Search Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

When ver 59.01/64 opens it takes about 45 seconds + to load first tab.

  • 3 replies
  • 1 has this problem
  • 4 views
  • Last reply by lefty_2c9

more options

Have tried the following to no avail: Safe Mode - Disabling all Add-Ons - Clearing Cache - Clearing Cookies - Disabling automatic updates - Refresh... I have also noticed that I have 5 instances of Firefox.exe running in task manager but none are using any excessive CPU time. If Firefox is started and allowed to sit idle for 45 to 60 seconds then the first load of the first tab takes place at a normal speed for this version of Firefox. Immediately loading a website after Firefox startup results in a 45 to 60 second wait. I have perused the Task Manager looking at processes from all users and can find none using any excessive CPU time. No network activity during this time except an initial "blip" when I first initiate the search. Secure websites could be part of the problem since i noticed that less secure sites load a bit faster although not at the rate they do after the first 45 or 50 seconds. I almost forgot. I am running Windows 7 Ultimate. Any ideas?

Thanks...

Have tried the following to no avail: Safe Mode - Disabling all Add-Ons - Clearing Cache - Clearing Cookies - Disabling automatic updates - Refresh... I have also noticed that I have 5 instances of Firefox.exe running in task manager but none are using any excessive CPU time. If Firefox is started and allowed to sit idle for 45 to 60 seconds then the first load of the first tab takes place at a normal speed for this version of Firefox. Immediately loading a website after Firefox startup results in a 45 to 60 second wait. I have perused the Task Manager looking at processes from all users and can find none using any excessive CPU time. No network activity during this time except an initial "blip" when I first initiate the search. Secure websites could be part of the problem since i noticed that less secure sites load a bit faster although not at the rate they do after the first 45 or 50 seconds. I almost forgot. I am running Windows 7 Ultimate. Any ideas? Thanks...

All Replies (3)

more options

Hi, it appears that the date of your Video Card Driver (2015) and this error featureLog: {u'fallbacks': [{u'message': u'Unsupported by driver', u'name': u'NO_CONSTANT_BUFFER_OFFSETTING'}], lets me know your an old system with little ram. It is possibly 5yrs old or more and is at end of life.

Firefox is now a multi-processor and multi-thread browser and modern. The instances you see of Firefox is it using all cores of your system. Also the SandBox feature and Add-ons. Add-ons can take 20megs each of ram. Modern means yes it uses more ram. For me I have not had anything less then 24gig of ram in 10yr's.

So, you can play with the multi-processor to see what works better for you. You could try this please : Go the 3 Bar Menu then Options --> General --> Performance and untick everything. change the recommended size lower then see how it runs. Note: 1 = No Multiprocessor = slow again. Try 2 Restart Firefox after making these changes please. Below shows in pic.

Note : Acceleration is for your Video Card, monitor to see if need to turn back on.

So I have 32 gig on this of ram and when 57 came out had to lower the cores my self as was slow, but am now back at 4. So take time to figure it out.

Use Microsoft Disk Cleaner weekly, run it again and choose Clean System Files from the button a few days after updates, Defrag Monthly.

This may or may not apply to you but please read :

Please let us know if this solved your issue or if need further assistance

more options

Thanks for the fast reply. Good job there. My system had no performance issues. You're right. This computer is 10 years old and runs plenty fast enough on Windows 7. Tried Windows 8 & 10 and couldn't get my head around either of them so I'm sticking with Windows 7 until it won't run what I need anymore and then will probably go to Linux.

I am running a dual processor and 8 GB of memory. The time differences in the settings you suggested were pretty much negligible. Hardware acceleration "off" cost about a second. (I timed it with a stopwatch after I set a homepage instead of a blank page to take my reaction times out of the equation) Turned it back on and discovered that setting the process limit to 6 gave me the fastest times. However, they only varied a second or two over the entire range. The 2 Cpu's seemed to work equally as hard for a total of 20+% after a surge up to 100% shortly after Firefox was started. Memory usage as presented on the graph varied between approximately 2.5 & 3.9 GB.

The strange thing about this problem is that it only occurs once per startup. That is what bothers me. It seems that there is something that needs to complete on its' startup before Firefox will start a search for the requested web site. Once it completes it Firefox is lightning fast compared to the older versions. Even on my poor, outdated machine. Lol...

I also tried it on my laptop which is running version 58.01 rather than 59.01. It works just fine. I might try downloading that version and see if it will make a difference.

Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks for your help thus far...

more options

Tried using 58.01 & had no improvement on either 64 or 32 bit versions. Went back a little further to version 52.01 and that one seemed a little better on initial load but since I am used to the speed of the current version I will be happier with that in spite of the problem. The laptop that 58.01 is running on is pretty old as well. It is an HP EliteBook with 4 GB of memory and a quad cpu. No problems there. I probably need to do a CPU upgrade on the machine that has the problem since that is the only difference I see.

It is not that big a deal anyway and not worth the trouble to ferret out the source of the problem so I guess I'll just have to live with it. It was a "hope shot" and like most "hope shots" it missed. Thanks for the help and suggestions...