What is Digg?139 Comments
- joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -20/+238nobody gives a ***** whether it's a bug or a feature, the problem is nobody wants it. Other browsers don't have this "feature" and they are just as fast as firefox, so why can't firefox do the same without sucking up huge amounts of memory?
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+76I am an early FF adopter and love it to death, but when it is using 110mb of page file memory while I have two tabs open that is not the kind of behavior I want to see. That is more memory than my Lotus Notes and Adobe Photoshop *combined* are using, and those are both notorious memory hogs.
Firefox developers need to stop screaming "its a bug!" and just enable the browser to release the damn memory when it is done using it. I don't want or need the last 5 pages I've been to to be cached in memory because I, along with most other people, have broadband. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -15/+74“Firefox does not have a memory problem, but here's how you can fix the problem.”
Please. A problem with software is a bug /by definition/. - Terc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+60So, instead of bitching about the problem, I'm going to offer up a solution.
1.Dial up users are certainly going to want to keep the cached pages feature
2.The rest of us want our RAM back, and don't need cached pages as we can get them back in 2-3 seconds
Therefore, why not have firefox detect the speed that you download files at, then set the cache size appropriately? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+62If it's a "tradeoff", then it needs to be taken out because the good half of the trade, which is being faster, just isn't there. If they refuse to take it out or can't even if they wanted to, it's a bug.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42Just because it's the only bad thing I have to say about Firefox, doesn't mean I shouldn't lobby to get it fixed.
- Trention, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40It's a bug. Even the Mozilla guys recognize this. It's a well known problem.
http://www.squarefree.com/2006/01/13/memory-leak-detection-tool/
Lame and Inaccurate. - saralk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Opera has the exact same feature (storing cache in RAM) and yet its smart enough to release the RAM when other apps need it.
- askldjd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33To me it is a bug.
To reproduce:
Open Firefox, see memory usage = ~23mb
Open 15 tabs with loaded webpage, see memory usage jump to ~60mb.
Close all tabs, but leave firefox open, see memory usage stay at ~60mb.
I would say that it is a memory leak. And I had already followed the instruction this site provided.
... Alan - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36I'll "digg" it, but god damned if the author of the article isn't as pretentious and egotistical as hell.
- kypen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Yes, Firefox DOES have a memory bug.
I left the browser open in a screenshot thread on a forum while I went to work. I came home and after only about 3 or 4 hours the memory usage was at around 1.2 gig. That is not a feature. Period. That of course doesn't stop me from using it. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31Seriously. If the problem was with IE, it would /unambiguously/ be a bug.
With Firefox, definitions of bugs suddenly change and contort on Digg. How strange... - addicted44, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22@hchaudh
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but arent the google videos etc cached by the Flash player, and not firefox? And that is different, in that the videos are saved on the hard disk, rather than the RAM. - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26 Not only is it a bug, it's an obvious bug. To all those saying "I don't care if it eats an extra hundred meg here and there", all I can say is that it's more like an extra GIG here and there.
My work machine has 4 GB of RAM, and I have seen Firefox use ALL of it, to the point that windows components were swapped to disk.
Yes, I'm a 'heavy user' and frequently have more than twenty tabs open. also have a lot of extensions, and plugins installed. Maybe those are the root of my problem, but neither should be ALLOWED to bring the whole browser (and with it the OS) to its knees.
Just fix the damn bug already, and this article is getting marked 'inaccurate'. Sorry, but it really isn't accurate. - zugu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26Maybe, but I'm not a developer, I'm just a user that happens to surft for hours. WHY SHOULD A BROWSER USE SUCH AN AMOUNT OF MEMORY BY DEFAULLT?
It's a browser, people, it's not Adobe Photoshop or Maya or whatever!
Oh, by the way, use Swiftfox! - laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"It's not a bug it's a feature". This excuse never gets old. classic.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Perhaps you should try Opera then.
By default, Opera takes all your memory for it's cache. However, you can adjust it to a max amount, and I have it set not to use more than 90MB for cache.
It's faster than FireFox, and uses less memory. And it is, IMO, easier to configure than FF. - WorldGroove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@nzknzknzk
Yeah, you'd think that.... but when ya got PhotoShop editing going on, with some rendering with Maya and some composite video encoding with AfterEffects.... suddenly, that 200megs would be nice to have back. Also, not everyone has 4gigs of RAM. - anglachel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11ok... know I'm not the only one getting tired of this "it isn't a bug it is a feature" arguement...
it doesn't work for Microsoft, it doesn't work for mozzilla. If it is broken, fix it, don't call it a feature. - bbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I've seen firefox use 300mb of RAM with 2 tabs open.
