User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Firefox/17.0 Build ID: 20121010150351 Steps to reproduce: Using Firefox 1.7 from Mozilla's Aurora channel on Ubuntu 12.10: The following javascript example: http://paperjs.org/examples/meta-balls/ is very slow compared to Ubuntu's Chromium (Open source Chrome) on the same page.

i can reproduce this on Win7, x64 with HWA off. With HWA ON, the demo is quite smooth.

With the latest nightly, this demo is crashing constantly with both HWA off and HWA on. How do you check for the nightly revision number anyway ?

Still getting constant, 100% reproducible, crashes with the latest nightly, with both HWA enabled and disabled. using 32 bit Nightly on win7 x64

(In reply to mayankleoboy1 from comment #3) > Still getting constant, 100% reproducible, crashes with the latest nightly, > with both HWA enabled and disabled. > using 32 bit Nightly on win7 x64 Please post your crash id's from about:crashes

(In reply to mayankleoboy1 from comment #3) > Still getting constant, 100% reproducible, crashes with the latest nightly, > with both HWA enabled and disabled. > using 32 bit Nightly on win7 x64 Please post your crash id's from about:crashes

Its there in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=801336

(In reply to estama from comment #0) > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Firefox/17.0 > Build ID: 20121010150351 > > Steps to reproduce: > > Using Firefox 1.7 from Mozilla's Aurora channel on Ubuntu 12.10: > > The following javascript example: > > http://paperjs.org/examples/meta-balls/ > > is very slow compared to Ubuntu's Chromium (Open source Chrome) on the same > page. It is a bit slow compared to Chrome. Not a recent regression though, behaves the same in F13 and F16. Verified with Ubuntu 12.04.

http://paperjs.org/examples/tadpoles/ also has regression (compared to FF15 on win7)

(In reply to mayankleoboy1 from comment #8) > http://paperjs.org/examples/tadpoles/ also has regression (compared to FF15 > on win7) Please log a new bug for this. Also explain the differences you see between Firefox versions and if you have the will a regression range would be great.

Resolving this bug as incomplete since there's been no update in over three years. Please reopen if you can still reproduce this in Firefox 43.0.1 or later.