181–190 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but my xbox is broken. However when it was working the updates went pretty quickly. PS updates often take up to 45 minutes.
As far as I can tell, all ps3 system and game updates are hosted on some dude's dsl line. And they can't be bsckgrounded probably the worst part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Progress is nice, but unfortunately as a user I don't care too much about progress if the bottom line is the same. Sorry to sound disdainful about your efforts, and I know how hard it is, and I have greatest respect for the efforts of Firefox developers, but the bottom line is - it is (was, last time I checked) still leaking like Eratosthenes' sieve, and still becomes unusable after mere days of work. And even admira…
> still leaking like Eratosthenes' sieve It leaks a lot when it's using a tiny amount of memory, and it leaks hardly at all when it's using a large amount of memory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other thing is that Chrome updates work. They've only broken something once in I think 3 years of daily use at this point (some update unchecked "warn before quitting"). They also don't generally create popups and the update process itself is literally invisible. Firefox on the other hand... sigh. I really liked that browser, but the updates, and the broken plugins, and the shit memory management, and the develop…
Okay, this might sound funny, but Firefox is actually faster than Chrome on my crappy netbook which has about a gig of RAM. Plus, it can handle more tabs (200+, don't ask) without bringing the thing to a screeching halt. I'm pretty sure you're talking about an earlier version of Firefox -- I agree, there were problems there, but things have gotten much better with the latest versions. I run Firefox Aurora (which is k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I quit firefox purely over its tendency to leak my entire RAM and force restarts. I was told at the time, and do believe, that the memory leaking was an addon problem. However... firefox was sold on the idea of addons. When your two main messages are "we're the most convenient browser; just look at all our awesome addons!" and "you can't use the addons, or your computer will implode", you've got a serious problem.
I quit using Firefox due to absolutely horrific memory management and I never used a single add-on ever. It was extremely frustrating because every time I went to a forum seeking help the first and only thing people would do is blame add-ons. It was so bad that I had to close firefox when I wanted to do anything else. If I played a full screen game it would work great for about half an hour the suddenly it'd chug alo…
This isn't to say Chrome doesn't have its own memory or performance problems. GMail for example will eat up to 1GB of memory eventually before I notice I'm low. I have to actually close the tab (reloading doesn't fix it) and re-open it. It's "only" using 500MB right now...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please try FF15 when it comes out on August 28. It has a fix that prevents 90%+ of leaks from add-ons. See http://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2012/05/07/update-on-lea... for some details (and note that all the follow-on problems mentioned in that post have now been fixed).
The problem is not add-ons. Let me repeat that -- THE PROBLEM IS NOT ADD-ONS. I left Firefox about a year ago, once Chrome was good enough, because my plain-vanilla Firefox, with all the tweaks to limit memory usage enabled, would still leak memory until it crashed (my laptop has 1.5GB RAM and Ubuntu; it also had a few GB of swap). Closing tabs did not help either. The only response from Mozilla was 'add-ons.' Chrome…
Which is expected, because why would you stay if you were really bothered?
Comments from an active user, though... I've stuck with Firefox out of habit probably more than anything else, but now most of the things people (including me) were complaining about are already gone -- as of the last update, Firefox with -- sheesh, I guess I have about 100 tabs in 2 windows -- takes up under 500MB after using it all day, and in the morning it starts in a few seconds (they don't force-reload all your open tabs on startup anymore, just the active ones and I think text from the others is cached locally).
Chrome becomes unusable if I try to use it like a to-do list like this, for UI as well as memory reasons; not that I could say easily how much memory Chrome is using at the moment, with 20 tabs; the separate processes defeats seeing that easily, alas (there must a simple way to check, but I haven't tried).
It's quite stable, and even when it was still crashier (last year?) it's been years since I've actually lost my tabs after a crash; they've always been auto-recovered (and it has that nice prompt to let me close the ones I think may be causing trouble before relaunching).
Given different usage patterns, etc., I have no idea if people trying the actual, current FF will want to go back -- but for anyone who left more than a few months ago (especially if you left due to memory footprint) I'd suggest trying it again sometime.
