Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:54 UTC, submitted by lefty78312
Mozilla & Gecko clones The Mozilla Corporation today released Firefox 3 Beta 1, which is now available for download in a variety of languages. The beta includes updates to the default theme, the new places site management features, improved security architecture, and Gecko 1.9. Release notes with a more complete list of features, are also available.
Thread beginning with comment 285626
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Tue 20th Nov 2007 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Native widgets?"
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b1/releasenotes/

"Memory usage: Over 300 individual memory leaks have been plugged, and a new XPCOM cycle collector completely eliminates many more. Developers are continuing to work on optimizing memory use (by releasing cached objects more quickly) and reducing fragmentation."


Those are the release notes. After fighting through questions, that this very document answers, in addition to the majority to which a beta is available to actually try out. I finally get to the garbage.

You are a retard. The irony of Kaiwai comment that you are you happy to quote is that its simply not the case. You will notice it is *I* who mods him down after being the first to make a criticism of the *new* Firefox. Note I use the term new. He cried because someone modded him down.

The Firefox problem *has* been its memory usage more than *anything* although not the only regression with Firefox 2. I have a 1Gb of memory and use an OS that takes only a tiny part of that, so it isn't an issue for me. *My* major regression was that it *felt* a little less snappy than before a problem thats not just gone but even things like scrolling is smoother than *anything* else on my Desktop, but the bottom line is for *me* and I suspect most is that the new features outweighed the regressions. The fact that it had a spell checker made it a must have for me.

The higher memory usage was introduced to add extra functionality, and its functionality I *use*, what has been inexcusable is the "leave browser open for days!?" *wastes* memory...and that to some degree has been fixed. I suspect judging from the above quote they hit a point of diminished returns, and have begun focusing on reducing the memory footprint while *keeping* the functionality. That is why the original comment is off-topic

The reality is though is I strongly *believe* that an application should make *best* use of resources available to it, clearly it is *not* doing so with Firefox 2, but you can see that they are striving to do just that with 3. Anything else is stupid.

I will address you final point which I am more than happy for you to disagree with, is that I would rather participially due to Firefox's large release cycles is building Firefox to be *scalable* as you describe, although I have seen references to work being done for a mobile(sic) Firefox. Personally I would rather the emphasis was on heavier requirements rather than less simply because

a) the desktop is where its always happened

b)the move will always be towards bigger and faster. Look at Linux built for the server, or how gOS is going down with enlightenment both originally memory hogs, both come on a $200 computer...that runs Firefox of all things

c) Microsoft is in the process of *buying* the internet, and rebuilding it on OOXML, and other patented/proprietary standards of all things...but they are moving in the *right* direction, the fact that Firefox is built on standards and *finally* passes the acid test is just a pleasant bonus.

d) Any benefit gained from having an browser work on a machine of limited specs for the vast majority and we are talking 200million users so far is *lost* because the bottlenecks with the internet are elsewhere...and don't make me quote the rest of the release notes on performance. If anything that should be left to the eLinks/Dillo's of this world.

...but basically your making a point thats not here. I suspect the reasons for you making such a point is to promote an alternative browser.

Edited 2007-11-20 23:07

Reply Parent Score: -3

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:27 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) I have run Firefox 3.0b1 and subsequent builds - yes, bugs have been fixed, but memory usage is still far too high. Instead of fixing them, what I see in bugzilla is the constant blaming of Apple for all problems in the world.

2) Sure, I use Safari, but I'm open minded enough to give Opera and Firefox a go. Opera has come along well, still got problems with Blogger/Gmail, and Firefox has improved.

3) What are we supposed to do? sit around gushing praise upon something - yes, we know, things have improved, but lets be adult and instead of dwelling on the success, focus on the failures and get them sorted.

Edit: Nice to see you take another point off one of my posts; dear god I wish the moderators did their job here and kicked people off who abuse the system.

Edit 2: And again - truly, this pathetic; its gone from being a way to filter out spam to simply acts of vendetta against those whose opinions individuals don't agree with.

Edited 2007-11-20 23:31

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[7]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:17 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
RE[7]: Native widgets?
by djst on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:37 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

1) I have run Firefox 3.0b1 and subsequent builds - yes, bugs have been fixed, but memory usage is still far too high. Instead of fixing them, what I see in bugzilla is the constant blaming of Apple for all problems in the world.

Do you have any examples of where people blame Apple for all problems in the world?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by mojojojo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
mojojojo Member since:
2007-11-20

Grow up. If Kaiwai is a retard, then you are the sphincter out of which filth issues. Whatever point you are attempting to make is not supported by statements that so-and-so is a retard. Saying that the memory usage is not a problem for you would be reasonable. Perhaps arguing that the importance of memory footprint has been overblown might work, too.

Modding people down because you disagree with them, saying things like "[ I ] can make a point on this, you clearly can't.", and calling them "retards" makes it appear that you have a few years to go before you're ready to mix with the grown-ups and have a reasonable conversation.

