Performance degradation anyone?

General discussion about the NoScript extension for Firefox
Post Reply
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 8697
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Performance degradation anyone?

Post by Giorgio Maone » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:17 am

Did anybody notice any performance degradation with latest stable version (1.9.1.2)?
I did not notice anything like that, and there's no code change from 1.9.1 justifying any slowdown in default (non https-forcing) configuration.
But I need to ask you because of two reviews I just noticed on AMO :-k
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

greenhatch
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:11 pm

Re: Performance degradation anyone?

Post by greenhatch » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:27 am

I have noticed no variation in NoScript, though I should stress I tend to only visit a limited number of websites each day.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3) Gecko/20090305 Firefox/3.1b3

Alan Baxter
Ambassador
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:47 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Performance degradation anyone?

Post by Alan Baxter » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:44 pm

Nothing that made my 600MHz PIII even slower. Really. I'm like a canary in a coal mine. Anything much slower would be intolerable. I've been checking out web sites with and without NoScript and notice no problematic performance impact in general. I've noticed nothing different in 1.9.1.2.

Edit: I added a review in AMO.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7

luntrus
Senior Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:29 pm

Re: Performance degradation anyone?

Post by luntrus » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:13 pm

Hi Giorgio Maone,

No I did not notice any performance degradation, it all is still working as a charm, having the latest nightly build of Minefied haven't seen any error nor warning in the Error Console display at least not related to NoScript 1.9.1.2
So here as smooth as it should be,

luntrus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090323 Minefield/3.6a1pre

Nan M
Ambassador
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:44 pm

Re: Performance degradation anyone?

Post by Nan M » Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:42 am

No change observed in responsiveness or Ff start-up on an XP fast machine, an Ubuntu default on a good average Intel portable with all multimedia extras and this older PPC - - for at least the last month.
I could add installed extensions to my signature but I post from 3 different machines with very different configs.
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20

Tom T.
Field Marshal
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Performance degradation anyone?

Post by Tom T. » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:01 am

Didn't even know there was an update! I too added a review (should be right above Alan's), confirming no change in performance and asking the whiners why they didn't post a support question here. Also noted the fact that support here is much faster than a certain unnamed piece of sw that charges a high price, but took a week even to acknowledge my request. Machine runs as fast as ever. All they had to do was take their problems here.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20

User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7408
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Performance degradation anyone?

Post by therube » Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:36 pm

Have not noticed anything.

Though I will get "busy script" warnings (at times) in particular on Bank of America (online banking or bill pay).
This has happened for some time now (& precedes the 20-second hang fix).
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 SeaMonkey/1.1.15

Post Reply