Is Firefox Really a Memory Hog?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Howard Schwartz
  • Start date Start date
john said:
Trash firefox and use www.avantbrowser.com
Click to expand...

Avant is excellent. It is what I used before changing to Firefox.
However Avant is just a shell that uses IE, it is not a browser in its
own right. I did like it but started to have problems with later
versions so switched to Firefox.
 
Sounds like you'd be happier back in the good old Ms-Dos
days where programmers counted every byte. But alas, that
isn't the reality of things anymore...
Click to expand...

Junk always exceeds the space available.
(a la Parkinson's? Murphy's? law)

J
 
Junk always exceeds the space available.
(a la Parkinson's? Murphy's? law)

J
Click to expand...

Thought i'd just add that there's been quite a long thread on
mozilla.support.firefox NG recently on this. The main problem appears to
be -- and I can confirm this -- is that even with doshes of memory,
under intensive use and over a few hours, memory gets used up. Period.
For the average or clueless non-IT worker, their PC gets slower and
slower. Followed by an unwelcome call to tech support maybe.

Thus this issue, and i believe it is an issue for many, though certainly
not all, needs to be addressed. Either by the techie in configuring it
for his users (yep, that's one solution of sorts), or possibly by some
sort of installation option saying "minimal memory useage". And by
fixing as many "leaks" as possible.

Personally I think the Firefox is a great browser!
 
I am constitutionally incapable of encouraging bad
inefficient programming, just because hardware capabilities have, as
of now, outstripped software needs. It offends my general sense of
asthetics.
Click to expand...

It offends more than that IMHO. Most bloatware seems to be less useful
than their slimmer counterparts. At least, that's my experience. Most of my
fave programs are really small--sizewise and memory wise--and with few
exceptions I run none of the standard bloatware programs. The bloat doesn't
add anything, and many times takes away from a lean, mean program that
works well.

That said, the days of the ultraslim browsers seem to be over. But I use an
older version of FF and don't experience any memory problems, and I'm glad
it's a standalone browser, and not bundled in with a bunch of stuff I don't
want or need.
 
none@none said:
Thought i'd just add that there's been quite a long thread on
mozilla.support.firefox NG recently on this. The main problem appears to
be -- and I can confirm this -- is that even with doshes of memory,
under intensive use and over a few hours, memory gets used up. Period.
Click to expand...

I have used Firefox for *days* intensively and it has stayed in the 50-
60mb range without eating more and more memory, so I'm not sure anyone
can make blanket statements regarding it. However, I use no tabs and
only 1 or 2 extensions, so that perhaps is the reason. No doubt the
more things you add to it, the more problems you get.
 
Kerodo said:
I have used Firefox for *days* intensively and it has stayed in the 50-
60mb range without eating more and more memory, so I'm not sure anyone
can make blanket statements regarding it. However, I use no tabs and
only 1 or 2 extensions, so that perhaps is the reason. No doubt the
more things you add to it, the more problems you get.
Click to expand...
Extensions are a factor i should guess. The problem for the developers
is that there are many people who report like yourself (no problems!)
and many who also do report problems. Memory loss does not appear to be
platform specific either.

/Sam
 
none@none said:
Extensions are a factor i should guess. The problem for the developers
is that there are many people who report like yourself (no problems!)
and many who also do report problems. Memory loss does not appear to be
platform specific either.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know there are many who report memory problems. I consider
myself fortunate in that respect. It must be a real pain in the ass to
track down the problems too, with so many varied reports. I have also
had good luck with SeaMonkey 1.0 as well. It truly seems to be as fast
or even faster than Firefox, and I get mem usage in the low 60's too.
 
Yes, I know there are many who report memory problems. I consider
myself fortunate in that respect. It must be a real pain in the ass to
track down the problems too, with so many varied reports. I have also
had good luck with SeaMonkey 1.0 as well. It truly seems to be as fast
or even faster than Firefox, and I get mem usage in the low 60's too.
Click to expand...

I'm using Seamonkey after a long time on the FF/TB combination.
The memory demands are similar, but somehow it feels more comfortable than
using two progs. My essential extensions are either built-in or available.
 
However, I use no
tabs and only 1 or 2 extensions.
Click to expand...

I find that the only time I have memory problems is if I've consistently
been surfing with 25-30 tabs open. Eventually the pages have trouble
rendering, and I have to reduce the window size. After doing that for
awhile, I eventually have to reboot my system.

But I consider that "abusing" the browser, so I don't consider that a
memory problem. :D

Oh, and I have several extensions going as well.
 
But I consider that "abusing" the browser, so I don't consider that a
memory problem. :D
Click to expand...

