Comments on: Once More: Firefox 3 is Not Bloated http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/ Photography, Browsers and Stuff. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:59:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Sharon http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-3177 Sharon Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:16:03 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-3177 I'm on a Mac and was a diehard Firefox fan but as the day went on, it took a gig of RAM and really slowed down. I'm using Google Toolbar, Web Developer and Firebug. I got tired of having to restart Firefox when it was ridiculously slow so I've gone back to Safari which is using only 1.5 MB of RAM. Now I only use Firefox for Web Developer or Firebug. Such a shame. I miss it and hope for a better version soon. I’m on a Mac and was a diehard Firefox fan but as the day went on, it took a gig of RAM and really slowed down. I’m using Google Toolbar, Web Developer and Firebug. I got tired of having to restart Firefox when it was ridiculously slow so I’ve gone back to Safari which is using only 1.5 MB of RAM. Now I only use Firefox for Web Developer or Firebug. Such a shame. I miss it and hope for a better version soon.

]]> By: Andy http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-3173 Andy Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:04:14 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-3173 Firefox regularly consumes up to a gigabyte of RAM on my machine. If I restart it with the exact same tabs it will typically take only 400-500 megs. That looks like a memory leak to me, but what justification can Firefox give for needing 1 GIGABYTE of ram to render 10 or so tabs? Before you ask - I only have a few plugins - Firebug, Google Toolbar, and Accuweather. Sorry, as loyal as I have been to Firefox, I'm really looking for a lightweight and quick browser. Firefox regularly consumes up to a gigabyte of RAM on my machine. If I restart it with the exact same tabs it will typically take only 400-500 megs.

That looks like a memory leak to me, but what justification can Firefox give for needing 1 GIGABYTE of ram to render 10 or so tabs?

Before you ask – I only have a few plugins – Firebug, Google Toolbar, and Accuweather.

Sorry, as loyal as I have been to Firefox, I’m really looking for a lightweight and quick browser.

]]> By: Anonymous http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-594 Anonymous Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:23:54 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-594 First Off this author apparently knows nothing about "memory" addressing since "all" operation work in memory and if the program does not flush the memory area it was located in, it will cause memory leaks (which FF does now)Most programmers today are not worth the money it takes to train them (not their fault really more the fault of the high order programming languages that have bloated to an enormous level with far too much automation and not enough concentration on compiler issues)I use Opera myself since 2007 and stopped any FF operations because "IT HAS" gotten as bloated at the IE it was supposed to replace.. any idiot that does programming knows that anytime you "integrate" anything into an original piece of code, it "adds" to the code length, and since the codes run through a "newer" compiler that also has new code added to it, it just makes things "worse" because this entire length of code "HAS" to be ran in memory once compiles into machine code ergo "bloat"Just because you have more memory DOES NOT mean that you have more speed if the buss (bandwidth) of the overall CPU operational memory "internally" is being stretched too thin by the OS and other related so called "necessary" features to compete for cycles..If a CPU uses more then 10% of its capacity in front end operations, it leaves very little room for the back-end operations that keep the whole damn thing stable.. Any coder worth anything understands that the "footprint" of the code they are trying to make needs to always "remain small" and use modules (add ons) to accomplish secondary tasks.. and if it can be done with less overhead "DO IT"...The old words of KISS (keep it simple STUPID!) is what you should always live by in coding.. apparently too many hands in the pie, and not enough application of intelligence has caused FF to become reliable no longer as far as I am concerned..One last thing.. I too am a "technology whore" meaning that if the current browser I am using begins to get too bloated "I will" change to another that is less overhead, reliable for browsing (which is all a browser should do) and move on until I am arm twisted to actually design my own (lazy like others but at least I can admit it)..James First Off this author apparently knows nothing about "memory" addressing since "all" operation work in memory and if the program does not flush the memory area it was located in, it will cause memory leaks (which FF does now)Most programmers today are not worth the money it takes to train them (not their fault really more the fault of the high order programming languages that have bloated to an enormous level with far too much automation and not enough concentration on compiler issues)I use Opera myself since 2007 and stopped any FF operations because "IT HAS" gotten as bloated at the IE it was supposed to replace.. any idiot that does programming knows that anytime you "integrate" anything into an original piece of code, it "adds" to the code length, and since the codes run through a "newer" compiler that also has new code added to it, it just makes things "worse" because this entire length of code "HAS" to be ran in memory once compiles into machine code ergo "bloat"Just because you have more memory DOES NOT mean that you have more speed if the buss (bandwidth) of the overall CPU operational memory "internally" is being stretched too thin by the OS and other related so called "necessary" features to compete for cycles..If a CPU uses more then 10% of its capacity in front end operations, it leaves very little room for the back-end operations that keep the whole damn thing stable.. Any coder worth anything understands that the "footprint" of the code they are trying to make needs to always "remain small" and use modules (add ons) to accomplish secondary tasks.. and if it can be done with less overhead "DO IT"…The old words of KISS (keep it simple STUPID!) is what you should always live by in coding.. apparently too many hands in the pie, and not enough application of intelligence has caused FF to become reliable no longer as far as I am concerned..One last thing.. I too am a "technology whore" meaning that if the current browser I am using begins to get too bloated "I will" change to another that is less overhead, reliable for browsing (which is all a browser should do) and move on until I am arm twisted to actually design my own (lazy like others but at least I can admit it)..James

