From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 23 20:13:40 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742B716A468 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:13:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from user@celeritystorm.com) Received: from mail.celeritystorm.com (mail.celeritystorm.com [213.247.62.79]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300CF43D4C for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:13:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from user@celeritystorm.com) Received: by mail.celeritystorm.com (Postfix, from userid 106) id CEB2D3D7B33; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:15:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.1] (unknown [81.84.174.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.celeritystorm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AE83D7B2D for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:15:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <42BB17FB.5000606@celeritystorm.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:13:47 +0100 From: - User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (X11/20040724) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Does Firefox 1.0.4 suck, or is it just me ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:13:40 -0000 Are you using KDE? Try disabling tcp blackhole, it tends to slow KDE down a lot. Dmitry Mityugov wrote: >On 6/23/05, Jeff MacDonald wrote: > > >>Maybe it's just me >> >>I'm running the firefox 1.0.4 from ports. When I open new tabs up, or >>new windows the whole jobby tends to freeze up on me pretty hard. >> >> > >Does it look like it pre-fetches links on the new page? Later versions >of FireFox tend to do that, for well understandable but not quite >correct reasons. > > >