![]() If I recall correctly, it never really did. I started using Firefox around version 0.8 and I remember hoping that the 1.0 release would fix the memory issues. Yup, lots of people complained about it back in the day. Can't remember what version it was though. In September 2006, this was when I got it for the first time and I had no problems with it, even though I had a computer with a measly 256MB of RAM then. I didn't know people had complained about Firefox's heavy RAM usage back in the day it was new. currently, only 39-41% of RAM is used so I'm happier now.Īnother thing. However, since switching to Firefox ESR, things are a lot better. Okay, that may not be an issue but know that more RAM is used because of both Firefox and MBAM's service entry running at the same time - clocking up to about 300MB used each time and the average memory used is like ~53% at the most. But when the competition is using 1/8th of the RAM to do the same thing. Web browsers have to do a lot more these days then they used to and most systems could easily handle that kind of memory usage. Now if all the browsers were regularly using 1 GB of RAM, that'd be a different story and I'd attribute it to the changing times. That is definitely excessive considering Palemoon did the same thing in about 150 MB and Chrome in 60 MB. No CSS, no graphics, just plain text and it was on its way to using a 1 GB of RAM. ![]() It was hovering around 800 MB with 1 tab open to a plain text HTML page. I updated to the latest and checked the memory usage. However, after seeing this thread, I decided to fire up Firefox on one of my old VMs that still has it installed. These days, pretty much all of my daily driver machines have at least 8 GB of RAM and therefore, using 200 MB is basically nothing. It's been a while since I've used Firefox (I switched to Palemoon quite a while ago), so I wasn't aware of how bad it's gotten.īack in the day, people used to complain (I was one of them, actually.) about Firefox's memory usage and in those days it was something like 200 MB or thereabouts and when you used it on a system with 768 MB. Is it just that you don't like applications using a lot of memory or are you running into issues? I'm curious as to why the amount of memory Firefox is using is an issue for you. It has stuff like a mail program, but zooms on my Early 2006 iMac.ĮDIT: It uses Google as default search, and no more stupid filler that no one uses like "Firefox Hello" And it has the 10000x better UI of Firefox 1.0-3.0. This feels like IE 4 all over again Seamonkey is going ESR soon. This is why I am excited for SeaMonkey to move to the ESR branch, but the majority will stick with Chrome because companies only "support" Chrome. And with all these kids downgrading to XP because it's a meme. And I have *never* found a WebKit based browser work on 95.I think with a hack it might run fine on 2000, but even then you may be stuck on an older At least Firefox does ESR. For that, you may want to try Mozilla's PDF.js extension- this is the same PDF reader that Firefox and its derivatives use.)įixed that for you. ![]() (Older versions of Chromium-less than 47 I think-lack said PDF reader functionality. Contrary to all rumors you may see or hear, Chromium does in fact include a built-in PDF reader. It's fast, like Chrome, but does not have the Google-specific crap that regular Chrome has. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |