Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jr2 on August 15, 2009, 10:44:30 am
-
Checked my Automatic Updates scheduled to be installed and un-selected this:
Internet Explorer 8 is the latest version of the familiar Web browser that you are most comfortable using.
(http://operawatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/internet-explorer.jpg)
-
I know this is going to turn into a "FIREFOX RUELZ" thread. Don't start.
I hate Firefox. I hate it so much. It eats memory and is a terrible POS. What makes it even worse is all this Firefox propoganda circulating around the web. If people actually used this ****ing web browser instead of making misleading bull****, they'd realize it's a terrible program.
:mad:
-
Hey, I use Firefox and I love it. Much better than IE.
-
Perhaps you need to try another browser, my friend...
(http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/images/dlpage_lg.jpg) (http://www.google.com/chrome)
(http://images.apple.com/safari/images/overview-hero-image1-20090602.png) (http://www.apple.com/safari/)
(http://www.opera.com/bitmaps/products/browser/campaign/0811operabrowser.png) (http://www.opera.com/)
(http://www.flock.com/homepage/img/intro_module/background-rotate/rotate.php) (http://www.flock.com/)
-
Safari: Absolutely terrible, and has an awful record of unfixed security holes.
IE: v7 was indeed a big improvement. Abysmal record on fixing security holes (IE8 still has several massive security holes that MS refuse to fix, apparently because it would break Windows Update).
Consumes memory, very slow rendering particularly of large HTML files. (Try to scroll a 3MB HTML file.)
No possible way of expanding functionality through plugins of any kind.
Firefox: Pretty good with a nice fast rendering engine. Very good record of fixing security holes.
Absolutely huge range of plugins. Many of them are even useful!
Some people claim it consumes memory, but it's not as bad as IE7 on that front. In fact, the worst offender in both cases is actually the Adobe Acrobat plugin which you can't blame on either Mozilla or Microsoft.
Opera: By far and away the best Windows Mobile-based browser. Good record on fixing security holes.
Chrome: As yet, an unknown quantity. Renderer is WebKit which is known to be pretty good.
In summary, the only defensible browser choices right now are Firefox, Opera and Chrome.
And the choice between those three is a personal one - I'm mostly on Firefox and Opera Mobile.
-
As much as I do honestly love Firefox, the memory complaints do have some merit. As much as they claim to patch up memory leaks with each new version, I just had it balloon its memory consumption to something like 450 MB with only three relatively low-impact tabs open. Absolutely no idea why, either. If I had my old amount of RAM, my system would have been floored. :p
-
the only complaints I have for firefox is the memory usage, which I honestly don't care that much about, and the slow startup time. aside from that firefox is awesome, especially if you do web development and use firebug.
-
the only complaints I have for firefox is the memory usage, which I honestly don't care that much about, and the slow startup time. aside from that firefox is awesome, especially if you do web development and use firebug.
This is kind off off topic, but I upgraded my windows internet explorer, few days ago, download windows automatic updates (vista security), restarted the computer and the ****ing thing would not load up
Just got the loading windows box, that was it, had to find my Vista Disc, and undo all the updates, really pissed me off, not sure what updates I can use or cant use. Absolute pain.
-
The best thing i've been able to surmise from running firefox on many computers is that every tab of firefox takes up about 32mb or slightly more of ram. I've noticed this a while ago. That when three tabs were open i was taking a huge bite out of memory about 100mb or more of ram. More tabs meant even more memory. I've also done testing with internet explorer 7. It's memory consumption is almost identical to firefox. And then i tested opera, and opera was identical to the firefox and internet explorer.
Doesn't matter which browser you use, if it tabs, if it lets you go to the same websites as the rest, chances are it's going to eat the same ammount of memory as the rest.
Good browsers i like, firefox and opera (opera is also for desktop computer use not just mobile computer use tomo). I haven't used chrome before because i don't care about it (what new **** will it have that i will absolutely need). A browser is a browser except when it's just a trojan on your system because a whole bunch of malicious web sites have malicious code written that's great for internet explorer and the user was running as an admin.
The memory consumption point made by everyone is kind of moot based on how featureful the browser needs to be and the overly complicatedness of todays web sites (i've seen many a myspace profiles in my life and, just in one firefox or IE window, one myspace profile that had so much animations and flash powered bull**** brought the system to a crawl...constant alt-f4 worked). I guess to say be careful where you surf on the net a lot of web sites take up more memory than others.
