Mozilla Publishes List of the 50 Slowest Firefox Add-Ons

[Bugbatter]

Mozilla has released a Hall of Fame that software developers definitely don’t want to be on. To promote the fact that not all Firefox add-ons are created equal, the browser-builder has named and shamed sluggish extensions in a rouges gallery of poor-performing add-ons.
Complete Article:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/04/mozilla-publishes-list-of-the-50-slowest-firefox-add-ons/

Slow Performing Add-ons
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/performance/

[1972vet]

Interesting, and no doubt some cause for concern as I'm sure many users have used and maybe still use some or all of those listed...I dunno. But I have some experience with at least one of those and haven't noticed a single glitch in performance. I use the video download helper and have for a few months. Not a smidgeon of performance issues here. It just makes me wonder how they gauge their performance standards against any of the add-ons. I'd certainly like to know.

[ky331]

Firefox "has named and shamed sluggish extensions in a rouges gallery of poor-performing add-ons".

While the top two (worst-offending) extensions [allegedly] slow down FF by 74%, the ones cited in positions 48 & 49 each slow down firefox by 1%... and #50 by zerO %... so I would not say that mere inclusion on this comprehensive list is an indication of "shame".

Of these top 50 --- unless I'm overlooking some --- the only extension I use in FF is WOT (rated # 29, with a 14% slowdown).   Given the enhanced security (warning or blocking bad sites)  WOT offers, I am more than willing to "trade-off" any additional time it may take to perform this very useful task.

[1972vet]

I'm not going to waste my time either, reading the entire article as it's been my experience reading similar comparisons that percentages are often used without a solid platform explained...at least, not explained well enough for my feeble brain to understand.

I have a problem with percentages when what I really would rather read about is actual time elements. If something like this were to tell the users that Firefox slows down by...let's say, 3 seconds when using whichever add on, then I'd be able to run my own comparison using that same add on.

It's my gut feeling that these percentages are most likely relative to a variety of wavering factors that also most likely probably most users wouldn't encounter.

Anyway...if my Firefox is slowed down by three thousandths of a second because of an add on that I find useful...or even if it's slowed down by three full seconds or so, I'm not going to run to the medicine cabinet to grab the tylenol.

[Hoov]

I believe this is probably in response to the same feature in IE9.