Anyone else think that Firefox is a resource hog?

--
Greymaus
Just another grumpy old man

On 28 Apr 2007 09:04:52 GMT, greymaus@gmaildo.tcom wrote:

>
>Anyone else think that Firefox is a resource hog?

Defenitly! And with every new version it gets worse.

greymaus@gmaildo.tcom said "firefox"
>
> Anyone else think that Firefox is a resource hog?

So use lynx or get a machine with resources.

--
The seven deadly sins ... Food, clothing, firing, rent, taxes,
respectability and children. Nothing can lift those seven milestones
from man's neck but money; and the spirit cannot soar until the
milestones are lifted.

http://www.websterscafe.com

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:17:14 GMT
Handover Phist <jason@NOSPAMwebsterscafe.com> wrote:

> greymaus@gmaildo.tcom said "firefox"
> >
> > Anyone else think that Firefox is a resource hog?
>
> So use lynx or get a machine with resources.
>
Absolutely, I've had these apps open for 3-4hours so far, with the
browsers now viewing the same pages:

Amarok 1.4.5 RES=49 SHR=27
Firefox 2.0.0.3 = RES=41 SHR=15
Opera 9.2 = RES=53 SHR=22

Firefox is not that much of a resource hog when compared with another
capable (but I prefer not to use it) browser.

On 2007-04-28, nordle <na@na.na> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:17:14 GMT
> Handover Phist <jason@NOSPAMwebsterscafe.com> wrote:
>
>> greymaus@gmaildo.tcom said "firefox"
>> >
>> > Anyone else think that Firefox is a resource hog?
>>
>> So use lynx or get a machine with resources.
>>
> Absolutely, I've had these apps open for 3-4hours so far, with the
> browsers now viewing the same pages:
>
> Amarok 1.4.5 RES=49 SHR=27
> Firefox 2.0.0.3 = RES=41 SHR=15
> Opera 9.2 = RES=53 SHR=22

Translate, please?
I have Opera open most times.. When I also open Firefox,
evveerryythiing sslloows down. Perhaps Opera is the hog?

>
> Firefox is not that much of a resource hog when compared with another
> capable (but I prefer not to use it) browser.


--
Greymaus
Just another grumpy old man

On 28 Apr 2007 20:04:48 GMT
greymaus@gmaildo.tcom wrote:

> On 2007-04-28, nordle <na@na.na> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:17:14 GMT
> > Handover Phist <jason@NOSPAMwebsterscafe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> greymaus@gmaildo.tcom said "firefox"
> >> >
> >> > Anyone else think that Firefox is a resource hog?
> >>
> >> So use lynx or get a machine with resources.
> >>
> > Absolutely, I've had these apps open for 3-4hours so far, with the
> > browsers now viewing the same pages:
> >
> > Amarok 1.4.5 RES=49 SHR=27
> > Firefox 2.0.0.3 = RES=41 SHR=15
> > Opera 9.2 = RES=53 SHR=22
>
> Translate, please?
> I have Opera open most times.. When I also open Firefox,
> evveerryythiing sslloows down. Perhaps Opera is the hog?
>
> >
> > Firefox is not that much of a resource hog when compared with
> > another capable (but I prefer not to use it) browser.
>
>
Memory usage is a complex issue, as apps use shared libs which would be
in use anyway, maybe.
RES=The RAM being used by the app
SHR=The amount of that RAM which is using shared resources.

Just because an app is using 20MB of shared resources, no other app may
be open using them, so you cant simply say an app using 20MB RES with
10MB SHR is only really 10MB, as those shared libs might not actually
be used by another app. Equally you cant say holly crap this app is
using loads, if most of the libs are loaded as standard by your desktop
(thinking kde here).

But, yeah, in the example above, it does look like Opera is using more
resources than firefox.

Apr 28: Responding to nordle...

[...]
>>> Firefox is not that much of a resource hog when compared with
>>> another capable (but I prefer not to use it) browser.
>>
>>
> Memory usage is a complex issue, as apps use shared libs which would be
> in use anyway, maybe.
> RES=The RAM being used by the app
> SHR=The amount of that RAM which is using shared resources.
>
> Just because an app is using 20MB of shared resources, no other app may
> be open using them, so you cant simply say an app using 20MB RES with
> 10MB SHR is only really 10MB, as those shared libs might not actually
> be used by another app. Equally you cant say holly crap this app is
> using loads, if most of the libs are loaded as standard by your desktop
> (thinking kde here).
>
> But, yeah, in the example above, it does look like Opera is using more
> resources than firefox.


Wouldn't this comparison also depend on which version of
Opera one has installed, shared or static?

--

Yellow Submarine?
Nah. Its a TeaPot!
www.tinyurl.382gmp

> Memory usage is a complex issue,

That's all true, but also 20MB is just 2% on 1GB machine so it doesn't
really matter

> as apps use shared libs which would be
> in use anyway, maybe.
> RES=The RAM being used by the app
> SHR=The amount of that RAM which is using shared resources.
>
> Just because an app is using 20MB of shared resources, no other app may
> be open using them, so you cant simply say an app using 20MB RES with
> 10MB SHR is only really 10MB, as those shared libs might not actually
> be used by another app. Equally you cant say holly crap this app is
> using loads, if most of the libs are loaded as standard by your desktop
> (thinking kde here).
>
> But, yeah, in the example above, it does look like Opera is using more
> resources than firefox.

--
damjan

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:59:23 GMT
Mike <Not@Arizona.Bay> wrote:

> Apr 28: Responding to nordle...
>
> [...]
> >>> Firefox is not that much of a resource hog when compared with
> >>> another capable (but I prefer not to use it) browser.
> >>
> >>
> > Memory usage is a complex issue, as apps use shared libs which
> > would be in use anyway, maybe.
> > RES=The RAM being used by the app
> > SHR=The amount of that RAM which is using shared resources.
> >
> > Just because an app is using 20MB of shared resources, no other app
> > may be open using them, so you cant simply say an app using 20MB
> > RES with 10MB SHR is only really 10MB, as those shared libs might
> > not actually be used by another app. Equally you cant say holly
> > crap this app is using loads, if most of the libs are loaded as
> > standard by your desktop (thinking kde here).
> >
> > But, yeah, in the example above, it does look like Opera is using
> > more resources than firefox.
>
>
> Wouldn't this comparison also depend on which version of
> Opera one has installed, shared or static?
>

It would, although you could probably guess by the SHR value being
nearly 50% of the mem usage that its the shared version.

I'm not bashing any browser, for some folk memory usage is critical,
I'm not bothered unless it sucks the life out of my system, which
neither browser do.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:06:12 +0200
Damjan <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Memory usage is a complex issue,
>
> That's all true, but also 20MB is just 2% on 1GB machine so it doesn't
> really matter
>

Or in my case, 1%. Yeah its tiny, I'm not bothered, I would only moan
if it was >=30% Just responding to the greymaus who was wondering if
anyone thought fox was a hog

Both firefox and opera appear to be very good browsers, I just prefer
to use firefox, its just so damn fast on linux compared to windows.
I can click on linux.org and it will be loaded within < 1second, on
windows it takes around 4 seconds....I guess its trying its best not to
load the page