Firefox 13 to be 2.5x Better Than Chrome in Memory Usage

[Guest]

Perhaps it is just me, but it appears that, with the exception of the recent Pwn2Own contest, browsers have lost quite a bit of marketing traction.

Firefox 13 to be 2.5x Better Than Chrome in Memory Usage : Read more

 

[beayn]

In a few years this will be like nVidia driver versions... We'll have Firefox 293 and Chrome 322...

 

[eddieroolz]

I sure hope so...Firefox is barely operational on low-end machines at this point.

 

[rangas]

firefox i will never give you up

 

[adiomari]

call me please once all these dreams become true.

 

[nforce4max]

I doubt it! Firefox is becoming the new IE, bloated and slow.

 

[therabiddeer]

Question for those that update regularly:
Do you have to keep updating and setting up your add-ons with each update of firefox?

 

[jrharbort]

[citation][nom]therabiddeer[/nom]Question for those that update regularlyo you have to keep updating and setting up your add-ons with each update of firefox?[/citation]
Add-ons tend to update on their own as necessary, and the browser update process will notify you if an extension you're using is not compatible with the newer revision. Then it'll ask to check for a newer version of the add-on, or if you want to disable it until a newer revision becomes available.

 

[mrpijey]

You mean use 2.5x more memory than Chrome? Firefox is slow, bloated and buggy, and it seems their version inflation has been put in the drivers seat rather than fixing all the bloat and bugs. I love the plugins in Firefox and it took a lot of energy and restraint to move away from it, but now I am free from its bloat and I only test it when there's a new major version out. So far it's been far from impressive...

Firefox runs as a dead dog today if you have a few decent plugins and tabs open at all times. And this on a high end i7 with 24GB RAM... I am not saying Chrome (which I use) is the perfect browser - far from it, but if I had to choose between the black plague and the ebola I have to choose the one that kills me with the least amount of pain.

 

[razor512]

herd that mozilla is planning to add a feature where each additional tab run in it's own process so that when a tab is closed 100% of it's memory allocation can be flushed.

We should be seeing it in firefox 3587763498276456590678487435897 coming out later this year.

Later they plan to finally introduce multithreading which will mean 3-4 times the performance on a quad core CPU
(version 5487875485458466789456725476547636495104501435-056145613405134591345138045387045)

 

[therabiddeer]

[citation][nom]jrharbort[/nom]Add-ons tend to update on their own as necessary, and the browser update process will notify you if an extension you're using is not compatible with the newer revision. Then it'll ask to check for a newer version of the add-on, or if you want to disable it until a newer revision becomes available.[/citation]
But do you have to keep tweaking the settings with each update? I remember going from 3 to 4 I lost a ton of extensions for a long time, and the ones that I kept I had to set up all over again. It was a huge hassle.

 

[lordstormdragon]

To all users complaining about Firefox's memory usage: install MemoryFox, already. It's a free add-on. It comes up second if you Google-search "memory firefox". It will take care of your memory problems, just as it has for the past few years to those who know how to use Google or any search engine.

"Oh, but I shouldn't NEED an add-on to handle my memory issues!" Well, yes you should. Add-ons are created so people will stop whining and get back to work. So do just that, people!

 

[jrharbort]

[citation][nom]mrpijey[/nom]Firefox is slow, bloated and buggy[/citation]
I say something is wrong with your own system then, because I don't have any of these issues on a Core 2 Duo P8800 notebook with 3.25GB usable memory.

Firefox's interface and engine can be easily tweaked for further speed and to have a more streamlined look. You can even adjust how much memory and hard drive space it allocates.

Sure, Chrome comes out faster in benchmarks with things like Javascript. But truth be told, most webpages seen by the average user do not contain enough javascript to make a noticeable difference between Chrome and Firefox.

 

[jrharbort]

[citation][nom]therabiddeer[/nom]But do you have to keep tweaking the settings with each update? I remember going from 3 to 4 I lost a ton of extensions for a long time, and the ones that I kept I had to set up all over again. It was a huge hassle.[/citation]
Moving from 3 or even 3.5/3.6 to version 4 was a massive step in changing the look and coding of firefox. Many older plugins were no longer compatible, or had to be updated.

 

[DSpider]

Yeah... Lucky number 13...

 

[drwho1]

version numbers of browsers don't mean much this days.
It used to take a long time between 1 .... to............ 2 ......... to ....................... 3..... etc...
Now is like every month there is a "new version" which are really just minor patches.

 

[vittau]

Is it just me or this whole browser wars thing is starting to get really boring? Just use whatever you want, it's not like a few megs or a few milliseconds are gonna make a difference anyway...

 

[frish]

4 versions in half a year is just ridiculous...

 

[atikkur]

why just dont make it jump to release the 13 already? why have to release 11 and 12 first if 13 is definitely better... yea, i too want that memory shrink, without have to wait looooooong.

 

[Guest]

In the days of having 4 and 8GB of RAM, is memory usage really that important?