-
The memory consumption point is most definitely not moot. An application like Firefox, which tends to stay running days, if not weeks on end for some people, really does need to have proper memory management. And considering that low-spec computers do have a comeback of sorts in the form of netbooks, a high grade of efficiency is desirable.
Personally, after years of using Firefox in all its incarnations, I switched to Chrome recently. Why? Because I discovered that, while Firefox' extensibility is quite nice, all I really need the Browser for is, well, browsing. Chrome, with its uncluttered UI and general speediness, works quite well for me.
-
If you want a browser that just a browser how about you just don't use any of the additional plugins. The memory consumption thing still is moot. You either have enough memory in your computer for tabbed browsing or you don't. Some people like having 20+ tabs open in firefox or any tabbed supporting browser. 20+ tabs is going to be about 700mb of ram in use just for the web browser. A tab taking up memory is not something to take lightly either. Just like how you can open up as many instances of firefox running at the same time, opening up a tab in firefox or any browser that supports tabbed browsing is exactly the same as opening up a new instance of firefox that isn't a tab.
A browser that supports tabbed browsing is really just a browser that's also its own mini task bar for all of the different running instances of itself.
If you're complaining about memory usage, that's fine, but it's still moot, depending on how many tabs you have open at once and where each of those tabs is at a different web page memory usage will differ. Having 10 tabs open to google.com wont take much memory, but having the same 10 tabs open to myfreepaysite.com will probably take more memory than google will. Depending on your computers memory, you'll obviously be adjusting the amount of tabs you have open, and even more greatly...the sites you go on the internet since other web pages will zap more memory than others from your system.
As far as clutterless chrome goes, it looks to be about as cluttered as firefox with the bookmark bar disabled. Netbooks work fine with firefox and the default 1gb of ram they come with. You obviously don't want to have 20 tabs open at once given that memory capacity but 10,12, max 15 is doable. My eeepc 900ha i upgraded to 2gb of ram does even better with multiple tabs in firefox and is able to handle more tabs with the memory increase i gave it.
Memory consumption is still moot because for some reason you don't want to realize that web browsers have been memory hogs from the start and there's not much to be done about it. There's the program itself and what it supports for the web pages you go to. Will your magical barely using any memory browser have support for flash, steaming audio, animated gifs, silverlight, colors, all of the html standards (including the ones microsoft invented that aren't part of the html standards), and all this other ****? How secure is your browser going to be? What protocols would you like your broswer to support? What features would you like your browser to support. Don't forget the web pages you'll be going too what do you want to have display in your web browser that will work and wont work for the sake of memory consumption? Luckily supporting **** is easy, but the problem is when the **** you support gets ****ing stupid.
Click here (http://niggers.on.nimp.org/) and tell me if it's the content on the internet or the browser itself for the memory consumption.
-
Did you just link to a virus? :nervous:
-
I want to point out that 99% of the memory problems normally associated with Firefox are, in fact, caused by Flash.
-
I assume a big reason a lot of people like to use firefox is because it was not only faster than IE6 (which was the IE around at the time) but it enjoyed the same reason people got into Applemacs and Linux; the vast majority of the viruses and malware are for Windows or IE, so by having something different your immune. However, what people will eventually find is as more and more people make this switch....the viruses and their creators will too. I've alrady heard reports on the grapevine of viruses for Macs and firefox. Viruses target what is popular, and at this rate you might find in a few decades the IE of that age becomes the immune bowser people are loving *lol*
As for myself; i admittedly Run IE8 (:nervous:), which i'm liking so far (though i havent activated all of its features yet). I also admit i have never used any browser other than IE on my own PCs (:o), not because of Microsoft fandom, but simply becuase of the dumbass facts; i use Windows, Windows comes with IE, therefore i use it :lol:. I suspect Safari and Firefox have several advantages over IE, but i find IE adequate for what i need, know the mot about its operations, rarely need to worry about incompatability issues, and i have some confidence knowing if there's ever a problem there's a company the size of a small nation with ludicrous ammounts of money in its pocket working on a fix.
So yeah, i'm a IE user, and i ain't going to change for the foorseable future. Everyone else are free to make the choice for themselves though.
-
Here's a fun experiment, kids. Let's check out what the task manager has to say about IE (I'm still using 7) and Firefox!
32 seperate IE windows, 20-odd text, 5 youtube, 1 this very site, the rest Agony Booth
5 instances at 261,000 K.