[And I like the more frequent releases, personally -- I always hated the slow release cycle, and feel like they're starting to get into the swing of it now -- but I obviously don't speak for the crowd on this one...]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, Firefox developers care a good deal about memory management. More than Add-on authors unfortunately. We've had a project called MemShrink running for about a year and it has been making steady progress. and that progress has been shipping to users. The current Aurora channel release even has a fix for most add-on bad behavior. Firefox actually stacks up really well in memory usage (even in third party tests…
Sorry, but not that I've seen in any version of Firefox I'm using. Presently ~15 at work (Ubuntu 11.10) and Iceweasel 10 at home. On an 8 GB system, I'm constantly reviewing my browser memory usage and killing/restarting browser sessions on account of memory usage. iceweasel VIRT presently 2163MB. Sorry, but that's totally nuts. Mozilla have been claiming "we've solved the memory leak problem" about as long as Micros…
I just finished entering a comment above suggesting people should give it another try; I have 100 or so tabs open and 500MB footprint after using it all day, with version 13 (I just stick with the release update channel) in win7.
In my experience they've very clearly fixed whatever the main memory issue was that affected my experience -- but not yours. Though -- the windows versions may get a bit more testing....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your assertion is entirely false. Just because something keeps getting larger/faster/smaller doesn't mean it will eventually be arbitrarily large/fast/small. e.g. the sequence 1, 1 + 1/2, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8,... keeps getting bigger and bigger, but it never goes past 2. (Futhermore, in my personal experience, Firefox has been using less and less memory.)
Your sequence is growing, albeit at a decreasing rate, so I'm not sure it's a good fit for memory usage. Unless you meant to say the rate at which Firefox is bloating is slowing. I could believe that. But Firefox is claiming memory usage is following a sequence more like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... Which should approach zero. If you meant your sequence to represent performance, maybe that's what's happening, but then I think…
Also, I don't see Mozilla claiming memory usage follows a curve like 1/x. In fact, I don't seem them claiming anything about long term memory usage other than "it's decreasing", which is true, and can be true without implying that the memory usage will eventually be 0.
(Btw, I don't think Mozilla have ever said something as frivolous as "1/1024 faster".)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had severe memory problems. Then on upgrade to, I think it was, FF11 firefox became so crash-prone that it was crashing on about every fifth page. Even "safe mode" wouldn't help. Then I created a new profile and it was amazing. FF has been running without crashes since (not one) and memory usage seems well balanced. Just FWIW.
Oh: profiles. I can't be the only person who 1) totally doesn't understand why these exist (I strongly suspect they're a hangover from DOS-based MS Windows without proper user accounts), and 2) how to manage them (there are no profile management tools within Firefox that I'm aware). Totally random and broken vestigial misfeature.
I've heard of others using this as a way to keep a slim browser but still have a swiss-army webdev browser for working with.
It's not the profile system that was broken it was some user settings that were dragged in through the upgrades from version 3 (when I last replaced the profile).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but not that I've seen in any version of Firefox I'm using. Presently ~15 at work (Ubuntu 11.10) and Iceweasel 10 at home. On an 8 GB system, I'm constantly reviewing my browser memory usage and killing/restarting browser sessions on account of memory usage. iceweasel VIRT presently 2163MB. Sorry, but that's totally nuts. Mozilla have been claiming "we've solved the memory leak problem" about as long as Micros…
I wonder if there are large differences based on usage patterns. I just finished entering a comment above suggesting people should give it another try; I have 100 or so tabs open and 500MB footprint after using it all day, with version 13 (I just stick with the release update channel) in win7. In my experience they've very clearly fixed whatever the main memory issue was that affected my experience -- but not yours.…
I'm running Firefox 15 / Iceweasel 10 on Ubuntu and Debian respectively, watching VIRT (total virtual memory size). Currently sitting at 2.3 GB, FML.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh: profiles. I can't be the only person who 1) totally doesn't understand why these exist (I strongly suspect they're a hangover from DOS-based MS Windows without proper user accounts), and 2) how to manage them (there are no profile management tools within Firefox that I'm aware). Totally random and broken vestigial misfeature.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... It's just a command line argument.
Mostly, Firefox profiles mean I can't reliably generically script actions on my Firefox configuration (given there's some arbitrary random string involved).