In <[🔎] 20101119161324.2ed2f1a8.celejar@gmail.com>, Celejar wrote: >On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:44 +0000 (UTC) >Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:37:32 -0800, Dan Serban wrote: >> > After years of running the mozilla suite (remember when you couldn't >> > refresh a POST document in mozilla 0.6?) and begrudgingly moving to >> > Firefox, then falling in love with iceweasel. Today, sad as it is, is >> > when I feel that I must announce that I decided to: >> > >> > # aptitude purge iceweasel icedove >> > >> > I will spare you the minute details for my decision, but I assume most >> > of you experience the same frustrations I do. The increasing bloat, the >> > never enough memory (16gb real, 32gb swap) being happily claimed by a >> > single tab and xul-runner eating it all. >> >> Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can >> correct that. > >I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as >"lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate? It was lighter that the Mozilla suite that it "replaced". It was similar technology, but just a browser. It lacked the HTML editing abilities, the mail and news reader components, and a few other things. This significantly reduced load times and initial memory usage. Much of the memory usage can be blamed on aggressive per-tab caching of webpages and/or extensions or plugins. Still, I find FF to cause me more problems than my other browser options, but having it around is essential for some sites, it seems. I still prefer konqueror, or chromium-browser if konqueror doesn't work on a certain site. Still, I find myself using FF + ABP on a few flash-ad-ridden sites. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.