Most recent version of Firefox. 5 tabs, two text, one links-heavy, two other forums. 1 instance, 130,000 K. No Flash anywhere.
Memory footprint. It exists, *****es.
-
I tried Firefox, Opera 10, and Chrome.. but for now im sticking with IE8. As far as I can tell, their performance is about the same and my cable connection is awful anyway so 0.05ms in benchmark performance isnt a big deal to me anyway. Im sticking with IE8 because I like alot of the new features like Webslices that autoupdate with the latest news from sites I like and also because of how each tab works with Aero Peek in Windows 7.. none of the other browsers work like that. The other ones all have 1 aero peek preview per browser instance not tab and thats really a dealbreaker feature for me. I know you can get around it by turning tab browsing off.. but i dont want to turn tab browsing off. Im not that partial to firefox to begin with and I dont need or use any of the million add-ons they have for it.
-
I have 4GB of memory (and most people now have at least 2) so I don't care about FF's memory consumption, and I like the addons and stuff.
-
I've decided to just stick with Firefox 2.x for now. I really hate the new address bar, and frankly I find having to type in the url of the sites I visit everytime to be rather annoying, instead of just selecting it from a nice list. Unfortunately all the new browsers have it. Is there some way to switch it back to classic mode or whatever?
-
Actually you can set IE8 (And it usually defaults as so) so if you simply type "www.[insert two or three letters here]" and hit Shift + Enter it finishes the rest of the URL for you.
Since I've already visited and typed my webpage's URL before, I just type "www.den" and Shift + Enter then bam, I've entered the webpage "www.denofspoot.freefourms.org."
-
I've decided to just stick with Firefox 2.x for now. I really hate the new address bar, and frankly I find having to type in the url of the sites I visit everytime to be rather annoying, instead of just selecting it from a nice list. Unfortunately all the new browsers have it. Is there some way to switch it back to classic mode or whatever?
Even IE6 did the autocomplete business, I can't really believe that Chrome or later versions won't.
-
Here's a fun experiment, kids. Let's check out what the task manager has to say about IE (I'm still using 7) and Firefox!
32 seperate IE windows, 20-odd text, 5 youtube, 1 this very site, the rest Agony Booth
*snip*
Aww, did you get stuck on TV Tropes?
-
Actually, I was pulling my little-known duties as moderator on a fanfiction site I'm not going to name because even most of the stuff I have to let pass on to posting sucks.
-
Here's a fun experiment, kids. Let's check out what the task manager has to say about IE (I'm still using 7) and Firefox!
Flawed experiment for a couple of reasons:
1) The IE process isn't the whole of IE. There are bits all over the place (eg inside svchost)
2) By default, Firefox caches the history to RAM which makes it very fast but consumes lots of memory. It does try to play nice - if you've got lots of RAM it'll use it, but if you haven't it won't.
Firefox 3.5.2 here, 5 tabs (all randomly chosen threads from this site, as I happened to have them open), 72,748KB.
-
IE 7 is said to run better than IE 8 and 8 has more bugs, but the problem is that once you have SP 3 for XP, you can't revert to IE 7 unless you uninstall SP 3, which you shouldn't do. So maybe that means the ones who have installed IE 8 need to wait until IE 9.
I also felt Firefox was being slow, so I removed it, and Flash does seem to be a problem. But it seems FF has better auto-complete and it works for more websites while in IE, these websites don't have auto-complete.
-
Here's a fun experiment, kids. Let's check out what the task manager has to say about IE (I'm still using 7) and Firefox!
32 seperate IE windows, 20-odd text, 5 youtube, 1 this very site, the rest Agony Booth
5 instances at 261,000 K.
Most recent version of Firefox. 5 tabs, two text, one links-heavy, two other forums. 1 instance, 130,000 K. No Flash anywhere.
Memory footprint. It exists, *****es.
If you didn't get my relation earlier then you should do some more browser tab tests (i like the data anyhow). What i learned from browswer tab memory footprint, is that a tab in a browser takes up just as much memory as a new window of that browser, So in other words that means something like one tabless browser window of firefox, IE, etc, takes just as much memory as a tab in a browser window of firefox, IE, etc.
(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3302/xine2.png)
In simpler words. The firefox window with no tabs at google.com takes just as much memory as a tab for google.com in firefox. There's no difference between a browser window and a browser tab. In fact all tabbing really is just a task bar built into the browser to handle all of the browser windows of itself and represent them to you as tabs.