I'm interested in why you think that constitutes abuse? I often open a
whole group of tabs at once, sometimes several groups. Back when I had
dialup, it was the thing that kept me surfing at a reasonable speed.

Chak
 
I'm interested in why you think that constitutes abuse? I often open a
whole group of tabs at once, sometimes several groups. Back when I had
dialup, it was the thing that kept me surfing at a reasonable speed.
Click to expand...

I do it that way too because I'm on dial-up. But I suspect developers
don't expect users to have that many windows open. I'm just going based on
the raised eyebrows I get when I tell people my window situation. ;)
 
I do it that way too because I'm on dial-up. But I suspect developers
don't expect users to have that many windows open. I'm just going
based on the raised eyebrows I get when I tell people my window
situation. ;)
Click to expand...

Until 1.5.0.1, I never had any trouble with leakage. 40 tabs open at a
time, no trouble. Now, I have to be a bit more careful.

Oh, BTW, to the person who said he had to reboot when Firefox slowed down
- I just used CTRL/ALT/DEL to close it, and that worked fine. If you're
on Win2KPro, you have to close the process, as well as the app.

Chak
 
. Most of my
fave programs are really small--sizewise and memory wise--and with few
exceptions I run none of the standard bloatware programs. The bloat
doesn't add anything, and many times takes away from a lean, mean
program that works well.
Click to expand...

Indeed, most of my bread and butter ordinary tasks can still be done by
program written for Dos, that weigh in at maybe 10 or 20 Kilobytes. I was
sorely tempted to just keep using these, under win 9x or a decent dos
emulation for win 2k and beyond. Almost the only thing I needed from
windows was a web browser -- and early on Archane for dos and linux
appeared like it might keep up with website design. But alas, no command
line based browser -- even the vernerable Unix LYNX -- has kept up with the
increasing bloat and diversity of website design.
 
Howard said:
Indeed, most of my bread and butter ordinary tasks can still be done by
program written for Dos, that weigh in at maybe 10 or 20 Kilobytes. I was
sorely tempted to just keep using these, under win 9x or a decent dos
emulation for win 2k and beyond. Almost the only thing I needed from
windows was a web browser --
Click to expand...

I will start with W2K next month.
What DOS emulator or? do you use in W2K to run DOS apps that presently work in W98SE?

I have some DOS games and understand they will not run in W2K.

Mike Sa
 
Kerodo said:
Firefox 1.5 uses memory in proportion to what's available on your system.
Depending on how much ram you have, it will store a certain number of pages
in memory to achieve the faster forward/back caching. On my Win2k with
512mb ram, Firefox will use between 50-60mb ram consistently. I have not
seen it rise above 60 ever, even after hours or days of use. On systems
with less ram, I suspect it will use a little less. But in general, you
can expect it to use a fair share of ram yes. With IE, I believe parts are
already loaded with the OS, so you won't see such high usage in Task
Manager, or at least that's the story everyone tells. There are some
about:config tweaks to adjust ram usage I believe, as there are ways to
adjust it in Opera too. But in general, you can probably expect the modern
browsers to use more ram than IE.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the above, as next month I will have that RAM and OS and will try FF 1.5.

I will have to find the tricks to mimize RAM use on my wife's P133 with only 16 MB
RAM and FF 1.0.3

Mike Sa
 
I will start with W2K next month.
What DOS emulator or? do you use in W2K to run DOS apps that presently
work in W98SE?

I have some DOS games and understand they will not run in W2K.
Click to expand...

Depends on the game or DOS program, really. Many will run straight from the
W2K Command Prompt without problem.

For those where you do have difficulties, enter DOSBox:
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/

HTH
 
Hi!

Heres the firefox memory usage explained:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/14/2154224

And here's some tips to control memory usage by manually editing
about:config:
http://discuss.extremetech.com/forums/3/1004292531/ShowPost.aspx

Seems that your options are to a) switch the memory cache off, b) allow
fewer cached pages c) manually set maximum cache sizes

I've yet to try these myself so I can't say if they're any good, and as
always: use at your own risk and memorize what you've changed, in case
you have to revert to defaults :)

K
 
Kalle said:
Hi!

Heres the firefox memory usage explained:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/14/2154224

And here's some tips to control memory usage by manually editing
about:config:
http://discuss.extremetech.com/forums/3/1004292531/ShowPost.aspx

Seems that your options are to a) switch the memory cache off, b) allow
fewer cached pages c) manually set maximum cache sizes

I've yet to try these myself so I can't say if they're any good, and as
always: use at your own risk and memorize what you've changed, in case
you have to revert to defaults :)

K
Click to expand...
Thanks, Kalle. That will help.

Mike Sa
 
Back
Top