| |||||||||||||
Because it's a memory-hogging monster?Because it's a memory-hogging monster?Posted Feb 9, 2012 10:21 UTC (Thu) by viiru (subscriber, #53129)In reply to: Because it's a memory-hogging monster? by ringerc Parent article: Tracking users
Agreed, for Firefox vs Chrome the insane memory leaks are the main disadvantage and the addons are the main advantage.
I'm still using Firefox, but on my (slightly older) laptop I'm rather close to migrating to Chrome out of necesity. One gig of ram simply isn't enough anymore, and Firefox needs to be manually garbage collected (restarted and the session restored) every five hours or so. My workstation has 4 gigs of memory and needs a GC every two or three days, so it's still usable.
So as a slight hint to Mozilla: you don't need to collect any user data, you need to fix the damned memory leaks!
(Log in to post comments)
Because it's a memory-hogging monster? Posted Feb 9, 2012 14:23 UTC (Thu) by pdewacht (subscriber, #47633) [Link]
I have the complete opposite experience: I find (recent versions of) Firefox much more economical with RAM than Chromium. I tried using Chromium for a while and it required about 50-150 megabyte per tab. With Firefox I often have two dozen or so tabs open, and Chromium can't handle that on my 2GB laptop without swapping.
Because it's a memory-hogging monster? Posted Feb 9, 2012 19:13 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
between firefox ~6 and firefox ~11 the memory use has been cut about in half for me (and continues to get better with each release)
if you haven't looked at the firefox memory usage recently, check again, you may be surprised.
|
|||||||||||||