So 32 separate IE windows is the same thing as 32 IE tabs. What does the 5 instances refer to and mean (i used "instances" earlier to refer separate browser windows instead of saying "browser windows", but people didn't like to understand, so i stopped using instance)? But, with the on average of a browser window and a tab on average taking 32mb of ram, and you have 5 firefox tabs open to non resource hungry web pages, then the 130mb of ram consumption for firefox fits this. Forgive me if i say that your internet explorer experience seems majorly under represented. Also if you haven't hit on it, your lingo and the way you used it is confusing and plz describe more clearly next time (major reason i'm nitpicking.
And when i mention how things didn't change since the browsers have been out? Man, i remember when IE5 came out and it's minimum memory requirements was 32mb of ram. Stuff really hasn't changed since then (except for tabs). And why ***** about memory consumption if you have plenty of memory?
I'd say you guys really aren't too used to tabs yet since they're still pretty new. Well tabs make sure that back in the day with IE6 that had no tab support that you didn't take up your task bar with 10 minimized or maximized IE6 windows, and then task bar grouping came out which was supposed to improve the task bar experience (i hate task bar grouping!!!). And today with IE7/8 you can do your same 10 windows of IE open at one time via tabs and not clutter up your task bar. But, in the past just as much as it is today, all those windows of IE6 being open was also a memory hog.
-
If you can't get websites to appear in a list from the normal address bar:
1.) Type it into the Google search box if you have it installed into your browser.
2.) Create a new bookmark or favourites folder and put all of your frequently visited sites into it. This way it comes up when you start typing an address from www.whatever. At least, this works in Firefox Portable 3.0.6.
As for the rant, IE is slow on large MB pages, and Firefox takes a while to load up. Another thing is how these browsers handle the University network where I am. IE8 is not compatible with the "learning system", and now all the computers have updated...And it also only supports FF2.0, apparently. FFP 3.0.6 seems to work all right. The other thing is, in some instances, It asks me to enter my ID up to 4 times at start up per tab (if more than one) which is really annoying.
Edit: www.whatever.com is actually a site... :doubt:
-
Flawed experiment for a couple of reasons:
1) The IE process isn't the whole of IE. There are bits all over the place (eg inside svchost)
2) By default, Firefox caches the history to RAM which makes it very fast but consumes lots of memory. It does try to play nice - if you've got lots of RAM it'll use it, but if you haven't it won't.
Firefox 3.5.2 here, 5 tabs (all randomly chosen threads from this site, as I happened to have them open), 72,748KB.
Then give me an estimate on how much that is and we'll add it up.
Except, of course, this is probably a more efficent arrangement anyways, but let's leave that alone. Also, except, of course, Firefox will still lose since testing five windows of this very page results in...under 10,000 K, and even adding all my svchost bits together won't get it to what FF is doing. But instead, lets judge things solely based on observed speed differences in other programs too.
Firefox has a comparable observable drain on computer performance to an active bittorrent program running a 150K upload and 150+K download at the same time, or an instance of EVE Online. Having an open firefox window, nevermind any tabs, will cause a noticable slowdown in any high-quality game I run. FS2_Open and a couple of old MechWarrior games are practically the only things I can run on this computer that won't suffer a noticeable dip in performance.
Memory. Footprint. Exists.
-
58 tabs - 333MB private working set.
-
You think automatically updating to IE 8 is bad? They try to trick you into installing their anti-piracy crap all the time. [/anti-threadjack]
-
I would use chrome exclusively if it didn't randomly stop working in a way that only comes undone by uninstalling and doing a registry cleaning.
-
Memory. Footprint. Exists.
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
"Memory Footprint" simply means the amount of RAM consumed by an application. It exists for every single application ever and that will be written in the history and future of computing. Some are larger than others.
What matters is *how that memory is utilised*. Does the memory usage improve the user experience? Are there memory leaks, or does memory get effectively reused?
FSO uses a *lot* more RAM than Freespace 2 did - but FSO is most definitely better than the original. Thus the memory usage is an improvement.
Firefox caches to RAM to have faster browsing.
IE caches to the hard disk instead. (Have a look in Temporary Internet Files.)
Thus IE is slower to use, while Firefox is much faster but will have increasing memory usage over time until it reaches the self-imposed ceiling.
It is possible to disable the memory cache in about:config, but it's not recommended because it slows Firefox down.
If you want a browser with a tiny memory footprint, then try Lynx. You won't like it though.
So, what's the 'killer feature' that you like in IE?
