on Thu Jun 17th at 5:29am 2004

BC, trust me. it's there. You're running windows, there is a version of IE there, it just isn't made for browsing online.

Gorb, try out regular Mozilla, I remember when I first started using it, it seemed slow at times, but after about a month or so, it was incredibly fast (not entirly sure why since it couldn't still be in cache or memory). And now IE(browser version) takes a forever to load, seriously, it took like 2 minutes to load a site that mozilla loads in like 3 seconds. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by scary_jeff on Thu Jun 17th at 9:02am 2004

? quote:
Firefox takes way longer to load images than IE does for me.


That's how gecko works. It loads the html first, displaying the page as it loads, then fills in the images. IE loads images in preference to the page itself, and doesn't display what has so far been loaded. It is generally accepted that the gecko method is overall faster.



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Jun 17th at 11:57am 2004

you guys, you crack me up, you are so smart you kill me with your thinking..

if the whole page is blah-blah megs large total, and your connection speed is fairly constant, then the page will load at the same speeds no matter which order it is loaded.. be it images first or last

i use exclusively IE, and i have noticed that only traffic will dictate how my page loads (except here at the pit where a host upgrade every other day shuts the site down ) i can visit the same site day after day, and the load times always vary.

anyways, there its gonna take some kind of convincing to get me to believe that the order in which a page is loaded, will speed it up.. more likely its an illusion, to convince you its faster

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Biological Component on Thu Jun 17th at 6:13pm 2004

? quote:
BC, trust me. it's there. You're running windows, there is a version of IE there, it just isn't made for browsing online.


Actually, IE was giving me popups even while offline. This means I've got spyware crap on my machine somewhere. (spyware that doesnt seem to recognize Firefox) If, as you say, I still have IE running somehow, as if it is inexplicably interweaved with Windows, then, why do I now get - 0 - Internet Explorer popups in a day? Simple. The IE executable doesnt exist on my computer. I have removed it. And even if there is somehow, somewhere, a 'version' of IE 'constantly running', it isn't doing a d***ed thing, nor is it using more than 0% of my computer resources.

[edit]If you mean to say that the Windows explorer itself is a version of IE, or vice versa, then I see what you mean, but that has no relevence to web browsing, and no more bearing on anything that users do online than, say, Windows Update, and I have yet to see a popup coming from the Windows Update program.[/edit] [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Forceflow on Thu Jun 17th at 6:56pm 2004

I'm using a nifty extension for firefox. It enables an option in a right clicking menu on each page called "open in IE", so when you see a page is very IE-oriented and doesn't work with WC3 standards/Firefox, you can open it in IE.

Very handy

And Orph, it's perfectly possible to have multiple browers installed ... why would a browser be different from an e-mail program or chat client ?

We have 4 accounts on this computer here, and so many different programs. Mum & Dad running standard IE, me running Firefox (under Windows & under Redhat Linux), my brother running the IE/Firefox combo, and my sister uses some IE-light-edition for safety (she's still a little young for cowboy-surfin' around). We share the same variation of e-mail clients.

It's a whole world of possibilities, you just have to decide what's default for who. And that's about it. All those browsers feature profiles, for example everyone's Firefox looks different.





Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Crono on Thu Jun 17th at 8:50pm 2004

Orph, the 'gecko' (I had no idea that's what it was called) method is much faster.

Simply because you can see if it's the page you want before images are done loading. But I know you look at nothing but Porn so the images are the only thing you care about

However, it can be faster, sort of, because what if it's a really long document with images here and there? It will allow you to read from the top, while it loads images that are later in the document.

In any case, this is a small thing normal computer users wouldn't respect

BC, that's because those pages were kept in your cache and being triggered by another program, such as a chat program. Mozilla allows you to block ALL popups that are outside sourced (they don't reside with the pages you're currently viewing) so of course you don't get a popup. And yes, explorer is integrated into windows, it's not just aesthetically. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Jun 17th at 10:03pm 2004

? posted by Crono
Orph, the 'gecko' (I had no idea that's what it was called) method is much faster.