- LabThug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"perhaps it is time for some people to upgrade off of 256mb of ram?"
You seriously believe that the best way for this to be "fixed" is by having everyone using this application increase the amount of RAM in their machine? Rather than fix the *one* thing that's "broken" change *everything* else to work with it.
This, ladies and gentlemen is one of the reasons software is in its sad state. When developers think like this, how can the applications ever get better? - emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11No browser should be capable of consuming over 1.5gb of RAM.
- DrOBoogie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Right as I was trying to do this stuff, my memory usage shot up to 300 mb and I had to kill FireFox.
Feature my ass. - Dipsomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I implemented all of those steps in FF 1.5, and I would still regularly find memory usage blowing up to over 600 MB and FF grinding to a halt. Opening tabs would consume memory, closing them would not release memory.
This was a clean install and profile, mind, with no extensions - I wanted to see if there was an extension problem.
Now that I'm using FF 2.0 RC2, memory handling is much improved and I don't have to restart the program all the time to make FF respond. I can also use the fast forward /back feature now.
If the memory usage was a feature, it was a very poorly designed and implemented feature. - tehpoutine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@askldjd
You clearly don't understand how memory works. When an application free()s memory, it is not returned to the OS, it stays with the application. Please do some reading before posting your ignorant rants. The OS can take it back, but only when it needs it as it's an expensive operation. - adriand, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7not everybody develops products with a "minimal resourses" mentality (i.e. web development). If you do any sort of video media production (I myself do computer animation), I need EVERY megabyte not being currently used to be available to software like After Effects, Maya, Shake, etc. Those extra 100-200 MB could mean an additional second or two (usually even more) of RAM-buffer rendering. That is important for my work, and when FF uses this memory for pages that I can easily download again when I need em, its rediculous
- aiken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@goatrandy: yep, likewise here. 4GB machine, FF routinely hits 2GB of mem usage before it becomes sluggish and unresponsive and I have to end the process.
Considering what a great browser it is overall, it's just bizarre how defensive and hostile the FF camp gets about this issue. It's classic denial (attack anyone who points out the problem), but it just seems strange to get so emotionally agitated about a memory leak that is obvious and well documented. - BritOverseas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I have to say that I really like Firefox but I am dissapointed with 2.0 and had to uninstall it.
Every time I did a picture heavy search (when searching for something on Ebay for example), it would suck up nearly a GIG of my available RAM and put my processor usage up to 100%!!!!! It pretty much rendered my PC useless until I closed FF.
I run FreeRAMXPPro and it reports a massive 898MB usage for FF and 100% on the CPU. I don't care if it is caching every thumbnail on Ebay it should not do this, even if it is a "Feature".
My PC is not cutting edge but an Inspiron 9300 with 2GB RAM should NOT be slowed to a crawl by one program. - lbytesxk, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18Remember folks, if it's a MS product, it's a bug, otherwise it's a built in feature.
- DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15---
Maybe, but I'm not a developer, I'm just a user that happens to surft for hours. WHY SHOULD A BROWSER USE SUCH AN AMOUNT OF MEMORY BY DEFAULLT?
---
Dude, if all you are doing is surfing for hours, why wouldn't you want your browser to use as much memory as possible? I'm willing to bet that you are hitting the same sites like digg or youtube over and over in those hours. Even if FF is storing your cache in your page file, retrieving an image or page from disk is going to be faster than getting it from the network.
I really don't see why you guys are getting so worked up over ONE NUMBER. The resident memory size of one program is not any realistic indication of system performance. What you should be looking at is your page out rate. Is firefox actually causing your system to thrash on disk? Is that activity actually slower than reloading the data from the network? Is firefox actually creating a performance problem, or does it just give you a warm fuzzy feeling to see that you have 512MB of unused memory?
Me? I paid a lot of money for my memory. If I'm just surfing the web all day, I'd like my primary application (FF) to take advantage of all that memory I paid for. Please, use it all. If I'm going to do some intensive creative application like Photoshop, Logic, or Maya, I'm going to quit my browser anyway so that it doesn't eat up any background CPU cycles. What exactly is the problem? - Devz0r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@DontSayFanboy
The problem is that when it is compared to other browsers, it is highly inefficient when in comes to memory. - yottabite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4askldjd (nice nick): I can confirm that as well.
My FF useage routinely hits close to a gig - I'm definitely a power user. I do have lots of RAM available, and do note that Opera, Konqueror, Safari and even IE7 RC don't grab anywhere near that much memory.
I also must chime in and say that I love FireFox - specificly the web development tool, which is why I use it in the first place.
Keep on keepin on - good browser, uses memory. - aiken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Maybe you don't actually work with your computer, so it's OK for a browser to consume every bit of RAM?
