71–80 of 203 posts
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)
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?
I never saw a reason to switch to Chrome to begin with. Performance was acceptable for me, while other benefits always made Firefox more useful (privacy with encrypted Sync, better add-ons and etc.). And some time ago, Firefox clearly became a leader in performance as well. All this "jumping to Chrome" was simply a hype thing IMHO, and I generally don't care about hype.
I can't get meaningful help if it freezes or doesn't load and it can't deal with 50% of the router pages, IE only :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I also noticed that, save for the pages with tons of images, firefox has actually been better than chrome in that respect for the last few releases. Now with this fix, I'm seriously thinking of jumping back. Then I'll finally have my sweet DownThemAll again. Many kudos to the firefox devs, performance and memory-usage is very important, and it seems they realized that before it was too late. Even with my 16GB I'…
Last I tried Firefox, pretty recently, it still needed to address some serious issues, when compared to Chrome: * Unresponsiveness due to one tab thrashing * Bad use of screen-space (bookmarks always visible, cannot disappear titlebar like in Chrome [there's only a Windows extension for that], menu-bar takes up another bar of space by default) * Launching firefox has stop-the-world behavior to check/update extensions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink has some reasons. One reason is explicitly "Fewer people will complain that Firefox is a memory hog and that Mozilla ignores memory usage". Even if complaints are technically nonsense, addressing complaints is still important.
Good link...thanks. > Even if complaints are technically nonsense, addressing complaints is still important. Totally true, but I don't have to like it...and I can fight against it by complaining about the addressing of the complaints!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I also noticed that, save for the pages with tons of images, firefox has actually been better than chrome in that respect for the last few releases. Now with this fix, I'm seriously thinking of jumping back. Then I'll finally have my sweet DownThemAll again. Many kudos to the firefox devs, performance and memory-usage is very important, and it seems they realized that before it was too late. Even with my 16GB I'…
Last I tried Firefox, pretty recently, it still needed to address some serious issues, when compared to Chrome: * Unresponsiveness due to one tab thrashing * Bad use of screen-space (bookmarks always visible, cannot disappear titlebar like in Chrome [there's only a Windows extension for that], menu-bar takes up another bar of space by default) * Launching firefox has stop-the-world behavior to check/update extensions…
* to disable addon auto-update check - about:addons > wrench: uncheck "update addons automatically"
With browsers I think it's easy to become entrenched; not that that's necessarily bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tabs are not bookmarks. Use bookmarks.
Bookmarks don't save state, which is especially annoying in a time where async calls are used so heavily.
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 don't know what their internal rationale is.
"Memory is cheap," we like to say, but it's really only true if you're not wasting it like crazy all the time. Ten years ago you could surf the web with 512MB of RAM; now we're getting to the point where 4GB isn't considered enough. If 4GB now costs the same as 512MB then, then in the sense of "dollars worth of memory required to perform function X acceptably," memory hasn't actually gotten any cheaper.
If you can get performance that used to require 4GB down into 1GB, you've upgraded the performance of a bunch of older and low-budget devices from "barely usable" to "fine."
Take the big-picture view: updates like this can actually result in a slower flow of "obsolete" computers and devices into the landfills. This is one of those bottlenecks where a little good engineering can have really disproportionate positive aggregate effects.
This sort of thinking has been one of the selling points of desktop Linux for a long time. I wish Microsoft thought more like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, I also noticed that, save for the pages with tons of images, firefox has actually been better than chrome in that respect for the last few releases. Now with this fix, I'm seriously thinking of jumping back. Then I'll finally have my sweet DownThemAll again. Many kudos to the firefox devs, performance and memory-usage is very important, and it seems they realized that before it was too late. Even with my 16GB I'…
Last I tried Firefox, pretty recently, it still needed to address some serious issues, when compared to Chrome: * Unresponsiveness due to one tab thrashing * Bad use of screen-space (bookmarks always visible, cannot disappear titlebar like in Chrome [there's only a Windows extension for that], menu-bar takes up another bar of space by default) * Launching firefox has stop-the-world behavior to check/update extensions…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bookmarks don't save state, which is especially annoying in a time where async calls are used so heavily.
And then we have people complain that their "un-used" tabs are taking up too much memory, so browser makers cut down on the level of state stored in the tab and that brings us to the current point.
