I have Opera for viewing Flash stuff; Firefox x64 handles normal browsing.
Sensei probably has screwy plugins, lol.
I recall a test showing Firefox 3.5 generally uses less RAM than Chrome, however I'm skeptical over these things, but it should at least demonstrate that you don't get stuff like 1TB for a single tab with no add-ons.
Your 50% usage (2 CPU cores?) also helps support my theory :P
(This post was last modified: 11/10/2009 11:39 PM by ZiNgA BuRgA.)
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:I have Opera for viewing Flash stuff; Firefox x64 handles normal browsing.
Sensei probably has screwy plugins, lol.
I recall a test showing Firefox 3.5 generally uses less RAM than Chrome, however I'm skeptical over these things, but it should at least demonstrate that you don't get stuff like 1TB for a single tab with no add-ons.
Your 50% usage (2 CPU cores?) also helps support my theory :P
Cooliris, Skype Plugin (not sure why I actually have that), Firebug, FDM Intergration.
That's it as far as I know..
Xitherun Wrote:also, FX's UI is clunky as hell.
I can't believe you're trying to say that.
12/10/2009 01:19 AM
ZiNgA BuRgA
Smart Alternative
Posts: 17,022.2988 Threads: 1,174
Joined: 19th Jan 2007
Reputation: -1.71391 E-Pigs: 446.1274
Xitherun Wrote:can you see how much each tab is using? No you can't, FXnoob.
That's kinda actually bad. If Chrome uses complete multi-processes, then there's little shared memory (DLLs will still be shared, but nothing else) = memory wastage. Firefox's design allows reusage between tabs.
Either that, or Chrome's reporting isn't that accurate.
Senseito7 Wrote:Cooliris, Skype Plugin (not sure why I actually have that), Firebug, FDM Intergration.
That's it as far as I know..
Try running in Safe Mode.
17 tabs, x64 version of Firefox (which should use more memory than 32-bit):