I must say I don't know a lot about Firefox's memory usage (aside from the casual notice that it *does* seem to use more memory than seems reasonable, prior to the 200+ fixes in FF3). However, on the basis of your exchange with Kaiwai, I'm inclined to think that some reasonable people think memory usage in FF3 is still a problem and at least one immature jerk wants the "retards" who think memory is a problem to just shut up. Is that the effect you're going for?

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[7]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:10 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
RE[6]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Memory issues are clearly not out-of-date..I just tried FF3, read OSNews and left it sitting here for a few minutes. Then when I turned back to the computer I noticed it was crunching away on the harddisk like mad and almost nothing worked :O Yeah, it was FF3 eating away all available memory and chewing it's way to the swap, already happily about 300 megs..I guess I just hit some nasty bug, but it clearly is a memory issue ;)

EDIT: Just tried it three times. It clearly is reproducible. All I have to do is open FireFox and leave it there for a few minutes and it brings the whole system down to it's knees. Darn. I really like the fact that it now has native widgets and would have used it...

Edited 2007-11-21 00:18

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:24 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Now I got modded down? For what reason? :O

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by djst on Wed 21st Nov 2007 11:04 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

Memory issues are clearly not out-of-date..I just tried FF3, read OSNews and left it sitting here for a few minutes. Then when I turned back to the computer I noticed it was crunching away on the harddisk like mad and almost nothing worked :O Yeah, it was FF3 eating away all available memory and chewing it's way to the swap, already happily about 300 megs..I guess I just hit some nasty bug, but it clearly is a memory issue ;)

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to have Firebug installed? That is one extension known to cause serious memory leaks in Firefox (unfortunately, probably not the only one). I saw a graph once that showed Firefox' memory usage over time with and without Firebug running. The difference was pretty dramatic.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by meianoite on Wed 21st Nov 2007 02:17 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

You are a retard. The irony of Kaiwai comment that you are you happy to quote is that its simply not the case. You will notice it is *I* who mods him down after being the first to make a criticism of the *new* Firefox. Note I use the term new. He cried because someone modded him down.


On the other hand, you seem to swing from retard to cynical, and back. You completely misunderstand/misuse the modding system, and you openly admit so.

As I said, no amount of bullet talking points on a release notes document change the fact that FF is still a huge resource hog.

(btw, current user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.7; current memory usage: Working Set: 402,312K; Private Working Set: 374,288K; Commit Size: 1,032,508K; and that's with nine tabs open: 1 gmail, 5 OSNews, 2 Best Buy, 1 NIN Hotline)

That is why the original comment is off-topic


No matter how you cut it, it can't be off-topic if you're talking about the subject on topic. Your M.O. of evangelising Firefox is doing a massive disservice to the alternative, standards-compliant browsers community.

The reality is though is I strongly *believe* that an application should make *best* use of resources available to it,


When an application starts to swap like mad, it has crossed the "resources available to it" by a long margin.

clearly it is *not* doing so with Firefox 2, but you can see that they are striving to do just that with 3. Anything else is stupid.


This is not fact, this is just your opinion. Which, AFAICT, bears no authority whatsoever.

(OTOH, I hold a degree in Computer Science, so I sometimes actually know WTF I'm talking about.)

I will address you final point which I am more than happy for you to disagree with, is that I would rather participially due to Firefox's large release cycles is building Firefox to be *scalable* as you describe, although I have seen references to work being done for a mobile(sic) Firefox. Personally I would rather the emphasis was on heavier requirements rather than less simply because


I've once complained that some of your sentences are really hard to make sense of, but... Here's my best shot: I'm not demanding that FF scales from wristwatches to Crays, but I do demand that my web browser uses less than 200MB of RAM at any given time, PERIOD.

a) the desktop is where its always happened


People wiser than me describe this sort of attitude as "famous last words before obsolescence".

b)the move will always be towards bigger and faster. Look at Linux built for the server, or how gOS is going down with enlightenment both originally memory hogs, both come on a $200 computer...that runs Firefox of all things


Yeah, as if there's really any real alternatives when you run Linux. (No, Konqueror isn't a valid alternative, not when not even Gmail loads itself with the AJAX interface unless you tamper with the user-agent string; but that I blame on Google more than on the K guys.)

And where did you get that wild idea that Enlightenment used to be a memory hog?!

c) Microsoft is in the process of *buying* the internet, and rebuilding it on OOXML, and other patented/proprietary standards of all things...but they are moving in the *right* direction, the fact that Firefox is built on standards and *finally* passes the acid test is just a pleasant bonus.


You're mixing a lot of stuff up here. I'd recommend you to wash your face with cold water, but it would seem like I'm attacking you personally. OTOH, you called me retarded, so I wonder why I'm holding my punches... Elegance and common courtesy, maybe.

d) Any benefit gained from having an browser work on a machine of limited specs for the vast majority and we are talking 200million users so far is *lost* because the bottlenecks with the internet are elsewhere...and don't make me quote the rest of the release notes on performance. If anything that should be left to the eLinks/Dillo's of this world.


