Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (3)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 2 hrs, 11 mins ago -
The N900 is now 15 years old! (6)
to Nokia N900 by Macros - 1 day, 6 hrs ago -
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 1 day, 18 hrs ago -
n770 youtube video (0)
to General by nmdv - 5 days, 18 hrs ago - more...
birdy |
2010-07-01
, 15:28
|
|
Posts: 13 |
Thanked: 5 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ London
|
#21
|
Love ff but this doesnt seem faster than earlier iteration and i guess i will have to stick with microB.
|
|
2010-07-01
, 15:37
|
|
Posts: 320 |
Thanked: 137 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
|
#22
|
FFS whoever said it was as fast as MicroB needs to really be able to tell a difference. It's still slow and sluggish. I dont hate it and I know what it means when a software is in beta. I hope that eventually when it comes out of beta it would be faster. And yes I dont think it's new it's been out for sometime. MicroB kicks ***!
| The Following User Says Thank You to xuggs For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-07-01
, 15:43
|
|
Posts: 78 |
Thanked: 32 times |
Joined on May 2008
|
#23
|
I agree, MicroB is still way faster.
FF is barely useable as it is, and I'm seriously doubting that it will ever change.
I have been using Fennec since the alpha days on the N810 and speed has always been the Achilles heel. I thought it would change when 1.0 came, but it's still the same, also with 1.1 as of today.
It has been a huge disappointment, and I'm having a hard time finding out why. Couldn't they learn from MicroB's rendering or is there a deeper tech-issue, that is beyond my understanding?
FF is barely useable as it is, and I'm seriously doubting that it will ever change.
I have been using Fennec since the alpha days on the N810 and speed has always been the Achilles heel. I thought it would change when 1.0 came, but it's still the same, also with 1.1 as of today.
It has been a huge disappointment, and I'm having a hard time finding out why. Couldn't they learn from MicroB's rendering or is there a deeper tech-issue, that is beyond my understanding?
 |
|
2010-07-01
, 15:53
|
|
Posts: 963 |
Thanked: 626 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Connecticut, USA
|
#24
|
I am downloading the update right now. So, I haven't tried it yet. But, I just want to point out that when comparing the speed of MircoB and Firefox you have to take into consideration that MicroB is always going to start faster since it is built in. Therefore, what we need to determine is whether Firefox is fast enough once loaded.
__________________
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --
http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
-- Worse than not knowing is not wanting to know! --
http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/
|
|
2010-07-01
, 15:55
|
|
Posts: 670 |
Thanked: 747 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
@ Kansas City, Missouri, USA
|
#25
|
First, this not a beta release. It's Firefox 1.1 final, unless you have installed the wrong file.
Second, I've been using Firefox as the default browser since the 1.0 release. I don't know where some people get the idea it's slower than MicroB or runs flash any differently. I'll admit I've tweaked FF a bit - increased cache memory, etc. but by seat-of-the-pants it's always run as well as MicroB for me. I haven't done any formal testing to speak of though.
MicroB seems to load quicker because it pre-loads into memory at boot, but after both get going I can't tell a significant speed difference. If anything, FF should be faster due to being based on the FF 3.6 engine while MicroB is based on the FF 3.5 engine.
I just prefer the FF UI and it handles some business websites I use better than MicroB.
Second, I've been using Firefox as the default browser since the 1.0 release. I don't know where some people get the idea it's slower than MicroB or runs flash any differently. I'll admit I've tweaked FF a bit - increased cache memory, etc. but by seat-of-the-pants it's always run as well as MicroB for me. I haven't done any formal testing to speak of though.
MicroB seems to load quicker because it pre-loads into memory at boot, but after both get going I can't tell a significant speed difference. If anything, FF should be faster due to being based on the FF 3.6 engine while MicroB is based on the FF 3.5 engine.
I just prefer the FF UI and it handles some business websites I use better than MicroB.
__________________
Registered Linux user #266531.
Registered Linux user #266531.
|
|
2010-07-01
, 16:00
|
|
Posts: 78 |
Thanked: 32 times |
Joined on May 2008
|
#26
|
Originally Posted by Crashdamage
Can you give a quick rundown of your tweaking? Cause by the seat of my pants, there's no doubt, MicroB is waaay faster.
I'll admit I've tweaked FF a bit - increased cache memory, etc. but by seat-of-the-pants it's always run as well as MicroB for me.
|
|
2010-07-01
, 16:04
|
|
Posts: 320 |
Thanked: 137 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
|
#27
|
Verification is needed for this one but I think MicroB is installed on the 256MB NAND flash while FF is installed on eMMC so naturally MicroB is going to be faster.
By slow I refer to scrolling down a webpage where it would pause for half a second and then continue to render. This IMHO is horrible. It spoils the experience and I have never faced this with MicroB. I frankly dont care how long it takes to startup a browser but the browsing itself should be reasonable.
Like I said I will give it the benefit of doubt being in beta but sorry it's not as fast as MicroB.
Edit: and yes I have tweaked FF myself since 1.0 days.
By slow I refer to scrolling down a webpage where it would pause for half a second and then continue to render. This IMHO is horrible. It spoils the experience and I have never faced this with MicroB. I frankly dont care how long it takes to startup a browser but the browsing itself should be reasonable.
Like I said I will give it the benefit of doubt being in beta but sorry it's not as fast as MicroB.
Edit: and yes I have tweaked FF myself since 1.0 days.
| The Following User Says Thank You to xuggs For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-07-01
, 16:13
|
|
Posts: 178 |
Thanked: 30 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Texas
|
#29
|
Originally Posted by Crashdamage
How did you get flash working?
First, this not a beta release. It's Firefox 1.1 final, unless you have installed the wrong file.
Second, I've been using Firefox as the default browser since the 1.0 release. I don't know where some people get the idea it's slower than MicroB or runs flash any differently. I'll admit I've tweaked FF a bit - increased cache memory, etc. but by seat-of-the-pants it's always run as well as MicroB for me. I haven't done any formal testing to speak of though.
MicroB seems to load quicker because it pre-loads into memory at boot, but after both get going I can't tell a significant speed difference. If anything, FF should be faster due to being based on the FF 3.6 engine while MicroB is based on the FF 3.5 engine.
I just prefer the FF UI and it handles some business websites I use better than MicroB.
|
|
2010-07-01
, 16:18
|
|
Posts: 60 |
Thanked: 19 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
|
#30
|
Originally Posted by MOC
Same here - I love the UI and it's definitely faster than FF 1.01, but still seriously behind MicroB in usability, especially for scrolling web pages. Also, it's often unresponsive when tapping on the url bar. I need t tap 2/3 times before being able to input a new url. Too bad, because it has a great interface. MicroB speed + Firefox UI would be the best...
Can you give a quick rundown of your tweaking? Cause by the seat of my pants, there's no doubt, MicroB is waaay faster.
