Re: Further Analysis Of Firefox 57


Lino Morales
 

As I've said before I've had no issues. I did run 58 beta 3 for a couple of days. It seemed slower than the current 57. I went back to it on Friday. My new PC I bought over the summer is a quad core with 8 GB of memory.

On 11/18/2017 12:33 PM, Chris wrote:

Ive yet to read one person who has windows 7 and firefox quantum works for them

On the other hand ive yet to read anyone with windows 10 have an issue with quantum

 

Make of that what you will

 

Maybe someone can prove me wrong

 

Just putting it out there 😎

 

 

 

From: Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: 18 November 2017 17:05
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] Further Analysis Of Firefox 57

 

I think we know that there is no real issue with some fast machines running

10, the only other people I've seen with the problem I have had have, maybe

coincidentally, been using 7 and the 32 bit version of 57 on the 64 bit os.

the processor speed is a red herring.

Of course a slow dual or single core will be painfully slow.

Brian

 

bglists@...

Sent via blueyonder.

Please address personal email to:-

briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'

in the display name field.

This message sent from a Windows XP machine!

----- Original Message -----

From: "Nevzat Adil" <nevzatadil@...>

To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>

Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 4:32 PM

Subject: Re: [nvda] Further Analysis Of Firefox 57

 

 

I have just updated to Firefox 57 and so far have not come across any

issues. My OS is Windows 10 64 bit.

Nevzat

 

On 11/18/17, Ron Canazzi <aa2vm@...> wrote:

> Hi Group,

> Because so many people are having problems with Firefox 57/Quantum, I

> decided to do some experimentation. I have 2 machines I use for storage

> and backup. One system is a Windows 7 64 bit machine with 4 GB RAM and

> a quad core processor running the 64 bit version of Windows 7. The

> other is an old Del computer 32 bit version of Windows 7 with a duel

> core processor and 4 GB of RAM.

> As mentioned previously, my primary Windows 10 high speed 8 core 12 GB

> RAM system sees little effect from the upgrade.

> Here is my analysis of the other 2 older slower machines. The 64 bit

> Windows system operates fairly well. It is a composite/IBM clone system

> from 2013. It seems a bit more sluggish than the faster Windows 10

> system, but all in all, I can use all the things I usually use such as

> quick navigation keys, address bar access, recognition of buttons on

> embedded players and so on.

> So now to the older Del from 2011. This machine experienced

> significantly more issues. While it was usable, it was very, very

> sluggish. On the ESPN/NFL page, it seemed to take about 1 or more

> minutes to load this fairly crowded page. Quick key navigation was very

> sluggish. They did work, if you didn't mind waiting 5 or 10 seconds for

> the system to initiate the keystroke. I could eventually find the

> buttons of embedded player, but again, system reaction was extremely

> sluggish. In doing this analysis, when I loaded a new crowded page, I

> waited for a few seconds and when I herd nothing, I press insert + T to

> read the title bar and after a few seconds, NVDA reported Firefox busy

> and the title of the previous page that I had been on when I launched

> the new page via the address bar. That's how i am sure that the extreme

> sluggishness was causal.

> I wonder how many of the people who are having issues with Firefox 57

> are using Del systems or some other lower end system with celluron

> processors. I wonder if there's is some sort of idiomatic issue with

> those slower systems or with some brands of processor or hardware.

> This is just an educated guess, but with the analysis of 3 systems, it

> might be worth something to those more technical.

> --

> They Ask Me If I'm Happy; I say Yes.

> They ask: "How Happy are You?"

> I Say: "I'm as happy as a stow away chimpanzee on a banana boat!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Join nvda@nvda.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.