Mozilla puts squeeze on slow Firefox add-ons

Slow developers

What Mozilla should be cracking down on with its third party providers, paid or volunteer, is their slowness to get their themes and extensions ready for FF4.

I know all about how they are working independently an at their own discretion; but the joy of FF is that it is extensible and we can make our experience unique.

Otherwise, if we are gong to use a plain Jane browser that is complete, we can use Safari. Yeah, Right.

Startup time should not be confused with performance

I start up Firefox rarely, with the same instance running for days or weeks on end, and I use Firebug all of the time to check on pages my sites generate. If it takes a few seconds longer to start up, then I don't notice it. It can't be as slow as the Java behemoths like OpenOffice or Eclipse.

Performance, on the other hand, such as whether it renders pages, runs scripts and handles DOM manipulations promptly, is important to me.

Hurray

I usually use custom install on programs to avoid the install of toolbars but normal users don't, hopefully the way it'll work in Firefox is:

1. Firefox starts up and detects a toolbar install

2. Firefox prompts the user whether they want it installed with the default option being no

3. Happy times for everyone

Plus, no more MS pushing their crap through windowsupdate into Firefox. (I'm looking at you .net framework)

Firebug

"According to Mozilla's stats, Firebug slows startup by 75 per cent."

Surely the target audience for that plugin expect that debugging-type tools will slow things down a little?

I use it at work and it's running all day, so a one-off 17.5 second startup time compared to 10 seconds isn't all that much of a problem, especially not while I'm doing the most important task of the day - making that vital first brew of the day!

is startup time their only measure?

If it is, then they're basing the decision on flawed assumptions. The amount of time I spend waiting on Firefox to start over the course of a day is probably 1 minute. Of course, their next version will have some crap styled after jqs...unless we're lucky.

Good move, but...

It's a step in the right direction, but it seems to be fairly common for FF users to have loads of add-ons installed, most of which they never use. The problem for FF being that these browsers will be slow to start and often slow to run. Shouting about how fast your browser is will do you no good when one of these users sees a friend's machine running Chrome or Opera much faster.

The solution would be to build into the browser a feature to warn users when add-ons are making their browser slow. And also to warn them of installed add-ons which are never or rarely used.

In fairness to Firebug

It's a much more complex add-on than most, and the people that install and use it in a day-to-day basis probably aren't fussed about the startup hit, given that they're not end users. I use it everyday and I'd rather have it around than have Firefox boot faster.

But it's good to see Mozzy addressing this issue, especially with regard to add-ons dropped in by other installers. That is infuriating.

firebug

I don't mind if it slows performance, its a debugging tool I'd expect some hit. I think the advantages out weight the drag there.

Otherwise that's probably a good move.

Leading the way

Good ol' Firefox leading the way, because this is nothing like the new IE9 performance tab for plugins showing how they've affected the browsers load times.

I'll wait for me Chrome version though, never been a big FF fan, the top bars way to big and takes up too much screen real estate.

Great news

I won't have to keep uninstalling yahoo and google toolbar from my folk's computer any longer.

But really, who doesn't expect a utility like firebug to have a large performance impact on browser load and run time?

As a developer you accept that trade-off ( and probably have a separate profile or browser for your regular surfing )

Trade-offs

The reason I stick with Firefox (Pale Moon actually) is that some of the add-ons are almost indispensable. It's just a matter of keeping them at a minimum and being prepared to accept a performance hit as a trade-off for the benefit provided by the particular add-on/s. No doubt some people will grizzle about their start up times even though they have a squillion add-ons installed.

Hmm...

"...users often don’t know how the add-on got there..."

I've seen a lot of users run the automatic Java update and click "next" until it's finished, ignoring the part about the Yahoo Toolbar. Or the same but when installing CCleaner or any other free application that wants to include a toolbar or browser install. So a lot of it is users choosing to be ignorant then complaining about the consequences, imo.

follow the ie road

so they are doing this not because that functionality is part of internet explorer 9 but because a good idea?

Screen "drag".....

One thing I have noticed since moving to FF4 is that when I move my mouse around the screen, the cursor seems to "drag". In stead of a smooth movement around the screen it is jerky and "stop / start". It is only fractions, tiny amounts, but enough to be seen on screen and make mouse movement ever so slightly annoying.

Start p speed I do not care about, but, like everybody else, "working speed" page render and the rest is far more important.....