Firefox 3 = BLOATWARE?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by nomarjr3, Aug 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nomarjr3

    nomarjr3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    502
    I recently upgraded Firefox 2 to version 3, and guess what..
    It takes a whopping 100k+ mem usage!!

    Mozilla claims that the more you use the browser, the less mem usage it uses.
    But I've been using it for about 2 weeks now, and so far, nothing's changed.
    Still a resource hogger as usual.
    It was a good thing that I recently added more RAM on my 'dummy' PC.

    I've compared it to other leading browsers out there.
    Even Flock 2 (a browser w/c uses the same source code as FF 3) is less bloated than FF3, despite the fact that it uses additional coding for it's built-in plugins.

    I recommend everyone to use K-Meleon instead. It might not have any FF extensions, but it's WAY slimmer and faster than FF3 (even FF2 for that matter).

    What's your take on this issue?


    PS:
    Is there a way to somehow downgrade it back to FF 2?
     
  2. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Did you remove FF2 completely, including profile and everything, before you installed 3? Just curious if installing 3 over 2 could have any unwanted effects.

    Many criticize FF as being bloated, I suppose it is when compared to Opera and K-Meleon.

    Some have reported much improved memory usage in v3 though, so I am a little surprised at your report.

    Personally, I don't much care how much ram a browser uses, as long as there is no obvious or horrendous mushrooming memory leak or something. 100K, 150K, 80K, 50K, if you have ram, it's all pretty much the same. I look more for performance. If it's fast, then I use it. I pretty much judge them by speed.
     
  3. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    FF3's memory usage seems to vary from user to user. Currently, I running here (with one tab and 8 extensions) at around 57.3 M. A little more than FF2 was for me... (But IMO, it's a nicer browser.)
     
  4. nomarjr3

    nomarjr3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    502
    Installed FF3 over FF2.
    No problems were encountered.
    Unfortunately, some extensions don't work in FF3.

    Startup is a bit faster than FF2, but not noticeable.
    Uses about 150k minimum, but spikes up when surfing with multiple tabs open.

    Still looks like bloatware to me.
    I can only recommend it to users with 1GB RAM or more.
     
  5. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    That seems high, and I don't think that's typical either......
     
  6. Hugger

    Hugger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    1,003
    Location:
    Hackensack, USA
    Installed FF3 on a new hard drive.
    12 add ons.
    1 tab open.
    75,000 K.

    Opera - 28,000.
    But no Roboform for Opera.
    I'm not noticing a slowdown.
    Regards.
    Hugger
     
  7. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    Actually I never thought about it. FF does more than IE7 for instance. IE is like watching black and white TV next to FF. It seems as though there's no end to the things you can add to its performance.
     
  8. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1

    My take is that it is not an issue, or more correctly, a non-issue.

    If my math is correct, 100K is .004768% of my available memory of 2GB.
     
  9. KookyMan

    KookyMan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Posts:
    367
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Firefox 3 for me seems much better. Faster, less memory (over time) compared to FF2.

    Right now FF3 is pulling 150M RAM, 150VM. I've seen FF2 go as high as 300-400M RAM, 600M VM. Part of it for me was I didn't like restarting FF since the tabs were lost.
     
  10. nomarjr3

    nomarjr3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    502
    Yes, it's very strange indeed..
    And the weird thing is, I'm currently only using 1 tab now, right here in WSF, still using 150k+.

    Yesterday, I was watching in Youtube and Dailymotion, it spiked up to about 200k+!!!

    Seriously, what the heck is going on?
    My Win XP SP3 is fully patched and nLite'd.
     
  11. nomarjr3

    nomarjr3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    502
    Well, that's because you have a huge RAM capacity.
     
  12. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    It's a metaphor?
     
  13. Ohmy

    Ohmy Guest

    I saw a lot of people with the same issue.
    They also call FF a bloatware. :p
     
  14. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Btw, TaskMgr on my PC right now shows Firefox V3 using 43,328K.