I haven't found anything that's best in IE, except that IE6 properly displays pages designed for the IE6 abomination of HTML.
There are things that Opera does better and things that Firefox does better. I've not tried Chrome yet (and probably won't for a few years) so can't comment on that one.
None are perfect however - there is definitely room for improvement in both browsers.
-
Thank you for insulting my intelligence. I know exactly what it means; however apparently my metaphorical mode of speech goes over your head.
Also, FSO? More RAM? FSO is basically the least memory-intensive thing I run regularly on here. Steel Panthers 3 consumes more RAM than FSO (barely). This is like the time somebody from the SCP team tried to talk down something on ballooning memory requirements. It's a total non-sequitor and irrevelant!
Firefox caches to RAM for a "faster browsing" that is, frankly, lost on the average human observer. The time difference just isn't enough to actually matter to someone without ADD (or even someone with, if we're honest). In this case it then comes down to how big of a performance hit it's going to inflict on my machine and whether I can afford to leave it open rather than lose my place on whatever I was reading, or leave it open while running another activity from which there is frequent opportunity to alt-tab. (EVE comes to mind.)
With Firefox, that's just not an option.
-
I have 4GB of memory (and most people now have at least 2) so I don't care about FF's memory consumption, and I like the addons and stuff.
i have 12GB of memory, which means, according to my calculations, that i'm 3x better than you :D :D :D
-
And?
-
Look at it through the eyes of someone in the military, 2gb does nothing better even over 512mb.
I know this, I've seen it countless times.
1.66ghz dual-core over a 133mhz single-core processer? Faster? Not here.
-
Look at it through the eyes of someone in the military, 2gb does nothing better even over 512mb.
I know this, I've seen it countless times.
1.66ghz dual-core over a 133mhz single-core processer? Faster? Not here.
In the military. Not running Flash animations and rich-web apps.
-
Even then. It's still not fast like they'll say it is.
Old system, slow hardware, takes 1:30 minutes just to log in after entering the login password.
New system, "new and fast" hardware, STILL takes 1:30 minutes to log into the exact same program.
Like I said. I know from experience, whether or not it's Flash on a commercial system or the Internet, these are PROGRAMS.
Programs that regardless of the newer hardware they slap into the systems to run it, it has NO CHANGE whatsoever.
-
Someone needs linux :yes:
-
They are Linux. :doubt:
-
Even then. It's still not fast like they'll say it is.
Old system, slow hardware, takes 1:30 minutes just to log in after entering the login password.
New system, "new and fast" hardware, STILL takes 1:30 minutes to log into the exact same program.
Like I said. I know from experience, whether or not it's Flash on a commercial system or the Internet, these are PROGRAMS.
Programs that regardless of the newer hardware they slap into the systems to run it, it has NO CHANGE whatsoever.
That just means bottleneck is not client, but networking or server. Or worse, poorly coded programs that can't utilize better hardware.
-
Thank you for insulting my intelligence. I know exactly what it means; however apparently my metaphorical mode of speech goes over your head.
We're talking about engineering details. This requires precision in language.
You've just repeated the phrase "memory footprint exists" many, many times, and never qualified it. This is not metaphorical, it's simply inaccurate.
Plus, you've never said which version(s) are being compared. You'll note that I qualified my post with the version number.
Finally, I brought up a specific comparison. Freespace 2 compared with Freespace Open. The latter demonstrably uses significantly more RAM than the former, but this does not make it bad.
Firefox 3.x is demonstrably visibly faster than IE7.
- Open a pure HTML file of 3MB in size.
- Scroll that page.
In Firefox, the scroll is relatively smooth.
In IE7, the scroll is almost unusable.
(Dell Latitude D830, standard WinXP config. I have not tried this on IE8)
As to the cache to RAM - it's a default setting. You can turn it off it you want to in about:config.
-
We're talking about engineering details. This requires precision in language.
No, actually it doesn't, you'd just like it to.
Plus, you've never said which version(s) are being compared. You'll note that I qualified my post with the version number.
Demonstrably false. You're lying through your teeth.
Firefox 3.x is demonstrably visibly faster than IE7.
- Open a pure HTML file of 3MB in size.
- Scroll that page.
Which is, of course, not a useful comparison, as that size is relatively rare.
You also specified the version based on the one I was using and said I wasn't specifying a version.
-
Even then. It's still not fast like they'll say it is.
Old system, slow hardware, takes 1:30 minutes just to log in after entering the login password.
