View Single Post
Old 12-10-2011, 02:04 PM   #7
No ROM battery
marfig's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 784

Originally Posted by DarkStarr View Post
ROFLMAO sorry but really??? Chrome less bloated? No, just no.

Memory Usage:
FF (All my typical addons etc.): 1.6gb ram and 1 process for 3 windows and 88 tabs.
Chrome: 232mb ram but that's no addons and only 17 tabs in one window. There are also a dozen + Chrome.exe processes.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. It's hard to compare values when you make no effort to at least produce comparable results.

A note, in any case:

- It's quite possible that things have improved greatly in recently releases. I distinctly remember reading about recent changes being done to memory management in Firefox; an area of the code that was in dire need of fixing (and probably still is -- what about memory leaks?). But don't bring recent improvements on Firefox as if it didn't have an history behind it. Firefox was bloated beyond belief whether you "roflmao" about it or not. And that has been in fact one of the major reasons that lead many people to adopt Chrome. "roflmao" that.

Originally Posted by DarkStarr View Post
I would also prefer ONE process for the entire browser vs one per tab and a handful extra ones.
No, just no!
I don't want one badly written website on some tab, or some badly written script on some ad to kill my entire browser experience. A browser isn't like any other application. It's a container of application. Every website is an "application" that the coder wishes to run on our browser. Some are HTML, some C#, some Javascript, some HTML5, some whatever. One process per tab perfectly emulates the principle of process responsibility. And that is one of the most demanded features in Firefox.

Originally Posted by RainMotorsports View Post
I find the IT department complaints against the release schedule to be beyond idiotic. Okay so I can't get my IT department to deploy a very important bug fix to the version we are using. But all of a sudden they feel compelled to update to versions we don't actually need? Then proceed to complain to me about it?
Many corporations don't operate like your computer at home, where you simply trust the updates source. Unless you have a maintenance contract with the company, and can thus make the source liable for any damages, updates coming from "untrusted" sources (like Mozilla), should -- by company policy -- be fully tested and the IT department has the responsibility of guaranteeing that any deployment will not break on users machines. It's their head otherwise and, depending on the company business and size, can have serious consequences.

Furthermore, some updates include important UI changes that are usually frowned upon by IT departments that know they usually represent an added cost in User Training.

Minor update releases are in fact looked upon more favorably, exactly because they don't ever include important changes to application past behavior. But even these are usually tested before deployment.

Now, what I can agree with is that we are rapidly coming to an age where corporate policies may have to start changing on this regard. That's up for debate. What I donb't agree with is that any of the current methods are idiotic. Again we are confusing things, and pretending rapid release cycles didn't start just 5 years ago, while companies and their internal regulations have been on this planet for much longer.
NOX COOLBAY Side Window Black; NOX Apex 600w Modular; ASUS P7P55D-E Socket 1156, Sata 6Gb/s & USB 3.0;
Intel Quad Core i5 760 2.80 Ghz @ 3.60 Ghz, 8 Mb de cache; Gskill Ripjaws 4 Gb DDR3 1600 Mhz CL8 Dual Channel;
ASUS GEFORCE GTX 560 TI DC II 1024MB GDDR5; Samsung 1 Tb 32 Mb SpinPoint F3; NEC 24x Sata black
Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Rev.2;
2x Samsung SyncMaster S43NW 8000:1 (1440x900)
Logitech K120 Keyboard and Logitech Performance Mouse MX

Last edited by marfig; 12-10-2011 at 02:06 PM.
marfig is offline   Reply With Quote