Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / October 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Firefox on speed

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
bearclaw@cruller.invalid - 16 Oct 2006 18:37 GMT
I would like comments on the suggestion contained at this website:

<http://www.kissedbyjudas.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=141&PN=1>

Specifically, the page contains the following recommendation for Firefox
users:

<begin included information>

"Do this, it really does work!

1. Type "about:config" into the address bar and hit return. Scrol down
and look for the following entries:

network.http.pipelining
network.http.proxy.pipelining
network.http.pipelining.maxrequests

Normally the browser will make one request to a web page at a time. When
you enable pipelining it will make several at once, which really speeds
up page loading.

2.Alter the entries as follows:

Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"

Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"

Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to some number like 30. This
means it will make 30 requests at once.

3. Lastly right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer.
Name it "nglayout.initialpaint.delay" and set its value to "0".
This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on
information it receives.

If you're using a brodband connection you'll load pages 2-30 times
faster now."

</included information>

I have done this and it certainly does make a difference. Any downside
on the user end? Any comment on why Firefox doesn't use these settings
as default?

Signature

"I wear boots when I play that ol' squeezebox
Stompin' out rhythms
'till the headstones dance on their graves"

Clever Monkey - 16 Oct 2006 19:42 GMT
> I would like comments on the suggestion contained at this website:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> network.http.proxy.pipelining
> network.http.pipelining.maxrequests

Side-effects may be unreachable/unloadable sites, especially if those
sites are served up by servers which lie about their HTTP 1.1 support
(more common than we might like).

Essentially, this is an experimental option.
Eric P. - 18 Oct 2006 22:59 GMT
> > I would like comments on the suggestion contained at this website:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Essentially, this is an experimental option.

I made these changes in WaMCom 1.3.1 on my G4 running OS 9.2.2. I
haven't tested to see if this has improved performance, but I haven't
noticed any unwanted results, either.

Happy browsing,
Eric
Warren Oates - 18 Oct 2006 23:32 GMT
In article
<ericp06-DDCBE2.14593918102006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,

> I made these changes in WaMCom 1.3.1 on my G4 running OS 9.2.2. I
> haven't tested to see if this has improved performance, but I haven't
> noticed any unwanted results, either.

I've made those changes before, and the difference even on the old G4
seemed negligible. On my Mac Pro, it didn't seem to make any difference
at all, except that I couldn't access my router, so I changed it back. I
have the DNS proxy thing set, to use with Tor, though.
Signature

W. Oates
Teal'c: He is concealing something.
O'Neil: Like what?
Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.

Clever Monkey - 19 Oct 2006 20:11 GMT
> In article
> <ericp06-DDCBE2.14593918102006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> at all, except that I couldn't access my router, so I changed it back. I
> have the DNS proxy thing set, to use with Tor, though.

Those multiple connections make some turn-key routers very confused.
Lots of talk about this on various tech forums.
Clever Monkey - 19 Oct 2006 20:18 GMT
>>> I would like comments on the suggestion contained at this website:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> haven't tested to see if this has improved performance, but I haven't
> noticed any unwanted results, either.

Of course, getting the results you expected (no harm done to your
connectivity) is no proof that this experimental setting is ready for
prime-time.

The main issue is not that one can enable this and instantly know if it
fails or not.  The problem is that one can enable it and then forget
about it until some weird networking issue comes up that takes days to
solve.  One you get down to "this browser works, this one does not" you
are half-way there.  One still has to remember they made the change.

The assumption is that the person who made the change is also the person
trying to use the browser in question.  This is why the option is hidden.

That being said, I've been running with HTTP pipelining for as long as
Mozilla has supported it.  Besides one problem with an HTTP/1.0 server
that said it was HTTP/1.1, I've had no problems, either.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.