New system, "new and fast" hardware, STILL takes 1:30 minutes to log into the exact same program.
Like I said. I know from experience, whether or not it's Flash on a commercial system or the Internet, these are PROGRAMS.
Programs that regardless of the newer hardware they slap into the systems to run it, it has NO CHANGE whatsoever.
You need to learn how to diagnose computer problems. It's a shame these days when people buy new computers that they think their internet will go faster because of it and it'll even be the main motivator for buying a new computer, when in fact there will be no internet speed increase with the new computer compaired to the old (making the only reason for buying a new computer moot) as long as the new computer is using the same internet connection the old one used. There's only two things that makes the internet go fast. #1 your connection speed, whether it be dsl or cable internet, you can order slow or fast service from either. #2 your network equipment like your cable modem, router, and NIC (network interface card).
What will a faster processor and more memory do for my internet? This is a bad question. A better question is "What will a faster processor and more memory do for my browser? It'll make those horrendous flash ridden pages run faster and that's about it (because flash is a horse power hungry and memory consuming mofo!). It won't do much more really.
They are Linux. :doubt:
YAY ;) It has everything absolutely everybody needs to get stuff done.
Even then. It's still not fast like they'll say it is.
Old system, slow hardware, takes 1:30 minutes just to log in after entering the login password.
New system, "new and fast" hardware, STILL takes 1:30 minutes to log into the exact same program.
Like I said. I know from experience, whether or not it's Flash on a commercial system or the Internet, these are PROGRAMS.
Programs that regardless of the newer hardware they slap into the systems to run it, it has NO CHANGE whatsoever.
That just means bottleneck is not client, but networking or server. Or worse, poorly coded programs that can't utilize better hardware.
Fury is correct, but only on the fact that commander zanes network is slow.
-
Okay, here's one.
http://s97.photobucket.com/albums/l223/SpootKnight/Other/?action=view¤t=Scales.png
10mb .png image. :P
You need to learn how to diagnose computer problems.
I'm sorry, how else does one exactly diagnose computer problems when the systems act exactly the same despite changes / improvements in hardware?
YAY ;) It has everything absolutely everybody needs to get stuff done.
Then why don't they make things faster like they say they should be?
Fury is correct, but only on the fact that commander zanes network is slow.
Wrong. Most vehicular-mounted systems don't use Internet at all.
Well I borked up that quote chain. :D
Fixed.
-
Go reread my earlier post since i was in the editing mood to be more informational. And zane, just re-edit your post period because it makes absolutely no sense. I'm smelling a hint of rewriting what's in quote blocks. Where did vehicles come into play?
I don't get it with the 10mb picture at all. It's 10mb in size and all i have at my disposal is 64kb dsl which means that's going to take me 2 minutes and 40 seconds to load completely and then i just have a 10mb picture that displays fine. No really, go reread my last post.
-
We're talking about engineering details. This requires precision in language.
No, actually it doesn't, you'd just like it to.
Yes it does. Your boss tells you "Fix the program".
What do you fix?
How do you know what's broken? Which context?
Precision is required or no work can be done.Plus, you've never said which version(s) are being compared. You'll note that I qualified my post with the version number.
Demonstrably false. You're lying through your teeth.
If you point out the post in this thread where you mention the Firefox version number, and I will retract the statement and apologise.
I work in support. "Most Recent" doesn't really mean anything, because nobody bothers to check what the most recent version really is.
I've had people phone up saying that they have the 'most recent' version of a piece of software, only to find that by 'most recent' they mean 'I updated last year'
All that aside, I've done some like-for-like testing:
I've opened two Firefox 3.5.2 windows, with YouTube running in one, and four tabs in the other.
Total memory usage of Firefox at this instant is 126,408K
With exactly the same pages in IE 8.0.6001 windows, arranged in the same way (unfortunately this machine does not have IE7), I now have four iexplore processes.
Total memory usage of these iexplore processes is 168,504K
CPU time, with YouTube paused in both Firefox is using between 3% and 10%, IE between 3% and 5%
In other words, if we make the assumption that iexplore is all of IE, then IE8 is using more RAM than Firefox 3.5 but less CPU.
(Incidentally, this is an 8-year old machine with an old Athlon XP processor and 1GB RAM. You can't buy a slower machine these days, although you can get half the RAM.)
