Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:32:53 +0000
- From: Jeff Layman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: 6,000 listed Web Extensions on AMO
On 16/11/17 22:04, NFN Smith wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
I note that one of the puffs for FF57 is that it is faster. Why is that
so important? I can stream a 4k movie to my smart tv (amusingly running
the now-defunct Firefox OS) with a 10MB broadband download over wire -
no fibre here. There is no buffering. Why would I need "faster"?
There's fast, and there's fast. Depends on what you're doing, and what
your personal tolerances are. With Firefox, speed could be how long it
takes to load the application (i.e., how long it takes before you can
start interacting with it), or how quickly screens display or pages render.
Using your hardware as an analogy:
Underneath, there's a variety of potential bottlenecks -- CPU, RAM, I/O
and bus speeds, the network interface, your upstream network
connectivity (including hub/router, modem, ISP), and more. If you're
having performance issues in one area, adding capacity in another area
won't magically make things go faster.
For the most part, unless you're doing CPU-intensive tasks, the speed of
your computer's CPU is mostly irrelevant -- all that you get with a
higher clock speed is more idle CPU cycles. If your memory use is
typically 2.5 GB, upgrading from 4 GB of RAM to 8 GB won't increase
The 2012 laptop I use (intended for business and gamers, oddly) has a
pretty good spec - i5-3230M CPU @ 2.60GHz, 8GB ram (1600MHz), Radeon HD
7970M video, 1GB hybrid HD, etc, so I doubt there is any hardware
bottleneck. And as I said, 10MB download seems adequate for me, as I'm
not an online gamer.
Thus, for Firefox if you're getting adequate performance with your
streaming, that doesn't mean that there aren't performance improvements
or that they don't make a difference for some (or even many) users, even
if those improvements don't make any noticeable difference for what
For me personally, I don't do any streaming, but I tend to have a lot of
tabs open simultaneously, and the speed that tabs open (and pages load)
is something that I've noticed is significantly improved.
I always start FF(54.0) with saved tabs from the previous session. I
have 3 windows with 1 - 6 tabs; they seem to load within a second or
two, which is good enough for me. If something fails to load I just try
to reload the page. If that fails, I give up for a few minutes and try
again. I guess I just don't have a need for "fast"...
general mailing list