Slow startup of Vivaldi

[tyl]

same problem, mitigated by clearing downloads from pane

[Ayespy]

@Pesala said in Slow startup of Vivaldi:

@SanyaIV I guess most of us never close Vivaldi

To me the idea of seldom or never closing ANY app or program, or never shutting down the OS are so completely foreign to me that I can scarcely find the words to express it. I simply cannot replicate the mindset of users who operate this way.

That said, a 5-sec startup time in my universe is utterly trivial. Five to fifteen times that, on modern hardware, would totally be a concern to me. But five seconds out of my life, somewhere between one and five times a day, scarcely merits notice in my book.

But then, the age of instant gratification has not touched me, while it has permeated a substantial portion of the userverse. And I suppose devs must take notice of this fact.

[Ayespy]

@mentallurg 5 sec for a new window on an i7 does seem a bit slow to me. I get 3 sec on an AMD A10 (which is arguably 37% to 50% slower than every i7 ever produced) and an Intel Q9500 (slower still). Of course I do run 16 GB RAM on the AMD and 8 GB RAM on the Intel, and SSDs on both of these, which may help - I don't know. Still, I would not weep, wail or gnash my teeth over 5 sec on a new window if that were my lot.

That said, given your superior hardware, my guess would be that something on your system is actively interfering with Vivaldi.

[Pesala]

@Blackbird said in Slow startup of Vivaldi:

What are your reasons for repeatedly closing the browser while working instead of just minimizing it?

I find it hard to understand why anyone would repeatedly close the browser. I will only close and reopen it if there's a problem such as a frozen tab. I put the PC on sleep when I take a break, and switch it off when I go out, so in general I only have to start it once a day. If I am using some other program, then I leave Vivaldi running. I have 8 Gybtes of RAM so memory is never likely to be an issue.

I always need my browser open for copying URLs or looking stuff up for my publications or websites. I rarely have more than five main apps running. Either I am editing a book, editing a website, editing fonts, or browsing.

Opera 12.17 stays open the whole day too checking for email every 10 minutes.

The idea that taking 5 seconds to appear is very slow just boggles my mind. Half a minute or longer I could understand, but 5 seconds. I regularly wait 10 minutes for a bus to appear.

[mib2berlin]

I get 3 sec on a stone age core2duo laptop for a new windows (ctrl+n).
Do the same as Pesala at workday morning, start 5-6 main apps like two Vivaldi instances, Gimp, Photoshop, filemanager, terminal, etc..
I have no time to start Photoshop 10 times a day, Vivaldi neither.
All my colleagues do the same, by the way.
What I do not understand how user can work with 50 taps open in browser.
If 5 seconds are to much for you, use Edge the fastest starter on Windows, it starts in < 1 second on my workstation.

Cheers, mib

[Pesala]

@mentallurg It is restarting your browser 20-30 times a day that is the cause of the inefficiency. Even four times a day = 20 seconds would not be an issue. Click the shortcut and stand up to stretch your legs. You will work more efficiently if you relax for a couple of minutes every hour or two.

[ArthurSouzaBrasil]

@ArthurSouzaBrasil Problem solved: @Ayespy posted here in the forum a suggestion to uninstall the AV and make a test. Since I was already planning changing from AVG to AVIRA, because of the ads and popups AVG fires every five minutes, I did tested VIVALDI while no AV was installed, and BINGO, the good and fast VIVALDI was back! Then, the final test, instaled AVIRA and tried VIVALDI again, and the good performance remained!
Regards,
Arthur

[Ayespy]

@mib2berlin I have to admit you got me curious. I have a 2007 Core2 Duo laptop (1.67 GHz) running 32-bit Win10. I have boosted the RAM to 3GB - max for that setup - and put a SSD in it. So its performance, while not good by modern standards, is at least not painfully bad. I fired it up and updated to the newest snapshot. A new window on that thing takes 3 sec. On the same machine, the latest internal test version, running email and sync, does take 4. I think it has a slightly higher native load at the moment.

Noticing this, I opened the snapshot on this box (I run the internal test version with mail and sync as my default) and, with the internal test version and other apps open on my desktop, a new window took 1 second to fully display. So I tried the Stable version. Same result.

This got me even more curious, so I plugged in the peripherals, etc. for my 2003 HP A450n tower with its single-core 3.00 GHz P4 and its 2 GB of RAM (again, all that board will accept) running 32-bit (of course) Win7. I have a small SSD in that one, too, but I'm not sure it ever sped up the performance anyway. SATA emulation mode on an IDE disk controller is a bottleneck I think. Now on a cold start, this machine takes 10 sec to start Chrome, 15 sec to start firefox, and 20 sec to start Vivaldi. It's no speed racer. I'm lucky it even had the CPU instruction set that would permit me to put Win7 on it - because XP on it was an absolute pig. That machine DOES take an entire 5 seconds to spawn a new Vivaldi window if I have several downloads in the completed list. No two ways about it. I can get it down to 3 if I clear the downloads list, but then if I open another new window (to make 3 total) that one takes 5 sec. Chrome only takes 3 seconds in all cases. Firefox only takes 2.