    And it is still a non-issue. :)

    As for downgrading back to Firefox V2 ... Yes, you can. However, Firefox V2 is only going to be supported through mid-December 2008.
     
  15. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,921
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    From what I have read, there seems to be several issues with the new FF 3.0 version that involves memory usage. When the browser is installed for the first time, an option is offered: Enable Session Store (Default) and Disable Session Store. Should FF crash, this is part of Session Restore that brings back browser windows & tabs, restoring entered text and any in-progress download but unfortunately, it uses more I/O disk writes to save data on every page load.

    Another issue involves the Anti-Phishing filter and during the first few minutes of opening the browser, an updated database (sqlite type) is downloaded, thus additional writes to the drive. This filter can disabled by clicking on Tools > Options, then selecting the Security tab. Uncheck the box next to "Tell me if the site I'm visiting is a suspected forgery" and then click OK. The anti-phishing filter is off and so is your protection.

    The final issue is the Live Bookmarks feature which also involves the sqlite database but once History is disabled via the Tools> Options> Privacy tab (Keep my history for at least "0" days), it reduces disk writes but the browser can't remember a thing.

    Supposedly, FF 3.0.1 fixed the problem and my FF works like a charm with every item enabled, yet I read about people complaining in their forums, so the jury is still out on this one. Read Mozilla's own High Memory Usage factoid.
     
  16. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    I am using Firefox 3 right now, and it uses about 83 MB of RAM (with 4 tabs open).

    So, most likely it's your configuration that is causing Firefox to use lots of memory.
     
  17. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,921
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    ambient_88, roger that! With 4 tabs open, my FF 3.0.1 is using about 75 MB of RAM, so with 2 GB installed, no problems here.
     
  18. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,

    I have noticed the following:

    For me, the memory usage, while never high nor having encountered memory leaks since I think 1.5, was cut down in half by FF 3 upgrade.

    Usage of certain anti-virus products can bring the memory up and down significantly.

    Usage of extensions can achieve the same.

    Check that you did not tweak something, install, remove, kill, destroy, which might be causing FF to misbehave.

    I have never encountered FF problems of any great significance, small bugs here and there. The greatest is two context menu open-with icons on Windows, a legacy of FF 2 over-install, probably some naughty registry leftover.

    Mrk
     
  19. tlu

    tlu Guest

    @nomarjr3: You should seriously check your profile using this info.
     
  20. emperordarius

    emperordarius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Posts:
    1,218
    Location:
    Who cares
    Firefox 3 isn't bloatware, at least here. K-Meleon runs way slower here, too.
     
  21. Franklin

    Franklin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,517
    Location:
    West Aussie
    High memory usage could be due to some obscure means such as theurlclassifier3.sqlite and urlclassifier2.sqlite files that relate to FF's "Tell me if a site is a suspected forgery" setting and or logging by an extension.
    CCleaner Forum Discussion
     
  22. PROROOTECT

    PROROOTECT Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Posts:
    1,102
    Location:
    HERE ...Fort Lee, NJ
    Hi,

    Right now my ( IE7) iexplore.exe (with ToolbarCop link ...) :

    # Without WEB-site : RAM use :20644 KB ; VM : 14756 KB .

    With site ( 1 Page of Wilders - Firefox3= ...) :RAM use : 28420 KB ; VM : 20420 KB

    Thanks
     
  23. nomarjr3

    nomarjr3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Posts:
    502
    I've finally found the root cause of all this.

    I disabled numerous active plugins and deleted all themes.

    FF3 now uses about 70k minimum, but I think my 1GB RAM can take it.
     
  24. PROROOTECT

    PROROOTECT Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Posts:
    1,102
    Location:
    HERE ...Fort Lee, NJ
    Hi, nomarjr3 ,

    YES , it is a way of wisdom.
    Now : exchange FF for IE7 ,without bar of Google ...
     
  25. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    That is an extreme oddity......
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.