Comments on: Federated Media And TechCrunch Seek No Fault Divorce

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 04:07:00 +0000

I have been using Firefox since Version 1 and have found Version 3.6 very stable and not susceptible to Memory leaks. I heard bad feedback regards Version 4 and stayed away. I heard initially good things about Version 5 and tried it. But the very first day despite the fact that three add-ons were not compatible it started to make my system into very unstable. Other Apps were not working properly. I re-booted and then went back to Version 3.6 and have not looked back with all plugins re-installed and working my system is quite stable, I did like the feel of Firefox 5 and it seemed faster but that counts for little if in the short time I had it installed that it was bringing my system down. With up to 30 tabs open the memory usage of Ver3.6 is approx 300MB. At one stage and a similar number of tabs and less plugins Firefox 5 was using roughly up to 600MB of Memory. So please keep working on the fix for Version 5.0 but for the moment I will stick to Ver3.6.18. I am apprehensive that if I want to remain Secure in the future that Firefox will force me to upgrade to Version 5 or 6 or whatever. I hope that they keep Version 3.6 updated for a while longer until they have the issues and kinks worked out of Version 5.

By: V. T. Eric Layton

V. T. Eric Layton — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:25:00 +0000

I’ve been a Firefox user since it first came on the scene. Before that, I was a Mozilla user. One thing I have witnessed in my own experience using this browser is that it performs much better in the Linux OS environment than it does in MS Windows. I don’t have actual data to back this up; it’s just how it behaves on my systems.

And yes, FF has had some memory-leeching issues. I experienced this to different degrees in previous versions while using the browser in Linux. I’ve also seen some CPU hogging with FF in past versions. All this being said, 5 seems to be behaving quite well for me at this time.

It may not be the best browser in the world. It may not be the most popular either. However, it’s the one I like best and use most often. That’s the bottom line.

Regards,

~Eric

P.S. Still posting excellent content, Ron! Keep it up. You’re one of the reasons I still read at Lockergnome every day.

By: Leo Graper

Leo Graper — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:02:00 +0000

Hear hear, at least, that’s what I hope they will do, I’ve taken every opportunity to tell them about this.
Must admit that version 5 is using less memory then 4, still FF is using alot, way too much!
I have 3 tabs open, one being my Blog, the next editing my way around the Blog with Tyepad, and the last using Google to find stuff for the article.
I use this almost every day for my community.
With 4 it used a disturbing 1.5Gig and now with vers 5 just under 1Gig!
Also the more it uses the more sluggish (correctly spelled?) the response becomes filling in the text.
In a meantime I also reverted back to Chrome which is slick compared to FF at the moment.
Like I said, I sure hope they are listening….

By: Ryan Macnish

Ryan Macnish — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:35:00 +0000

Thats nothing, Chromium/Chrome stable uses 3 times that at startup alone on my machine. But i have 4GB’s so its not an issue. Firefox has always used less ram for me, its always been stable, but i use Chromium because its just more refined and nicer to use than Firefox these days. Although FF4 was a great release, i did use it for a few weeks and thought it was a great improvement, especially in terms of speed, i would say its nearly as fast as Chrome now, very close.

By: Vaughn Lester

Vaughn Lester — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:32:00 +0000

While memory usage isn’t a laughing matter, it doesn’t really bother me because I have 16gbs of ram in my system. On average Firefox is using around 500-600mbs of ram for me because I have fully adopted the use of app tabs and always have around 10-15 tabs open at any given time. I believe the reason they don’t screen addons and reject certain ones however, is that it would be a mammoth task in addition to taking power away from the user. My system has no problem handling an inefficient addon. While I would like it to be efficient and use less, I’d rather still be able to use it in a bloated state than have it blocked completely from me by Mozilla.

By: John Kennedy

John Kennedy — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:00:00 +0000

Firefox 5 is buggy. Google Maps was not compatible from the onset. Memory should no longer be an issue with newer machines. The original issue: how well it was addressing existing memory. This point of contention was addressed with F4.

If you want to test. Open your browser perhaps Firefox and your e-mail client and see how much memory each uses. The average business user should notice that these programs consistently use the most memory.

If your computer does not have at least two Gigs of memory in the box — it’s time to upgrade.

How much PC memory do you have?
http://www.lockergnome.com/jfk/2009/08/20/how-much-pc-memory-do-you-have/

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:33:00 +0000

Thanks Jason for sharing your results.

By: Jason Strange

Jason Strange — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:27:00 +0000

I’ve been running Firefox and Chrome concurrently for the last 8 hours or so, before ever noticing this post. I decided I would do some monitoring and see what happened.

Firefox 5, with 6 tabs open, has one process running and is using approximately 273MB of memory on average.

Chrome, with 6 tabs open, has 9 running processes that combine to just over 300MB of memory on average.

I have 7 Add-ons running on Firefox, and 2 extensions running on Chrome.

Just for giggles I opened up Internet Explorer and brought up a couple pages I frequent.

Running for 1 minute, with 2 tabs open and no add-ons, Internet explorer used about 100MB of memory.

It seems memory usage in browsers is going to be comparable when placed under identical situations.

I haven’t run any other tests, though it was certainly an eye-opener for me to watch the CPU usage and the memory for a while.