Arch Linux

bubblewrap456 · 2011-04-23 16:14:57

n/a

Last edited by bubblewrap456 (2014-10-27 10:37:53)

demian · 2011-04-23 16:33:35

Sounds a little bit like too little RAM (or no swap?), maybe bad version/options of xorg/graphic card driver.
I'd also try addons for firefox that improve performance/speed like fasterfox.

Last edited by demian (2011-04-23 16:34:09)

ewaller · 2011-04-23 16:41:20

Nope, no problems here.

Tell us more about your network, ISP, router, etc... How is your DNS configured? are you behind a Proxy? Are you using Avahi?
Have you done any metics? Have you measured your download speed in Linux? in Windows?
What type of browsing are you doing? Flash? HTML5?
Is your bottle neck a video driver?

Brand A vs Brand B is subjective. So is "It seems slower on <insert OS here>."
Give us something to work with...

pataphysician · 2011-04-23 16:55:06

I don't run chromium so can't speak on that. I run firefox with adblock noscript xmarks and vimperator, on arch with KDE, windows XP and windows 7, it is fastest(though not a huge difference) for me on arch with KDE. Also I have never had firefox crash in over a year, and I never had a crash like you describe.

Most of my machines are running ATI with open source drivers, but I have two machines with Nvidia cards, and Nvidia proprietary driver has always had some performance issues with firefox, it's much much much better than it used to be, but certain pages are still slower at scrolling and slow down tab switching(lauchpad bug pages is a good example, though now the performance isn't quite so bad) . Two years ago or more, this was more noticeable, and it really was due to Nvidia drivers, as firefox performed well if I switched in VESA drivers.

Last edited by pataphysician (2011-04-23 16:55:59)

Unia · 2011-04-23 17:11:59

You could try disabling IPv6:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/IP … the_Module

Greatly improves my browsing speed with Firefox 4

brebs · 2011-04-23 17:17:41

bubblewrap456 wrote:

have to go to tty to pkill

Firefox4 is very stable. Not perfect, but very good. I would suggest renaming your ~/.mozilla/ and retrying.

slows down the system

Do you see hard disk activity during the slowdown? If so, it could be the commit= setting. IMO its default of 5 seconds is too small/short.

karabaja4 · 2011-04-23 17:30:29

If you're using Flash you'll have to get use to the fact that it just sucks on Linux.

I used to notice something similar, Firefox 3.x just wasn't quite as fast on Linux as it was on windows. This improved with Firefox 4.x, although it's still not what it should be.

Chromium is blazing fast for me if I'm not using Flash, so no complaints there.

Try something of the following:

- if you're not using compiz, disable compositing (this has done wonders for my 2D rendering on nvidia)
- try using different GTK theme (something simpler, Mist for example) - also note that GTK 2.x sucks in terms of rendering (things improved with GTK 3.x but we have no browsers that use it).
- try using lighter WM (such as Openbox).

Ramses de Norre · 2011-04-23 18:45:04

Off topic:

karabaja4 wrote:

If you're using Flash you'll have to get use to the fact that it just sucks on Linux.

It smoothly plays 1080p on my laptop with an intel GM965 and a 1.8GHz core2duo, IMHO that's not bad
It's been a lot worse in the past though.

xs · 2011-04-23 22:30:01

Just you...

karabaja4 · 2011-04-23 23:17:45

Ramses de Norre wrote:

It smoothly plays 1080p on my laptop with an intel GM965 and a 1.8GHz core2duo, IMHO that's not bad
It's been a lot worse in the past though.

On the other hand, using desktop 7300GT and Athlon 64 3200+ isn't enough to watch fullscreen SD (!) youtube videos... go figure.

Berticus · 2011-04-26 03:58:00

yeah, IMO flash isn't as "good" as it used to be, not that it ever truly was good. I'm expecting html5 to be great, and I'll be able to rid myself of flash. Besides flash, I have no issues with firefox.

the sad clown · 2011-04-26 05:08:28

I haven't seen any differences and I just converted a windows machine to linux (Vista -> Arch Xfce4).

ehlo · 2011-05-01 20:05:30

Firefox is certainly slowly on Windows - mozilla say so themselves.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/04/3 … As-Windows

Misfit138 · 2011-05-01 21:08:38

I too have consistently experienced slightly better web-surfing performance on Windows XP across a wide range of machines, vs. GNU/Linux. It is noticeable, but not profound in my case.
Using Chrome on both platforms, my Windows systems are always snappier to load pages; typically 1 second faster on plain bbs-type pages, and ~3 seconds faster on this page, for example.
I use static IP and openDNS.
It really makes very little difference to me, but it rings a bell, yeah.

