Firefox 3.6.9

[brkkab123]

Minedoesnt seem any different speed wise.

You may be right. It doesn't seem any slower to me. However, I only have a 768kbs. DSL. I've got a new monitor, all-in-one printer and 2nd video card to get. After those 3 things are out of the way I'm either going to update my speed with AT&T DSL or Get Verizon FIOS. There both around $60.00 for 15mbs. Not bad considering what I got now is over $32.00 a month. I just want the parts out of the way first, so my pc's fully done the way I want it. I only put it together like 3 weeks ago. Definitely blows my P4 Prescott out the water and back. My 3.4 ghz. always read 100%. This Phenom 2 965 BE only goes over 3% during virus/spyware scans (15--26%0. Big improvement.

I know that accurate results would mean running more than one test. But running a quick Peacekeepers Browser Benchmark Test after installing 3.6.9 today gave me a significantly slower result (2542 pts.) than those I got from 3.6.3 to 3.6.8 (2799 - 2901 pts.).

 

[etalmar]

I know that accurate results would mean running more than one test. But running a quick Peacekeepers Browser Benchmark Test after installing 3.6.9 today gave me a significantly slower result (2542 pts.) than those I got from 3.6.3 to 3.6.8 (2799 - 2901 pts.).

Hello Elmer, As I mentioned earlier in my post, I have decided not to upgrade FF beyond version 3.6.6, as the plugins container is a major performance issue for my system setup. From your initial benchmark results, it appears that version 3.6.9 still reflects a performance slowdown. I'm hoping that Firefox will resolve this performance issue soon, but until they do, I am not going to update further.

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

I think that 3.6.6 was the fastest of the benchmark tests I've run on FF so I'm actually thinking of backtracking to that as well.

Mind you, I shouldn't really complain. I did a couple of tests straight after FF 3.6.9 with IE8 (a couple because I couldn't believe the first one!!) the results of which were a mere 903 and 917!! I hope that's not the benchmark Mozilla is trying to emulate!

 

[Core]

I know that accurate results would mean running more than one test. But running a quick Peacekeepers Browser Benchmark Test after installing 3.6.9 today gave me a significantly slower result (2542 pts.) than those I got from 3.6.3 to 3.6.8 (2799 - 2901 pts.).

It was 2701 for me, with self-reloading tabs open. Judging by the benchmark stats though, Chrome beats the hell out of FF in that benchmark.

Installed Chrome and ran the same benchmark. 7449 points, and none of the stuttering of FF.

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

Installed Chrome and ran the same benchmark. 7449 points, and none of the stuttering of FF.

I cant type that fast!!!

 

[Nibiru2012]

Link to Peacekeeper not working anymore.

 

[Elmer BeFuddled]

Nibs, Still working for me this end. Here it is in real money.

http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action

 

[Nibiru2012]

I try but all I get is a blank page marked: "Untitled" The URL line states: about:blank

When I do a "copy link location" still same result, blank page.

 

[Core]

Works fine for me. What browser/version?

 

[clifford_cooley]

Here is my scores.

I must say I was shocked at IE8 scores. The complex graphics scored 0 for IE8, that part of the test didn't even run.

 

[Nibiru2012]

Works fine for me. What browser/version?

Firefox 3.6.9... let me try IE8 and see what happens.

Doesn't work in Opera 10.61 either.

 

[catilley1092]

I recently updated all of my OS's to FF 3.6.9, and have had no problems as of yet. Also, on Ultimate, I have FF 4.0 Beta 5 installed, and it's supporting more of the add ons that it didn't in previous versions.

If FF continues their way of quick updates, 3.7 is around the corner.

Cat

 

[davehc]

Noone has mentioned SlimBrowser?
I have it installed as an alternative. It hangs it's hook quite a bit on IE, but, if you take time out to customise it, it is quite a neat browser. I do think it is marginally quicker than any of the others.

 

[etalmar]

Hello Dave, SlimBrowser looks interesting. Think I'll give it a try. May end up using it as a backup to Firefox. Now, if it could only run Greasemonkey scripts, that would be great.

 

[davehc]

SlimBrowser needs a bit oif work in the options, but once you have it configured it runs great. I can see that it uses just a little less resourc than the other three contenders.

 

[etalmar]

SlimBrowser needs a bit oif work in the options, but once you have it configured it runs great. I can see that it uses just a little less resourc than the other three contenders.

Is it similar to Avant Browser? I used to run that on my old Win98SE machine and liked it.