Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 08:24 UTC
Permalink for comment 362293
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-12
I've heard this many times, specially from people constantly whining that FF leaks memory (having 50 youtube tabs open at the same time has nothing to do with the huge memory consumption, of course) and I still don't get it.
But that's just my two cents, of course.
Are you talking Firefox or Flash. Firefox 2 had regressions and new features...firefox 3 is a no brainer to upgrade to and I suspect 3.5 will the same. Memory consumption is less than other browsers now, and a embedded version is coming.
Flash on the other hand is painful and the only major binary blob on my system. I update religiously to each version of gnash in hope that its a real replacement...but as yet it disappoints. Its simply closer.
That said this mentioning memory thing in anything other than move to firefox 3 or stick with firefox 1.5 is just silly.