]]> By: Michael http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-593 Michael Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:24:52 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-593 @ Kevin:"And if Mozilla introduces a feature in a Firefox beta, then all the people who don't beta test will not have a chance to give feedback."It stands to reason that those who actually cared about giving feedback would be participating in the beta. @ Kevin:"And if Mozilla introduces a feature in a Firefox beta, then all the people who don't beta test will not have a chance to give feedback."It stands to reason that those who actually cared about giving feedback would be participating in the beta.

]]> By: Anonymous http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-592 Anonymous Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:54:00 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-592 My enabled extensions fluctuates daily but on average, there are always at least 70 enabled and Firefox takes under 30 seconds to start.So 10, 20, even 30 seconds is worth bitching about?30 seconds?On my laptop Vista takes only 10 seconds more to load, and here the fanboys still refuse to admit that Firefox is bloated to kingdom come.Amazing. My enabled extensions fluctuates daily but on average, there are always at least 70 enabled and Firefox takes under 30 seconds to start.So 10, 20, even 30 seconds is worth bitching about?30 seconds?On my laptop Vista takes only 10 seconds more to load, and here the fanboys still refuse to admit that Firefox is bloated to kingdom come.Amazing.

]]> By: Anonymous http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-591 Anonymous Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:47:00 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-591 Firefox 2 went like greased lightning on my system (WinXP 1.66GHz core duo), but Firefox 3.0.8 is slow as hell, and likes to crash lots. Firefox 2 went like greased lightning on my system (WinXP 1.66GHz core duo), but Firefox 3.0.8 is slow as hell, and likes to crash lots.

]]> By: Anonymous http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-590 Anonymous Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:37:00 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-590 Yes... loading time and memory consumption are really important for sure, you got a point here. But if we speak about java script performance... _unfortunately_, I will have to point that out:http://www.chromeexperiments.com/Try it with both FF and Chrome, and see what happens... really sorry. Yes… loading time and memory consumption are really important for sure, you got a point here. But if we speak about java script performance… _unfortunately_, I will have to point that out:http://www.chromeexperiments.com/Try it with both FF and Chrome, and see what happens… really sorry.