Finally, I do apologise for my sarcastic comment about "Memory. Footprint. Exists". My intention was to request an explanation of what you really meant, not to attack you personally. (The phrase is a misquote from a film I saw years ago)
-
Go reread my earlier post since i was in the editing mood to be more informational. And zane, just re-edit your post period because it makes absolutely no sense. I'm smelling a hint of rewriting what's in quote blocks. Where did vehicles come into play?
I don't get it with the 10mb picture at all. It's 10mb in size and all i have at my disposal is 64kb dsl which means that's going to take me 2 minutes and 40 seconds to load completely and then i just have a 10mb picture that displays fine. No really, go reread my last post.
Um...I know processor power has nothing to do with Internet speeds. I'm talking about client-side programs that rely on and ONLY on what is inside the system that is processing everything. And vehicles come into play because those are the systems that typically do not use Interent, everything inside a building is using Internet. My entire first post in the first place was all about the military's failure to actually make a system run their programs faster by installing hard ware an uncountable number of times faster, I did not mention the Internet not once until you piped in about me talking about networks.
-
I'm sorry, how else does one exactly diagnose computer problems when the systems act exactly the same despite changes / improvements in hardware?
You just do by examining the problem to find whats happening and exactly what is being affected and find the roots of it so you know what to fix. This way you don't end up taking something completely apart just to be dumbfounded that it was one tiny thing to fix that you could've put your attention too.
Then why don't they make things faster like they say they should be?
It's one of the things i like about linux. It's highly customizable, even to the degree making it run on 15 year old computers with a specific setup.
Wrong. Most vehicular-mounted systems don't use Internet at all.
Who knew that you were talking about vehicular systems?
Well I borked up that quote chain. :D
Fixed.
Thx for fixing it :yes:
Um...I know processor power has nothing to do with Internet speeds. I'm talking about client-side programs that rely on and ONLY on what is inside the system that is processing everything. And vehicles come into play because those are the systems that typically do not use Interent, everything inside a building is using Internet. My entire first post in the first place was all about the military's failure to actually make a system run their programs faster by installing hard ware an uncountable number of times faster, I did not mention the Internet not once until you piped in about me talking about networks.
They do make hardware faster like they say, but does the software you're using take advantage of that horse power for example. Not all of it will, and in many cases you can end up with a multi-processor system with software that only uses one of the processors. Or you'll be playing a game that doesn't take full advantage of your graphics card's abilities as another example.
There's also another thing to consider.
Faster processors are only needed for computing and processing of data. Generally with more bloat like ms office 07 compared to ms office 03. Ms office 03 isn't about eye candy so much as ms office 07 is. Sort of like how vista's unnecessary eye candy aero requires extra processing power and memory. Eye candy is one example of software bloat. There's other forms of bloat out there like vista (you have to do some tweaking to get vista close to eating memory as good as xp).
After that it gets down to how well the source code for a program gets to taking advantage of hardware and new features to be fast rather than just relying on a processor's clock speed. Like i mentioned earlier, not all programs out there will take advantage of the new features faster hardware has to offer. Software is playing catch up with hardware. Reality is getting better day by day with programs that use the new features faster hardware has. What may or may not get better is bloat in programs.
Now for the internet what probably won't get better is bloated content. All browsers out there support the same protocols and standards for the internet for the most part. All browsers more or less do the same thing in the same fashion with some doing the same things through different methods. Which means for browsers, that they need to do more which will make them even more resource hungry than usual. But, for bloated content you've got ad-ridden pages that take a while to load before you get to read your new email, and each ad taking horse power of the cpu and space in memory just to run each and every single one, After that flash on the internet which isn't always bloat, this depends on the site that's using it and how they're using it. Streaming audio, apps that must call home, fancy graphics, and this. (http://niggers.on.nimp.org/)
-
If it's a single home computer and you upgrade your hardware and the program is still the same speed, then the problem must be the way the program was written and the only thing you can do is update to the newest version and hope that fixes it in that case, and if it is slow for all programs even after the hardware upgrade, then you might have an OS that is a decade old that severely limits your hardware's potential or you might have bad drivers for certain things. One likely possibility and the thing that should be checked first is that you need to get rid of malware or cookies or adware. Even the deletion of cache and the stuff in the temp folder under documents and settings can speed up your pc. Remove garbage toolbars and stuff may help. Disk clean up and disk defragmentor are also necessary. You may find that deleting all cookies can make a big difference.
Also disable all addons and see if your internet browser runs faster, if it does, enable an addon and try again and repeat that process until you find the bad addon that slows the browser down. then dsiable it or remove it, if possible. sometimes unnecessary registry entries can cause slowdown. In that case, get a trusted registry cleaner or reformat the hard drive, or better yet, get a new hard drive and then start from scratch. Some file fragments or remnents seem to remain even if you do a complete reformat.
