21–30 of 203 posts
Like many of the other Firefox memory changes, this one leaves me feeling a little ambiguous. On the one hand, obviously keeping memory usage down is good. On the other hand, waiting to decompress/decode images until they are visible to the user means that there are obviously going to be performance trade-offs (and also, obviously, design/engineering trade-offs). Speaking just from my personal usage: I don't think th…
Like many of the other Firefox memory changes, this one leaves me feeling a little ambiguous. On the one hand, obviously keeping memory usage down is good. On the other hand, waiting to decompress/decode images until they are visible to the user means that there are obviously going to be performance trade-offs (and also, obviously, design/engineering trade-offs). Speaking just from my personal usage: I don't think th…
Like many of the other Firefox memory changes, this one leaves me feeling a little ambiguous. On the one hand, obviously keeping memory usage down is good. On the other hand, waiting to decompress/decode images until they are visible to the user means that there are obviously going to be performance trade-offs (and also, obviously, design/engineering trade-offs). Speaking just from my personal usage: I don't think th…
Sounds great - does anyone know how this compares to Chrome (both in terms of approach and results)?
Like many of the other Firefox memory changes, this one leaves me feeling a little ambiguous. On the one hand, obviously keeping memory usage down is good. On the other hand, waiting to decompress/decode images until they are visible to the user means that there are obviously going to be performance trade-offs (and also, obviously, design/engineering trade-offs). Speaking just from my personal usage: I don't think th…
I just compared it with Chrome using the example page mentioned in article: In Firefox Nightly at the initial page load it uses around 250 MB memory and with scrolling it stays around that. In Chrome (in Canary too) initial it uses around 300 MB but scrolling keeps filling the memory indefinitely (I stopped scrolling above 1.2GB)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except, selectively targeting (bad) cells in a heavily complex system (physiology) that you didn't design and have limited access to makes it tough. Implementing these fixes in FF is easy. They didn't even have to be geniuses to realize it, just keeping an eye on friends (/rivals) would have given them the idea a few years ago. NB: Not criticizing FF devs. They do awesome work! And sometimes, such silly little optimi…
The idea of fixing them is easy, the practicalities are clearly not - take a look at the size of the bug reports and patches that go with them...
Practically, cancer cannot be cured even by multiples of all the effort than went into those two bugs.
Is it time to switch back to Firefox from Chrome? I remember when I originally switched around Firefox 3.5.x Chrome was much leaner and faster. Has the pendulum finally swung back the other way?
Great news! Many thanks to Timothy Nikkel and all the other Mozilla devs. It's particularly great on Fennec, where the memory constraint is noticeable. For people - like me - who didn't know what B2G was, it's Boot2Gecko, the OS project: https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/FAQ