Iceggiren i Wappalyzer
Wappalyzer sɣur Wappalyzer
Icegger-it telesaraco
547 n yiceggiren
- Yettwasezmel 1 ɣef 5sɣur FullMetalStacker, a day agoI really love this add-on and it belongs to my core set of Firefox add-ons since many years.
However, since the last update two days ago, it has made Firefox almost unusable due to extreme lagging. Firefox even started showing warnings that the browser was no longer responding. Judging from the other recent reviews, this is clearly a bug.
That alone would not have made me rate it one star.
But after disabling Wappalyzer, I realized how much faster my browsing became compared to the previous months. So this is not only about the recent bug; the add-on seems to have become a serious performance drag over time.
This made me think that the core issue may not only be the current bug, but also the way the add-on performs its analysis in general. From a user perspective, the ideal solution would be an optional on-demand mode, where Wappalyzer analyzes a website only when I click the extension button.
At the same time, I understand that fully on-demand analysis may not fit Wappalyzer’s model, because the extension probably wants to collect technology statistics from visited websites. A good compromise could therefore be time-shifted automatic analysis: instead of doing the full detection immediately when a new page is opened, Wappalyzer could wait until the page has loaded, the browser is idle, or a short delay has passed.
Another good compromise could be a two-stage approach: perform only a lightweight initial scan during page load, then defer the heavier technology detection until later. That would still allow automatic detection while reducing the impact on page loading and general browsing performance.
For now, I will keep it disabled even after the current bug is fixed, and only enable it when I really need it for a specific task.
I hope the Wappalyzer team takes a serious look at performance and improves it significantly. If that happens, I will gladly increase my rating back to 5 stars.Tiririt n ineflayen
yeffeɣ-d deg 9 hours agoThis should be fixed in the next update.
On-demand detection wouldn't work well as much of the analysis happens during page load (inspecting response headers, certificates etc.). Where possible work is already being deferred. - Yettwasezmel 2 ɣef 5sɣur Sam, 3 days agoAfter enabling Wappalyzer in Firefox 150 on Windows 11, the WebExtensions process immediately jumps from ~460 MB to 6–7 GB RAM and 100% CPU.
I verified this using about:processes and Firefox memory reports. With Wappalyzer disabled, memory usage returns to normal. With Wappalyzer enabled, the extension process spikes instantly.
This makes the browser almost unusable. Please investigate a likely memory leak or infinite loop in the background page. - Yettwasezmel 2 ɣef 5sɣur Ce@p2g77L#W, 12 days ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 19652246, 4 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur jdk17, 4 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Laurent FAVOLE, 5 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 19539434, 6 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 19184389, 9 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 4 ɣef 5sɣur taire, 9 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 19094638, 10 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur 洪金宝, 10 months ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Z403, a year ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur lyz, a year ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur 1123, a year ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Belco90, a year ago
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 18971081, a year ago
- Yettwasezmel 3 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 18978736, a year ago