I was wondering if there's some sort of memory leak in Firefox. Every time I use it for like 1.5/2 hours without closing it, my entire system starts to slow down until I can't do anything anymore. I'm pretty sure Firefox causes this, because I never have this problem when I'm not using Firefox, and when I close Firefox (with Ctrl-Alt-Delete, because closing it normally doesn't work when it starts acting crazy) the problem almost immediately goes away. Now I don't know much about computers, but I think it's pretty clear that Firefox is doing something my PC doesn't like a whole lot.
However, since I've never heard of anyone who had this kind of problems with FF, I could imagine it's not Firefox causing this. I use the DownThemAll and the 4Chan plugins, perhaps one of those are doing something. Or perhaps it's another program that doesn't like FF and starts getting crazy when I use it a lot. Like I said, I don't know enough about computers to find out what's really going on.
I'd appreciate it if someone here could help in some way. If you need more information to determine what's wrong than what I posted here please ask. I'd really like for this annoying problem to go away.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 12:40
there is a memory leak and it's old news
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 13:05
Do you installed any extensions other than downthemall and 4chan ?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 13:07
it's probably one of your extensions
i've had firefox running for about a week straight on this machine with no slowdown problems.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 14:27
OP here
No, I have no extensions installed other than the two I already mentioned.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-15 16:39
I think I have the same problem you have. I got 4 tabs open and FF is using 33528k. And stand alone its using 20,000k ish. I'd like to know if there is anyway I can make it use less. (It sucks cause normally I can't have FF open and play some games anymore. It tends to slow it down or worse.)
It's a problem of Windows which tries to put lots of data into its swap-file, so RAM is not used.
Windows memory allocation is BAD. You don't have those problems on other systems (at least I don't)
>>6
where is the problem when it uses much RAM? Other programs don't use less, they just put it into the swap so that you don't see it. RAM speed > 1 GB/s, HDD speed = much slower
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 1:30
According to Mozilla, it's not a memory leak, it's a feature.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 2:17 (sage)
Hi all,
I've never had a memory leak with Firefox. It's your own faults for being such fags.
If I'm getting this righ, there is no way to get rid of the slowness unless I switch to another browser/OS?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 8:59
>>13
Google "firefox memory leak". It really isn't a memory leak. It's just how FireFox manages its webpage/tab caching. After awhile it does take up a lot of memory.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 9:25
See if bfcache can be disabled somehow in about:config , and you'll be the happiest man on Earth.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 10:29
>>14
Opera does the same thing, without slowing down my entire computer. Even if what FF does isn't a leak, there's something wrong with it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 10:31
I find just closing the browser every few hours and opening it again shrinks it back down to size. And you can get a plugin that means you wont lose your place when you do it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 12:35
>>17
If you're running Windows NT, just have Firefox minimized when you don't use it but still want to keep it open. It will hint Windows to reduce its working set. Firefox's pages will be sent to the free pages queue, and according to your needs of application and system cache memory, memory used by bfcache will be reclaimed by Windows (paged out). When you go back to Firefox, only the necessary pages will be paged in (at the expense of the system cache and other applications' pages in the free pages queue). If you don't ever touch the back button, bfcache data will never be paged in, but new bfcache data will be created in RAM as usual. I hope you get the idea. My point is, Windows NT (and probably Linux) is designed to work with this kind of thing, it's not a problem. And see >>15 .
>>19
You may say bfcache is a waste of resources for what it provides, or it takes too much RAM, or it's a bad idea, or it has an ugly name, etc., but you can't really say it's a bug and they pretend it's not.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-16 21:41
>>20
it's a bug. bloated. piece of shit furry faggot fucking failure of a browser.
get a real browser www.opera.com
>>21
Other than the name, I'm unsure how FF is furry. That shit is old.
OLOLOL OPERA IS FOR FAT SINGING LADIES LOL!
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-18 3:20
The Firefox team needs to just disable the RAM cache for the Windows users. Too many of them bitch about it and the rest wouldn't know the difference anyway. It's not their fault Windows utterly FAILS at resource management, so why should they take shit for making an app that does it right but can't perform in such a FAIL zone? And all you Opera fags need to either STFU or come up with a real reason why it's so much better, other than the fact that FF is popular now so you need to satisfy your pathetic elitist ego by using something more obscure.
>>24 the rest wouldn't know the difference anyway
I would know. In fact I noticed the difference right away when I upgraded from the old Mozilla Suite to the new Firefox.
It's not their fault Windows utterly FAILS at resource management
Methinks you utterly fail at understanding Windows memory management. Windows NT does a pretty good job at it; problem is that you open Task Manager and see shit, and interpret it wrongly, through a combination of amusing misunderstandings.