4 ms·

Here's some info from - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c98 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c98 Here's the results of c

Here's some info from - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c98 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501605#c98 Here's the results of cold start time; the average of at least 3 tests. Windows XP SP3, Pentium4 2.8G, 1.5G memory Firefox 3.5 : 34.3 sec Build 1 (file scan completely disabled) : 19.7 sec Build 2 (CSIDL_INTENET_CACHE disabled) : 20.0 sec Build 3 (CSIDL_COMPUTERSNEARME disabled) : 19.7 sec As you can see, your builds are faster than 3.5, and I guess the difference between builds is the measurement deviation. Both 3.5 and each builds can warm start within 1 or 2 secs. There's no significant impact with antivirus on/off on my side. (Avast! 4.8) Hope this helps. Even without file scanning it takes around 20 secs !!

halo 17y ago
...for a 6 year old PC.
- Tuna-Fish 17y ago
  On my 5-year old pc, ff 3.5 boots from cold cache in ~4 seconds. During those 4 seconds, the machine is capable of: Executing more than 8 billion instructions. Reading sequentially trough more than 20 gigabytes of memory. Reading more than 240 megabytes from disk. If pretty much anything takes more than 10 seconds to load on any hardware even approaching modern, it means it was written badly.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    On a machine that's not constantly being defragged, temporary files will be spread out all over the place. No way can you read 240 MB of fragmented files in 4 seconds after a cold boot. Simply not possible on consumer-level magnetic spindle media.
    - derefr 17y ago
      > On a machine that's not constantly being defragged Windows does "constantly defrag" in the background.
      - derefr 17y ago
        I'm really not sure why I'm being downmodded. "Constantly defragging in the background" is exactly the meaning of the option that you can see listed in XP's TweakUI, labelled "optimize hard disk when idle."
        FooBarWidget 17y ago
        So it's disabled by default?
        derefr 17y ago
        No, it's enabled; in XP at least, TweakUI is the only place you can go to disable it (besides, perhaps, some Group Policy setting).
        rbanffy 17y ago
        Well... Looking into my disk and how badly it fragments, I see Windows is doing a lousy job.
    - Tuna-Fish 17y ago
      This machine has never been defragged. Yay for xfs.

halo 17y ago

...for a 6 year old PC.

Tuna-Fish 17y ago
On my 5-year old pc, ff 3.5 boots from cold cache in ~4 seconds. During those 4 seconds, the machine is capable of: Executing more than 8 billion instructions. Reading sequentially trough more than 20 gigabytes of memory. Reading more than 240 megabytes from disk. If pretty much anything takes more than 10 seconds to load on any hardware even approaching modern, it means it was written badly.
- barrkel 17y ago
  On a machine that's not constantly being defragged, temporary files will be spread out all over the place. No way can you read 240 MB of fragmented files in 4 seconds after a cold boot. Simply not possible on consumer-level magnetic spindle media.
  - derefr 17y ago
    > On a machine that's not constantly being defragged Windows does "constantly defrag" in the background.
    - derefr 17y ago
      I'm really not sure why I'm being downmodded. "Constantly defragging in the background" is exactly the meaning of the option that you can see listed in XP's TweakUI, labelled "optimize hard disk when idle."
      - FooBarWidget 17y ago
        So it's disabled by default?
        derefr 17y ago
        No, it's enabled; in XP at least, TweakUI is the only place you can go to disable it (besides, perhaps, some Group Policy setting).
        rbanffy 17y ago
        Well... Looking into my disk and how badly it fragments, I see Windows is doing a lousy job.
  - Tuna-Fish 17y ago
    This machine has never been defragged. Yay for xfs.