Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Mozilla.org] Firefox in 2011 – Firefox plans for 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Mozilla.org] Firefox in 2011 – Firefox plans for 2012 - Page 4

post #31 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karasu View Post

I dislike that they do not have Memory Usage in for 2012 still either.
I'm upto date with the latest version and maybe once or twice a day my firefox process gets its memory usage up between 700,000 k and 1, 200 , 000 or so. Yeahh. It gets tiresome having to CTRL+ALT+DELETE -- End process and restart the browser :|

Something wrong with your config or addons.
Mine can reach 800mb at peak but it's because I know I've dragged addons and config files through the trenches of hell and that's the issue. If I create a new profile with the addons there is only small memory issues, without addons it runs golden.
Lawl Mark II
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 @ 5ghz (air) Z77 Extreme6 SLI GTX 660 Ti SC 3GB (1228/1734) Patriot Viper 3 16GB 2133mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
OCZ Vertex 3 128GB XIGMATEK Dark Knight II Windows 7 Ultimate Razer Blackwidow Ultimate 
PowerMouseMouse PadAudio
CM Silent Pro 1000W Cyborg RAT 7 Razer Goliathus Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
Lawl Mark II
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 @ 5ghz (air) Z77 Extreme6 SLI GTX 660 Ti SC 3GB (1228/1734) Patriot Viper 3 16GB 2133mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
OCZ Vertex 3 128GB XIGMATEK Dark Knight II Windows 7 Ultimate Razer Blackwidow Ultimate 
PowerMouseMouse PadAudio
CM Silent Pro 1000W Cyborg RAT 7 Razer Goliathus Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 79
They need to hurry up and make the UI a separate process already. Kinda sad how the whole browser locks up just because it's loading a js heavy tab in the background; makes the browsing experience unpleasant.




Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyparker1337 View Post

My comment is not invalid. It is true.
Mozilla does endorse Waterfox, and it is obviously based of Firefox's structure. Even if Mozilla doesn't directly make Waterfox it doesn't make my statement any less true.
Besides, I use Firefox all the time and have no memory issues.

lachen.gif endorse? lachen.gif

It's just a 64bit build. They've done absolutely nothing to the change Firefox in any way. Mozilla purposely doesn't make a x64 build for the public because it's buggy. I don't get the people who go around promoting it like it's somehow any better. You can download it and build it yourself. Besides, the 64 bit version is slower in js anyways. It's funny reading the comments of people who think it's somehow a different version of Firefox. It's nice to be able to use more than 3.2GB of memory though, if you need 1000 tabs I suppose.

Waterfox and the like, is vulnerable to security issues as you won't get updates automatically and have to wait for the guy running that lil site to update the new minor version and manually download it again, so I would definitely not recommend it for the average user. Why don't you just try out Nightly x64 if you think you need it so bad? Because 64 is bigger than 32 of course...
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 3/18/12 at 9:07pm
post #33 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HybridCore View Post

This. Not like numbering is patented or specific to a single browser.

Dont worry I think Apple will find a way to do that soon.thumb.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubers View Post

Still has a massive memory leak! Checked FF last night because things were slowing to a halt and it was eating 500mb of RAM! 220MB right now and there is only this one tab and page open!
I get 500 mb every so often, AVG has a fit whenver that happens. But I cant say that FF ever brought my system to a halt before. I think you have a bunch of addons , very much similar to people having a bunch of toolbars on IE. I find that sometimes Flash crashes the browser but that happens rairly

I am actually quite pleased with Mozilla's progress on their browsers, timely addons, timely patches, they even release their browser faster then the addons they have.
post #34 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post

Mozilla purposely doesn't make a x64 build for the public because it's buggy. Besides, the 64 bit version is slower in js anyways.

How is it buggy? Apart from the fact it's nightly..I'm yet to get any bugs in a 64bit browser. Java, Silverlight and Flash are all 64bit stable. It isn't buggy in the slightest.

