RAM Leaks

[RadiclDreamer]

I dont think I've ever had FF use over 100-150MB ram, if you get that kind of usage, its an extension

 

[SeaSerpent]

Sounds like you need to potty train your Ram.

 

[SilentZero]

.5/10

 

[Shawn]

I got a ton of shit open including 31 Firefox tabs and I'm only using 1.83GB of 8GB of ram with W7 RC1.

 

[TheVrolok]

Sounds like a personal problem. FF with 7 tabs open, and a whole number of extensions .. 92mb. That is also the highest consuming program I'm currently running.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: SilentZero
.5/10

I'm giving the time warp reply a solid 8 out of 10, though

 

[0roo0roo]

chrome=24 tabs 670mb
firefox=134tabs 544mb
course firefox has extensions that block annoying flash/shock wave nonsense which helps

 

[pcslookout]

Firefox is a ram hog and there is nothing you can do about it. The only way to fix it is to switch to a different browser.

Anyway who says otherwise is kidding themselves.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Crusty
Caching data != 'memory leak'

Open software in morning.
End of day usage on Friday: 250MB

Monday: 750MB.


Yes, Firefox 3.0.10, or some accessory, has memory problems.



But still, yes, software should be subject to some level of quality assurance; the unfortunate thing about software is its complexity, and the ease with which complexity can be added.

 

[0roo0roo]

er no.
firefox is not using that much.
esp with things like flashblock/noscript or whatever.
open 100 tabs in chrome/ie/firefox and compare. i doubt firefox uses more

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chrome=24 tabs 670mb
firefox=134tabs 544mb
course firefox has extensions that block annoying flash/shock wave nonsense which helps

what do you do with 134 tabs??

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chrome=24 tabs 670mb
firefox=134tabs 544mb
course firefox has extensions that block annoying flash/shock wave nonsense which helps

what do you do with 134 tabs??

its not that i use a ton of tabs all at once. sometimes clutter builds up if you leave your pc/browser open for days/weeks at a time. having a lot of ram makes it not something to worry about. its not like the olden days where you closed programs all the time to conserve ram.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chrome=24 tabs 670mb
firefox=134tabs 544mb
course firefox has extensions that block annoying flash/shock wave nonsense which helps

what do you do with 134 tabs??

its not that i use a ton of tabs all at once. sometimes clutter builds up if you leave your pc/browser open for days/weeks at a time. having a lot of ram makes it not something to worry about. its not like the olden days where you closed programs all the time to conserve ram.

Yeah but how do you navigate through so many tabs to find the one you want quickly?

 

[nerp]

You have the well hidden Firefox virus.

Happy computing!

 

[CKent]

I have 2gb ram with Win XP pro and it's more than enough. FF is eating ~150mb with a few tabs open. Maybe you have some kind of weird virus?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: Crusty
Caching data != 'memory leak'

Then there needs to be a cache flush button, because it is a fucking memory leak when somehow the Shockwave Flash process running under Chrome is using 72236k to display one tab of Engadget ads and four tabs of ATOT ads. I know I don't have 70 MB of ads open, otherwise these pages would've taken more than a few seconds a piece to load. Closing Engadget brings it down to 72172k, closing some Amazon tabs somehow brings Flash usage UP to 72648k, and closing more ATOT tabs makes it 77648k.

Wow, are you serious? Flash is a run time environment! It means that small files can be transmitted because the runtime contains the library code that is being called, so every library called by the client software in the Flash runtime has to be loaded into memory when Flash content is displayed. Combine this with runtime cache, stack frame buffers/padding and other bits of memory usage, 70mb is nothing. This thread is riddled with dickscarfery.

 

[pcslookout]

lol

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: CKent
I have 2gb ram with Win XP pro and it's more than enough. FF is eating ~150mb with a few tabs open. Maybe you have some kind of weird virus?

Yea, me too. Maybe this is a combination of Win 7 and some weird FF extension.