At some point we will need to do better on this very old hardware. For now, if you are taking 5 sec to get a new window on an i7 with even 4GB of RAM, something is getting in Vivaldi's way. It is not the browser itself that is taking all that time.

[Steffie]

@secarica said in Slow startup of Vivaldi:

I open the browser to find something, then close it and continue my work, then if required after 5-10 minutes open it again, closing and then continue my work, then perhaps open other two or three separate browser windows for some internet work, then close one or all etc.

I find this usage mode utterly astounding & frankly incomprehensible. I am not writing this to insult you -- i do assume you have a genuine & logical need for this mode of operation -- it's just that i cannot understand what it might be. If you have a chance, it'd be great if you could expand on this. I'd genuinely love to understand the reasoning behind a usage pattern so utterly different to mine.

[Steffie]

@mentallurg Why your hostility, anger, rudeness? Fwiw, i agree with Pesala here; i find the concept of repeatedly opening & closing a pgm [any pgm, which is in common daily use by me] incomprehensible. Maybe if i had a 386 & 640 MB RAM, but not for most contemporary PCs of say the past decade'ish. I respect your right to disagree, but not your manifestation of it with such rudeness.

[Steffie]

@Steffie Oh, forget it, i subsequently see you did already offer an explanation. Wow, just... wow. A very different way of thinking to mine... not necessarily better or worse, just... entirely different.

[Steffie]

@mentallurg Is there a possibility that Vivaldi might not be a browser best suited for your demanded usage pattern? I'm unconvinced so far that Vivaldi is the problem here.

"What is the reason to keep unused windows on the desktop?" --> If they're unused now & highly likely to be unused for the rest of the day/night, then ok sure, close them. Otherwise, what is the problem with retaining, albeit minimised? Of course, if you used Linux not Windows you could move to another Virtual Desktop, or even [if KDE] to another Activity. You could also Shade individual windows.

[Steffie]

@Ayespy said in Slow startup of Vivaldi:

To me the idea of seldom or never closing ANY app or program, or never shutting down the OS are so completely foreign to me that I can scarcely find the words to express it. I simply cannot replicate the mindset of users who operate this way.

Well, i'm astonished at what you said here. Maybe it's best to collectively accept [if not agree] that humans are a weird bunch & do things individually that are odd wrt the sensibilities of some other humans. My usage-mode[1] falls squarely into the camp that baffles you... & yours into that which baffles me.

[1] NB: I refer solely to those pgms i use all day every day, not merely to some individual pgms i might only need once a week or month. In the case of the former, i most certainly do keep them running. In the case of the latter, i most certainly do not keep them running. At the end of each long day/night, i Suspend my pc, not SD. In the morning i Resume it, not Boot[2] it. I then seamlessly continue using the various pgms & docs previously arranged on my 9 VDs & 2 Activities. I absolutely love this evolved use-mode, & specifically sought h/w & OS to support it, which i have.

[2] The exception is that since i recently changed from Maui Linux to Tumbleweed, being a rolling-release, there's very frequent updates [daily or each other day], most of which need a reboot. I've evolved a workable compromise of only doing the updates weekly now, rather than daily. I do not expect this to be a use-mode attractive to everyone, but i'd be quite surprised if i was the only human on the planet who likes it this way. If i am, i can probably survive that heavy burden.

Diversity -- yay!!

Linux + Vivaldi -- yay with bells on !!

[Steffie]

@mentallurg said in Slow startup of Vivaldi:

20-30 times a day

O. M. Z.

[Steffie]

@mib2berlin "What I do not understand how user can work with 50 taps open in browser"

Teehee, but why is that hard to understand? Before O12 & now V, i'd agree with you, but with tab-stacks etc V eats this for breakfast & comes back hungry for more.

FYI: Current V status:

• 1 window

• 61 tabs [12 stacks (7 of which are Pinned)], only 2 Pinned tabs are not also Stacked, 5 Unpinned Stacks, 1 Unpinned single tab [will be closed in a few minutes once finished with].

[aach1]

@Steffie Just a correction: Windows 10 has virtual desktops. Wouldn't want people thinking otherwise. Yes, it was a long time coming. But as a user of both Linux and Windows, I think the W10 implementation is pretty usable.

[Ayespy]

@Steffie said in Slow startup of Vivaldi:

Well, i'm astonished at what you said here.

