I just don't understand where this misconception that Firefox uses a lot of memory comes from. Firefox is the leanest of the three major browsers in all test that I have seen, while Chrome is usually the worst offender. Here is comparison of memory usage from CNet: http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20047314-12.html
When comparing memory usage results are the following:
Chrome 10: 390 532
IE9: 205 616
FF 4: 148 020
There are other test with similar results. Also note that, since then, Firefox 7 supposedly reduced the memory footprint by 20 - 30%.
I have no idea why people say that Firefox memory usage is poor, when all test that I have seen come to the conclusion that it is pretty good, and Chrome in particular uses a lot of memory.
> Then over time and got more and more stuff, and and now is considered Large, bulky, slow, that is behind some of the standards browser. And Chrome is the new small and light one.
People keep saying stuff like that. But all comparisons of memory usage between browsers that I have seen say the opposite. Chrome is one of the worst browser when it comes to memory usage, and Firefox one of the lightest ones. Chrome's Javascript engine is still the fastest but Firefox is closing in. But ultimately I have to wonder a bit about how important it is to squeeze another millisecond of performance from Javascript. PC-mag did a Javascript comparison recently, with the following results for the SunSpider test.
I can't think of anything that miss from the 3.x versions. What are you missing in later versions?
The change of putting the tabs over the URL, like Chrome, might have put some people off perhaps, but I thought it was the perfectly logical thing to do. I don't think Firefox should avoid doing what is logical just because some other browser has already done it. A good idea is a good idea. And, besides, it is just two mouse clicks to change back to the old behavior. What other things did Firefox copy?
Not true. Firefox is rather lean when it comes to memory use, and Chrome is actually somewhat poor. There are many comparisons available on-line, and the ones I have seen all come to that conclusion.
When comparing ten tabs the article states. "The big surprise here is Opera's and Chrome's poor showing in the multi-tab tests. Overall, Firefox delivers the best memory usage results. It comes in first place for the five- and ten-tab usage tests, but fourth in the single-tab metric."
This is from the article:
"It’s clear that Chrome 14 consumes more memory than Firefox 7."
Tom's Hardware also has comparison of Chrome 14 and Firefox 7, and other browsers, coming to the same conclusion: "Naming a winner for overall memory efficiency is really tough this time, but we have to give the victory to Mozilla. Firefox 7 is simply never weak in our testing.": http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-7-web-browser,3037.html
Oracle already bought the BEA WebLogic server. That is where the JRockit VM comes from. And when they acquired Sun they got the Glassfish App sever. Glassfish is one of the few Java EE 6 certified severs.
I'm guessing and hopping that the intended market for the premium VM will just simply be for WebLogic customers and the like. In other word customer, like banks, who have money to spend om important server applications.
Quite a bit of work on memory usage and fragmentation was done for Firefox 3. See this blog. Personally I have no problem with stability or memory usage.
I have seen some of Vincenzo Natali's previous movies; Cube (very original), Cypher (cool SF thriller) and Nothing (funny and absurd fantasy). He is definitely an interesting director. But I have never heard of Splice. Is it worth tracking down a DVD of Splice?
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't understand where this misconception that Firefox uses a lot of memory comes from. Firefox is the leanest of the three major browsers in all test that I have seen, while Chrome is usually the worst offender. Here is comparison of memory usage from CNet: http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20047314-12.html
When comparing memory usage results are the following:
Chrome 10: 390 532
IE9: 205 616
FF 4: 148 020
There are other test with similar results. Also note that, since then, Firefox 7 supposedly reduced the memory footprint by 20 - 30%.
I have no idea why people say that Firefox memory usage is poor, when all test that I have seen come to the conclusion that it is pretty good, and Chrome in particular uses a lot of memory.
Here for example is one article on CNet http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20047314-12.html
Here are the measurements of memory usage in kb for the three major browsers from that article.
Chrome 10: 390,532
IE 9: 205,616
Firefox 4: 148,020
Here is a slightly older article coming to the same conclusion on Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-4.html and there are other articles.
Please also note that Mozilla claims to have reduced memory usage by 20-30% with the Firefox 7 release.
> Then over time and got more and more stuff, and and now is considered Large, bulky, slow, that is behind some of the standards browser. And Chrome is the new small and light one.
