OSNews

Check if you are using the latest version of the flash plugin. Also sometimes a bad installation causes serious memory leaks. There is also the thing about Firefox not unloading plugins after they are needed so there wouldn't be any fixes any time soon. Use an add-on to control Flash ( or some other tweaking method )...

As opposed to IE7's 20mb, or Opera's 6.3mb?

I hope that camparison was an 'international' version of FireFox to be 5.7mb.

Because the 6.3mb that you quoted Opera of having is their International Version. The English version is only 4.6mb.

Have a nice day.

You can't call 5.7MB bloatware in this day and age and especially compared to other browsers as "DittoBox" pointed out. In regards to the Flash memory problem. I might be wrong but wouldn't it be a Macromedia oooops Adobe problem since they provide the plugin.


Medora Solutions Inc. http://www.medora.ca

Edited 2006-09-27 00:02

It's the download that is 5.7 MB (the actual size is 18.7 MB _after_ installation - and that's a clean installation). It's bloated.

BTW: K-Meleon goes at 15.2 MB - a bit larger than the Mozilla ActiveX Control.

Edited 2006-09-27 00:39

Well of course it's "bloated" - the entire UI is just a bunch of non-compressed javascript/xml/rdf lumped into .jar files - all interpreted at runtime by the Gecko/XUL engine...

Considering that, any native-compiled browser SHOULD be smaller and "faster" (by a magnitude).

RE Opera: I personally would prefer the open-source, extensible browser myself.

Edited 2006-09-27 00:46

I imagine the Gecko-engine is the biggest part considering the size of the ActiveX control.

I mean Firefox2 is larger than MorphOS or AmigaOS4

My FF 1.5 install is only about 8-9mb of binaries and 6-7mb of jar files/.js files

Update: It appears the binaries for FF 2 RC1 are less than 1mb larger than FF 1.5

Edited 2006-09-27 01:03

I did a complete installation incl. the talkback thingy and one other thing. Apart from that completely clean installation (uninstalled (and deleted plugins not removed by uninstallation) the old installation).

Your numbers are quite close to mine.

I get the difference for a clean installation of FF1.5 and FF2.0RC1 to be 1.8 MB

Do you do a full installation incl. development tools and the talkback thingy?

I was only counting the difference in binaries - excluding all the subdirs basically - sorry

As I mentioned earlier, I would expect a XUL-based program UI will always be "bloated" in that sense... but it's also extremely flexible compared to a native binary-built UI. I expect it to be larger than other native browsers, and I also expect it to have a slower startup time. Not expecting this would be ignorance of the architecture it is built on.

The same could be said for PHP, Perl, XML, HTML, etc. - these are all non-binary formats that are interpreted/rendered/parsed at runtime... But I would rather have Firefox anyway.

"RE Opera: I personally would prefer the open-source, extensible browser myself. "

You use "the" there as if Mozilla was the only such one.

- khtml
- tkhtml
- ...various others...

Although perhaps this depends on what you mean by "extensible". In a way, every open-source application is extensible.

You use "the" there as if Mozilla was the only such one.

Nope, I was only comparing the two - as a couple comments prior to mine had mentioned that Opera was "better"... but thanks for pointing it out

They also need to fix the MenuBar. It's annoying. -_-

I would be tempted to say that firefox has *opened* the door for opera.

opera contains more *feature* bloat that firefox.

Why would firefox not be a real browser.

Edited 2006-09-27 00:11

Opera 9.02 is out. But I suppose the masses prefer a bloated, buggy toy like Firefox...[cut]

I would say it has something to do with Opera being +0.01 update, compared to Firefox +0.5 update. Don't you think?

Considering Vista is a version of Windows, your point escapes me. Windows Live messenger runs on XP and 2000, I have it running here on my XP box. Windows Media Player 11 will also run on XP SP2, according to the WMP 11 website. Good job on the research though

For the people who can't stand this bloated application.

I'm not sure who you're exactly responding to here... but if you're talking about me, I just want to point out that I love firefox, and I was trying to justify WHY it's "bloated" (note the use of quotes)... duh.

On the other hand, your suggestion that because we have "cheap and powerful hardware" and it "shouldn't be an issue" - I have to disagree. There are tradeoffs of course, some software can be "bloated" and usable at the same time, while other software (such as the OS itself) this is not as acceptable.

To each his own of course - some people will argue to the end of the earth that performance matters more than flexibility, others will argue the opposite...

You are right, each person has a different opinion about "bloat", however it is free and in direct competition with IE, so In my opinion the 20, 40 or even 50 megabytes is a small price to pay. I'm certain if the Firefox engineers/developers had the choice to make it smaller in size they probably would have done it considering they are working on version 2 already. On the other hand Photoshop is bloated and it in my opinion gets worse with every version. It does slow down my system (Dual G5 2 GHZ, 2 Gigs of ram) and it costs a lot of money.