You really have no idea what you're talking about. There are NGOs whose sole mission is to provide public schools in 3rd world countries with broadband internet access. In Brazil those NGOs promote what's called "digital inclusion". I know that much, I used to work at a place that fostered digital inclusion and served as a hub to interconnect 200+ public schools spread over 5 states.

...but basically your making a point thats not here. I suspect the reasons for you making such a point is to promote an alternative browser.


Just because I cited Opera as a browser that doesn't burn my patience out? Dude, were that the case, I'd simply stick with IE. I don't use Opera, as I profoundly dislike its interface, but despite my reservations towards it, I can recognise it's a decent product, specially the mobile version; it's the only thing out there that manages to somewhat compete with MobileSafari. I've made a comment on this very topic not too long ago.

Please, take your head out of the sand (I'm being very courteous here) and get a grip: there's a reason why most "regular" people reject Firefox despite plenty of evangelism, sponsorship and bundling with Google's software. There's a reason why Google went with Webkit and not with Firefox on Android.

The FF team needs a *good dose* of criticism towake up and get their act together. I've been using Firefox since back when it was a Gecko demo that fitted a floppy, and it really hurts to see where we stand today.

Firefox is giving me a lot of déjà vu regarding the GCC 2.8 situation, except that I see no EGCS coming to the rescue.


Edit: stray (q) tag

Edited 2007-11-21 02:18

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by djst on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:59 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

I've once complained that some of your sentences are really hard to make sense of, but... Here's my best shot: I'm not demanding that FF scales from wristwatches to Crays, but I do demand that my web browser uses less than 200MB of RAM at any given time, PERIOD.

Regardless of web page complexity? I just fired up Safari on Mac OS X 10.4 and opened six tabs (cnn.com, bbc.co.uk, aftonbladet.se, expressen.se, facebook.com, gmail.com). I clicked around a few links in each tab and *boom*, there it went passed 200 MB. Is that a bad thing? It might be, depending on how Safari handles caching and the DOM, but I'd guess it's pretty normal considering it has six heavy websites loaded at the same time.

Not that I care much about web browser memory usage comparisons, but I did the exact same test with Firefox 3 Beta 1, and I never exceeded 200 MB. Right now, Firefox 3 has 11 tabs opened (same sites as in Safari, plus Zimbra, my blog, another blog, and two OSnews.com tabs) and uses 121 MB. And now Safari just dropped its memory usage to 166 MB without me doing anything.

My point here? It's hard to establish in formal tests that Firefox has worse memory problems than any other modern browser. Today's websites are complex beasts, memory management is tricky, and both Safari and Firefox uses a lot of memory. In any isolated test case, your mileage will always vary.

Please, take your head out of the sand (I'm being very courteous here) and get a grip: there's a reason why most "regular" people reject Firefox despite plenty of evangelism, sponsorship and bundling with Google's software. There's a reason why Google went with Webkit and not with Firefox on Android.

Pardon me, but this is just nonsense. What on earth do you mean by "most regular people" rejecting Firefox? Maybe you mean they keep using IE?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Wed 21st Nov 2007 19:33 in reply to "RE[6]: Native widgets?"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

lol, I straight out call you a retail. I point out where the comment was off-topic and move on. I'm glad your not interested in my bullet points, and will get back to the point.

"Memory usage: Over 300 individual memory leaks have been plugged, and a new XPCOM cycle collector completely eliminates many more. Developers are continuing to work on optimizing memory use (by releasing cached objects more quickly) and reducing fragmentation."


Having looked at your note, I cannot help but giggle that you are using Vista...perhaps you should start with using an OS with space for applications.

Oddly my *whole* machine uses less than that...and I'm doing more with it, and firefox has been open all day.

I feel embarrassed for you that you cannot read the statement above, and draw an alternative conclusion to mine...I suspect because their isn't one. Perhaps you should have taken a course that would help you build some skills.

I actually listed *3 alternative* linux browsers in my posts try to spot, Hint: you actually quote them; One use regularly, and consider part of my essential toolbox.

If you do not understand my point about enlightenment...just trust me, computers *used* to contain an awful lot less memory than they do now, and enlightenment+linux was more than my cutting edge computer could cope with. You should re-read my point its quite clear.

I loved this don't you have like a degree or something... I'd love you to look a tiny little more in depth at where the slowdown between you getting you pages is, and then talk about bottlenecks. start looking into things like latency, but I actually mention alternatives to Firefox...and you don't even recognize them.

Yes your comments are only about promoting alternative browsers, and your comments says it all.

Firefox's own release notes which I have quoted four times, but basically in direct contradiction they have focused on memory leaks; now moving to memory footprint...perhaps you should have paid more attention in class ;) For this I will now call you lying scum, simply because of what they have completed, and what they are working on.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by Endica on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:33 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
Endica Member since:
2006-07-07

I left only your emphasized words and this is what I got:

*I* *new* *has* *anything* *My* *felt* *anything* *me* *use* *wastes* *keeping* *believe* *best* *not* *scalable* *buying* *finally* *lost*

I can't make anything out of it, so I'm modding you down.

Reply Parent Score: 1