People keep saying stuff like that. But all comparisons of memory usage between browsers that I have seen say the opposite. Chrome is one of the worst browser when it comes to memory usage, and Firefox one of the lightest ones. Chrome's Javascript engine is still the fastest but Firefox is closing in. But ultimately I have to wonder a bit about how important it is to squeeze another millisecond of performance from Javascript. PC-mag did a Javascript comparison recently, with the following results for the SunSpider test.
Google Chrome 15: 293
Firefox 8: 296
I can't think of anything that miss from the 3.x versions. What are you missing in later versions?
The change of putting the tabs over the URL, like Chrome, might have put some people off perhaps, but I thought it was the perfectly logical thing to do. I don't think Firefox should avoid doing what is logical just because some other browser has already done it. A good idea is a good idea. And, besides, it is just two mouse clicks to change back to the old behavior. What other things did Firefox copy?
Not true. Firefox is rather lean when it comes to memory use, and Chrome is actually somewhat poor. There are many comparisons available on-line, and the ones I have seen all come to that conclusion.
Here is one on Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-4.html
When comparing ten tabs the article states. "The big surprise here is Opera's and Chrome's poor showing in the multi-tab tests. Overall, Firefox delivers the best memory usage results. It comes in first place for the five- and ten-tab usage tests, but fourth in the single-tab metric."
I'd say Firefox's biggest problem is that it's bloated. Chrom{e|ium} is considerably faster.
Really? Several report that I have read come the the conclusion the Firefox uses less memory than Chrome. Here is one relatively recent comparison between Firefox 7 and Chrome 14: http://techpp.com/2011/09/28/chrome-14-vs-firefox-7-memory-footprint-comparison/
This is from the article:
"It’s clear that Chrome 14 consumes more memory than Firefox 7."
Tom's Hardware also has comparison of Chrome 14 and Firefox 7, and other browsers, coming to the same conclusion: "Naming a winner for overall memory efficiency is really tough this time, but we have to give the victory to Mozilla. Firefox 7 is simply never weak in our testing.": http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-7-web-browser,3037.html
Well Ericsson is still the worlds largest mobile telecommunications equipment vendor (35%).
Excellent points.
Absolutely right. And a hat in the middle of summer, to protect from sunburn, can get unpleasantly hot.
CmdrTaco is Rob Malda, one of the two founders of Slashdot.
Clearly the most sensible post in this thread.
If someone doesn't qualify for the Geneva Convention, they should be processed under normal domestic law.
Annotations are used extensively in enterprise Java at runtime.
And what about Fedora?
Oracle already bought the BEA WebLogic server. That is where the JRockit VM comes from. And when they acquired Sun they got the Glassfish App sever. Glassfish is one of the few Java EE 6 certified severs.
I'm guessing and hopping that the intended market for the premium VM will just simply be for WebLogic customers and the like. In other word customer, like banks, who have money to spend om important server applications.
For most of Europe dd/mm/yy is used, but Sweden has since the the 70ties used the ISO format yyyy-mm-dd.
And it looks like optimization work is still very much ongoing. http://arewefastyet.com/
Collins is (or at least was) an excellent drummer. You should check out some of his Brand-X fusion work.
Oops, I misremember. No normal keyboard, just a game controller. Still an interesting device though.
Well the supposedly upcoming Sony Ericsson Android 3.0 device looks interesting to me, with a QWERTY keyboard and a 1GHz Snapdragon CPU.
I think Firefox is too
This reply is posted with a x64 version of a nightly Firefox 4.0 (pre-b4) build.
Theodore Sturgeon's (second ) law is "“Ninety percent of everything is crud”. But you probably knew that.
Quite a bit of work on memory usage and fragmentation was done for Firefox 3. See this blog. Personally I have no problem with stability or memory usage.
The first Species movie was decent flick, with a terrific Giger monster design. I guess I'll just have to wait and see then.
I have seen some of Vincenzo Natali's previous movies; Cube (very original), Cypher (cool SF thriller) and Nothing (funny and absurd fantasy). He is definitely an interesting director. But I have never heard of Splice. Is it worth tracking down a DVD of Splice?