I think everyone here who complains about Firefox bloat are Windows users ?

Are you comparing bloat to Firefox start up times ?

I sure you are all well aware that Internet Explorer is prelinked and preloaded into Windows and that skews the start up times for that application ?????

"I sure you are all well aware that Internet Explorer is prelinked and preloaded into Windows and that skews the start up times for that application ?????"

Uh, how does that "skew" anything. The time it takes to start is the time it takes to start. If IE starts faster then it starts faster, regardless of reasons.
I don't find Firefox start time to be long and I probably wouldn't have IE installed at all if it wasn't required for Windows Update.

IE doesn't start as fast as K-Meleon or Netscape 7.2 (the latter one is however bloated otherwise - and quite insecure by modern standards).

"In my opinion the 20, 40 or even 50 megabytes is a small price to pay."

I disagree, at that size you are effectively turning away anyone on a dial-up connection and thereby establishing a sort of 'caste' system on the internet. It's not right for programmers to rely on abundant technological excesses to compensate for their own lack of diligence. It seems like just yesterday Opera announced they were returning to their roots of a tight efficient compact streamlined browser, and then in fact went the other direction. I have two profound gripes with the current Opera: First, after habituating me to use multiple tabs, more and more websites jerk focus away from the tab you're using to the tab they just finished loading. Webmail especially, if I have 5 messages I'm accustomed to opening 4 of them in background tabs while reading the fifth, but now it's insanity as the background tabs repeatedly steal focus from each other. Just what exactly is the POINT of being able to load pages in the background if you can't read the one you're on until all the background tabs are done loading??? This is incredibly stupid. Second, the current Opera is unresponsive on low end machines, or at least on the one I'm using. I find some forms don't respond when you click buttons. It could be a 'send' button on webmail, or a button to update your shopping cart. Sometimes they don't even hilight, other times they do but won't click, other times they click but don't respond. I still don't know OR CARE what 'widgets' are or most of their other fluff, I just want to surf the web and do normal functions, and suddenly Firefox does it all better.

Oops, I just gave a good reason to buy Vista :p

Nah, you stil don't have nearly enough RAM

Edited 2006-09-27 03:16

Well, 1.5 GB won't do you no good, when each app requires 512 MB of ram...

And not all of us are running dual core 64-bit cpu's.
It's completely unacceptable that pc's so much faster today than 8 years ago, cannot run software faster than pc's could back then. And it's not due to more functionality (or features) - they do not make an application grow particularly much, nor do they affect speed in a noticeable way. Only codewise bloat can do that. VirtualDub is a good example of a featurerich and small application while Camtasia Studio (or any modern office suite) is a great example of a disaster.

It's completely unacceptable that pc's so much faster today than 8 years ago, cannot run software faster than pc's could back then.

Unacceptable maybe, but also unavoidable. Parkinson's Law is sometimes reduced to:

"The demand upon a resource always expands to match the supply of the resource."

:-)

It is _not_ unavoidable. Systems like SkyOS, Syllable, Haiku, AROS, MorphOS, eCS (OS/2), AmigaOS4, and DE's like GNUstep prove it is perfectly possible.

Parkinson's Law do not say that software will be slower, just that our demands will always the resources we have.

The question is whether we use the resources on nothing (that'll be all the sloppy coding) - or if we're using them on running MORE slim applications. I prefer the last one, but most commercial applications (or applications created by commercial funds - like Gnome and KDE) tend to do the first thing.

True, but OS's and applications are different. Usually people are a lot less tollerant of a slow OS than they are of a slow application.

It's extremely rare to find an application that, over time, doesn't become larger and slower.

Normally after they realise how huge it's become they start calling it a "suite".

Normally after they realise how huge it's become they start calling it a "suite".

ROFL

Usually I'm down at 18-26 MB with Firefox and 14-26 with K-Meleon... it never seems to grow above 26 MB (on Windows).

Usually I'm down at 18-26 MB with Firefox and 14-26 with K-Meleon... it never seems to grow above 26 MB (on Windows).

What do you browse with then?

Huh?

I'm usually browsing with K-Meleon on Windows. (though this is written in Firefox - but that's because I'm running Gentoo right now).

With several tabs (typically around 8) open, I don't come over 26 MB. Perhaps the fact that I'm usually avoiding flash-based sites makes a difference?

Ever looked at virtual memory usage?

After a few days of running my Firefox never goes below 200 MB (on windows, never look on Linux, there is runs much smoother). I hope this RC1 does a better job

Hmm.. no, haven't done that. But probably akin to that of Firefox on Linux. Approx. 50-100 no matter what I do. And of course the occasional crashes when hitting extreme flash-sites.. which is one of several reasons to avoid them

True, but the bigger question is, is XUL actually relevant these days? want a multiplatform toolkit, then use qt or gtk+, want a mark up language that enables one to create web based applications, there is now AJAX - it seems to me that the best move that the Mozilla Foundation could do would be to drop this XUL, have a multiplatform core, and layer 'platform native' interface ontop, that'll avoid the whole 'looks crap' issue in regards to integratin into operaitng systems.

