InformAction Forums

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

I have noticed no variation in NoScript, though I should stress I tend to only visit a limited number of websites each day.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).