As for slower in js, I'm going to have to ask for proof on that..And even if it is, why does that matter? Unless I'm watching some JS benchmark it doesn't make a difference in the real world, whereas the faster memory access times from Waterfox also using newer instruction sets than Firefox (As one example..) could make a real difference in the real world. If I wanted pure JS performance over all else, I'd be using Chrome...
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

How is it buggy? Apart from the fact it's nightly..I'm yet to get any bugs in a 64bit browser. Java, Silverlight and Flash are all 64bit stable. It isn't buggy in the slightest.
As for slower in js, I'm going to have to ask for proof on that..And even if it is, why does that matter? Unless I'm watching some JS benchmark it doesn't make a difference in the real world, whereas the faster memory access times from Waterfox also using newer instruction sets than Firefox (As one example..) could make a real difference in the real world. If I wanted pure JS performance over all else, I'd be using Chrome...

Using newer instruction sets than Firefox? Umm, no... Waterfox has done absolutely nothing to change Firefox. It's simply a x64 build that anyone who downloads the source can do themselves.

Of course you don't know why. Many like you, seem to think that x64 is better than the 32bit, without any actual evidence to support their claims. Some of the slowdowns on the x64 version has been fixed on the Nightly builds though, which of course means it's not going to be in the release build that Waterfox uses for another 4.5 months. 64-bit Firefox will, in most cases, use more more memory than 32-bit Firefox and the 32-bit JITs are better than the 64-bit ones.

There's a reason why Mozilla removed the x64 build of Nightly from the website as well. There were many regressions in the 64-bit build meaning Firefox 64-bit was actually performing worse than 32-bit. I'm not going to hold your hand and educate you if you're too lazy to research it yourself but I'll give you this to start with: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733206
You might also want to look at the x64 tracking bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=558448&hide_resolved=1 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=471090&hide_resolved=1
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 3/19/12 at 7:33am
post #36 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by <({D34TH})> View Post

Still no 64-bit? mad.gif

use waterfox. It's compatible with all the add-ons I've tried too.
K7 DREADNOUGHT
(22 items)
 
Melted
(22 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel core i7-920 Asus Rampage Gene Asus GTX 260 9 GB DDR3 Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
2TB Hitachi SATA 7200RPM HD Hitachi 1TB 7200RPM HD Toshiba External 750 GB DVD-RW Drive 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
SpinQ Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Ubuntu 10.10 x64 Acer 24" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Arctosa 500 Watt Asus CG-5290 Logitech Wireless 
Mouse PadAudioAudioOther
Generic Black Mat 7.2 Surround Logitech Stereo Headset Logitech G13 Gamepad 
OtherOther
XBOX 360 for Windows Controller Genius MetalStrike Pro Joystick 
  hide details  
Reply
K7 DREADNOUGHT
(22 items)
 
Melted
(22 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel core i7-920 Asus Rampage Gene Asus GTX 260 9 GB DDR3 Ram 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
2TB Hitachi SATA 7200RPM HD Hitachi 1TB 7200RPM HD Toshiba External 750 GB DVD-RW Drive 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
SpinQ Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Ubuntu 10.10 x64 Acer 24" LCD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Razer Arctosa 500 Watt Asus CG-5290 Logitech Wireless 
Mouse PadAudioAudioOther
Generic Black Mat 7.2 Surround Logitech Stereo Headset Logitech G13 Gamepad 
OtherOther
XBOX 360 for Windows Controller Genius MetalStrike Pro Joystick 
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 79
I recently switched from Chrome to Firefox and it seems Firefox have gotten a lot better since 3.6. I don't like that Chrome send my private information to Google so I will use FF for now.
Edited by Seid Dark - 3/19/12 at 11:48am
Omega Ray
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4,3GHz Asus X99-A USB 3.1 Palit Jetstream GTX 1070 16GB Kingston 2666MHz DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
OS: Intel 520 180GB  Games: Crucial BX100 500GB  Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro X64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer Predator XB270HU  Ozone Tenkeyless MX Brown Corsair AX860i Cooltek W2 Window 
MouseAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Schiit Modi & Vali + Beyerdynamics DT 990 Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Omega Ray
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4,3GHz Asus X99-A USB 3.1 Palit Jetstream GTX 1070 16GB Kingston 2666MHz DDR4 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
OS: Intel 520 180GB  Games: Crucial BX100 500GB  Noctua NH-D15S Windows 10 Pro X64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer Predator XB270HU  Ozone Tenkeyless MX Brown Corsair AX860i Cooltek W2 Window 
MouseAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Schiit Modi & Vali + Beyerdynamics DT 990 Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #38 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post