Firefox, unfortunately, never fits into any operating system it sits upon; this goes for *NIX, Mac or Windows - the result is, you have an out of place, poorly optimised, badly written browser thats running on the coat tales of a waning anti-Microsoft hysteria campaign.

IE 7 is a vast improvement over IE 6, and Opera in itself proves that closed source can and does provide stable, secure and reliable software - why can't the opensource community deliver somethign that is stable, reliable and contact enough to use on what I would consider a 'modest machine' with 1gig.

(...)thats running on the coat tales of a waning anti-Microsoft hysteria campaign.

Being anti-Microsoft isn't hysteria. It's perfectly reasonable!!

And I think you need some kind of backup facts in order to state that you have an out of place, poorly optimised, badly written browser .

The rest of your post is just insane. IE7 isn't a vast improvement. It's a vast ripoff that only runs on one platform. And Opera has had just many security holes as FF (actually Opera has had a few more):

http://secunia.com/product/761/?task=statistics
http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=statistics

Interesting, when you prove people wrong, expect your post to have its points deducted; nice to see that you can express your opinion, as long as it is the correct one at that moment in time.

Interesting, when you prove people wrong, expect your post to have its points deducted; nice to see that you can express your opinion, as long as it is the correct one at that moment in time.

Let's take a look at that post again, shall we?

Easy, it doesn't use MacOS X widgets for forms; opinion, its crap.

OK, here you outright say it is an opinion, and a controversial one that is probably responsible for you being modded down.

If they can't even link to some bloody cocoa libraries to provide aqua widgets, I have to ask whether they're really scraping the bottom of the programming barrel when the contributors can't get the most basic things right.

Honestly, if I had to choose between using native Mac widgets and fixing bugs, I'm going to choose to fix bugs every single time. I suppose it sucks for the few Mac users who actually use Firefox, but it is time to recognize that you are not their priority. Don't worry, eventually they will get to you, but for now if native widgets are really that important to you then you should just stop using (and complaining) about Firefox.

How about a damn spell checker that actually works! one that actually realises that NZ spelling uses the UK dictionary, not Australian.

A valid complaint. The spell checker feature is new and they can certainly improve upon it in the future.

Opera? its multiplatform, and actually integrates well with all the platforms it runs on. Can't say the same for firefox.

It integrates better, but I wouldn't say it integrates well. If you want something integrated well, you should stick with Safari/IE/Konq/Epiphany. Cross platform browsers are never going to be better integrated than native ones.

Conclusion: Your post had a decent point or two, but was riddled with flamebait. You make it seem like you are the only user that matters and everyone else is an idiot for even questioning you. For that you deserved to be modded down. And no, I didn't do it personally.

Flamebait is defined as a person who goes out of their way to post opinions/statements to deliberately incite a flame by others people; aka, to bait a flame as the word is defined as.

Considering that I haven't gone out of my way to 'bait a flame' but said in a rather abbrasive fasion the issues that pertain to Firefox and the poor intergration with the hosted platform, thus, you are wrong in your 'summaryjudgement'.

Regarding the MacOS X widgets, its been promised, promised and re-promised each release, and no one can be bothered actually correcting the problem; either correct the problem or drop support for their said platform; stop wasting end users time with half baked junk; get it right the first time or don't ship the product at all.

And Opera has had just many security holes as FF (actually Opera has had a few more)

Nice how you compare the current Firefox to the five-year old, long-ago-obsolete Opera 7. Is that really the best you can do?

Firefox 1.x: http://secunia.com/product/4227/?task=statistics
Affected By 36 Secunia advisories
Unpatched 8% (3 of 36 Secunia advisories)

Opera 8: http://secunia.com/product/4932/
Affected By 15 Secunia advisories
Unpatched 0% (0 of 15 Secunia advisories)

Opera 9: http://secunia.com/product/10615/
Affected By 1 Secunia advisories
Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)

Really, it seems faster indeed. I'm running FC5 and have so far used their packaged FF and it sure did seem slow compared to the same version run on Windows (same machine), but this release feels like the 1.5.x Windows one.

Slowness in FC5 version of Firefox 1.5.x is caused by the use of Pango library for supporting international fonts. I think Pango will be used in Firefox 3 which integrate Cairo.

What international fonts? I'm from Croatia and my local fonts work just fine on the binary downloaded from mozilla.org. Pango can be switched off in compile-time?

Asians and Cyrillic fonts. Pango can be disabled inside /usr/bin/firefox by uncomment this command:
# MOZ_DISABLE_PANGO=1 firefox