Speed of USMB in various browsers

[Statistikhengst]

Not sure if this has been broached at all, and of course, it also depends on the speed of the system and how many apps are running as embedded withing a browser, but I have four browsers on my system (WIN 7 Home Premium):

Google Chrome, vs. 31.0.1650.63 m (German) with just some addons:

Avast! Onlline Security
Screen Grab
Feedly
Fresh Start
FVD Downloader
Smartr
Vanilla Download manager

Opera, vs.18.0.1284.68, stabile version (German), with just two addons:

Avast! Onlline Security
FVD Downloader

Firefox 26.0 on the desktop system, Waterfox 26.0 on the 64-bit Laptop system (German), both French, with just a couple of addons:

Avast! Onlline Security
NoScript
WOT
FVD Downloader
Google Cache Tool
PDF Architect Converter
Sound Cloud

Microsoft Internet Explorer 11.0.9600.16476IS (German)

Avast! Onlline Security
WOT
PDF Architect Converter
Abode


I have been testing out USMB with all four browsers a lot since I joined, just to see the speed of each browser.

It appears to me that one should often empty the Google Chrome cache and then USMB runs pretty smoothly. But Google Chome launches each embedded add-on as an app with the name google.exe if you look iinto your windows task manager under "processes". Other browsers do this as well, but Chrome, which can be fast, tends to gum up the works the longer it runs.

Also, going to websites with lost of java applications on them while browsing through USMB can be a real problem with Google Chrome.

And a couple of times, just to be sure, I "flushed" the DNS cache.

Information about this here:

DNS Cache Flush, Clear, or Reset in Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8. | a Tech-Recipes Tutorial

I really, really dislike MSIE. It is like a dinosaur.

Firefox seems stabile and works fine.

Opera is BLAZINGLY fast with USMB. And if people haven't given the newest Opera (18) a try, I can heartily recommend it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would appreciate it if other members would give input on how their browsers react with USMB.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Well for what it's worth, on Win98se (ya ya I know...hehe) and a P2-400, 384MBs RAM, and DSL (550KB down max) and Firefox 2.0.0.20 (max version for this OS) everything's more or less fine. Have the browser cache set to just 32MBs or so but never have to flush it, and with the Fasterfox add-on and 'friendly' settings everything's fine. Do notice it takes a little longer loading any given page than I'd like, since it'll load all the previous posts on the thread's page but it's a minor annoyance I'm learning to live with.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well for what it's worth, on Win98se (ya ya I know...hehe) and a P2-400, 384MBs RAM, and DSL (550KB down max) and Firefox 2.0.0.20 (max version for this OS) everything's more or less fine. Have the browser cache set to just 32MBs or so but never have to flush it, and with the Fasterfox add-on and 'friendly' settings everything's fine. Do notice it takes a little longer loading any given page than I'd like, since it'll load all the previous posts on the thread's page but it's a minor annoyance I'm learning to live with.

Hey, Delta!!!


Time to bring you into the 21st Century, young man!!!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Nah, until some game comes out, or I actually wanna watch youtube videos (I don't as of right now) there's no need. And I'm all about need vs want.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Nah, until some game comes out, or I actually wanna watch youtube videos (I don't as of right now) there's no need. And I'm all about need vs want.

I am often about desire.

For instance, I desire a fast car.

 

[Intense]

I pretty much stay with FireFox on this Site.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

FireFox does not do me well on this site. I use Ubuntu and FireFox crashes an inordinate amount of the time. Since I made the switch to Chromium, It has made quite a noticeable difference.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Well for what it's worth, on Win98se (ya ya I know...hehe) and a P2-400, 384MBs RAM, and DSL (550KB down max) and Firefox 2.0.0.20 (max version for this OS) everything's more or less fine. Have the browser cache set to just 32MBs or so but never have to flush it, and with the Fasterfox add-on and 'friendly' settings everything's fine. Do notice it takes a little longer loading any given page than I'd like, since it'll load all the previous posts on the thread's page but it's a minor annoyance I'm learning to live with.

You should run your operating system via ram, a la "Slack Puppy" or one of the other CD ROM, Linux based systems. The 128 MB system will really fly with what you have. Download it for free and burn it to CD as an ISO.

Another good one is DSL (Damn Small Linux) it is only 49 MB's, but has fewer features obviously.

As far as a browser, I would go to a slimmed down version. FF is a bit slow for that type of set-up, but for God's sake - lose the W98!!! Don't do that to yourself!!!

 

[Yurt]

Well for what it's worth, on Win98se (ya ya I know...hehe) and a P2-400, 384MBs RAM, and DSL (550KB down max) and Firefox 2.0.0.20 (max version for this OS) everything's more or less fine. Have the browser cache set to just 32MBs or so but never have to flush it, and with the Fasterfox add-on and 'friendly' settings everything's fine. Do notice it takes a little longer loading any given page than I'd like, since it'll load all the previous posts on the thread's page but it's a minor annoyance I'm learning to live with.

this is not possible. seriously? win98? how? why?

 

[BreezeWood]

- lose the W98!!! Don't do that to yourself!!!

.

that just can not be - Delta, get a life ...

