On the matter of Firefox and memory leaks…

Recently our original article/rant on Firefox’s legendary memory abuse has seen an increase in comments and views; and I had intended to post the following comment in light of the article’s rebirth and the ensuing discussions in the comments.

The reply turned out to be longer than I’d originally intended, so here it is as its own post.

I’ll try to be as objective as possible in this reply:

The most important thing for frustrated end users to keep in mind is that Mozilla/Firefox cannot be held responsible for cases where incorrectly written plugins and/or extensions cause Firefox to abuse system memory – that’s the trade-off between empowering developers and keeping the code squeaky clean.

Most of the cases reported are indeed caused by one or more extensions or plugins gone awry, doing something they shouldn’t be doing, or something they don’t know how to do properly. Some of the most popular plugins for Firefox are notorious for their memory leaks; but few users realize just how dangerous they can be, and that the Firefox devs cannot really do anything about it.

At the same time, there can be no doubt that Firefox has some memory leaks in the codebase itself. They’re clearly not easily reproducible and they don’t happen very readily nor often enough because the developers have clearly spared no effort in their attempts to address this problem for once and for all. But they’re there, nevertheless.

Continue reading

Firefox 3 is Still a Memory Hog

One of the biggest “improvements” that Mozilla claims has made its way into Firefox 3 is improved memory usage, in particular, the vanquishing of memory leaks:

Memory usage: Several new technologies work together to reduce the amount of memory used by Firefox 3 over a web browsing session. Memory cycles are broken and collected by an automated cycle collector, a new memory allocator reduces fragmentation, hundreds of leaks have been fixed, and caching strategies have been tuned.

We’re sorry to have to break it to you, but if you thought it was too good to be true you were right. Firefox still uses a lot of memory – way too much memory for a web browser.

Continue reading

Beta 2: Stable, But Scary

How do you define an OS as stable?

XP was stable in that you could do an honest day’s work without having to save it every couple of seconds in fear of a BSOD. Windows 2000 was stable: it gave the users what they expected, and once they got it working (driver issues mostly), it remained stable.

One can’t honestly call Vista stable in that way however. It’s largely a hit-or-miss process, and Vista either works or doesn’t. Once it works, it might just stop working, you never know. But Vista is stable – very stable.

In Windows XP (x86) if XP went up to over 26-27 thousand memory handles open at once, it would just fail. The entire operating system bogs down, and even after you get the handles down to a more manageable size, it remained slow and unresponsive unless a reboot was performed. Windows XP x64 used 64-bit technology to raise the bar to an amazing 35-38 thousand handles limit – from experience.

Continue reading