Mozilla to Improve Firefox Memory Performance by 30%

[Guest]

Firefox is nearing its next version transition as Firefox 6 is scheduled to be released on August 16.

Mozilla to Improve Firefox Memory Performance by 30% : Read more

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

SWEET!

 

[Thunderfox]

How many new features do we need? It's a browser, it just needs to be good at that, and the memory problem isn't new. Junk like Panorama just bloats it for the sake of saying it does something new, even if nobody needs it to, and the whole idea of writing internal browser features like that in javascript is ludicrous and lazy.

I'm using FF4 right now, and it is taking up 350 megs with 11 tabs open. I've had it as high as 950, and responsiveness slows pathetically before it gets to that point. It does sometimes crash if you are doing too much. These are the things they need to be worrying about, not how many useless halfbaked ideas they can shove into it, or how fast they can get the version number up to match Chrome's.

 

[Thunderfox]

How many new features do we need? It's a browser, it just needs to be good at that, and the memory problem isn't new. Junk like Panorama just bloats it for the sake of saying it does something new, even if nobody needs it to, and the whole idea of writing internal browser features like that in javascript is ludicrous and lazy.

I'm using FF4 right now, and it is taking up 350 megs with 11 tabs open. I've had it as high as 950, and responsiveness slows pathetically before it gets to that point. It does sometimes crash if you are doing too much. These are the things they need to be worrying about, not how many useless halfbaked ideas they can shove into it, or how fast they can get the version number up to match Chrome's.

 

[Thunderfox]

How many new features do we need? It's a browser, it just needs to be good at that, and the memory problem isn't new. Junk like Panorama just bloats it for the sake of saying it does something new, even if nobody needs it to, and the whole idea of writing internal browser features like that in javascript is ludicrous and lazy.

I'm using FF4 right now, and it is taking up 350 megs with 11 tabs open. I've had it as high as 950, and responsiveness slows pathetically before it gets to that point. It does sometimes crash if you are doing too much. These are the things they need to be worrying about, not how many useless halfbaked ideas they can shove into it, or how fast they can get the version number up to match Chrome's.

 

[Thunderfox]

How many new features do we need? It's a browser, it just needs to be good at that, and the memory problem isn't new. Junk like Panorama just bloats it for the sake of saying it does something new, even if nobody needs it to, and the whole idea of writing internal browser features like that in javascript is ludicrous and lazy.

I'm using FF4 right now, and it is taking up 350 megs with 11 tabs open. I've had it as high as 950, and responsiveness slows pathetically before it gets to that point. It does sometimes crash if you are doing too much. These are the things they need to be worrying about, not how many useless halfbaked ideas they can shove into it, or how fast they can get the version number up to match Chrome's.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

been using the FF8 nightly for a few weeks now.
its been ROCK-SOLID. people should try it instead of the crappy FF5. its much faster.

 

[Thunderfox]

How many new features do we need? It's a browser, it just needs to be good at that, and the memory problem isn't new. Junk like Panorama just bloats it for the sake of saying it does something new, even if nobody needs it to, and the whole idea of writing internal browser features like that in javascript is ludicrous and lazy.

I'm using FF4 right now, and it is taking up 350 megs with 11 tabs open. I've had it as high as 950, and responsiveness slows pathetically before it gets to that point. It does sometimes crash if you are doing too much. These are the things they need to be worrying about, not how many useless halfbaked ideas they can shove into it, or how fast they can get the version number up to match Chrome's.

 

[Thunderfox]

For christs sake, it would be nice if this site worked right. Maybe divert some of the people from the localization teams to fix things like this?

 

[hp79]

You said you are using Firefox right? You posted same thing 5 times. LOL

[citation][nom]Thunderfox[/nom]For christs sake, it would be nice if this site worked right. Maybe divert some of the people from the localization teams to fix things like this?[/citation]

 

[MrBig55]

I'm highly waiting for firefox 6 then ^^

 

[burnley14]

Work on making Firefox open quickly and load pages quickly. The rest is unnecessary. I don't need my browser to make me breakfast, just be fast, secure, stable, and compatible.

 

[Neverdyne]

I feel like I'm updating my browsers every month.

 

[azgard]

I would be much happier if FF was designed around a core browser program, akin to what a traditional IE 6.0 looked like, with them using addon's as a system to add all this feature bloat that people may not need, or care about. I'm using chrome now because I got tired of the frequent crashes, large footprint on my task manager, and overall poor performance in webpage rendering. I was an ardent supporter of FF for a good 7 year's now and now I would recommend to just stay the hell away.

 

[gti88]

I'm still using 3.6 and quite happy with this. And I don't care very much if it takes 350 or 400mb of memory - I still have more than 2 gigs.

 

[pythy]

What?? No firefox babe??

 

[Thunderfox]

[citation][nom]hp79[/nom]You said you are using Firefox right? You posted same thing 5 times. LOL[/citation]
Actually, I tried posting it in IE just to rule out the possibility of it being a FF bug.

 

[bennaye]

These new versions of FF aren't evolutionary. They're not even revolutionary. Rather, its devolving. FF tried to cram a few more features into its browser and the result was 2 extra builds and a memory/resource hog. Stop trying to match chrome in its revision speed and release cycle. So far, it hasn't worked, and unlikely to ever work. Mozilla should be focusing on the real important stuff, like maximising efficiency and usability. That's what will net you more market share. Either that, or replace your logo with chrome's logo.

 

[the_krasno]

Too bad I already got sick of it and went back to Chrome, which fixed the stuff that made me dump it before.

 

[RazberyBandit]

I wish they'd abandon this rapid-release cycle and just go back to releasing revisions of releases, such as 3.1, 3.2, etc. They're just copying Chrome with the new version number every couple months nonsense.

Versions 4, 5, and 6 had no truly remarkable or massively significant changes. Really, they could all just be versions 4, 4.1, and 4.2. If version 7 does actually include a (much needed) major memory usage overhaul, then it would be the first one with a truly significant change, making it the only one that's truly worthy of a new version number.

Mozilla releases new version numbers just to keep up with the Joneses (er, Googleses?).