Grinch · 2011-05-02 00:47:08

ehlo wrote:

Firefox is certainly slowly on Windows - mozilla say so themselves.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/04/3 … As-Windows

Yes I read that, but I find it weird. We've had PGO enabled AUR packages for Firefox for quite some time, granted the maintainer of those packages says that the PGO can be 'temperamental' and that sometimes you need to compile it again. Still, Firefox on Arch Linux 64bit is alot snappier than same version Firefox on 32bit XP on my hardware, obviously the extra registers in 64bit mode helps but I can't say I've ever found Firefox slow (I am using the PGO enabled builds) on Linux. Will be interesting to see if the PGO fixes from Mozilla only means that it is less 'temperamental' or if there is a performance increase compared to what the PGO enabled packages gives right now.

brebs · 2011-05-02 03:21:17

Slashdot has the story.

bwat47 · 2011-05-06 18:27:30

Another thing to consider is stuff like hardware acceleration doesn't work well in linux at all with many drivers, partcularly ati. On my hd2600 even if I force hardware accel in firefox 6 on linux it doesn't work at all, even using fglrx. And there's also the PGO thing as mentioned above.

In linux I use chrome or opera, they seem up to par with their windows versions (well except opera's smooth scrolling, its crap in linux)

Vektorical · 2011-05-11 02:06:03

My browsing is pretty much identical across my two laptops (one of which dual-boots Windows), so I can't really say browsing is an slower. If you're on Firefox, make sure you enable network.dns.disableIPV6. Since this affects only DNS, it might help you if there's initial lag in loading a page, which then loads fairly normally.

Different compilers, methods of compiling, and possibly buggy or unfinished drivers are probably the main cause otherwise, but I can't say I've had much trouble at all.

bwat47 · 2011-05-22 02:29:30

I now have a new laptop with intel graphics. Smooth scrolling now works fine in every browser for me firefox is still slower than windows though, and hardware accel is quite buggy in linux (if I enable it it rapes my scrolling performance)

Chrome with hardware acceleration runs just as good as in windows though.

Last edited by bwat47 (2011-05-22 02:29:50)

bubblewrap456 · 2011-06-22 21:12:27

n/a

Last edited by bubblewrap456 (2014-10-27 10:47:03)

Cdh · 2011-06-22 21:57:53

ehlo wrote:

Firefox is certainly slowly on Windows - mozilla say so themselves.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/04/3 … As-Windows

Now with ekopath pathCC this should be interesting in the near future.

My experience is not so clear. I often feel that it is slower than it should be (haven't used windows lately). But I recently clicked a bit through a certain phpbb forum and it really feels blazing fast. Haven't seen this before. Maybe it's because of Firefox 5...

rufflove · 2011-06-23 01:03:56

On the low spec machines I use, I intentionally use Linux for web browsing. And if you use firefox-tmpfs-daemon there is no doubt that the browsing experience is snappier under Arch

Arch Linux

#1 2011-04-23 16:14:57

n/a

#2 2011-04-23 16:33:35

Re: n/a

#3 2011-04-23 16:41:20

Re: n/a

#4 2011-04-23 16:55:06

Re: n/a

#5 2011-04-23 17:11:59

Re: n/a

#6 2011-04-23 17:17:41

Re: n/a

#7 2011-04-23 17:30:29

Re: n/a

#8 2011-04-23 18:45:04

Re: n/a

#9 2011-04-23 22:30:01

Re: n/a

#10 2011-04-23 23:17:45

Re: n/a

#11 2011-04-26 03:58:00

Re: n/a

#12 2011-04-26 05:08:28

Re: n/a

#13 2011-05-01 20:05:30

Re: n/a

#14 2011-05-01 21:08:38

Re: n/a

#15 2011-05-02 00:47:08

Re: n/a

#16 2011-05-02 03:21:17

Re: n/a

#17 2011-05-06 18:27:30

Re: n/a

#18 2011-05-11 02:06:03

Re: n/a

#19 2011-05-22 02:29:30

Re: n/a

#20 2011-06-22 21:12:27

Re: n/a

#21 2011-06-22 21:57:53

Re: n/a

#22 2011-06-23 01:03:56

Re: n/a

Board footer