Fattening fox

I have, albeit briefly, fallen out of love with my favourite browser - firefox.  We had a wonderful affair going back many years when all was perfect.  From when it initially poked its head through the holes left by the thundering internet exploriphant, which had terminally wounded the previous king of the jungle - netscape. 

Through thick and thin, when ff refused to load bookmarks or refused to put them in the correct locations, to losing all the passwords in a minor tiff!  Through all of that we patched up and roared on.

But with the growing popularity of the add-ons things took a slight turn for the worst.  Was it a badly written meal ff had digested, causing it to go a strange colour of blue?  No just a badly prepared theme i'd stupidly installed.  But its initial speed was slowing, on some occasions even taking longer to load a page than it took ie to load and be ready.  Blasphemy! 

The last time - when the camels back finally broke - ff was still loading up long after i'd loaded up chrome, checked my banking balance the weather and what was on at the local cinema before it sputtered onto screen.

What was going on?

A quick look through the trusty task manager brought up a few home truths.  Chrome with five tabs open was taking up only 56MB of ram. Firefox on the other hand (whilst still in its loading phase), was chugging through over 1.3GB of memory; before settling down to a relatively wieldy 215MB. 

The only thing that had changed was the inclusion of more add-ons (figure 1). New add-ons that are recommended by someone you know which they just can't live without, you just have to try.  That other slightly strange but winking at you add-on from the pages of the latest magazine to hit the door, or viewed on a site, all offer time saving, enjoyment having wasting more time than sense hours of fun. The time had arrived to ruthlessly remove all those juicy helpful helpers.  To return the browser to a state of speed and efficiency - you might even find it crashes less frequently too. 

Figure 1. Add-ons

Sigh, what to remove and what to keep...

• The all-in-one sidebar I regularly use for its unabashed over helpful organisational abilities. 
• The latest add-on was Tab Mix Plus, which looks good adds to the functionality but I can do without for the time being.
• Scrapbook is good but somewhat duplicating Google notebook so that will have to go.
• Fire gestures - mouse gestures certainly require that onboard.
• Firebug haven't really used it so that can go.
• As can answers since I now use ubiquity for so many things.

...and on you go, through each add-on and saying yes or no.  Once you've reached the end of your list, you can restart firefox.

 

Firefox now consumes just 165 MB of memory to open before settling down to a modest 152MB. By just removing 5 add-ons the start up time has dramatically improved, and as seen below its memory footprint is now more manageable.

 

The image following shows how the new look slimmed down version looks:

 

So if firefox is causing you problems it may more than likely be an arrant add-on.  The best thing is to start the browser in safe mode:

Start menu -> all programs -> mozilla -> mozilla firefox (safemode)

which will bring up the following window:

Simply check the disable all add-ons option and click the continue in safe mode.  If that works and it starts okay (best to wait before the wonder of watching it zoom along is lost), then it is with great probability your add-ons.

Go on a helpful worthwhile mission: the add-on decluttering mission, and watch ff fly.

AOL recommendations

Logged into aol to check my emails.  A chore that usually takes no more than five minutes, once a month.

The good thing about having aol as my main account?  Nothing.  If I hadn't signed a new contract a few months ago - I would certainly not be using them now.

The last time I had a choice, it was between aol and be. It would have been be for their speedier pipes, but aol gave me a reasonable offer. So i stuck with them, and have regretted it ever since.  A point i might have mentioned once or twice, in previous tappings.

So i was quite surprised to receive a mass email  offering £30 (or $52.5c and falling), if I would recommend a friend to use their services.  Nearly fell off my stool - really must get that leg fixed. 

Finally i came to my senses.  Realised I would rather recommend a friend buy a clapped out moss-grown citroen 2cv (yes even moss would get a speeding ticket faster than an old iconic 2cv) than go with aol.  If they were the last company on the planet offering broadband, i would recommend a friend go back to using dial-up.  Recommend aol?  Put me in front of a rampaging herd of bulls; let them put me out of my misery - quickly. 

Picture purloined for point proving, but from this wonderful site.

So what would i recommend aol for?

If you wish to enjoy a slow browsing experience, use aol's.  If you require (generally) unhelpful service, use aol.  If you want to engage technical support in linguistical riposte, to be told it's all your fault, then please do use aohell. 

I was always surprised time warner did the bed-hopping episode. But greed is a powerful stimuli.

With all these things, it's always your own personal experience.  A bit like the mint adverts (2004 was a better year).  In this case someone out there, is having all my service... 

Now, where did i put that friend?

Death of illegal p2p by 2009

So Margaret Hodge MP and others believe that ISP's should be made the new policemen of the UKs Interpipeways.

In one very great respect, you should say yes. There is an obligation for the people who create the software to be paid for their work, time and ingenuity; if that is what they wish. But I'm not to sure there are that many people out there, who think that Microsofts five versions of Vista with associated crop of problems they're causing (to anyone with legacy components) are truly worth the exorbitant cost of a single, not already installed, purchase.

I wonder, how many people out there have, over the many years, started off in graphic design or programming; by downloading or been given a copy of Photoshop or visual basic? People who have then gone on to become successful business people. In companies which purchase full bloated software packages with associated number of licenses and tie-ins.

Introducing this measure will be another way of ensuring that the majority of those who are financially under-achieving, will remain so. Without a hope of gazing into a future of vibrant possibilities.

Illusionary broadband

Looking at an advert from Tiscali.co.uk and reading the blurb Superfast Broadband for £6.49 for the 1^st 3 months, then £12.99. I thought, oh could this be a wonderful new service, offering more than be.com? Perhaps creeping up from behind the field to snatch premier position, scattering the opposition to the winds in disarray; blowing them all away with a spectacular 70Mbs service? No! Tiscali's definition of Superfast broadband is, 'up to 8Mb*'!

For many years we have been promised faster broadband, which would do away with that nasty roof-top aerial or podgy uglier exterior satellite. Un-interruptible streaming films, rock-steady tv programmes, downloading everything at the click of button like water from an open sluice. And just as the promises have been so atmospherically high, so services have stratospherically failed to materialise, and the ISP's have been trying to weasel their wording into making below average service provision look fantastic. But, I suppose unlike snake-oil salesmen, they do actually supply something that works.

Now doing a search of the terms fast and superfast brings up some interesting definitions.

Fast

From answers.com - a site I'm enjoying using as it splurges a plethora of so much useful information down a page, practically complete, even with translations. Reasons for having more than ten tabs open within my browser are rapidly diminishing. So what does answers.com definition come up with.

1. Acting, moving, or capable of acting or moving quickly; swift.

From chambersharrap.co.uk

fast adj (faster, fastest) 1 moving, or able to move, quickly. 2 taking a relatively short time. 3 said of a clock, etc: showing a time in advance of the correct time... ... pull a fast one colloq. to cheat or deceive.

But I am coming around to the opinion that tiscali are using the ChambersHarrap colloquial definition, and trying to pull a fast one!

Super

From chambersharrap.co.uk

super- prefix, forming adjectives, nouns and verbs, denoting 1 great or extreme in size or degree • supermarket. 2 above, beyond or over • superscript • supernatural. 3 higher or more outstanding than usual • superhero. Compare hyper-.

So, with Super and Fast conjoined something spectacular should be on offer. But in the real life tiscali and for that matter any other ISP can get away with advertising Superfast broadband at only 8Mb*, showing both guard dogs (ASA and Ofcom) have teeth as sharp as rubber gloves, effectively blunted by the industry.

Now why did I start this... Ah yes! I don't for one moment expect to experience as the norm, speeds upwards of 100Mbps at any time in the next five to eight years. Maybe 30Mbps. But then the holographic advertising and moving displays will be another headache. And by then who will really care that the speed they're getting is less than a fiftieth the advertised offerings!

*Unless of course, in the small print, they've mentioned that speeds are 'as compared to a tele-typewriter'.