Have a tip?
Want to advertise?
Contact the editors:

Ed: Promoted from the Peanut Gallery.
I’m getting really tired of seeing a new article submitted to digg every freaking day by some douchebag who feels obligated to share his newest discoveries about Firefox to the world. In almost all cases, all that happens is some idiot realizes you can modify browser settings by typing “about:config” in the address bar, and gets overwhelmed by a sudden h@x0r rush.
What they don’t realize is that anyone who is technically capable enough to edit those settings probably already knows it exists, and has settled on the fact that the minute potential increases in speed are simply not worth the effort. Unfortunately, these script-kiddie-wannabes will not stop until every last setting has been toyed with and then documented in what they will ambitiously refer to as an “optimization guide”. In reality, these could be more accurately described as manuals for people who wish to reduce their productivity as a human being to that of a freaking lawn ornament.
Actually, I take that back. Lawn ornaments are, for the most part, harmless. They will not set your lawn to flames, or unlock all your doors while you sleep. Misguided assclowns of the internet, however, provide no such protection:
“You can take the last step even further by telling Firefox to ignore user interface events altogether until the current page has been downloaded. Firefox could remain unresponsive for quite some time.”
Yes — that’s right. He is advising you to “optimize” your browser by configuring it to stop responding to anything you do. I speak for myself here, but I think the ability to move my mouse whenever I damn well want is a feature that I’ve kind of gotten used to.
Here’s the deal: we don’t have dialup modems anymore. The bandwidth most people get is sufficient. The browsers don’t really have a say in how long it takes to load a page anymore (unless, of course, you’re Firefox).
Since we’re on the topic, what the hell is up with Firefox’s memory consumption anyway? Every iteration of this browser since it was a little Firebird has added all kinds of neat features but they never seem to improve on the endless prostitution of memory that this browser has become famous for. I have seen articles, presentations, and other forms of propaganda trying to allure me with all the new features Firefox 3 has. Some of the new features are useful and intuitive, but it still eats almost as much memory and CPU as Photoshop (which seems to have placed an infinite loop in its startup). The Mozilla foundation needs to wake up and recognize the gargantuan elephant in the room. New features be damned.
Comments
The Lulz are good
so good.
They should release a "lean"
They should release a "lean" version of Firefox for those of us who would choose performance over features. As I understand it, most of Firefox's RAM consumption is due to caching. However, the performance increase from caching is negated by the performance decrease from all your fucking RAM being consumed.
Memory Allocator
That, and as I understand it, Firefox's memory allocator is prone to fragmentation because of repeated malloc/free calls on small amounts of memory.
Nerd.
Loonix
The Linux version of Firefox is in need of some serious help. +1
Yes
That or I need a new graphics card. Indeed you are correct, Kyle.
Lame ^ 2
The only thing lamer than Firefox optimization guides are people who complain about Firefox's memory consumption using only anecdotal evidence as backup.
What about...
What about people who whine about both in blog comments?
enough about firefox's memory "problems"
seriously, decent article but you're complaining about memory consumption? a gig stick of ram costs $18.99, get 16 of them and shut the fuck up.
LOL WUT
developers developers developers
ev: i hope you're not in charge of scaling anything
because answering every question with "buy more servers" is Dijkstra's shortest path to fail
ahaha
Dijkstra's shortest path to fail
aahahah nice.
dare, it's a desktop app
it doesn't need to scale. good comment though :) lol
Hey got an idea
No.....Let's not just throw more resources at the problem.
Let's mandate that developers work on single core PIII's with shit for memory, and watch what happens.
Then, the customer can choose to run the software on any box they want, and when it gets to them, performance is not an issue (solved).
I offer, that all the bloatware would simply go away, and what you'd be left with is good, more vertically developed, higher quality software.
Ah to dream.
let's all just write assembler while we're at it
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
Haven't tried it in a while have we?
What are you complaining about? Firefox 3 memory consumption lower than IE7 and Opera:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080317-firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-e...
from personal experience
on my 4GB machine, FF3 will spike up its memory consumption randomly, at times removing responsiveness altogether. I'm just speaking from my own usage of it, and some confirmation from my peers (some of them tell me it crashes once a day, which actually doesn't happen to me). I wish this problem was truly solved.
Opera is far better at memory management, I used to use it as my main browser but there are too many sites out there that just don't play well with Opera (like gmail).
Hmmm...
Sounds like a poorly written extension causing trouble - I'd recommend disabling them all and then enabling one by one to see if you can track down a culprit.