Using newer instruction sets than Firefox? Umm, no... Waterfox has done absolutely nothing to change Firefox. It's simply a x64 build that anyone who downloads the source can do themselves.
Of course you don't know why. Many like you, seem to think that x64 is better than the 32bit, without any actual evidence to support their claims. Some of the slowdowns on the x64 version has been fixed on the Nightly builds though, which of course means it's not going to be in the release build that Waterfox uses for another 4.5 months. 64-bit Firefox will, in most cases, use more more memory than 32-bit Firefox and the 32-bit JITs are better than the 64-bit ones.
There's a reason why Mozilla removed the x64 build of Nightly from the website as well. There were many regressions in the 64-bit build meaning Firefox 64-bit was actually performing worse than 32-bit. I'm not going to hold your hand and educate you if you're too lazy to research it yourself but I'll give you this to start with: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733206
You might also want to look at the x64 tracking bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=558448&hide_resolved=1 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=471090&hide_resolved=1

I'm not sure how old what I know is, but Firefox wasn't/isn't compiled with SSE or SSE2 support, Waterfox and Pale Moon are. That was part of their speed improvement. You don't need to do much to the source to recompile with additional instruction set support, but whether it does anything is yet to be really proven either way.

I don't get any slowdowns in Waterfox, nor in Firefox. The memory difference was under 100MB for me, and performance..Well, show me some real world tests proving Waterfox is slower than Firefox to a noticeable degree.

They removed it because "It's unsuitable for most users", in other words, most users don't need more than the 32bit version. Which I agree with, the few of us who can actually utilize a 64bit versions memory capacity and as usable as it is for me (I'm yet to see any bugs myself, and at least some of the bugs in the bug tracker seem to be more along the lines of preparation for trying a stable 64bit Firefox release.) and not because of massive amounts of bugs or the like. Most users aren't going to deal with the possibility of bugs from a 64bit Firefox. Yeah, it's not 100% stable and suitable for the average user..But it's nowhere nearly as bad as you're saying either.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post

They need to hurry up and make the UI a separate process already. Kinda sad how the whole browser locks up just because it's loading a js heavy tab in the background; makes the browsing experience unpleasant.




Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyparker1337 View Post

My comment is not invalid. It is true.
Mozilla does endorse Waterfox, and it is obviously based of Firefox's structure. Even if Mozilla doesn't directly make Waterfox it doesn't make my statement any less true.
Besides, I use Firefox all the time and have no memory issues.

lachen.gif endorse? lachen.gif

It's just a 64bit build. They've done absolutely nothing to the change Firefox in any way. Mozilla purposely doesn't make a x64 build for the public because it's buggy. I don't get the people who go around promoting it like it's somehow any better. You can download it and build it yourself. Besides, the 64 bit version is slower in js anyways. It's funny reading the comments of people who think it's somehow a different version of Firefox. It's nice to be able to use more than 3.2GB of memory though, if you need 1000 tabs I suppose.

Waterfox and the like, is vulnerable to security issues as you won't get updates automatically and have to wait for the guy running that lil site to update the new minor version and manually download it again, so I would definitely not recommend it for the average user. Why don't you just try out Nightly x64 if you think you need it so bad? Because 64 is bigger than 32 of course...

You seem as though you have some vendetta against Waterfox.

I said endorsed (To declare one's public approval or support of.) because http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html . Waterfox is a project endorsed by Mozilla, on their website... publicly.

Waterfox is a different version of Firefox. By Firefox, I mean the version available on their website. At the very least one is x86 and the other x64.

If its slower provide proof for your claim?

Furthermore you make a claim that Waterfox is vulnerable to security issues... so is Firefox. However, both get fixed as fast as possible.
Automatic updates IS available for Waterfox.

I used Nightly x64, unfortunately Nightly is a beta version and prone to bugs. I encountered some bugs too often and looked for an alternative. I found Waterfox, experienced no bugs and continue to use it problem free today.

Back on topic, the issue was about memory usage. Which you never even mentioned.
Edited by kennyparker1337 - 3/20/12 at 1:09am
post #40 of 79
Quote:
Performance work
During 2011, we saw the latest Firefox release that year being up to 7 times faster than Firefox 3.6!

Memory usage
A lot of work went into this area, and there were improvements resulting in up to 50% less memory usage.

This is still a problem for both firefox and chrome especially on legacy computers and netbooks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Mozilla.org] Firefox in 2011 – Firefox plans for 2012