why is my browser start up slow initially and faster later

[mattbiernat]

okay i use firefox, i've noticed an interesting behavior. the first time that i start my browser it takes about 2-3 seconds for it to start. all subsequent starts are almost instant. is there any way to fix that issue? i have 3gb ram, should be more than plenty and i have no spyware/viruses. why is windows xp always slow during the initial application opening?

[Marin85]

Put shortly, NO! I thought the SSD should be able to launch FF instantly (including first start)

why is windows xp always slow during the initial application opening?

Because it is the best and greatest M$ OS so far and (for)ever, that everyone appraises (as opposite of how dumb Vista is, which is in fact true, yet Vista offers slightly faster first starts of most recent applications, maybe except for Office 2003, but in the meanwhile M$ may have fixed that...).

[GomJabbar]

I don't know about Firefox - don't use it. However SeaMonkey, another Mozilla browser has an advanced setting called Quick Launch. This puts the browser in memory on bootup for faster launch times. Other programs offer Quick Launch as well. Perhaps Firefox does.

[mattbiernat]

yeah i do have a preloader that runs at start up and it does help but FF still loads slowly during the first start. after that it is instant. yet it really bothers me that my browser can sometimes take up to 5 seconds to start while other times it is started instantly.

[arlab]

Maybe because, initially, Firefox isn't in your RAM.
In subsequent launches, Firefox (or a part of it) is already in central memory, benefiting from the OS buffer replacement policies.

[Stargate199]

The computer still has to fetch the program from disk. Then it loads it into memory and then it runs. Windows caches all the programs you use in a session so it takes less time to launch them again. There is not way to get around that 2-3 second first start because the systems has to go and load all of the components from the Program Files and App Data folders and that takes time. SSD don't have a big performance boost over HDD (they do have some, but not enough to be very noticeable). The benefit to SSD is lower power consumption (that is why they are used in the X300 to get longer battery life).

[Marin85]

SSD don't have a big performance boost over HDD (they do have some, but not enough to be very noticeable). The benefit to SSD is lower power consumption (that is why they are used in the X300 to get longer battery life).

So, 250 MB/s read, 160 MB/s write and <0.5ms access times (compared to 14-15ms on laptops and 12-11ms on desktops with SAS drives) is not very noticeable difference?...

[Stargate199]

Those speeds are only theoretical. The operating system is built thinking you are using a regular hard disk drive and therefore you will not get the full speed out of the drive. All of the benchmarks I have seen put SSD slightly faster than HDD. If you can find any benchmarks that show real world speed of SSDs that come close to what is advertised about these drives please let me know.

[Marin85]

Those speeds are only theoretical. The operating system is built thinking you are using a regular hard disk drive and therefore you will not get the full speed out of the drive.

Probably, but it doesn´t mean that the difference won´t be very noticeable.

All of the benchmarks I have seen put SSD slightly faster than HDD. If you can find any benchmarks that show real world speed of SSDs that come close to what is advertised about these drives please let me know.

For Intel X-25M:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Int ... 012-7.html
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=60
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4647

For Intel X-25E (the only benchmark I could find for that drive):
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-7091- ... hmark.html


Marin

[Stargate199]

Cool. I have not seen the benchmarks on the intel drive, only on the Samsung. The Samsung results kind of confirm my believe that the main benefit to SSD is power consumption. Sure access time to SSD is faster than HDD, but there are also other things the data has to go through before getting accessed by the CPU. SSD will replace HDD, but not right now, probably in 5 years when we max out how much data was can put on platters (we got to be close to the limit I think). I hear all sorts of new storage technology that goes down to the atomic level. The only factor there would how much matter we could fit into that space. The new version of SATA should help with SSD speeds, but it may take time for Operating System to take advantage of that speed.

[Marin85]

The Samsung results kind of confirm my believe that the main benefit to SSD is power consumption. Sure access time to SSD is faster than HDD, but there are also other things the data has to go through before getting accessed by the CPU.

Even the battery life advantage of SSDs is as of now questionable, I believe. As for the Samsung drive, it has somewhat higher performance than most current HDs, but unlike them it can sustain its write and read speeds, so file transfers take significantly less time than with mechanical drives.

I hear all sorts of new storage technology that goes down to the atomic level.

Yup, nano-technology seems to be the (scary) future...

The only factor there would how much matter we could fit into that space. The new version of SATA should help with SSD speeds, but it may take time for Operating System to take advantage of that speed.

Well, they could always release OS patches...

[Rick the Green]

It is because Firefox check for updates the first time.
In Firefox go to Tools/options/advanced and uncheck the update boxes.

of course you will have to check manually for updates

[GomJabbar]

It is because Firefox check for updates the first time.

I was thinking the same thing. I believe Opera also checks for updates when it starts.

[Marin85]

I have to correct myself: FF starts a little faster with all update checks disabled. --> one happy user more

[mattbiernat]

hmm i will try that. we will see how fast it will start then, i have firefox preloader installed as well...
okay i just disabled the update option. ff starts a litte bit faster. but the initial start up is still slower than subsequent onces. i wonder if this is the OS fault or the FF fault.

[Mike Blake]

Matt, have you tried starting Firefox in its own version of Safe Mode to see if it starts significantly faster? There should be an icon for it in the Firefox folder in the Start/Programs menu.

[mattbiernat]

no, i no longer have the shortcut for safemode, not sure where to find it exactly...

[Mike Blake]

no, i no longer have the shortcut for safemode, not sure where to find it exactly...

Your path may differ, but bascially it's the main executable with a switch attached. Mine is:
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -safe-mode

[mattbiernat]

okay i tried the safe mode. the difference is still there. initially firefox takes 2-3 times longer and then the second time i open the application speeds up.
what is really weird is that explorer exhibits the same behavior. initially when i click on my computer it takes 3-4 times longer to open up than the second or third time that i open my computer icon. vista and windows 7 don't exhibit this behavior. is this just the way that XP works?

[Marin85]

Simply, Vista (and Win 7) have different memory management than XP. For that matter, the memory management of Win 7 is supposed to be/get an improved version of the Vista one (Vista one has some flaws when it come to that it should free some of the cache to make space for a new application to load into the memory). If you happen to notice, Win 7 has faster initial start times for most applications than Vista, this is one of those improvements.