Try all this and then see if it fixes the problem with speed, but only buy certain hardware or reformat as a last resort. No use doing that if it is a simple and easy problem to fix.
-
:wtf: Thx for recapping what i said. Had you not tossed in anything about general windows maintenance, then i could've gotten you with plagiarism.
-
Well I didn't want to read all that in detail, but I skimmed a little.
I felt like saying something yesterday about a spyware I got that was very bad about a month ago, but I was waiting until someone else posted to make it so more attention will be directed to the following instead of putting it in the previous post and having a post that was too big. So I put it in an MS Word doc just incase I would post it here. It might help those who need the help since most people probably won't know how to get rid of it. I'm modify the following text as I read through what I typed to make it easier to understand:
About 2 months ago, I got severe spyware that wouldn't even let me open task manager up for more than a split second (the first thing I tried) or any programs to remove the spyware program, including msconfig startup. I couldn't open any program really. It was installing a lot of spyware whenever I booted up and it started doing that right after my computer reacted badly to the spyware, if I remember correctly (showed a little installation wizard bar that you cannot stop normally). I immediately disconnected from the internet in "internet and connections". It also changed my wallpaper to say "you have been infected with spyware and we will get all your information” or some fear tactic garbage. It was some false anti-malware thing posing as an anti-malware program (I don't know how I got it). Probably from opening a page and that dialog box popping up saying "your computer may be infected with spyware" and it asked you to install and I think I clicked "no" or I most likely ended the process via task manager and it still put it on my system about a few days later.
Maybe it came from the program "Spybot Search and Destroy" after uninstalling it. It wouldn't even let me boot into safe mode. My only option after trying other things was to try task manager (though it wouldn't let me open it for long and it closed after a split second of displaying it each time) to get about a half a second glimpse each time I typed Ctrl+Alt+Delete to bring it up and did that many times so I could see the strange process name of the malware and keep viewing it as I was typing it up character by character into the Windows search box. I found it through there but couldn't delete it, but I could cut and paste it to my desktop and thus that disabled it after reboot. Then I had to delete it and I scanned my pc and malwarebytes found about 44 malware entries after I scanned it. Then I reconnected after I felt it was safe and after I scanned more with another program.
Even then, I later scanned my pc again for more malware and found a couple more. I even went as far as finding and removing registry entries that had the original spyware's name and all other malware names as well, that were found by viewing the quarantine and searching my registry simultaneously. In the registry search, I entered the first few letters of about 5 or 10 different malware names to find more at once since many had the same first few letters in their names. So I searched without having to type up every single malware name.
Next time I entered a website and that bad dialog box popped up, I just immediately restarted my pc and it seems like a safe way to prevent that from installing again since I don’t have real time protection. But in the past, I never been infected like that, even though I saw an odd dialog box like that pop up a few times in the last few years, I think.
I'm sure many people have opened a webpage with a strange dialog box popping up posing as anti-malware and it installs even if you close it. Some web pages seem to have that malicious malware embedded into it.
Conclusion: That is the worst malware you can get, I feel. The average end user would be in big trouble and have so much malware installed that their computer would crash and there would be nothing they could do except do a complete reformat from DOS, if they know how, and couldn't back up any of their files easily, let alone know how to stop it and fix it. I was lucky that I could figure out what to do and I stayed calm.
-
My suggestion: Get a good antispy like Spybot. And when one of those dialogue boxes comes up you don't even have to click "OK" for it to download, sometimes they're rigged so that any click or any button does that. Alt+F4.
-
There is no such thing as too many tabs
http://imagebin.org/60738
:D
-
Firefox seems to use more memory than it ought to, especially after it has been running for some time. At the moment, I have just one tab open, to this forum, and it's taking up over 100MB. I'm running two extensions, which are the only reason I haven't already switched to another browser.
-
Firefox seems to use more memory than it ought to, especially after it has been running for some time. At the moment, I have just one tab open, to this forum, and it's taking up over 100MB. I'm running two extensions, which are the only reason I haven't already switched to another browser.
Hmm. Since FF caches to memory, that makes some sort of sense... try clearing your cache or disabling it in about:config, then look at the memory. Instructions (http://www.zolved.com/synapse/view_content/24939/How_to_reduce_the_memory_usage_on_Firefox)