Simply because you can see if it's the page you want before images are done loading.

crono, i know the basics of HTML, and you can save an image in such a way as to load exactly the same way.. the method has been around for ages, and works with IE as well.. but ultimately, the entire page takes just as long to fully load, whether you load the pic first, or last, make no difference.

and my porn, has no text, so your comparison is moot

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by scary_jeff on Thu Jun 17th at 11:04pm 2004

? quote:
if the whole page is blah-blah megs large total, and your connection speed is fairly constant, then the page will load at the same speeds no matter which order it is loaded.. be it images first or last


Sorry, but that's just wrong. When your page is downloaded, it has to be processed so that the html can be turned into the visual layout that it represents. Processing takes time. Processing in different ways takes different amounts of time. There are a lot of websites that with IE would sit with just the background colour for ages, until finally it had downloaded all the images and the page could be displayed. With FireFox, you don't get this, ever.

If it makes no difference, why would people even mention it? It's not like we would get money for you using FireFox, and so will say anything for you to get it... Are all the developers and reviewers of FireFox just deluded when they say Mozilla is faster? Can you really see yourself knowing better on a technical issue like this than the people who actually write the html processing engine?



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Jun 17th at 11:14pm 2004

? posted by scary_jeff
Sorry, but that's just wrong.

hmm, so.. its not the first time.. but.. tis gonna be one of those issues to where you won't alter my belief jeff..

it takes a certain amount of time to download a thing, be it a file, or a web page.. a browser will NOT speed up the stream

now, a browser may cache a portion for the next visit, some may cache more than another, but on the 1st visit, all browsers are gonna load the same, given the same internet connection speeds are assured for each..

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Gwil on Thu Jun 17th at 11:29pm 2004

Jeff is saying that IE reads the HTML then parses it in a different order to Mozilla/Firefox.

Yes, both browsers will probably be operating at the same speed - no-one is debating that, they are saying with Firefox the HTML is read and then parsed differently to IE's method - a more efficient method, in the eyes of many users and developers..

Its not a feeling or anything Orph, Jeff is technically right - this isnt browser wars or anything of the sort, it's fact
[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Jun 17th at 11:38pm 2004

? posted by Gwil
Its not a feeling or anything Orph, Jeff is technically right - this isnt browser wars or anything of the sort, it's fact

i don't doubt you 2 know more than i do, what i doubt is your ability to convince me you do.. that may sound crazy, but not to me.

and who gives a s**t about browsers enuff to wage a conflict over them.. my wife prefers netscape.. i hate it, but she uses it none the less

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Crono on Thu Jun 17th at 11:49pm 2004

Orph, I just think you don't understand what they're saying.

Basically, with Mozilla, Netscape, Firefox, you don't have to wait for images to finish loading for you to begin reading the page.

That's all.
There are a lot of sites that load all the content of the site at the beginning so it's cached for later. When viewing it in IE, this site would appear to be idle and IE 'frozen'. Please, let me know if this doesn't make sense

As somewhat of a 'developer', you have to realize the less dependability or Cohesion (or was it coupling ? dammit no wonder I got a B in Software Engineering ) you have, the better.

Also, more users use IE so it is a more pleasurable target for attacks.

To be honest, it'd be best to have a combination of methods. Such as if total image size is not to large in comparison to bandwidth the images should be loaded first so everything seems to appear on the page (such as if the page had a massive amount of text it would have a smoother appearance loading), but if the page had a large or ridiculous total image size compared to bandwidth load it text/html first.

If we all had pipelined or duel processors we could do both at once and call it that

[NOTE]
This is not a 'flame', 'war', or anything like that, just clarification.
[/NOTE] [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Jun 17th at 11:59pm 2004

? posted by Crono
Orph, I just think you don't understand what they're saying.


[NOTE]
This is not a 'flame', 'war', or anything like that, just clarification.
[/NOTE]

first off, i think understanding works both ways.. what makes you all believe, i don't know what i am talking about, but just doesn't pertain to this particular point?

secondly, if you must apologize for something in advance.. its a waste IMO.. it tells me you are not prepared to go the distance.. jeff and i fight like brother and sister, but we always kiss and make up.. he is not so bad as a sister, once you get to know him

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Gwil on Fri Jun 18th at 1:00am 2004

I dread to think what you mean about you and Jeff and your "special relationship" Orph...

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Hornpipe2 on Fri Jun 18th at 2:20am 2004

YES!!! Maybe this will finally solve my problems with links not opening in new tabs in Linux. Also, maybe my radial context plugin will work a little better.




Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Crono on Fri Jun 18th at 2:24am 2004

Orph, this
? quote:
i know the basics of HTML, and you can save an image in such a way as to load exactly the same way.. the method has been around for ages, and works with IE as well.. but ultimately, the entire page takes just as long to fully load, whether you load the pic first, or last, make no difference.


and this
? quote:

it takes a certain amount of time to download a thing, be it a file, or a web page.. a browser will NOT speed up the stream


Lead me to believe that you don't know what we were pointing out. No one said Mozilla downloads things faster, and if you were reading it that way, then you misunderstood this specific point. That's all.

So, I'm not entirely sure what you're going on about

Also, I never apologized.

And stop thinking that I think you and Jeff (in particular) are constantly being serious; I'm not oblivious to sarcasm or friendly teasing. I have enough knowledge of both of your guys' 'personalities', at least in this setting, such that I can see whether you're kidding or not. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Jun 18th at 8:48am 2004

crono, lets just say, i know what i was thinking, you know what you were thinking, and jeff knew what he was thinking.. its just hard to explain stuff to people as focused as you two are :/

i know what i said was absolutely correct, whether it was relevant to this discussion, is IMO completely unimportant.

i can create a webpage, that loads in any order i wish, be it pictures first, middle or last, depending on the format i save them in.. if its more important to you to believe that because the words are legible before the picture is clear, that that signifies the page loaded quicker.. so be it.

but i am betting that bottomline, the time from click of mouse, to finish is relatively the same timeframe, no matter which browser is used.

i am not angry, but i am seriously disappointed that nether of you can see it as such.. IMO it would be the same as saying my 2.6 machine loads websites faster than my 450 does

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Orpheus on Fri Jun 18th at 9:03am 2004

? posted by scary_jeff
Sorry, but that's just wrong. When your page is downloaded, it has to be processed so that the html can be turned into the visual layout that it represents. Processing takes time. Processing in different ways takes different amounts of time. There are a lot of websites that with IE would sit with just the background colour for ages, until finally it had downloaded all the images and the page could be displayed. With FireFox, you don't get this, ever.

ok, this is the clincher.. all this tells me is, firefox can take an unoptimized webpage and speed it up a bit.. all i am saying is, a webpage that is constructed properly will load the exact same.. unless you are able to distinguish between 10th of seconds, i doubt you could truly say which page was faster on which browser.

and jeff, i always disbelieve any sentence, that has the word "ever" in it.. its unprofessional, and to final to be used when describing a concept. doesn't matter if you are 100% correct, it appears you are not anyways.

if you find that insulting, i am sorry, but i have had to deal with people all my life who were convinced of their own little kingdoms, and their control over it.. i hate people who use words that have no flexibility in them.

anyways, if i was mistaken on which point you guys were attempting to make.. its not as if i don't EVER do it now is it

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Leperous on Fri Jun 18th at 9:49am 2004

Firefox loads up things contained inside tables, unlike IE which has to wait for the </table> code, which is really the only speed advantage I've seen.



Quote
 Re: Firefox .9
Posted by Crono on Fri Jun 18th at 10:46am 2004

Dude ... Orph; you absolutely, completely, and totally missed the point.

How do I know?:
? quote:

all this tells me is, firefox can take an unoptimized webpage and speed it up a bit


Amongst other comments, like.

? quote:

i can create a webpage, that loads in any order i wish, be it pictures first, middle or last, depending on the format i save them in


That's actually not true ...

Let me see if I can clairify.

The only point was, IE loads images first then content. Mozilla loads content then images.

In a situation where there are many images, of any size, the page will appear to load faster in Mozilla ...

No one talked about HTML being read or displayed faster. No one said JavaScript was executed differently. The only thing that was said was that the images are loaded in a different order ... we're not talking about total page load time here or the time between each image being loaded.

The idea is that, given big enough image sizes (or a combination of several images) the content/text of the page is loaded so you can begin reading it while the images continue to load instead of waiting for every image to load before you're even shown the page.

It's not an "I think" or "in my opinion" situation, this is the algorithm they used, and they're ALWAYS ran this way, unless you have disable image viewing or something.
What I was saying is that it would be best if a browser used both methods choosing whichever one is better based on total image size and connection speed.

I hope that clarifies it. [addsig]




« previous page 1
2
3 next page »
Post Reply