 

[l0cke]

I'm running 23 tabs in firefox, and it's using 222mb.

 

[n7]

I love my Firefox, but it does devour RAM sometimes.

Especially if i leave it with multiple tabs open for days...i've seen it do 500+ MB.

Time for 8 GB OP

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: n7
I love my Firefox, but it does devour RAM sometimes.

Especially if i leave it with multiple tabs open for days...i've seen it do 500+ MB.

Time for 8 GB OP

Yeah I think some people got it up to 1 to 1.1 GB + before. By the time that happens you have to close it and restart firefox. Unless of course you don't mind it getting slower and slower.

What add ons do you have installed?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Then there needs to be a cache flush button

Just get married... but I don't see what that has to do with RAM or why this isn't in L&R

 

[Sea Moose]

if you want to upgrade to 8gig of ram, then you need 64bit vista,
32bit vista will only recognise 4gig. Its well worth the upgrade i have 8gig and my pc is super fast. My computer mate recons my pc is the equivilent of using a mac truck to drive your shopping home.... pure overkill.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: Crusty
Caching data != 'memory leak'

Then there needs to be a cache flush button, because it is a fucking memory leak when somehow the Shockwave Flash process running under Chrome is using 72236k to display one tab of Engadget ads and four tabs of ATOT ads. I know I don't have 70 MB of ads open, otherwise these pages would've taken more than a few seconds a piece to load. Closing Engadget brings it down to 72172k, closing some Amazon tabs somehow brings Flash usage UP to 72648k, and closing more ATOT tabs makes it 77648k.

Wow, are you serious? Flash is a run time environment! It means that small files can be transmitted because the runtime contains the library code that is being called, so every library called by the client software in the Flash runtime has to be loaded into memory when Flash content is displayed. Combine this with runtime cache, stack frame buffers/padding and other bits of memory usage, 70mb is nothing. This thread is riddled with dickscarfery.

I don't care if it's french fucking toast. Nothing should be using 100 MB of RAM to display 1 MB worth of data. That's shitty coding, and Flash is ridiculous in the sense that it can bring a reasonably fast single core processor to it's knees if you try and scroll on any pages with Flash ads. If 5 seconds worth of looping vector images needs 100 MB of RAM, I'd say fuck it and animate some uncompressed images just to say I did. Are you seriously trying to argue that Flash does not in fact suck moldy asshole?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: Crusty
Caching data != 'memory leak'

Then there needs to be a cache flush button, because it is a fucking memory leak when somehow the Shockwave Flash process running under Chrome is using 72236k to display one tab of Engadget ads and four tabs of ATOT ads. I know I don't have 70 MB of ads open, otherwise these pages would've taken more than a few seconds a piece to load. Closing Engadget brings it down to 72172k, closing some Amazon tabs somehow brings Flash usage UP to 72648k, and closing more ATOT tabs makes it 77648k.

Wow, are you serious? Flash is a run time environment! It means that small files can be transmitted because the runtime contains the library code that is being called, so every library called by the client software in the Flash runtime has to be loaded into memory when Flash content is displayed. Combine this with runtime cache, stack frame buffers/padding and other bits of memory usage, 70mb is nothing. This thread is riddled with dickscarfery.

I don't care if it's french fucking toast. Nothing should be using 100 MB of RAM to display 1 MB worth of data. That's shitty coding, and Flash is ridiculous in the sense that it can bring a reasonably fast single core processor to it's knees if you try and scroll on any pages with Flash ads. If 5 seconds worth of looping vector images needs 100 MB of RAM, I'd say fuck it and animate some uncompressed images just to say I did. Are you seriously trying to argue that Flash does not in fact suck moldy asshole?

Meh, I don't really care. If RAM isn't being used it's being wasted. And no, I'm not a huge fan of flash, but 70mb isn't much and I don't know why it concerns you when you presumably have 2 or 4gb.

Edit - I totally agree with you about Flash's CPU usage though, it's ridiculous.