Goodbye Mozilla

Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

26 Sep 2009, 12:46 pm

unreal3x wrote:

I had gmail, WP, Facebook, google images open, and it was at about 130Mb,
I loaded pandora, and it went up to 161MB,
so... 256MB? Do you have any excessive extensions or plugins?
Haha, there should be a task manager just for firefox, to see what individual parts are using a total of 256MB.

Well, Pandora is huge. It's streaming internet radio. I suspect that after using it for a while memory usage would start to climb- much more so than just opening up their home page. The memory usage the OP reported seems a bit on the high side, maybe from a bum extension, but still, Chrome is going to be lighter.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

CloudWalker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 711

26 Sep 2009, 3:08 pm

Orwell wrote:

I'm inclined to believe that is the case. It may help if you visit Pandora in a separate ff window or even in a different browser, and then minimize that window.

Chair
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 15 May 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 187
Location: Canada

26 Sep 2009, 8:03 pm

nodice1996 wrote:

Is there an ad blocker that runs independently from a browser? I prefer chrome to Firefox because I don't want to use 1gb of RAM on a browser.

I don't believe that Firefox is using a gig of ram. I use a ton of add-ons and hardly ever reach 100 MB.

nodice1996
Supporting Member

Joined: 3 Jan 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,047
Location: Michigan

26 Sep 2009, 9:49 pm

Orwell wrote:

Adsweep, that's the one. There's also a proxy-based one targeted mainly at Safari users, but I don't think it works very well.

nodice1996 wrote:

Firefox has been sluggish lately, and I have had it using 256mb, only WP and pandora open.

Both relatively heavy sites, especially pandora. My FF is currently at just over 400MB, but that's with 30 tabs, 19 extensions, and having left FF running a long time. Oftentimes a program starts to leak memory after being left on for a while, so shutting it off periodically might help. Webkit (Safari) is using 200MB for me, and it only has 6 tabs open, so I don't worry too much over FF hogging RAM. But then, memory isn't a huge issue for me.

On my laptop it's a huge issue, seeing as I only have 512mb RAM. Also I have greasemonkey, the quakelive extension, and ABP.It is after a while of playing music that it gets this high.

_________________
Guns don't kill people--Magic Missiles Do.

lau
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,795
Location: Somerset UK

28 Sep 2009, 4:41 am

Just to put in a word... SeaMonkey, here, with 23 tabs, also 19 extensions (inc ABP, Web Developer, Greasemonkey, Mnenhy, and a swathe of other useful bits). It's the "real" Mozilla of old - so includes mail/newsreader and so on.

107MiB.

(It's why you'll find SeaMonkey used in Puppy Linux.)

_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

28 Sep 2009, 8:40 pm

lau wrote:

For me, Seamonkey 2 beta eats up obscene amounts of RAM and CPU, more than Firefox ever could. The current stable Seamonkey (1.1.18) is based on an obsolete Gecko engine and has problems on a lot of sites, at least for me. YMMV, as always.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

CloudWalker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 711

29 Sep 2009, 5:47 pm

My past experience with Seamonkey is also not positive. To the point that I've stop trying it a long time ago. So maybe they are better now.

If you are on Windows, you may also want to try K-Meleon. It's Gecko based and it seems to use less memory than Firefox.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Oct 2009, 1:26 am

Orwell wrote:

lau wrote:

I must give a correction now: the newest Seamonkey beta (at least on Linux) is much, much better. Very memory-efficient, no problems rendering any pages I've found, and compatible with my most essential add-ons. And it has a nice integrated e-mail client- I like the concept of a full internet suite.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

04 Oct 2009, 5:25 am

I get trouble with hangs on some news sites. It is a javascript conflict caused by FireBug. The plugin has to be completely disabled for it not to happen. Fortunately the worst culprit is the Daily Mail, which is my least favourite paper. So it reminds me not to go there. It is kind of like stepping on a rake.

I'm also having a problem with some plugins failing to update, which never used to happen.

Chair
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 15 May 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 187
Location: Canada

09 Oct 2009, 4:28 am

lau wrote:

SeaMonkey uses up as much ram as Firefox does and has less compatibility with useful extensions. I need Firefox.

Celtic_Frost
Deinonychus

Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 396
Location: Jackson, TN

09 Oct 2009, 6:29 pm

Does Windows Vista have anything to do with Firefox 3.x being a memory hog at times?

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Oct 2009, 7:09 pm

Celtic_Frost wrote:

Does Windows Vista have anything to do with Firefox 3.x being a memory hog at times?

Vista is a memory hog on its own. If you run Vista, there will be less RAM available for applications, and Firefox being a memory hog will be more noticeable.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

gramirez
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Nov 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,827
Location: Barrington, Illinois

09 Oct 2009, 8:18 pm

I didn't know anyone used Mozilla still! (of course, I'm referring to the browser BEFORE FireFox came around). You haven't seen a memory hogging browser until you've seen the real Mozilla on Mac OS 9 or similar (Windows 98?).

_________________
Reality is a nice place but I wouldn't want to live there

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Oct 2009, 8:30 pm

gramirez wrote:

Actually, I used Mozilla on OS 9 as recently as this summer. It's complete garbage.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

09 Oct 2009, 9:20 pm

In some of the notes on Firefox 3.5, Windows XP can not report the real value that Firefox is using and can not be reliable. Linux and Vista offer far more accuracy.

I once checked my Firefox usage and had it reporting over a GB. RAM isn't much worry to me as I had about 6GB.

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

09 Oct 2009, 9:23 pm

Eating a gig of RAM. My workstation is a 1 Ghz PIII w/ 512MB RAM and firefox only takes up 40-100MB. Then again I'm running it in Ubuntu as well as BSD.

Page 2 of 3 [ 41 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Goodbye Mozilla Post Reply New Topic

Goodbye Mozilla