.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm know there are better OS avail, but after so long I've got a real changed-adverse thing going on. Have everything tweaked just right as-is. Thought of learning Linux and fiddling with things all over again isn't attractive. If I were to do that I'd just as soon buy a current rig.

For what I use the computer for, it's adequate. And going out of my way not to use current systems, it still feels fast. Ignorance being bliss.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Well for what it's worth, on Win98se (ya ya I know...hehe) and a P2-400, 384MBs RAM, and DSL (550KB down max) and Firefox 2.0.0.20 (max version for this OS) everything's more or less fine. Have the browser cache set to just 32MBs or so but never have to flush it, and with the Fasterfox add-on and 'friendly' settings everything's fine. Do notice it takes a little longer loading any given page than I'd like, since it'll load all the previous posts on the thread's page but it's a minor annoyance I'm learning to live with.

this is not possible. seriously? win98? how? why?

yeeeaaah...I am with you, I am not sure this is even possible. Nothing would work.
That is a very, very old Firefox. At least 2/3 of scripts on any internet site would not work.
Flash would not work, Java would not work. etc. etc.
Also - I looked, and no virus protection works with that version of Firefox anymore.
I call bullshit.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well for what it's worth, on Win98se (ya ya I know...hehe) and a P2-400, 384MBs RAM, and DSL (550KB down max) and Firefox 2.0.0.20 (max version for this OS) everything's more or less fine. Have the browser cache set to just 32MBs or so but never have to flush it, and with the Fasterfox add-on and 'friendly' settings everything's fine. Do notice it takes a little longer loading any given page than I'd like, since it'll load all the previous posts on the thread's page but it's a minor annoyance I'm learning to live with.

this is not possible. seriously? win98? how? why?

yeeeaaah...I am with you, I am not sure this is even possible. Nothing would work.
That is a very, very old Firefox. At least 2/3 of scripts on any internet site would not work.
Flash would not work, Java would not work. etc. etc.
Also - I looked, and no virus protection works with that version of Firefox anymore.
I call bullshit.

It's possible. I have a friend here in Germany who is still running with Win 98, but I keep reminding her that no more updates are possible and virus protection is minimal.

It's possible, but it's klutzy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was running with WIN 8 preview version for a while, but honestly, I like Win 7 better.

On the Linux side, I have Kubuntu and it also works very well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well for what it's worth, on Win98se (ya ya I know...hehe) and a P2-400, 384MBs RAM, and DSL (550KB down max) and Firefox 2.0.0.20 (max version for this OS) everything's more or less fine. Have the browser cache set to just 32MBs or so but never have to flush it, and with the Fasterfox add-on and 'friendly' settings everything's fine. Do notice it takes a little longer loading any given page than I'd like, since it'll load all the previous posts on the thread's page but it's a minor annoyance I'm learning to live with.

You should run your operating system via ram, a la "Slack Puppy" or one of the other CD ROM, Linux based systems. The 128 MB system will really fly with what you have. Download it for free and burn it to CD as an ISO.

Another good one is DSL (Damn Small Linux) it is only 49 MB's, but has fewer features obviously.

As far as a browser, I would go to a slimmed down version. FF is a bit slow for that type of set-up, but for God's sake - lose the W98!!! Don't do that to yourself!!!

Right. You can even run the entire system from a USB stick.

 

[Moonglow]

Nah, until some game comes out, or I actually wanna watch youtube videos (I don't as of right now) there's no need. And I'm all about need vs want.

I have a ton of old games and programs for that era you can have.

 

[Yurt]

I was running with WIN 8 preview version for a while, but honestly, I like Win 7 better.

On the Linux side, I have Kubuntu and it also works very well.

win8 is not win98

 

[mamooth]

Firefox slowness or stability issues can usually be solved by nuking your profile and replacing it with a fresh default profile. Profiles accumulate crap over the years. Try

Help -> Troubleshooting Information -> "Reset Firefox" button in the upper right.

Bookmarks are preserved, but all add-ons will get nuked.

I've found the Adblock add-on slows down Firefox, makes some pages not work, and doesn't really do much, so I removed it. Ghostery (blocks tracking cookies and such) and Noscript cover most of the functionality of adblock. Noscript is kind of a pain, but I regard it as a necessary pain for security reasons.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Firefox slowness or stability issues can usually be solved by nuking your profile and replacing it with a fresh default profile. Profiles accumulate crap over the years. Try

Help -> Troubleshooting Information -> "Reset Firefox" button in the upper right.

Bookmarks are preserved, but all add-ons will get nuked.

I've found the Adblock add-on slows down Firefox, makes some pages not work, and doesn't really do much, so I removed it. Ghostery (blocks tracking cookies and such) and Noscript cover most of the functionality of adblock. Noscript is kind of a pain, but I regard it as a necessary pain for security reasons.

Yes. See no real reason for Ghostery, but adblock is indeed needed.

 

[Pogo]

I wouldn't think you'll get much response here, as it would require trying USMB on every browser. It's like the local entertainment paper polling "best hospital to have a baby" -- how could you know unless you've tried them all?

I happen to be using Chrome, but that's got nothing to do with this site, nor do I know how it would compare with other browsers. It's just way too much trouble to download several browsers if the present one works. And I don't see why this site would behave differently on two different browsers that both work.