I know this setup is far from ideal, but how long should it take FFP to launch using a USB 1.1 port in Win 98? I double click the FirefoxPortable.exe, the splash screen comes up & disappears, then....nothing. I've tried letting it sit for 10-15 minutes and nothing ever happens. If I CTRL-ALT-DEL, I see both FirefoxPortable and Firefox listed. I have to End Task on both and they come up Not Responding. The device I'm using is a 256MB USB 2.0 drive. Is it really that slow to load using a USB 1.1 port?
New: fb2kPortable / foobar2000 (Apr 18, 2024), Platform 29.4 (Apr 10, 2024)
1,000+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
انا متشكرة على هذا الموقع ولكنى لا اقدر على التعامل به
لانه يعتمد اعتماد كلى على اللغة الانجليزية
وانا لا اجيدها لذالك اجد صعوبة بالغة في التعامل معه
كيف اقوم بتدوين البرامج التى اريدها
رجاء افادتى بكيفية التعامل
Hum, for you too.
I used an arabic translator and this is what I got:
I [mtshkrt] hereunto the site and for surnames the dealing does not afford on in him
For that he dependency of colleges on the English language depends
I did not excel her [ldhaalk] serious profound difficulty in the dealing with him
How recording of the programs straightens in [aaltY] wants her
Hope [aafaadtY] in the despotic dealing
The words between brackets were not translated and seems gibrish.
Alive and kicking!
"If you were a robot, and I knew but you didn't, would you want me to tell you?"
I think he was just kidding
É, eu acho que ele tava zuando
Se o cara tava zoando, acho que tá no fórum errado, né?
Translation: If the dude was kidding, seems like he's at the wrong board, don't you think so?
Alive and kicking!
"If you were a robot, and I knew but you didn't, would you want me to tell you?"
FirefoxPortable shoudn't be at the process list. It's just a loader.
When you run it, it loads the firefox.exe with the portable sets and terminates itself.
Try to end both tasks on the process list and run again.
By the way, my father computer is an old Athlon 1700+ with USB 1.1 ports and Windows XP SP2 and I use my FirefoxPortable with nothing but a little delay comparing to other computers with USB 2.0 ports.
Alive and kicking!
"If you were a robot, and I knew but you didn't, would you want me to tell you?"
If Firefox isn't installed , the Launcher has to stay running to clean things up at the end.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I didn't knew that. :/
Every computer I work with has Firefox, hehehe.
Alive and kicking!
"If you were a robot, and I knew but you didn't, would you want me to tell you?"
one thing I've noticed that slows it down a LOT on usb 1.1 is if it's installing a new plug in like a new plug in you install, then you have to re-start to "complete the installation" during that next startup a LOt goes on under Firefox's hood. this process seems to drag quite a bit, I've had nearly half hour wait times in such a case.
Also loading up a large browsing history and/or large download history can have a significant impact as well
as to whats "normal" there are a LOt of factors to consider, even different brands of flash drive have shown a speed difference of over 200% in some cases, so it's hard to say for sure what an "average" time would be.
in my experience however, having an old laptop with USB 1.1 as well as a relatives comp with the same, and my Kingston 4 Gig traveler ,I can expect 10 - 15 min average.
USB2 480 Mb/sec
USB1 12 Mb/sec
Typically all USB ports share the same bus, so if you have a bunch of devices connected, they each draw from the same 480Mb/sec bandwidth pool. Plus, it's unlikely to get that kind of speed with a USB drive. Not that 60MB/sec isn't achievable, but only on the top-of-the-line flash drives will you ever see speeds like that.
About shared bandwith I dont know, but sounds logical being a serial connection.
And yes Flash might be allot slower than the max speed. But even so, using a USB 1.1 will be slower than an USB 2.0 bus. So when the user has only USB 1.1, even the slowest flash would perform almost the same as any top-of-the-line flash drives.
My PC only has USB 1.1 but I bought an PCI card that implemented USB2. If your C has only USB 1.1, it will be worth to buy a USB 2.0 for it.
While the above comments may be true without getting over-complicated the problem is this
USB 1.1 = 12Mb/sec true
Firefox loads, what,. 30Mb into memory?
that should not equal 10+ minute load times.
heck the entire Firefox folder on my drive 9with many plugins) is under 50Mb
jsut for gigglers I took a newer system (Dual core Athlon 2Gig Ram all the goodies) but then grabbed an old old USB hub, so as to be able to plug my thumb drive into a usb 1.1 connection the load times were about the same as on many older systems. there is definitely a LOT of disk I/O going on for some reason
lets assume for sake of argument, slow USB 1.1 bad thumb drive, etc. even if you were getting 1Mb/sec firefox should be able to x-fer all the files it needs to load and run in a couple minutes tops.
This is not how Firefox works. Heck, that's not even how Windows works. Almost never is an entire binary (or set of binaries, in the case of something like Firefox with lots of DLLs) loaded into memory; code is loaded from disk on-demand as it's executed. And Firefox does a lot in the way of writes to the drive while it's running. Especially if you have stuff like history, form saving, password saving, etc. enabled. If you turn that stuff off, you'll find Firefox runs a lot faster.