]]> By: Brian http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-589 Brian Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:12:00 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-589 Just wait until 3.5 is released. The speed will blow your mind. :) Just wait until 3.5 is released. The speed will blow your mind. :)

]]> By: Turk http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-588 Turk Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:34:00 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-588 I was a die-hard FF person, but after FF3, I have given up. I wen back to FF2 for a few months waiting for the fix to come. After being unable to play Netflix in a down version, I upgraded back up to FF3. Basically, FF starts up, but if I try to access my toolbar, favorites etc, it is frozen. I had just as many bookmarks and live bookmarks as before.. Why won't someone at FF fix this? I tried a bunch of the fixes listed by others on the internet, and none have helped. Tonight I downloaded Chrome and IE8. I am sad to be saying goodbye to Firefox. I was a die-hard FF person, but after FF3, I have given up. I wen back to FF2 for a few months waiting for the fix to come. After being unable to play Netflix in a down version, I upgraded back up to FF3. Basically, FF starts up, but if I try to access my toolbar, favorites etc, it is frozen. I had just as many bookmarks and live bookmarks as before.. Why won’t someone at FF fix this? I tried a bunch of the fixes listed by others on the internet, and none have helped. Tonight I downloaded Chrome and IE8. I am sad to be saying goodbye to Firefox.

]]> By: Jeff Stewart http://davidnaylor.org/blog/2009/03/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated/comment-page-1/#comment-587 Jeff Stewart Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:22:00 +0000 http://naylor83.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/once-more-firefox-3-is-not-bloated#comment-587 Startup time is what I feel most. I don't do enough surfing to care about page rendering speed and I consider JavaScript performance a solved problem. But I think having to thrash the hard drive for 5-6 seconds to start a browser is unforgiveable. I'm kind of an ass about it.Why not leave my browser open? Bad habits, I guess. I got in the habit years ago of closing my web browser when I'm not using it, just like I close Windows Explorer or the command prompt when I'm done manipulating a file. I don't need it around anymore and it's really not a sure thing that I'll come right back to it. I like things tidy, I don't know. IE6 probably started that trend; its memory leaks required that I regularly "flush" it. Firefox had that problem for a while, too, especially during heady Firebug sessions (blame Firefox, blame Firebug, whatever).Anyway, the nature of my work has me switching tasks very frequently. And most of the computers I work on aren't beefcakes; in fact a lot of them are virtual or remote machines that I tune into at unpredictable intervals. This, I suppose, reinforced the habit of eradicating applications and freeing resources I'm no longer using.Kind of an ass about it.So whatever I need to do at any given moment needs to happen quickly, 'cause I'm usually eager to move on to the next thing and put the current task behind me. Startup time really is what I feel most when using a browser.When when it comes to usability and performance, I'm in the "it's as usable and performant as it feels, not as it benchmarks" school of thought. *shrug*Plus, when you see how fast a browser can start, it's maddening to see other browsers fail to do the same. Add seconds of hard drive thrashing on top of that and it makes this techie a sad panda. Startup time is what I feel most. I don’t do enough surfing to care about page rendering speed and I consider JavaScript performance a solved problem. But I think having to thrash the hard drive for 5-6 seconds to start a browser is unforgiveable. I’m kind of an ass about it.Why not leave my browser open? Bad habits, I guess. I got in the habit years ago of closing my web browser when I’m not using it, just like I close Windows Explorer or the command prompt when I’m done manipulating a file. I don’t need it around anymore and it’s really not a sure thing that I’ll come right back to it. I like things tidy, I don’t know. IE6 probably started that trend; its memory leaks required that I regularly “flush” it. Firefox had that problem for a while, too, especially during heady Firebug sessions (blame Firefox, blame Firebug, whatever).Anyway, the nature of my work has me switching tasks very frequently. And most of the computers I work on aren’t beefcakes; in fact a lot of them are virtual or remote machines that I tune into at unpredictable intervals. This, I suppose, reinforced the habit of eradicating applications and freeing resources I’m no longer using.Kind of an ass about it.So whatever I need to do at any given moment needs to happen quickly, ’cause I’m usually eager to move on to the next thing and put the current task behind me. Startup time really is what I feel most when using a browser.When when it comes to usability and performance, I’m in the “it’s as usable and performant as it feels, not as it benchmarks” school of thought. *shrug*Plus, when you see how fast a browser can start, it’s maddening to see other browsers fail to do the same. Add seconds of hard drive thrashing on top of that and it makes this techie a sad panda.

]]>