I installed Fasterfox this evening out of sheer whimsy. It looked like an interesting extension. I don’t find Firefox really slow, but it was worth a try.
I honestly didn’t find a huge difference with any of the preset settings. Normally deviantART takes a long time to load. With the settings, it sped up marginally, but on average I think it’s the same. ImageShack images, though, do load faster. ImageShack’s servers are normally so darn slow to respond that it can take over 2 minutes to fully load a page! The content is accessible way before then, but it is still annoying. <Matthew the Ranting Maniac (
) has already ranted about ImageShack’s reliability, so trundle over there.
Other than that, though, I’m not noticing much of a difference. I‘m not sure if I want to keep it or not. My technical knowledge isn’t profound enough to know exactly what it does to my computer or the servers, but if I don’t see any noticeable difference, I might uninstall it just because I like tidying up stuff that I don’t use.
So, anyone have an opinion to share? 
» 5 people have an opinion
Matthew the Ranting Maniac () has already ranted about ImageShack’s reliability, so trundle over there.
Meh, I wouldn’t call that a full-on rant as such, more a random thought that Imageshack is indeed annoying
Anyway, I never found that Fasterfox did anything for me either. Those few tweaks you can do to
Bah, my comment got cut off. I always get <em> tags wrong 
h34r:
Just needs my silly incorrect markup missing 
I hate Imageshack too. As to Fasterfox, I didn’t notice any performance difference, really. I do like the page loading timer. For instance, this page took 2.915s to load.
For instance, this page took 2.915s to load.
0.765s for me 
Atleast you get to see how fast pages load with it.
That was a hard question this time, made me get a calcuator [/ot]
Anyways I agree dosn’t increase it much, but images seem to load faster.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 2:32 AM