Perhaps I could explain. I have to update Vivaldi daily as a rule. This, if nothing else, necessitates a shutdown of Vivaldi. I do not use any applications routinely except my word processor, which are trivial in resource use. When I'm not using things that gobble resources, I prefer to have them closed. The only thing I use all day every day is my browser. Hence, it's one of the few things I might at least leave open for a couple or three days at a stretch. (Not counting projects or documents I'm actually in the middle of, so I can remember where I left off)

My bookkeeping program gets corrupted data if left open too long at a stretch. My image processing software, if left open all the time, consumes resources and does not release them. Almost ANYTHING I use seems to do a better job of organizing, storing, and using its data if not left open all the time.

I left my computer on for a couple of weeks while working remote (I had to - so I could remote-in as needed) and had to replace my power supply when I returned because the fan bearings were going out. Then I had to replace my HDD because it was failing. It just strikes me that leaving even electronics on all the time is a bit like leaving your car idling all the time in case you might have to jump in it and take a trip. Soon, you'll have no car. So when I can, I like to give things a rest.

Lately, I have been hibernating my main tower instead of shutting it off, because my Win10 registry was broken by installing an experimental Vivaldi build, and now if I let it shut down, it resets all my default apps to MS-branded crap. Every damn time. So I hibernate it instead, and at least it consumes only enough power to maintain its memory state - no power supply fan running, no HDD turning, etc. So that's OK. But perhaps today I will force an in-place "update" and fix the registry.

But I find things run faster and more efficiently if I only use what I'm using when I use it, and close things I'm not using or not about to use. This is less necessary on a box like this one with big resources, but I have a lot of boxes with little resources. So the habit remains. Plus, I left this one running overnight not so long ago and woke up to burned out onboard graphics. Who knows why? But it happened. So there you go. Old habits die hard. I hate to just leave things on.

[Steffie]

@aach1 W10 does, i know, but it follows a rather Gnome3-esque usage, which simply sucks big time compared to KDE4 / Plasma5 with Desktop Grid [Cinnamon has a not-indecent Grid too, albeit though much better than G3 or W10, is still inferior to KDE. Xfce+Compiz has a DG to rival KDE]. However, to stick with just W10 [ugh], even with its comparatively primitive VD deployment, any motivated user can take quite efficient advantage of a logical & orderly disposition & allocation of specific windows to specific VDs, & then "endure" reduced visual clutter on any given VD. IMO this is yet another reason supporting no need to keep closing & opening pgms.

Still, that logic won't please some.

[aach1]

@Steffie The argument over closing apps is an odd one, I will agree. I open V one time a day (if that) and due to increasing power of google apps (replacing standalone applications like word and excel) I'm heading more toward V being pretty much the only thing I have open most of the time. I won't get into what VD environment is better; that would be like arguing between Gnome and KDE... My point was just that W10 has VDs, they are usable (especially snappy on a touch screen) and for most people they will more than do the job.

[Steffie]

@Ayespy But, but but... i have no quibble at all about a preference to not leave a desktop pc running when not in use... it's just that's not what i understood this debate to be about. I also eschew leaving my PCs running when i'm not using them, hence i wrote that i Suspend them [to RAM] overnight, not leave them running like a Server [i'd prefer to Hibernate them, but i use encrypted /home & /swap partitions, which are inimical to hibernation]. Again, i didn't think that's what we were discussing.

If anyone's individual OS, h/w or s/w is such that it simply cannot support some pgms being open for hours/days on end [even if for some of those days the pc is asleep or even hibernated], then i have no argument & no desire to rebut. I would however opine a good use-case to justify [if viable logistically, technically & economically] for replacement OS, h/w or s/w to "engineer-out" the limitation. That's what specifically informed & governed my progressive OS evolution since 2013 [20+ years a MS Windows user by then] from Win7 to Linux Mint 17.x KDE4 to Maui Linux Plasma5 to openSUSE Tumbleweed KDE; my Office s/w evolution from MS Office 2010 Pro [esp, incl. Outlook] to LibreOffice 5.3+ & Thunderbird+Lightning+TaskCoach+CherryTree; my financial s/w evolution from MS Money to Quicken to GNUCash to KMyMoney; my browser evolution from O12 to Vivaldi [via everything under the sun in between]; & my h/w evolution from an i5 240-GB-SSD 8-GB Laptop as sole pc to that as now secondary with my 2015 i7 240-GB-SSD 2-TB-HDD 32-GB-RAM Tower as primary pc. In previous times various "things" were sub-optimal, but my evolved current arrangement beautifully supports my preferred use-case. Everyone's? Nope. Mine? Fabulously yes.

PS: "I hibernate it instead, and at least it consumes only enough power to maintain its memory state - no power supply fan running, no HDD turning, etc." ... with respect, that sounds more like Suspend than Hibernate.