Me, I run a digital audio workstation with 4GB of RAM. It's very annoying when audio starts dropping out because my samples are being paged to disk because I checked CNN a couple of hours ago and now FF is up to 2GB of memory usage. If this really is designed behavior, it would be nice if they added an instal-time option like, "do you want to be able to use your computer for anything else while firefox is running? Yes/No."
Firefox *is* an excellent application. That does not mean that we must all pretend not to see the flaws. - askldjd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"You clearly don't understand how memory works. When an application free()s memory, it is not returned to the OS, it stays with the application. Please do some reading before posting your ignorant rants. The OS can take it back, but only when it needs it as it's an expensive operation."
@tehpoutine
That's funny. I am a C++ software developer, and you are telling me that I don't understand how free() or delete works.
I can see that maybe you are talking about typical OS "lazy allocation/deallocation". But 60 mb is A LOT of memory for allocation. Or maybe your are confused with Java or managed C++'s garbage collection.
If our software eats 60 MB just like that, I wonder how many customer will complain.
Please feel free to enlighten me on this OS garbage collection that you were describing. I would love to see your argument. Otherwise, to me, you are just another high school kid on digg that thinks you know everything on earth.
... Alan - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That just keeps getting funnier and funnier every time we hear it! Six people made the joke on this very thread before you did and we're STILL not tired of it!
- mattvogt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7no need to announce it. Tag it and move on. If you're going to tag it and tell us, tell us why.
Nothing to see here, folks. - outbreakofevil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I've read other articles before on how to improve Firefox's memory usage, but this one has been the best one so far. Definately a digg from me.
- L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hey Terc, that's a really good idea. You should go post that on the wiki for feature requests for FF3.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3By the way, in Vista RC1 I noticed that when I made these changes in the about:config that Firefox did not release the memory used. It works like a charm in XP, though. Has this been fixed with RC2 of Vista??
- theduke01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As bad as it is on Windows XP, it's far worse on the Tablet PC platform for some reason. Myself and two friends have tablets and firefox EASILY consumes 400-500 MB of memory. I have seen it as high as 800 MB on my system.
I am not joking. Even after as little as a couple hours of active browsing, Firefox will be clocking in between 200-300 MB of memory.
I've even tried all the suggestions for setting the config file, and it has not helped.
A 'feature' my ass. - Aramil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bug or no bug, the modifications worked for me.
- jackbanion, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Opera becomes a memory hog after being open for a long time because it automatically stores all of the pages you have closed in its "Trash Bin". If you've been browsing for a long time and have closed many different tabs, then there will be lots of memory taken by keeping these pages ready to bring back at a click.
You can remedy this by clicking the trash icon (up by the Minimize and Close buttons in the top-right of the browser) and selecting 'Empty Trash'. Every time I do this, Opera's memory usage goes back down to ~60MB, which seems to be the average running memory usage for me. - OSDAgent, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9--
Maybe, but I'm not a developer, I'm just a user that happens to surft for hours. WHY SHOULD A BROWSER USE SUCH AN AMOUNT OF MEMORY BY DEFAULLT?
--
Because a lot of developers have a very narrow, limited view when it comes to development... they forget that most of their work is developed for OTHER people, and not just for themselves. It's usually why most of them need to be kept behind closed doors until they come to that conclusion. - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Firefox has had this BUG for ages now. Looks like 2.0 won't be any better.
My advice ... OPERA! Smaller, faster, just as configurable, and VERY secure. - pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5OSDAgent
as a developer I need to state for the record that your "vision" of who and what we are is entirely wrong. Any half-decent developer obsesses about the experience of the many not him or herself alone. What a narrow view you have. - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I somewhat agree, sure, 100-200MB of memory isn't that much. But if it doesn't really need to use that much, why should it? Just because I have 16GB of memory (I don't, I have 1GB, but isn't inportant right now), should Firefox use 2GB, just because it can, even though it could easily run with 30MB?
- Ben - spooq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only things that will return memory are an exit() or sbrk(). There is no automatic garbage collector, heaps do not shrink when using most memory management implementations.
- Donut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3ive had all those tweaks done a great long time ago, and neither help any.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Possible Solution To High Memory:
I used windows task manager and noticed I had 80k mem usage. Then I went into "Tools" on the top of the Mozilla browser went to "Clear Private Data" and I deleted everything but "saved passwords". Then I existed from Mozilla Firefox, started it back and I was only using 20k then after opening 2 tabs and after 5 minutes it's only at 42k. Not bad, not bad at all.
Clear your data on a consistent basis, it only takes half a second. - negrogoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Firefox should be updated with two options upon install:
I am a:
1. Normal User.
2. Memory Bitch. -
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is